THE ISSUE OF RAF IN ARABIC: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SUBJECT (MUBTADA) AND PREDICATE (KHABAR) IN A NOMINAL SENTENCE

Аннотация

This article explores the issue of raf (nominative case) in Arabic grammar, focusing onthe interaction between the subject (mubtada) and thepredicate (khabar) innominal sentences. It presents the divergent perspectives of the Kufans and Basrans on how raf is governed. While the Kufans argue for a mutual influence between the subject and predicate, the Basrans assert that raf is primarily governed by the subject’s position (ibtida). The study examines Quranic examples and theoretical arguments to highlight the complexities of Arabic grammar. This discussion not only enriches historical grammar theory but also provides insights for modern linguisticanalysis and Arabic languageeducation. Keywords:Arabic grammar, raf, mubtada, khabar, nominal sentences, Kufans, Basrans, ibtida, Quranicgrammar, linguistictheory. Introduction. According to the Kufans, the subject (mubtada) in a nominal sentence makes the predicate (khabar) nominative (raf), while the predicate also makes the subject nominative (raf). In other words, they mutually affect each other in terms of raf. Examples that illustrate this include the following sentences: “َك وخأ دٌيز” (“Zayd is your brother”) and “وُر ْم َك َك ُر لغر ”(“Amris your servant”). On the other hand, the Basrans believe that the subject becomes nominative (raf) solely due to its role as the subject, but there are differing opinions regarding the nominative status of thepredicate: 1.Someargue that thepredicate becomes nominative(raf)solely because ofthesubject. 2.Others believe that the predicate becomes nominative(raf) dueto both its position at the beginningof thesentence (ibtida)and itsrelationship with thesubject. 3. A third group contends that the predicate becomes nominative (raf) because of the subject, while the subject becomes nominative (raf) due to its position at the beginning of the sentence (ibtida). The Kufans present the following argument: the subject and predicate are interdependent; they mutually require each other and exist in a connected state. For instance, in the sentence “دٌيز َك وخأ” (“Zayd is your brother”), the subject and predicate influence each other and complete one another. Neither of them is complete without the other, which is why they mutually affect each otherin terms ofraf. TheKufans also cite similarexamples: 1. “ىكَْم ُر ْما ُر اْك ْم كأما رُكَكَ اوَر ٌم كَ اُك اييكأ” (Surah Al-Isra, 110): “Whichever [name] you invoke, to Himbelongthe MostBeautiful Names.” page689 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ISSN:2692-5206,ImpactFactor:12,23 AmericanAcademicpublishers,volume05,issue02,2025 Journal: https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai 2. “ُر ومْك ْما ُر ُر ُر ِر ٌم ري اورُوُر كَ اْك كَيمكأ” (Surah An-Nisa, 78): “Wherever you may be, death will overtake you.” In thisway, theKufans substantiatetheirviewpoint with their evidence. As for the Basrans, they face challenges in affirming the idea that “the subject makes the predicate nominative through its position at the beginning of the sentence (ibtida).” This is because ibtida does not independently make words nominative but only serves as a basis for the nominativestatus, which raises certain logical challenges. On theother hand, theBasrans present thefollowingargument: “We assert that the governing factor (amil) is ibtida (the fact that the word appears at the beginning of the sentence), even though ibtida is a state distinct from verbal governing factors. This is because in this field, governing factors are not as physically apparent as, for instance, the effect of fire in burning, water in sinking, or a sword in cutting. Rather, they are based on convention and indication. If the determining factors are based on indications, they can be expressed either through something existing or through the absence of something. For instance, if you have two garments and you wish to dye one while leaving the other undyed, then the act of refraining from dyeing the second garment becomes as indicative as dyeing the first one. The same logic applies here. If ibtida is the governing factor for the subject, then it should also govern the predicate, just like other governing factors such as Kana and its derivatives or Inna and its derivatives, which govern both the subject and the predicate. The same principle applies here. If someone says, ‘ibtida and the subject are both governing factors,’ they explain this as follows: ‘We assert that ibtida and the subject together govern the predicate because we only observe the predicate in the presence of ibtida and the subject; therefore, they must be governing factors.’ However, this view, while advocated bymany Basrans, has its flaws because thesubject is a noun, and nouns, in principle, do not serve as governing factors. If the subject is not a governing factor and ibtida is, then combining something non-governing with a governing factor is logically inconsistent. In my opinion, it must instead be stated: ’Ibtida is the governing factor for t