Publication: Fâdıl Sâlih es-sâmerrâî’nin bazı modern dönem nahivcilerin görüşlerine eleştirileri (Tahkîkât nahviyye özelinde)
Abstract
Bu çalışma modern dönem nahivcilerden Fâdıl Sâlih es-Sâmerrâî’nin Tahkîkât nahviyye adlı eserinde, bir diğer modern dilcilerden olan Abdurrahman Muhammed Eyyûb’un kimi nahiv görüşlerine yönelik eleştirilerini ele almakta; bu kapsamda Abdurrahman Eyyûb’un klasik nahivcilere muhalif görüşleri ile Sâmerrâî’nin bu görüşlere olan eleştirilerini incelemektedir. Çalışma, Fâdıl es-Sâmerrâî’nin Abdurrahman Eyyûb’a yönelik eleştirilerini “maksûr ismin mebnîliği” ve “zamirler” olmak üzere iki başlık olarak sunmuştur. Zamirler bölümü de kendi içerisinde fiilin sonuna bitişen ve fâil olarak değerlendirilen eklerin harf olması; ism-i işaretlere bitişen kâfu’l-hitâb’ın, mâzi fiile bitişen sâkin tâ-i te’nîs’in ve muzâraât eklerinin zamir olup olmamasına dair tartışmaları irdelemektedir. Bu konular çerçevesinde, Abdurrahman Eyyûb’un kadim nahivcilere muhalif görüşleri ve iddiaları sunulup, Sâmerrâî’nin bu iddialara yönelik eleştirileri ve kullandığı deliller incelenecektir. Daha sonra Sâmerrâî’nin eleştirileri bir kritiğe tabi tutulacak ve eleştirilerinin zayıf yönleri ortaya konacaktır. Sonuç olarak, Abdurrahman Eyyûb’un kadim nahivcilere muhalif görüşlerinin arka planı ve Sâmerrâî’nin eleştirilerinin tutarlılığı incelenerek, bu modern dilcilerin görüşlerinin karşılıklı ilişkileri ortaya konacaktır.
This study examines the critiques of the modern linguist Fāḍil Ṣāliḥ al-Sāmarrā’ī in his work Taḥqīqāt naḥwiyya towards the syntactic views of another modern linguist, ‘Abd al-Raḥmān Muḥammad Ayyūb. In this context, the study analyzes the opposing views of ‘Abd al-Raḥmān Ayyūb to classical syntacticians and al-Sāmarrā’ī’s criticisms of these views. The study presents Fāḍil al-Sāmarrā’ī’s criticisms of ‘Abd al-Raḥmān Ayyūb under two headings: “the indeclinability of the maqṣūr noun” and “pronouns”. The section on pronouns scrutinizes the debates on whether the following concepts are evaluated as pronouns or not; the suffixes that end the verb and are considered as subject, whether they should be regarded as pronouns or particles (ḥurūf), the kāf al-khiṭāb that ends the demonstrative nouns (ism al-ishārah), the tā’ al-tâ’nīth al-sākina that ends the past tense verb (al-māḍī), and the suffixes that end present tense verb (al-muḍāra‘ā). Within the framework of these topics, ‘Abd al-Raḥmān Ayyūb’s opposing views and claims against classical syntacticians will be presented, along with al-Sāmarrā’ī’s critiques and the evidence he uses to address these claims. Later, al-Sāmarrā’ī’s critiques will be subjected to analysis, and the weaknesses in his arguments will be revealed. In conclusion, by examining the background of ‘Abd al-Raḥmān Ayyūb’s opposing views to classical syntacticians and the consistency of al-Sāmarrā’ī’s critiques, the reciprocal relationship between these modern linguists’ perspectives will be revealed.
This study examines the critiques of the modern linguist Fāḍil Ṣāliḥ al-Sāmarrā’ī in his work Taḥqīqāt naḥwiyya towards the syntactic views of another modern linguist, ‘Abd al-Raḥmān Muḥammad Ayyūb. In this context, the study analyzes the opposing views of ‘Abd al-Raḥmān Ayyūb to classical syntacticians and al-Sāmarrā’ī’s criticisms of these views. The study presents Fāḍil al-Sāmarrā’ī’s criticisms of ‘Abd al-Raḥmān Ayyūb under two headings: “the indeclinability of the maqṣūr noun” and “pronouns”. The section on pronouns scrutinizes the debates on whether the following concepts are evaluated as pronouns or not; the suffixes that end the verb and are considered as subject, whether they should be regarded as pronouns or particles (ḥurūf), the kāf al-khiṭāb that ends the demonstrative nouns (ism al-ishārah), the tā’ al-tâ’nīth al-sākina that ends the past tense verb (al-māḍī), and the suffixes that end present tense verb (al-muḍāra‘ā). Within the framework of these topics, ‘Abd al-Raḥmān Ayyūb’s opposing views and claims against classical syntacticians will be presented, along with al-Sāmarrā’ī’s critiques and the evidence he uses to address these claims. Later, al-Sāmarrā’ī’s critiques will be subjected to analysis, and the weaknesses in his arguments will be revealed. In conclusion, by examining the background of ‘Abd al-Raḥmān Ayyūb’s opposing views to classical syntacticians and the consistency of al-Sāmarrā’ī’s critiques, the reciprocal relationship between these modern linguists’ perspectives will be revealed.