No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
VIII. Critical Observations on the Mistakes of Philologers, by Ali ibn Hamza al-Basri: Part V : Observations on the Mistakes in the Book called Ikhtiyar Fasih al-Kalam, composed by Abu’l-‘Abbas Ahmad ibn Yahya Tha‘lab.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Extract
Last year Professor Sachau, of Berlin, pointed out to me among the MSS. in the British Museum an important work of Arabic philology. The work bears the title “ Critical Observations on the Mistakes of Philologers by Abu’l-Qāsim ‘Ali ibn Ḥamza al-Baṣri ” (cf. Rieu, Supplement to Catalogue of Arabic MSS., No. 841). The British Museum MS. is a modern copy of an ancient codex in the Khedivial Library in Cairo, and is on the whole legible and accurate, though at points it is not quite reliable. Another similar copy exists at Strassburg (cf. Nöldeke, Z.D.M.G., 1886), and the Library of Count Landberg contains a third. The work includes ‘observations’ on the following eight ancient philological works:—(1) The Nawādir of Abu Ziyād al-Kilābi al-’A‘rābi; (2) the Nawādir of Abu ‘Amr ash-Shaibāni ; (3) the Kitāb an-Nabāt of Aḥmad ibn Da’ūd ad-Dīnawari; (4) the Kāmil of al-Mubarrad; (5) the Faṣīḥ of Tha‘lab ; (6) the Gharīb al-Muṣannaf of Abu Obaid Qāsim ibn Sallām; (7) the Iṣlāḥ al-Manṭiq of Ibn as-Sikkīt; (8) the Makṣur wa’1-Mamdūd of Ibn Wallād. The ‘ observations,’ though sometimes pedantic, are usually valuable from a lexicographical point of view. Abu’l-Qāsim gives many corrections of the statements of the authors on whose books he comments, and supports his contentions by quotations from the poets, which are in many instances not to be found in the lexicons or in similar works.
- Type
- Original Communications
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1904
References
page 98 note 1 The words 
to which Abu’l-Qāsim here takes exception are not found in the text of the Faṣīḥ as edited by Barth.
page 98 note 2 MS. 
.
page 99 note 1 L.A., arts. 
and 
, reads 
; so also Ṣ., art. 
.
page 99 note 2 MS. 
.
page 99 note 3 Ṣ., L.A., T.A., s.v. 
. L.A., T.A., also s.v. 
.
page 99 note 4 MS. 
; but it is suggested on the margin that 
should be inserted.
page 100 note 1 MS. 
; read 
page 100 note 2 MS. 
.
page 101 note 1 ?, MS. 
. I have not found this verse elsewhere, and am doubtful both as to text and rendering.
page 101 note 2 The copyist states on the margin that this is found in the original, but quotes from the Ṣiḥāḥ, where the derivation of the meaning is given as 
, because he vigorously overcomes his foe ; so too in L.A., etc.
page 101 note 3 Iṣlāḥ al-Manṭiq, fol. 45b, 1. 21. The passage may here be quoted:— 
page 102 note 1 MS. 
.
page 102 note 2 
, which Abu’l-Qāsim here quotes as from Tha‘lab, and which is the object of his criticism, does not occur in the text of the Faṣīḥ as edited by Barth.
page 102 note 3 Ṣ., L.A., s.v. 
.
page 102 note 4 Ṣ., L.A., s.v. 
. L.A. names Ḥubainat ibn Ṭarīf as the author.
page 103 note 1 
. To translate 
by ‘only’ would be too strong.
page 103 note 2 So in MS., with note on the margin that it stands so in the original, but in Ṣ. stands 
(art. 
). So also in Ḥamāsa, p. 90.
page 104 note 1 Faṣīḥ, ed. Barth, adds a second infinitive, 
, which is here omitted.
page 104 note 2 Space left in MS. as if another form of the infinitive were to be supplied before 
. Faṣīīḥ ed. Barth gives simply 
.
page 105 note 1 Imru’ul-Qais, 19, v. 22; Arnold, “ Diwans of Six Ancient Arabic Poets,” p. 127; Diwan ed. De Slane, p. 43, 1. 15.
page 105 note 2 I have not been able to find an appropriate rendering for this form. Is the text correct?
page 105 note 3 MS. 
.
page 105 note 4 Cf. Agh. xviii, p. 165:
page 106 note 1 The quotation from Tha‘lab differs somewhat from Barth's text, and runs thus :—
Notice that this last form 
, which is the object of the criticism, is not found in Barth's text.
page 106 note 2 Translation of the verse in Barth.
page 108 note 1 This is put down as being in the same chapter, but in Barth's edition it is in a new chapter, that on the forms 
and 
, with a difference of meaning. 
= a slow camel.
page 108 note 2 Zuhair's Mu‘allaqa, v. 31.
page 109 note 1 Cf. Yāqūt, i, p. 674, where 
is read instead of 
.
page 109 note 2 MS. gives 
in the first place and 
in the second; but this is evidently a slip.
page 109 note 3 MS. inserts 
, which is not in Barth's text of Faṣīḥ, and contradicts the form 
which is given. Probably Abu’l-Qāsim read Stem I instead of IV.
page 110 note 1 MS. 
. But if this be read the verse would support Tha‘lab's statement rather than Abu’l-Qāsim's. L.A., s.v. 
, reads 
(quoting from Ibn Barrī?), but remarks that the proper reading is 
. Cf. also T.A., s.v., and Ḥamāsa, p. 363.
page 111 note 1 MS. inserts 
, which disturbs the argument. It is probably a repetition of the two last letters of 
.
page 111 note 2 MS. 
. L.A., art. 
; reads 
for 
, and attributes the verse to Amr ibn Ma‘dīkārīb.
page 112 note 1 Margin quotes reading of Ṣiḥāh, 
, here and also in the verse of Farazdaq which follows. So also L.A., art. 
. These verses are quoted and explained by an anecdote in Agh. vii, p. 60, and in Kāmil, p. 89.
page 112 note 2 Agh. 
; Kāmil, 
, variant 
.
page 112 note 3 Agh. 
.
page 112 note 4 Agh. last half-verse thus: 
.
page 112 note 5 MS. 
.
page 113 note 1 MS. distinctly points 
, but I have not been able to find this form elsewhere, and L.A. gives the gist of this remark thus : 
.
page 113 note 2 MS. 
.
page 113 note 3 Cf. Ṣiḥāḥ, L.A., s.v. 
. Kāmil, p. 178, 1. 3. Ibn as-Sikkīt, Iṣlāḥ al-Manṭiq, fol. 23, 1 9.
page 114 note 1 Freytag: Arab. Prov., iii, p. 249.
page 114 note 2 MS. 
. The latter part I have not been able to decipher satisfactorily, nor have I found the reference in Sibawaih. It evidently refers to the fact that in the imperfect of verbs in kesra the preformative letter is often pronounced with kesra also. Cf. Wright, i, 60.
page 115 note 1 MS. 
.
page 115 note 2 L.A., s.v. 
, gives the author's name as 
.
page 115 note 3 L.A. 
.
page 115 note 4 L.A. 
.
page 116 note 1 This passage is quoted by Yāqūt, Geog. Dict., ii, p. 189.
page 116 note 2 From a passage in the author's criticisms on the Iṣlāḥ al-Manṭiq it appears that he was a Shi‘ite.
page 116 note 3 Yāqūt, l.c., 
.
page 117 note 1 So MS., and Abu’l-Qāsim has evidently read this; but Barth reads in the text 
.
page 117 note 2 
, i.e. of the same form. According to L.A., however, this was pointed out as an error and admitted by Abu Obaid. The proper form is given as 
, L.A., s.v. 