Bu makale, aklî ve naklî ilimlerin birçok alanında eser veren Seyyid Şerîf el-Cürcânî'nin (ö. 816/1413) Risâle fî tahkīk-i ma'ne'l-harf adlı risâlesinin tahkik ve tahlilinden oluşmaktadır. Seyyid Şerîf, ortalama üç varaklık bu küçük...
moreBu makale, aklî ve naklî ilimlerin birçok alanında eser veren Seyyid Şerîf el-Cürcânî'nin (ö. 816/1413) Risâle fî tahkīk-i ma'ne'l-harf adlı risâlesinin tahkik ve tahlilinden oluşmaktadır. Seyyid Şerîf, ortalama üç varaklık bu küçük hacimli risâlesinde kelimenin kısımlarını teşkil eden isim, fiil ve harfin vaz'î delâletlerini incelemeye tâbi tutmaktadır.
Müellif, risâlenin girişinde ayna metaforu üzerinden "aslî/müstakil anlam" ile "dolaylı/müstakil olmayan" anlam arasındaki ilişkiye ve farklılıklara değinmektedir. Ardından bu anlam kategorilerinin "başlangıç" (ابتداء)anlamı özelinde tahlilini yaparak isim ve harf türleriyle bağlantısını kurmaktadır. Bu yaklaşımını güçlendirmek üzere nahiv literatüründe isim, fiil ve harf türlerine dair yapılan tanımların belirleyici unsuru olan "müstakil bir anlama sahip olan/olmayan" kaydının anali-zini yapmaktadır. Yaptığı bu analizle anlam ile îrap arasındaki ilişkinin varlığını ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Buna göre kelimenin kısımlarından olan isim, bağımsız bir anlama sahip olduğu için cümlede hem müsnedün ilehy hem de müsnet olabilmektedir. Harf, bağımsız bir anlama sahip olmadığı için ne müsnedün ileyh ne de müsnet olabilmektedir. Fiil ise bir yönüyle isme diğer yönüyle de harfe benzediğin-den cümlede sadece müsnet olabilmektedir. Son olarak da yaptığı analizler sonucunda vardığı bu çıkarımını desteklemek üzere itiraz mahiyetinde muhtemel birtakım sorular sormakta ve bu soruları cevaplandırarak risâlesine son vermektedir.
Anahtar kelimeler: Seyyid Şerîf el-Cürcânî, anlam, îrap, isim, fiil, harf, müsnedün ileyh, müsnet.
This article is composed of a critical edition and an analysis of the treatise titled
Risāla fī tahqīq ma‘nā al-harf, written by the scholar Sayyid Sharīf al-Jurjānī (d.
816/1413), who authored many works on the rational and religious sciences. The
article includes two parts: a study and a critical edition. The study part, based
on Jurjānī’s life, briefly details Sayyid Sharīf, who devoted himself to scholarly
activity from very early on and produced a book on syntax during his twenties.
Traveling for scholarly inquiries, he attended courses with the famous scholars
of his age, such as Mubārak Shah (d. 784/1382) and Akmal al-Dīn al-Bābartī
(d. 786/1384). He is considered among the most influential scholars of his time,
along with al-Taftazānī (d. 792/1390). Having a fruitful life in respect to scholarly
activity, the author wrote many books in various fields, including Arabic and
Persian rhetoric, theology, philosophy, logic, exegesis and the Prophetic tradition.
Following the short biography of the author, the study describes the major characteristics of the treatise. Firstly, it identifies the title as Risāla fī tahqīq ma‘nā al-harf. Then it provides proofs of the relation between the author and the treatise. It also examines the treatise’s subject, the author’s methodology, the points that made the treatise important, its intellectual background and its influence on later works. Lastly, the study introduces the various copies that were used and explains the method that was applied.
The second part of the article is a critical edition of the author’s work which is, on average, three folios in each copy. Sayyid Sharīf put forward important arguments on the relationship between meaning and case endings in the science of syntax.
Starting with a mirror metaphor, Sayyid Sharīf examines the relations and differences between substantive/independent meaning and indirect/dependent meaning. He mentions that one can possibly have two different perceptions of a mirror. Firstly, if our aim is to see the thing’s reflection in the mirror, then the reflection as a component of perception becomes the substantive part of our mental perception. As for the mirror, it becomes an indirect part contributing to the substantive part of our mental perception. Secondly, if our aim is to see not the thing’s reflection but the mirror itself, then the mirror as an element of perception becomes the substantive part of our mental perception. The reflection then becomes an indirect part contribution to the substantive part of our mental perception.
Sayyid Sharīf applies the form of relationship between object and meaning to the relationship between meaning and word. The author explains the relationship between meaning and word through “ من ” which contains the same meaning with
ا ابتداء“ ل ”
(beginning). According to this, if the “beginning” meaning is the substan
tive element of our mental perception, it has an independent meaning. Therefore, the “beginning” meaning is used as equivalent to “noun” as a kind of word and ل is expressed by “ ا ابتداء ”. If the “beginning” meaning is an indirect element of our
mental perception, it does not have an independent meaning. Because of this, the “beginning” meaning is used as “letter” as a kind of word and is expressed by من“ ”. Having established the assumed difference between noun and letter in this
way, Sayyid Sharīf argues that both categories of meanings (independent meaning-dependent meaning) also exist for “verbs.” He explains this argument through the example of “ ضرب ” and says the following: Verb includes both an independent
meaning as expressed by “occurring” and a dependent meaning as expressed by “relative.” While the verb “ ضرب ” can mean “strike” by itself, it needs an actor/agent
to express its inherent “relative” meaning.
Sayyid Sharīf in his analysis refers to the related sections of his predecessor ‘Aēud al-dīn al-Ījī’s (d. 755/1354) treatise, Risāla al-waē‘iyya, and refers to the science of syntax in order to strengthen this approach. He puts forward the analysis of “independent/dependent meanings” in defining the form of words as either nouns, verbs or letters. Through this, the author discovers the relationship between the meaning and case endings. According to this, since noun has an independent meaning, it can be both musnad ilayh/muģkam ‘alayh and musnad/muģkam bih
Since the latter does not have an independent meaning it cannot be musnad ilayh
or musnad. As for verb, it resembles a noun due to its meaning of “occurring” by
itself. However, verb also resembles letter because it needs other elements due to
the “relative” meaning inherent to it. Due to the dual character of its meanings,
verb can only be musnad in indirect sentences.
After outlining his arguments in this treatise, Sayyid Sharīf follows with a question
and answer section. Firstly, he seeks answer to why the “relative” meaning of
a verb should be mansūb (musnad) rather than mansūb ilayh (musnad ilayh). Then
he proceeds to answer why a derivative noun cannot be musnad ilayh or musnad
together with the actor of the verb while it can be musnad ilayh or musnad with
the actor of the noun. Lastly, he concludes his treatise by responding to criticism
directed at him by the scholars of syntax who suggest that the part ( قام أبوه ) in the
sentence ( قام أبوه زيد ) be considered musnad.
Keywords: Sayyid Sharīf, noun, verb, letter, musnad ilayh, musnad.