He shines forth to blame my turning the reins to pleasure; away with him for one who shines forth but to blame!

Now were I wanton while my temple is hoary, then would my lamp be put out among the lamps of Ghassân,

A people whose disposition is the honouring of their guests; and gray hair is a guest to whom honour is due, my friend.

Said Al Ḥârith: Then he slipped away as slips the serpent, and sped with the speeding of the cloud.—And I knew then that he was the light of Serûj; the full moon of scholarship that passes through the signs of heaven.—And our end was grief at his departure and separation after he was gone.

Explanation of the Arabic subtleties and grammatical riddles which are contained in this Assembly.

As for the first part of the last verse of the song, namely— (if union please her, then union), it is like the phrase (Man is rewarded according to his work; if good, good, if evil, evil.) Now Sîbawayh introduced this question into his Book, and allowed four modes of inflecting it. The first and best is that you should naṣb the first and raf‘ the second, naṣb the first and raf‘ the second. Then would the virtual meaning be, “If his work be good then his reward is good; and if his work be evil, then his reward is evil;” for the first is naṣbed through being the predicate of , and the second is raf‘ed through being the predicate of an elided inchoative. And in this mode, and its noun are elided, because the conditional particle (if) points to their virtual pre­sence; and the inchoative is also elided, because the , which is the answer to the condition, points to it; and that is by reason that an inchoative commonly follows . The second mode is that you should naṣb both; and then the virtual meaning of the sentence is, “If his wish be good, then he is rewarded good; and if his wish be evil, then he is rewarded evil.” Here the first is naṣbed, because it is the predicate of , and the second is naṣbed as the object of the verb’s action. The third mode is that you should raf‘ both; then the virtual sense of the sentence is, “If there be good in his work, then his reward is good; and the first is raf‘ed because it is the noun of , and the second is raf‘ed because it is the predicate of an elided inchoative; as was shown in the exposition of the first mode. 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, with the meaning “exists,” or “occurs;” which would need no predicate, as in the phrase of God Most High, “If he be one in difficulty.” Then the virtual mean­ing in the example would be, “If good be, then the reward is good:” that is, “If good exists, then the reward is good.” The fourth and weakest mode is that you should raf‘ the first on the principle explained in the third case, and naṣb the second on that which was mentioned in the second case. Then the virtual meaning will be, “If there be good in his work, then he is rewarded good.” According to this interpretation, and by the use of the virtually understood words which are here elided, runs the inflection of the verse sung in the Assembly. And among expressions of the same kind is the sentence, “The man was killed by what he killed with; if a sword, a sword; if a knife, a knife.”

Now as to the word which is a particle that is loved, or the name of that which contains the slender milch camel; it is . If you use it to admit the truth of what is told you, or to promise in answer to a request, then it is a particle: but if you mean by it “camels,” then it is a noun: and is masculine and feminine, and is a general name for camels, and for all cattle (in which last defini­tion camels are comprised.) And among camels is comprised the ; which means a slender she-camel. She is called , from being likened to the (edge) of a sword. But it is also said that the word means a stout she-camel; through the likening of her to the (ridge) of a mountain.

As for the noun which alternates between a singular that binds and a plural that clings, it is (trowsers or drawers). Some say that this is a singular form, and that its plural is ; and according to this opinion, it is a singular; and from its being gathered round the waist, he gives it the epithet of “binding.” Others say, “Nay, it is a plural, and its singular form is ;” and, according to this opinion, it is a plural; and the meaning of the expression “clings” is, that it is not fully declined. Now, the reason that this kind of plural is not fully declined (and it con­sists of every plural whose third letter is an elif followed by a strengthened letter, or by two letters, or by three letters, the middle one of which is quiescent), is on account of its heaviness, and its divergence from the other plurals, inasmuch as there is no form like it among the singular nouns. And in this riddle he gives the epithet “clinging” to that which is not fully declined.

As for the , which, when it attaches itself, takes away heaviness, and loosens the bound; it is the which is affixed to the form of plural above mentioned; as in (bankers), (polishers); for this form of plural becomes fully declined when the is affixed to it; because the changes it to the form of singular nouns like and ; and it is thus lightened, and becomes declinable. And in this riddle he gives to that which is not fully declined the epithet of “bound,” as in the former he gave it the epithet of “clinging.”

As for the , which deposes the regent without courtesy, it is that which is prefixed to the future verb, and divides it from , which, before the prefixion, was one of the instruments of naṣbing. The verb is then raf‘ed, and the is changed from being a naṣber to the verb, to being the lightened , used in the place of the heavy. Thus, in the sentence of God, Praise be to Him, (He knows that there shall be sick among you), the virtual reading is .

Now as to that which is naṣbed, as a term of circumstance, while only a particle khafḍs it, it is , which is never jerred in choice speech, except by ; for the vulgar expression, , is a mistake.

As to the annexed noun, which is deprived of one of the handles of annexion, and whose power varies between evening and morning; it is . For this is one of the nouns which necessarily require annexion, and whatever noun follows it is jerred by it, except ; for the Arabs make this manṣûb after , through the fre­quency with which they use it in discourse: they also nunnate it, that it may fully appear that it is manṣûb, and that it is not one of the class of jerred nouns which are not fully declinable. Among some of the grammarians, has the same meaning as ; but the correct view is that there is a delicate difference between them; namely that the meaning of applies to whatever is in your possession or power, whether it be near to you or at a distance, while applies only to what is in your presence and close to you.

And as for the regent, whose last joins his first, and whose reverse effects what he effects; it is , the reverse of which is ; and both are among the particles of calling; and the effect of both upon the noun of the person called to is the same, although circulates more in discourse, and is of more frequent usage. Some, however, prefer that a person who is near should be called to with only, as he is called to with hamzeh.

As for the regent whose deputy is more spacious than he in abode, and greater in craft, and more frequent in mention of God Most High, it is the of swearing. This is the original particle of swearing; as is shown by its being used when the verb of swearing is expressed, as when you say (I swear by God); and by its being prefixed also to the pronoun; as when you say , (By Thee, I will do it.) Afterwards the was substituted for it in the oath, because they are both labial letters, and also on account of the relationship of their meanings; since the gives the sense of union, and the that of adhesion, and the two meanings approach each other. Then the , which was substituted for the , became more common in speech, and was more largely applied in forms of swearing; and for this reason he riddles that it is more frequent in mention of God Most High. Also the is larger in dwelling than the , because the is prefixed only to the noun, and effects nothing but the jerr; while the is prefixed to the noun, and the verb, and the particle, and sometimes it jerrs with the oath, and sometimes by understanding , and it is also ranked with the naṣbers of the verb, and with the instruments of conjunction, and for this reason he describes it by spaciousness of abode, and greatness of cunning.