The ism in the Arabic Grammatical Tradition: Reflections on Its Origin and Meanings
SIMONA OLIVIERI (University of Helsinki)
===
Abstract
This article aims to present an overall reconstruction of the debate on the definition and etymology of Arabic ism (‘noun’, ‘substantive’), by discussing and comparing texts from the Arabic linguistic tradition.
The first part deals with the definition of the grammatical element and its functions, while the second is fully dedicated to the examination of the etymological issues, focusing on the two assumed roots of derivation for ism (namely s-m-w and w-s-m). The arguments are presented through the collation of the opinions of the relevant Arabic grammarians, examining both the wider debate between the early grammatical schools of Baṣra and Kūfa (2nd/8th–3rd/9th centuries), and the reports of the arguments as described by later scholars.
===
Key words: Arabic linguistic tradition, Arabic grammar, Arab grammarians, Root, Philosophy of language
===
1. The parts of speech
It is common agreement, within the Arabic linguistic tradition, that language consists of three parts of speech (ʾaqsām al-kalām), namely nouns, verbs, and particles. The delineation of the tripartite vision is usually ascribed to Sībawayhi (d. 180/796) who opens the Kitāb by defining the partes orationis: “words are noun, verb, and particle.”1
Each category presents differences in status and characteristics, as pointed out also by later grammarians, with distinctions mainly based on the role played within an utterance.
Among the three, the noun (ism, pl. ʾasmāʾ) meets those criteria that make it a superior category, being an element “able to both operate as and receive a predicate” (mā yuḫbaru bihī wa-yuḫbaru ʿanhu) as in ‘Muḥammad is our Prophet.’ In this example, nouns function as both predicate and predicator, acting as mubtadaʾ and ḫabar in the noun clause.
Conversely, verbs (fiʿl, pl. ʾafʿāl) and particles (ḥarf, pl. ḥurūf) do not share the same features: the verb “can be used as a predicate but cannot receive one” (mā yuḫbaru bihī walā yuḫbaru ʿanhu), while the particles “cannot be predicates nor receive a predicate” (mā lā yuḫbaru bihī wa-lā yuḫbaru ʿanhu).
In addition to this, major distinctions rely on the fact that nouns—as well as verbs—
have a well-defined morphology and range of meanings, while particles are meaningful words in themselves but have no strict forms.
