| المستخلص: |
يَسْعى الْباحِثُ إِلى ابْتِعاثِ ثَلاثٍ مِنَ الْقَضايا النَّحْوِيَّةِ الْمُتَعَلِّقَةِ بِالْمَفْعولِ الْمُطْلَقِ (النَّوْعِيِّ) مِنْ مَكْمَنِها. وَلَقَدِ ارْتَأى في أولى الْقَضايا أَنَّ الْمَفْعولَ الْمُطْلَقَ، الْمُضافَ وَالْمَوْصوف، الْمُسَمّى تَقْليدِيّاً (مُبَيِّناً لِلنَّوْعِ)، إِنْ هُوَ إِلّا مَفْعولٌ مُطْلَقٌ (مُبَيَّنُ النَّوْع) لَيْسَ غَيْر. وَحاوَلَ الْباحِثُ طَرْحَ رُؤْيَةٍ تَعْليلِيَّةٍ لِمُرادِ النُّحاةِ الْحَقيقِيِّ مِنْ قَوْلِهِمْ: (مُبَيِّن لِلنَّوْع). وَأَمّا الْقَضِيَّةُ الْمُتَناوَلَةُ ثانِياً، فَقَدْ تَرَكَّزَ الاهْتِمامُ فيها عَلى الأَسْبابِ الَّتي دَفَعَتِ النُّحاةَ إِلى تَقْديرِ (مِثْلَ) دونَ (الْكافِ) في الْبِنْيَةِ الْمُضْمَرَةِ لِمُرَكَّبِ الْمَفْعولِ الْمُطْلَقِ الْمُضاف في مِثْلِ: (سِرْتُ سَيْرَ الأَميرِ). وَذَهَبَ الْباحِثُ إِلى تَرْجيحِ (الْكافِ) دونَ (مِثْلَ)، لأَسْبابٍ وَاعْتِباراتٍ شَتّى. وَقَدْ أَمْحَضَ الْباحِثُ الْقَضِيَّةَ الثّالِثَةَ لِمُحاوَلَةِ تَبَيُّنِ الْبِنْيَةِ الْمُضْمَرَةِ الَّتي رَآها أَصْوَبَ لِلْمَفْعولِ الْمُطْلَقِ (الْمُبَيَّنِ النَّوْعِ) الْمُضاف، مُوَجِّهاً اعْتِراضاتٍ عَلى ما قَدَّرَهُ النُّحاةُ لِتِلْكَ الْبِنْيَة
The study investigates three issues relating to the unrestricted object and to resurrect these issues from their origins. In the first issue, the unrestricted object, the added and descriptive, termed in the classical view as clarifying the type of the name, is only an unrestricted object only clarifying the type only. The researcher attempted in this study to give an argument for the purposes of the real grammar scholars by claiming that the unrestricted object is clarifying the type. The second debated issue is concerned with the reasons behind grammar scholars motivations to infer the ( miṯla-like) without ( Kāf in the original verb) in the implicit structure of the unrestricted object as in the following example: (sirtu saira al->Amīr). In the issue, the researcher claims that the likehood of using (Kāf) in the unrestricted object without (miṯla-like) for several considerations and reasons. The third issue was clarified by the researcher in his attempt to explain the implicit structure of the unrestricted object which is more correct in his opinion for the this type of speech ( the added unrestricted object clarifying the type); in addition to providing some critics to the grammar scholars in their estimation to this structure
|
