والعربُ كثيرًا مَّا تحملُ الشيءَ على الشيءِ لعُلقةٍ بينَهما في المعنى

< Previous | Next >

Abu Talha

Senior Member
Urdu
The following is a quote from an article " عضو أم عضوة؟ ومسائل أخَر " by فيصل بن علي بن أحمد المنصور:

بيانُ وجهِ القياسِ في [تأنيث محدثٍ كلمةً صادَفَها]:
لا يخلو ما يرِدُ عليك أن يكون أحدَ ضربينِ :
الضربُ الأول : أن يَّكون لفظًا مشتقًّا ... أو لفظًا موافِقًا في معناه لمعنَى المشتقِّ ، كـ ( أستاذ ) ، و ( تلميذ ) ... . وهذا الضربُ تنحو بهِ نحوَ ما ذكرنا من تذكيرِ مذكرِه بطرحِ التاءِ ، وتأنيثِ مؤنثِه بزيادتِها ؛ فتقولُ : ( أستاذ ، وأستاذة ) ، و ( تلميذ ، وتلميذة ) ، كما تقول : ( قائم ، وقائمة ) . والعربُ كثيرًا مَّا تحملُ الشيءَ على الشيءِ لعُلقةٍ بينَهما في المعنى ، وإن لم يجرِ لفظُه على قياسِه ، كما فعلوا في بعضِ الأسماءِ الجامدةِ في النعتِ ، والحالِ . وممَّا يشهد لهذا أنهم جمعوا الأوَّل منهما جمعَ مذكَّرٍ سالمًا ؛ فقالوا : ( الأستاذُونَ ) ...
Source: عضو أم عضوة؟ ومسائل أخَر

What exactly does the author mean by the boldface section, and especially what are some examples of كما فعلوا في بعضِ الأسماءِ الجامدةِ في النعتِ ، والحالِ ?

I don't think he means that أسماء جامدة can be feminized with تاء التأنيث because he later says:
وممَّا يُثبتُ لكَ امتناعَه أنّا لو أجزناه ، لكانَ لكَ أن تقولَ : ( مررتُ برجلٍ بدرةٍ أمُّه ) ، و ( هذه امرأة بدرةٌ ) ؛ أي : جميلة كالبدرِ ، كما قلتَ : ( هذه امرأةٌ عضوةٌ ) . وهذا بيِّنُ القبحِ والفسادِ .
So what did the Arabs do with بعضِ الأسماءِ الجامدةِ في النعتِ ، والحالِ ?

Thank you.
 
  • analeeh

    Senior Member
    English - UK
    I think he's just saying that in certain contexts in na3t and 7aal, words may be treated as feminine because of their semantic (and grammatical) association with another word. Without an example I can't be certain of this, though. I read some of the article but it's a bit turgid for my tastes (so apologies) but my impression is that the point he's making is that when words like عضو are used in a sense similar to that of a 'derived' word they can be made feminine with suffixes, just like words which are not 'derived' in form (e.g. أستاذ) can sometimes be pluralised with suffixes rather than a broken plural when they have a 'derived' sense.
     

    Abu Talha

    Senior Member
    Urdu
    I see what you mean.

    But if he's not claiming any sort of modification to the word itself when treated as feminine why would he bring that up in a context where he's talking about making أستاذ into أستاذة which is a modification?

    As for an example of a masculine word treated as feminine, perhaps this example fits:
    1576375523771.png

    Source: الأصول في النحو لابن السراج 3/476
     
    Last edited:

    Abu Talha

    Senior Member
    Urdu
    Sorry, just saw your edit.
    but my impression is that the point he's making is that when words like عضو are used in a sense similar to that of a 'derived' word they can be made feminine with suffixes, just like words which are not 'derived' in form (e.g. أستاذ) can sometimes be pluralised with suffixes rather than a broken plural when they have a 'derived' sense.
    Hmm.. I didn't think so because as I quoted he didn't allow هذه امرأة بدرة as support for not allowing هذه امرأةٌ عضوةٌ .
     

    analeeh

    Senior Member
    English - UK
    You're right that he's not supporting عضوة with this point, since he later argues that you shouldn't say عضوة. But he is making that point about أستاذ in the paragraph as a whole. And yes, I think your example is one of the ones he's talking about. And I think the absence of a feminine suffix here is exactly what he is talking about when he says وإن لم يجر لفظه على قياسه, i.e. in those cases its form doesn't reflect the gender attributed to it with any suffix, although I might be wrong.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top