A Second Sense of Majāz: Case Changes Through Ellipsis and Addition

1. A second technical use of the word majāz

فَصْلٌ فِي بَيَانِ مَعْنًى آخَرَ يُطْلَقُ عَلَيْهِ لَفْظُ الْمَجَازِ
A section explaining another sense to which the term majāz is applied.

In rhetoric, majāz ordinarily means using an expression for a meaning other than its established literal sense, with a relevant relationship and contextual indication that the literal sense is not intended. This passage identifies a second technical application of the same term; the two applications should not be collapsed.

The second application concerns a change in a word's grammatical case assignment rather than simply the transfer of its lexical meaning. A word can be described under this usage when omission or addition alters its original syntactic role and case.

2. Homonymy or analogy between technical uses

عَلَى سَبِيلِ الِاشْتِرَاكِ أَوِ التَّشَابُهِ
By shared naming or by resemblance.

One term may have more than one scholarly application without the definitions being identical. Shared naming allows one term to denote distinct concepts; analogy points to a similarity between the uses. The crucial distinction here is the different object being described.

Ordinary semantic majāz asks which meaning is intended by an expression. Grammatical majāz in this discussion asks how omission or addition changes a word's assigned case. Both questions can arise in analyzing one sentence, but they are not the same question.

3. Definition: change in the case ruling

وَقَدْ يُطْلَقُ الْمَجَازُ عَلَى كَلِمَةٍ تَغَيَّرَ حُكْمُ إِعْرَابِهَا
Majāz may also be applied to a word whose grammatical case ruling has changed.

A case ruling is a word's syntactic status and the nominative, accusative, or genitive form resulting from that status. Deleting one element or adding another may change the governing relation of a surviving word and thus its grammatical case.

The issue is not merely a different final vowel heard in isolation. The change follows from a different syntactic relationship. Comparing an underlying construction with the expressed construction reveals what has changed and why.

4. Deletion and addition as two mechanisms

بِحَذْفِ لَفْظٍ أَوْ زِيَادَةِ لَفْظٍ
Because a word is deleted or another word is added.

With deletion, an understood element is omitted from the spoken construction, and a remaining word may acquire a new syntactic position. With addition, an inserted element changes the grammatical treatment of a following word. The technical term “additional” does not imply that the language serves no rhetorical purpose.

Both processes require comparing an understood underlying structure with the actual wording. Without that comparison, it is easy to confuse semantic transfer with a change described in terms of case assignment.

5. First Qurʾānic example: wa-jāʾa rabbuka

وَجَاءَ رَبُّكَ
And your Lord comes.

One rhetorical and grammatical analysis offered here supplies the underlying expression “جَاءَ أَمْرُ رَبِّكَ”: the command of your Lord comes. In that reconstruction, “amr” is the possessed noun and “rabbika” is its genitive complement. Once “amr” is omitted, the expressed “rabbuka” occupies the subject position.

The point illustrated here is a particular mechanism of ellipsis and case change. A grammatical analysis of the wording should not be treated as a full account of all theological and exegetical questions surrounding the verse.

6. From rabbika to rabbuka after omitting the possessive head

جَاءَ أَمْرُ رَبِّكَ ← وَجَاءَ رَبُّكَ
The underlying wording “the command of your Lord comes” is reduced to a form in which rabbuka has a different case.

In the first construction, “amru” is the nominative subject, while “rabbi” is the genitive complement. In the expressed wording, “rabbu” is nominative because it occupies the subject position after omission of the possessed head. The second-person suffix remains attached to “rabb” in each construction.

The relevant change concerns the case assigned to “rabb,” not a change in its letters or a claim that its lexical identity has disappeared. This is the reason the example belongs under change of case through omission.

7. Side-by-side parsing of the first example

ElementReconstructed wordingExpressed wording
Head of annexationأَمْرُ — nominative subjectOmitted
Rabbرَبِّكَ — genitive complementرَبُّكَ — nominative subject
CauseGenitive annexationNew relation after deletion

A case label is meaningful only when the governing syntactic relation has been identified. Here the word “rabb” moves from genitive to nominative after the head “amr” has been omitted.

The deleted expression and the word with changed case are not necessarily the same item.

8. Second Qurʾānic example: ask the town

وَاسْأَلِ الْقَرْيَةَ
And ask the town.

The intended addressees are the inhabitants of the town. An underlying wording is “وَاسْأَلْ أَهْلَ الْقَرْيَةِ”, “ask the people of the town.” There “ahla” is the accusative object, and “al-qaryati” is its genitive complement.

After the omission of “ahl,” the expressed “al-qaryata” occupies the object position of the command “ask” and is accusative. Thus the passage illustrates a shift both in the understood relation to persons and in the syntactic case of the surviving noun.

9. From al-qaryati to al-qaryata

اسْأَلْ أَهْلَ الْقَرْيَةِ ← وَاسْأَلِ الْقَرْيَةَ
The understood expression “ask the people of the town” is reduced to an expressed sentence in which “town” receives the accusative case.

In the first construction, “ahla” is the accusative object of the imperative, and “al-qaryati” is genitive because it completes the annexation. Once “ahl” is unexpressed, “al-qaryata” fills the object position and becomes accusative.

Both this example and “jāʾa rabbuka” involve omitted annexation heads, but one resulting noun becomes nominative and the other accusative. The new case depends on the syntactic position, not on deletion alone.

10. Town-as-people versus syntactic case change

Taking “the town” to mean its people in “ask the town” can also be discussed in terms of semantic figuration. The present technical use of majāz, however, emphasizes how “al-qaryati” can be analyzed as changing from genitive to accusative. These are not interchangeable explanations.

Explaining that “the town” refers to its inhabitants answers a question about meaning. It does not by itself explain the contrast between the reconstructed genitive noun and the expressed accusative object. That requires the omitted head and new syntactic position.

A single passage can legitimately invite more than one analytical perspective, but each perspective must answer its own distinct question.

11. The common principle in the two ellipsis examples

ExampleOmitted headOriginal caseExpressed case
وَجَاءَ رَبُّكَأَمْررَبِّ — genitiveرَبُّ — nominative
وَاسْأَلِ الْقَرْيَةَأَهْلالْقَرْيَةِ — genitiveالْقَرْيَةَ — accusative

Both examples work through deletion of the head of annexation. The surviving genitive complement takes a new place in the sentence, but that place is nominative in one example and accusative in the other.

Correct analysis therefore requires two questions in order: “Was a word omitted or added?” and “What syntactic function does the surviving word now perform?”

12. Addition in “laysa ka-mithlihi shayʾ”

لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ
There is nothing like His likeness.

One grammatical analysis of the verse treats the kāf as additional for emphasis. The intended negation is then equivalent to the forceful “laysa mithlahu shayʾ,” denying anything comparable to Him. “Additional” here does not mean devoid of rhetorical effect.

The case contrast matters: in the reconstructed construction, “mithlahu” would stand as the accusative predicate of “laysa.” In the expressed construction, the initial kāf governs the genitive form “mithlihi.” The example therefore illustrates the second mechanism, case change associated with addition.

13. Parsing laysa and its predicate

“Laysa” is a defective verb whose subject is nominative and predicate is accusative; its predicate may precede its subject. In the reconstructed “لَيْسَ مِثْلَهُ شَيْءٌ”, “mithlahu” is the fronted accusative predicate and “shayʾun” is the delayed nominative subject.

In the expressed “لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ”, kāf is a preposition, “mithlihi” is genitive in form, and the prepositional phrase occupies the predicate position. “Shayʾun” remains the nominative subject of “laysa.”

This requires distinguishing the case marked on the noun itself from the syntactic function of the entire prepositional phrase.

14. Case change from accusative to genitive

ElementWithout kāf (reconstruction)With kāf (expressed)
Predicate-related nounمِثْلَهُ — accusativeمِثْلِهِ — genitive
PrepositionNoneكَ — preposition
Subject of laysaشَيْءٌ — nominativeشَيْءٌ — nominative

Kāf affects the form of “mithl,” but it does not remove the negating structure or change the nominative status of “shayʾ.” The grammatical result therefore involves an additional governing element, not merely another word in a string.

Unlike the two examples of ellipsis, this example illustrates how an expressed additional particle changes case.

15. Additional does not mean meaningless

Calling a particle zāʾid (additional) is a grammatical description. It can mean that the underlying proposition could be constructed without the particle, while the expressed particle still contributes emphasis or another rhetorical effect.

Under the analysis that treats the kāf in “laysa ka-mithlihi shayʾ” as additional, the negation of likeness is forcefully expressed. Dismissing the particle as meaningless would obscure the rhetorical value claimed in this analysis.

Grammatical addition should therefore not be confused with pointless padding. Grammar explains how the sentence is formed; rhetoric considers why the chosen form can be more forceful.

16. Meaning under the additional-kāf analysis

لَيْسَ مِثْلَهُ شَيْءٌ
Nothing is comparable to Him.

If kāf is treated as an additional marker of emphasis, the statement directly negates any likeness to God. The analysis does not first posit an existing counterpart and then merely deny a third thing's similarity to that counterpart.

This reading provides a direct account of the intended negation while also explaining the grammatical change of “mithl” in the expressed phrase.

17. Alternative analysis: kāf need not be additional

وَيُحْتَمَلُ أَنْ لَا يَكُونَ زَائِدًا
It is also possible that the kāf is not additional.

On the alternative reading, kāf retains its normal comparative sense. The surface expression negates something “like His likeness,” but the intended meaning does not stop at that surface wording. Through indirect expression (kināyah), the wording is used to deny likeness to Him altogether.

Under this reading the syntactic construction genuinely includes kāf, while the emphasis of the meaning is understood through denying a consequence in order to deny what would entail it.

18. How denying a like of a like denies likeness

The alternative reasoning proceeds as follows: if something were genuinely comparable to a subject, a reciprocal relation of likeness would arise between the subject and its supposed counterpart. That relation could be examined under the phrase “the like of a like.”

Denying this necessary relation removes the supposition of an original counterpart as well. The intended assertion is that nothing is comparable to God; “a likeness of a likeness” is not being introduced as an existing external being.

The rhetorical structure is negation of an underlying supposition by negating something that would necessarily follow from it.

19. The logical direction of necessary consequence

Here the antecedent or underlying supposition is the existence of a genuine counterpart. The necessary consequence is what would follow if that supposition were true. If the necessary consequence is denied, the supposition cannot be maintained under that implication.

The reasoning has the form: “If the first claim were true, the second result would follow; the second result is denied; therefore the first claim fails.” This attends to the relation of implication rather than merely noticing that the word “like” occurs twice.

The pattern cannot be applied between arbitrarily associated statements: the stated consequence must actually follow from the supposition.

20. Why the indirect reading can be more emphatic

وَيَكُونُ نَفْيًا بِطَرِيقِ الْكِنَايَةِ الَّتِي هِيَ أَبْلَغُ
It becomes negation by the more emphatic method of indirect expression.

A direct denial rejects the specified attribute without an additional step. In this reading, an implication that would follow from the supposed likeness is itself denied, and the denial of the original likeness follows through reasoning.

Calling this reading “more emphatic” is a judgment about this particular rhetorical analysis. It should not be expanded into a rule that indirect speech is always stronger than direct speech in every context.

21. A worked inference: Zayd’s brother has no brother

لَيْسَ لِأَخِي زَيْدٍ أَخٌ
Zayd’s brother has no brother.

The expression illustrates how “Zayd has no brother” may be conveyed indirectly. Assume Zayd had a brother. Zayd would then be a brother of that very person, since brotherhood is reciprocal. The sentence, however, denies that the supposed brother has any brother at all. The original assumption therefore fails.

The necessary consequence of someone being Zayd’s brother is that this person has a brother—Zayd. Negating that consequence refutes the supposition that Zayd has a brother. This helps explain the alternative reading of “laysa ka-mithlihi shayʾ”; the subjects differ, but the inferential pattern is similar.

22. Comparing the two readings of the verse

FeatureAdditional kāfOriginal comparative kāf
Status of kāfAdditional for emphasisRetains comparison
Route to meaningDirect denial of likenessIndirect denial through implication
Rhetorical featureEmphatic wordingReasoning from a denied consequence
Common conclusionNo likeness to GodNo likeness to God

Both approaches lead to the same intended conclusion but by different grammatical and rhetorical routes. The disagreement should not be presented as mutually opposed theological conclusions; it concerns the function of the comparative particle and the way the negation is expressed.

23. Worked grammatical classification

Example 1: وَجَاءَ رَبُّكَ
Reconstruction: jāʾa amru rabbika. Omitted: amr. Word changing case: rabb. Result: nominative subject.

Example 2: وَاسْأَلِ الْقَرْيَةَ
Reconstruction: isʾal ahla al-qaryati. Omitted: ahl. Word changing case: al-qarya. Result: accusative direct object.

Example 3: لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ
On the additional-kāf reading, the reconstructed “mithlahu” is an accusative predicate, whereas “mithlihi” is genitive after kāf. On the other reading, kāf retains its normal force and the negation is understood through indirect expression.

24. Grammatical majāz versus semantic majāz

A change in syntactic case and a shift of lexical meaning are different scholarly questions. Both may arise in a single sentence, but their definitions and analytical tools are distinct. The first tracks governors, annexation, subjects, and objects; the second tracks meaning, relation, and contextual evidence.

“Ask the town” requires understanding that the inhabitants are intended, but the grammatical analysis additionally explains why “al-qaryata” appears in the accusative. In “laysa ka-mithlihi shayʾ,” the status of kāf yields different rhetorical accounts of the same intended negation.

Recognizing these distinctions allows a broader understanding of the term majāz without reducing all its uses to a single rule.

25. Bridge to the coming chapter on kināyah

The alternative reading of “laysa ka-mithlihi shayʾ” introduces the idea of kināyah: an intended meaning can be expressed by means of a necessary consequence rather than through direct wording. Kināyah is therefore not simply any lengthy or indirect sentence; it depends on a recognizable relation of implication.

The next chapter will treat the definition of kināyah, using a word for an associated necessary meaning, and the conditions under which the literal sense remains possible. This lesson has already separated wording, syntactic case, and indirect signification through consequences.

Keeping those dimensions distinct prepares a more accurate comparison of metaphor and kināyah in the following level.