‘A little Monday’

Ilyass Amharar
(INALCO, Paris)
Jean N. Druel
(IDEO, Cairo)

Early refutations and defences of

Sībawayh’s teaching

FAL V ‒ Cambridge, September 20 & 21, 2018 ‒ Kitāb Sībawayhi: The critical theory
Two outstanding witnesses of the Kitāb
1

Paris, BnF ar. 6499 Milan, Ambrosiana X 56 Sup.

562/1166‒1167 (Ibn Ḫarūf’s copy) First half of the 5th/11th c.
What issue to focus on? 2
• Ambrosiana (only one fourth of the Kitāb)
• Ibn Ḫarūf’s copy in Paris (only two thirds of the Kitāb)
• Radd ʿalá al-Kitāb by al-Mubarrad (285/898) (133 issues, transmitted
and refuted by Ibn Wallād (332/944) in his Kitāb al-intiṣār)
• Bernards, Monique (1989). The reception of the Kitāb Sībawayh
among the early Arab grammarians. Speculum historiographiae
linguisticae. Kurzbeiträge der IV. Internationalen Konferenz zur
Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaften (ICHoLS IV) Trier, 24.‒27.
August 1987. Münster: Nodus Publikationen. 23‒28.
Main findings 1/2 3
• Progressive stabilisation of the text of the Kitāb
• along with the tradition of its commentaries, and that of al-Sīrāfī
(368/979) in particular.
• In its older layers, elliptic and rough as there are, the Ambrosiana
manuscript is the witness of a text that has not yet been
influenced by this commentary.
Main findings 2/2 4
• Genuine criticism of the Kitāb found in Ibn Ḫarūf’s (606/1209)
glosses and commentary Tanqīḥ al-ʾalbāb fī šarḥ ġawāmiḍ al-Kitāb
• which seems to be completely independent from al-Sīrāfī’s
(368/979) commentary.
• Nothing relevant in al-Mubarrad’s (285/898) Radd and Muqtaḍab.
• Ibn Wallād’s (332/944) criticism of al-Mubarrad not linked to the
quality of the text of the Kitāb al-Mubarrad had before him.
According to the ‘canonical’ version 5
• Unlike al-yawm or al-layla, which can refer to something past,
present or future, and unlike Zayd and ʿAmr that can refer to
people either present or absent, ʾams, ġad, al-Talāṯāʾ, or al-bāriḥa
refer to only one specific day, relative to the time when the
speaker speaks.
• Their semantic referent lacks ‘flexibility’ (tamakkun), they do not
refer to a whole ‘category’ (ʾumma) of items with which they
could be compared.
• In other words, they cannot be ‘qualified’ (lā tūṣaf).
‫‪Šarḥ al-Sīrāfī XIII, 195; Kitāb II, 138; M 45v°.2‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬

‫وأشباههنّ لا يُح َ ّقرْنَ‪ ،‬وكذلك أسماء‬

‫َ‬ ‫•قال سيبو يه‪« :‬والثلاثاء والأربعاء والبارحة‬ ‫‪Š‬‬
‫صف َر إلى آخر الشهور؛ وذلك أنها أسْماء أعلام ٌ َ‬
‫تتكر ّر على هذه‬ ‫الشهور نحو‪ :‬الم َحر ّم و َ‬
‫ٌ‬
‫معارف—كتم ُ ّ‬
‫كن زيدٍ وعَمْرٍو وسائر ِ الأسماء الأعلام…»‬ ‫ُ‬ ‫الأيام‪ ،‬فلم تتم َ ّ‬
‫كنْ —وهي‬

‫والأرْب ِعاء ُ والبارِحة ُ لما ذكرنا وأشباههن ولا يح َ ّقر أسماء ُ الشهور السنة‪» ‬‬ ‫• َ‬
‫«والث ّلاثاء ُ َ‬ ‫‪K‬‬
‫«والىلاثأ والأرْبِع َُأ والبَارِح َه ُ وأشْ بَاهُه ُنّ لم َِا دَكر ْن َا»‬
‫ُ‬ ‫•‬ ‫‪M‬‬
 ‫‪Kitāb II, 138; M 45r°.14‒16‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬

‫اسمان لليومين ٮمنزله زيد واٮما هما للٮوم الذی ڧبل ٮومک وللٮوم…‬ ‫ن لاٮهما‬
‫• واما امس وغد ڢلا ٮحٯرا ِ‬ ‫‪M1‬‬
‫ِک وللٮَو ْ ِم…‬
‫ن لاٮهُم َا لَي ْسا اسْمَان لِليَوْم َين ٮِمَنْزِله ِ ز َي ْد ٍواٮمَا هُمَا للٮَو ْم الذ ِی ڧَب ْل ٮَوْم َ‬
‫س وغَدٌ ڢلا ٮُحَٯّرا ِ‬
‫• وام َا ا ْم ِ‬ ‫‪M2‬‬
‫ِک وللٮَو ْ ِم…‬
‫ن لاٮهُم َا لَي ْسا اسْمَي ْن لِليَوْم َين ٮِمَنْز ِله ِ ز َي ْ ٍد واٮمَا هُمَا للٮَو ْم الذ ِی ڧَب ْل ٮَوْم َ‬
‫س وغَدٌ ڢلا ٮُحَٯّرا ِ‬
‫• وام َا ا ْم ِ‬ ‫‪M3‬‬
Assessment of Ambrosiana 8
• The lesson of M1 is probably better.
• The commentary tradition, based on the lesson with the negation,
only kept Sībawayh’s conclusion about the impossibility to form
the diminutive of ʾams and ġad, not his argumentation on different
types of proper names, generic ones (like Zayd that can refer to
many Zayds) and specific ones (like ʾams and ġad that only refer to
one specific day).
• To be sure, later grammarians understood that ʾams and ġad only
referred to specific days, but not that they were the proper names
of these two specific days.
The glosses by Ibn Ḫarūf (Paris)
9

• yurīdu hāḏihi al-maʿārifa al-ʾaǧnāsa wa-ʿalá hāḏā al-ḥaddi yušīru ʾilayhā wa-laysat ʿalá
qawlihi al-ʿāmmi ʿāʾiduhā (?) li-ʾannahu qad yansubuhu bi-himā li-l-ḥāḍiri fa-yataʿayyanu
bi-himā min ʾummatihi

• ‘He means these definite categories and, with this definition, he points to them and not
to the common meaning … because, by the definite article (bi-himā), he links it (?) to the
present so that, by the definite article (bi-himā), it is particularised from its category’
Interpretation of the gloss 10
• Ibn Ḫarūf tries to reconcile his teaching with the text of the Kitāb.
• For Sībawayh, the reason why these words do not have a
diminutive form is because they do not refer to a whole category
but only to specific times, and the definite article plays no role in
this.
• For Ibn Ḫarūf, these words can both refer to categories and to
definite times, linked to the present time when the speaker utters
them. Both meaning are made possible by the definite article. If
Sībawayh, according to Ibn Ḫarūf’s gloss, forbids their diminutive
formation, it is only when they refer to a specific time, linked to
the present. Which is not what Sībawayh intends…
 A second gloss by Ibn Ḫarūf
11

• ʾará fī ʾasmāʾi al-šuhūri wa-ʾayyāmi al-ʾusbūʿi mā ʾarāhu fī ʾamsi wa-ġadin wa-l-bāriḥati wa-ʾawwali
min ʾamsi li-ʾannahā fī al-ʾaʿlāmi bi-manzilati Zaydin wa-ʿAmrin ʾa-lā tará ʾannahā lā tantaqilu ʿan
musammayātihā qarubat ʾaw tarāḫat wa-ʿalá ḏālika ṯunniyat wa-ǧumiʿat wa-ʾammā ʾamsi wa-ġadun wa-
sāʾiru al-ʿalāmāti fa-tantaqilu al-ʿalāmatu ʿanhā li-tarāḫīhā
• ‘My opinion about the names of the months and the days of the week is the same as for ʾams, ġad, al-
bāriḥa and ʾawwal min ʾams because as proper names they have the same status as Zayd and ʿAmr.
Don’t you see that they are not deprived of their meanings, whether they are close or far, and for this,
they can be put in the dual and the plural. But ʾams, ġad and the other proper names, they lose their
meaning when they are far’
 Assessment of the gloss 12
• There seems to be a contradiction in the comparison.

• On the one hand, Ibn Ḫarūf says that the names of the months and days compare to ʾams and
the like, but then he says in great detail that, unlike them, their meaning is not lost when
they are ‘far’ (i.e., not present to the speaker).
• The problematic expression is mā ʾarāhu, since one would rather expect the opposite, as in
‘my opinion about the names of the months… differs from that on ʾams…’
• As inferred above, Ibn Ḫarūf probably has no problem to form the diminutive of the names of
the months and days of the week, since, as he clearly states in this gloss, their meaning is not
lost when not in the present time, which is not the case of ʾams, ġad, al-bāriḥa and ʾawwal
min ʾams. So what does the comparison stand for: ʾarā fī ʾasmāʾi al-šuhūri… mā ʾarāhu fī
ʾams…? Should we read something else instead of mā ʾarāhu?
Conclusion 13
• The full influence of al-Sīrāfī’s commentary on the received text of the
Kitāb is still to be assessed. Based on what we have seen so far, it is
impossible to say that Ambrosiana contains a pre-Mubarradian text
(Humbert), however, it probably contains a pre-Sīrāfian text.
• Lastly, the study of Ibn Ḫarūf’s glosses on Paris ar. 6499 and of the
Tanqīḥ al-ʾalbāb fī šarḥ ġawāmiḍ al-Kitāb, when the complete edition
will be available, will certainly cast a new light on the critical reception
of the Kitāb, especially in al-Andalus and Ifrīqiyā.
 Ilyass Amharar
‘A little Monday’ (INALCO, Paris)
Jean N. Druel
(IDEO, Cairo)
Early refutations and defences of Sībawayh’s teaching

Thank you!

FAL V ‒ Cambridge, September 20 & 21, 2018 ‒ Kitāb Sībawayhi: The critical theory
 Annex 1: Manuscripts 14
• M Milan, Ambrosiana X 56 Sup. (=1A, in Humbert 1995)

• P Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, arabe 6499 (= 2E, in Humbert 1995)

• L Escorial, Real Biblioteca del Monasterio de San Lorenzo, árabe 1 (= 2O, in Humbert 1995)

• A Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, arabe 3987 (= Ça, in Humbert 1995)

• B Saint Petersburg, Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, C 272 (= 4G, in Humbert 1995)

 Annex 2: Dates of the different hands 15
•M1 first half of the 5th/11th century (Humbert 1995: 172, 199, 201)
•M2 514/1120 and 517/1123‒1124 (Bongianino 2015: 9)
•P 562/1166‒1167 (Humbert 1995: 234)
•L 629/1232 (Humbert 1995: 275)
•A 1140/1727 — 1151/1738 (Humbert 1995: 110). The ‘mother’ is dated 647/1249‒1250
•M3 714/1314‒1315 (Bongianino 2015: 9)
•M4 ?
•B 1138/1725 (Derenbourg 1881‒1889: I, xi; Humbert 1995: 29, 197)