The first and best . . . . If his work be good, then his reward is good; and if his work be evil, then his reward is evil.—In this case the first is manṣûb through being the of . It is almost needless to remind the student that and its related verbs () such as preceded by , and others, make the marfû‘ as their , and the manṣûb; thus differing from the substantive verbs in Latin and in the languages influenced by Latin grammar. The idiom is as if it should be said in Latin, “Caius est bonum virum.” Alfîyeh, v. 143. The converse is the case with and its sisters, where the idiom is, “Sanè Caium, vir bonus.” In the first part of the sentence is the of , and is the ; the former is marfû‘, the latter manṣûb, in accordance with this principle. As to the second it is said that it is marfû‘ as the of an elided inchoative, , the full proposition being . This last is called a , or nominal proposition, of which the property is that the shall agree in with the , or in other words, be put in the same case with it. It is then said by the author that and its noun are elided because the conditional particle points to their virtual presence or influence. For this see Alfîyeh, v. 155, where it is said that and its ism are elided after and , while the khabar remains; as in the verse uttered by No ‘mân ibn al Munthir to Rabî‘ ibn Ziyâd, when the latter, who was his boon-companion, was accused before him in satirical verse by the poet Lebîd of being leprous, in revenge for the ill-will which Rabî‘ had instilled into the king towards the Benû Ja‘far.

It is also said that the inchoative is elided because the , which is the answer to the condition, points to it; since an inchoative generally follows . Grammarians explain the many abrupt forms of Arabic speech, and the anomalies of the i‘râb by the supposed elision, , of the mubtada or khabar, or both together, and display wonderful ingenuity and power of analysis in thus accounting for idioms which arose among a simple un­lettered race, which sought only to express its thoughts as vigorously and emphatically as possible. On this subject con­sult Alfîyeh, 136th and following verses; Naṣîf’s Grammar, chapter on , p. 71. Whenever anything is elided, there should be, if the speech is to be intelligible, a , that is, something which shows or points to the nature and meaning of what is elided; in this case the elision is called , abbrevia­tion; but otherwise it is called . Thus, in the text the author speaks of the of and of . To find the the grammarians sometimes resort to fanciful artifices. With respect to , which is called , it is naturally followed by a mubtada; since it is a disjoining particle, and must commence a new proposition, either fully or elliptically expressed. Such a proposition has what the grammarians call a place in the i‘râb, , which is the place of jezm, since in such a phrase as the verb is mejzûm. See extract from Ibn Hishâm; Anthol. Gramm. Arabe, p. 74, Arab. Text, and De Sacy’s Grammar, Vol. II. paragraph 1179. The mubtada is commonly elided after , as in Koran xli. 46, , that is,

The second mode is that you should naṣb both.—In this case the naṣb of the first requires no further explanation than has been given in the former case. The or , that is, the object of the verb’s action, is, according to the Arab gram­marians, not only the objective complement of the active verb, as ‘Amr in the sentence “Zayd beat ‘Amr,” but also that of the passive verb, either absolutely, , as the word “beating” in the sentence “Zayd was beaten a beating,” or otherwise, as “denar” in the sentence, “Zayd was given a denar.” It would also be, I think, allowable to describe the second in this case as manṣûb by or specification; since it contains the signification of and explains what goes before, as . See Alfîyeh, v. 356.

The third mode is that you should raf‘ both.—In this case the first is the ism, and the khabar of , the latter being virtually manṣûb. The second is marfû‘, as in the first case, as the khabar of the elided mubtada. On this agreement in the i‘râb between the mubtada and the khabar in a proposition, there are various explanations among the grammarians. Ibn Mâlik’s verse on the subject is, “Make the mubtada to be marfû‘ by its ibtidâ (or because it commences the sentence), and make the khabar to be marfû‘ by the mub-tada. Ibn ‘Aḳîl then says that the teaching of Sîbawayh and the generality of the Basrians was thus; and that they declared the regent, , on the mubtada to be logical, , in that the noun was without any verbal regent except in a certain exceptional case, which it is needless to dwell on here. On the other hand, the regent on the khabar is verbal and consists of the mubtada. But the teaching of others is that the regent on both the mubtada and the khabar is the ibtidâ, and with respect to both it is logical. Another opinion is that the mubtada is marfû‘ by the ibtidâ, and the khabar is marfû‘ both by the ibtidâ and the mubtada. It is also said that there is reciprocity between them, and that each makes the other marfû‘. The correct opinion is held to be that of Sîbawayh.

And it may be that the first is raf‘ed through being the agent of ; and that the which receives a virtual power here is the complete attributive verb.—The class of verbs known as “ and its sisters,” are called , “incomplete verbs,” because they do not, like other verbs, contain an attribute. But and may be used as attributive verbs with the significa­tion “to exist,” and then they do not require a khabar. This will be easily understood from the text. Thus in English we may say, “God is,” in the sense of “God exists;” and in that case “is” requires no word after it to give a complete sense.

The fourth and weakest mode.—This requires no explanation.

As for the noun that alternates.—This and the following riddle bring us to one of the most important and difficult questions connected with Arabic grammar; a question not suggested by the ingenuity of scholars, but one which every beginner must attempt to understand, and which yet remains insoluble by the greatest masters of the language. It is the double form of declension of Arabic nouns, which, according to our terminology, are divided into triptots and diptots; the latter having an in­complete i‘râb without tanwîn, and being mejrûr with the fetḥah instead of the kesreh. It is possible that this strange diversity, for which all the theories of grammarians give no satisfactory explanation, may have arisen from the fusion or mutual action of two great dialects, one diptotic, the other triptotic in its declensions. Even at the present day the incomplete declension prevails over a great part of Arabia (Palgrave, I., p. 464). But accepting, as a commentator of Ḥarîri is bound to do, the prin­ciples of the grammarians, I must dismiss such scientific con­siderations, and treat the subject in the traditional manner. It is well worthy of attention, since it is frequently discussed by native authors, and yet has received insufficient notice, or no notice at all, from the European compilers of grammars.