The Accusatives in the Commentaries of Al-Durra Al-Alfiya by Ibn Al-Muati and Ibn Al-Khabbaz

Abstract

The research elucidates the permissibility of placing the object first to convey the meaning, as the notion that the pear is eaten comes to mind first. The study delves into the issue of whether the verb can extend to encompass inclusion, involving both the deaf and others, suggesting that it has extended to inclusion in the sentence when it is a type of inclusion, as well as in instances of returning and walking The research asserts that the circumstantial accusative is in the accusative case because it resembles the direct object, being an adjunct. As Sibawayh stated: "The chapter on what is in the accusative among nouns that are neither adjectives nor verbal nouns, because it denotes the state in which the action occurs, thus it is in the accusative as it functions as an object. Some Arabs say: 'I spoke to him, his mouth to my mouth,' as if to say: 'I spoke to him, and this was his state.' Hence, it is the accusative because it describes the state in which the action occurred The research underscores the importance of the representation adopted by the author and the commentator, demonstrating that the object must fulfill three conditions: it must be a noun, it must occur after a clause containing a verb or a word conveying the meaning of a verb and its particles, or it must follow the conjunction "و" indicating association, which signifies accompaniment. Thus, the object actually serves as a noun adjunct to the conjunction"و" denoting association. The study concludes that advancing transmission and analogy in differentiation is permissible. Regarding analogy, this is because the factor in differentiation falls into two categories: one being a solid noun and the other a transitive verb, with the differentiating factor being transitive.