Al-Sakkaki on Derivative Metaphor, Implicit Metaphor, and the Role of Imaginative Clues

1. The governing question: where is the figure located?

The previous discussion examined comparing death to a predator and imagining claws for death. A sharper question now arises: has the word “death” changed from its established sense, has “claws” changed its denotation, or does the figure lie in the attribution joining them?

Lexical transfer concerns using a word beyond its established meaning. Claimed likeness rhetorically treats distinct things as members of one category. Transferred attribution assigns an action or property to a subject that is not its literal agent.

These are different levels of analysis. Different technical labels for the same line do not necessarily imply different intended effects of the imagery.

2. Objection to claiming predatorhood for death

دعوى السبعية للمنية مع التصريح بلفظ المنية، وفيه نظر
To claim predatory character for death while explicitly naming death is open to objection.

The objection is that the word “death” still denotes death in its established sense. Merely surrounding it with a predator's attributes does not show that the word for death has itself been borrowed for some other lexical meaning.

The rhetorical claim and departure from a word's literal sense cannot simply be equated. The reply therefore has to investigate both the word's conventional assignment and the particular respect in which it is used.

3. The word al-maniyya can retain its literal sense

لأن المراد بها الموت
Because death itself is what is meant by the word.

When al-maniyya refers to death, the first issue is whether it is being used in the respect relevant to its established meaning or whether another claimed respect changes its use. A figurative property predicated of something does not by itself make the noun naming that thing lexically figurative.

The expression has separate elements: “death” and the “claws” attributed to it. One can preserve the literal signification of the first while still analyzing a figure in the second element or in their relation.

4. The reply through the qualification of respect

أن قيد الحيثية مراد في تعريف الحقيقة
The definition of literal use is understood with a qualification concerning the respect of usage.

On this reply, a word is literal in the aspect in which its conventional meaning is actually intended. A distinct rhetorical respect may be claimed, but that does not automatically erase the word's ordinary assigned signification.

The point at issue is the boundary between use according to conventional assignment and use under a rhetorical claim. Without that boundary, anything described figuratively might be too hastily classified as figurative at the level of its noun.

5. A comparison of two uses of death

دنت منية فلان
So-and-so's death has drawn near.

The noun maniyya ordinarily refers to death, and the sentence about its nearness is readily intelligible. In “the claws of death,” however, claws are assigned to death, although claws are a property of bodily predators rather than a literal organ of death.

ExpressionSense of maniyyaIssue analyzed
Death drew nearDeath itselfContext of predication
Claws of deathDeath itselfAttribution of claws

The analytical difference need not be a new lexical sense for maniyya every time; it lies in the accompanying predication and rhetorical picture.

6. Al-Sakkaki’s proposed reduction of derivative metaphor

واختار السكاكي رد الاستعارة التبعية
Al-Sakkaki chose to reduce derivative metaphor to another figurative construction.

Derivative metaphor covers figurative employment of verbs, particles, and derivative forms. In al-Sakkaki’s particular analysis, many such cases are explained within implicit metaphor; the expression traditionally called a derivative metaphor functions as a clue to the implicit comparison.

This is not merely a convenient renaming. It reflects a theoretical choice about whether the decisive metaphorical act belongs to a changed word or to an unstated comparison accompanied by its clue.

7. How a derivative expression functions as an implicit clue

جعل التبعية قرينتها
Making the derivative expression the clue to implicit metaphor.

Suppose an abstract condition is described as speaking. A standard analysis may locate the figurative transfer in the verb “to speak.” Another analysis first likens the condition to a speaking human, conceals the human comparison source, and then treats attribution of speech as the clue indicating this comparison.

Implicit metaphor: the subject is stated while the comparison source is concealed.
Clue: an associated sign that reveals the concealed comparison.

The two procedures can be demonstrated using the same expression, “the state of affairs spoke.”

8. The verbal analysis of “the condition spoke”

نطقت الحال
The circumstances spoke, that is, they disclosed their meaning.

The overt sentence contains the verb “spoke” with “circumstances” as its subject. Literal speech belongs to beings capable of articulation, whereas circumstances do not pronounce words like human speakers. If “spoke” is understood as indicated or disclosed, a figurative extension appears in the verb's meaning.

This analysis places the transfer in verbal signification. “Circumstances” retains its usual referent, while the verb communicates expressive disclosure rather than literal utterance.

9. Implicit-metaphor reading of the same expression

In the same sentence, al-Sakkaki's style of analysis may treat “circumstances” as implicitly resembling a speaking person who communicates information. The subject, circumstances, is stated, while the comparison source, a speaker, is concealed. Attribution of speaking signals that hidden likeness.

The wording is unchanged, but the focus of explanation shifts. The first method studies the verb's transferred sense; the second emphasizes the rhetorical classification of the state as a speaker.

A comparison of theories must therefore identify the clue and specify the subject and source of the implied likeness rather than merely naming a category.

10. Is “speaking” literal or figurative in the example?

If “spoke” is taken in its ordinary literal sense, the attribution to circumstances does not describe a real physical act. If it denotes revealing or signifying, the verb is a potential case of derivative metaphor.

Under al-Sakkaki’s account, the attribution can instead function as a clue to a hidden speaker-image. Yet analysis becomes inconsistent if the same use is indiscriminately called both literal and figurative in the identical respect.

Two questions should be separated: has the verb departed from conventional meaning, and how has its abstract subject been imagined in relation to a speaking human?

11. Comparison of the two analytical approaches

AspectDerivative-metaphor analysisImplicit-metaphor analysis
ExpressionCircumstances spokeCircumstances spoke
FocusTransferred sense of “spoke”Circumstances imagined as speaker
ClueCircumstances do not literally speakAttribution of speech marks the hidden speaker
ResultFigurative verb meaningConcealed comparison disclosed

The table distinguishes two technical readings of one utterance. It would be misleading to impose the terminology of one approach on the other or to conflate the clue with the location of semantic transfer.

12. Imaginative and implicit metaphor: the precise dispute

لا تنفك المكني عنها عن التخييلية
Implicit metaphor does not separate from imaginative metaphor.

The important question is the direction of necessity. Does every implicit metaphor require an imaginative accompaniment? Does every imaginative construction, in turn, require an implicit metaphor? These are not identical claims.

Some accounts place an implicit comparison first and treat imaginative attribution of its source-associated feature as completing it. Other explanations discuss examples where an imaginative sign or a hidden comparison does not satisfy the other school’s universal condition.

13. The direction of logical entailment

Implicit ⇒ imaginative
If implicit metaphor always carries an imaginative feature, then the presence of an implicit metaphor entails the presence of that feature.

The reverse statement, imaginative ⇒ implicit, does not follow automatically. A particular tree is a plant, but not every plant is that particular tree. In the same way, each direction of dependence among rhetorical categories needs independent support.

The source’s objections question, on one side, the possibility of an implicit metaphor without imagination, and, on the other, whether an imaginative clue is the only possible way of signaling an implicit metaphor.

14. Argument against making imaginative attribution compulsory

فلم تكن الاستعارة المكني عنها مستلزمة للتخييلية
Hence implicit metaphor would not necessarily entail imaginative metaphor.

This objection offers an analysis in which a concealed comparison can occur without establishing imagination in the narrower sense of attributing a hypothetical associated feature. It therefore challenges the universal proposition that every implicit metaphor must have an imaginative counterpart.

A defender can broaden the definition of imaginative attribution to include the action or relation in question. The claim, definition employed, and alleged counterexample must accordingly be examined separately.

15. Why a clue need not always be imaginary

قرينة المكني عنها قد تكون أمراً وهمياً
The clue to implicit metaphor may sometimes be something imagined.

The qualifier may matters: it does not state that every clue must be a nonexistent imagined organ. “Claws of death” readily allows such an analysis, but an action attributed to a nonliteral agent may signal a concealed comparison without requiring the same imagined anatomy.

It is therefore inaccurate to define every clue as a hypothetical body part. Its function is to indicate the concealed likeness; the precise kind of clue depends on the expression being analyzed.

16. Attribution in “spring caused the herbs to grow”

أنبت الربيع البقل
Spring caused the herbs to grow.

Grammatically, “spring” is the subject of the verb “caused to grow.” But spring is a season, and the real agency underlying growth is a separate semantic question. The relation between verb and subject can therefore also be studied under figurative attribution (majaz ʿaqli).

The discussion associated with al-Sakkaki also explores an implicit-comparison approach: spring is imagined as an effective agent, and the action of causing growth signals that analogy. The case exposes the boundary between metaphor in a word and transfer in a predication.

17. Attribution in “the commander defeated the army”

هزم الأمير الجند
The commander defeated the army.

The commander is presented as the agent of the defeat, although the actual military action may be performed by soldiers and multiple causes. Attributing a collective achievement to the directing commander belongs to the broader study of rhetorical attribution.

However, it would be careless to declare every such sentence figurative regardless of context: ordinary language regularly assigns a military result to its commander. The analyst must distinguish the context, the nature of causal agency, and established conventions of attribution.

18. Comparing speaking circumstances with growing spring

ExampleLexical issueAttribution issue
Circumstances spoke“Spoke” can shift toward “indicated”Circumstances treated as a speaker
Spring grew the herbs“Grow” may retain its familiar senseCausing growth assigned to a season

In the first case a change in the sense of speaking can be prominent. In the second, assigning the causal action to the season can be the main difficulty. Not every unusual predication requires an alteration in the lexical sense of its verb.

The examples may share a vivid personifying effect without requiring identical accounts of their semantic transfer.

19. The clue in “they break God’s covenant”

يَنْقُضُونَ عَهْدَ اللَّهِ
They break the covenant of God.

The expression occurs in Qur’an 2:27. Naqd can describe undoing or breaking a material bond, while a covenant is not a physical rope or wall. The covenant may therefore be represented as a strong binding object capable of being broken.

The issue is whether the verb “break” has transferred its sense or the covenant is implicitly compared to a breakable bond, with “break” serving as the clue. Both explanations preserve the sense of violating a covenant, but they analyze the figurative act at different locations.

20. Why is an imaginative feature disputed as a requirement?

In “the claws of death,” the clue can be described as a nonexistent bodily feature attributed to death. In “they break God’s covenant,” the clue is the action of breaking, which literally applies to material bonds and is figuratively used concerning a covenant.

The comparison raises a question: must every clue to implicit metaphor be the same kind of imagined attribute as the claws of death, or can a transferred action or relation serve as its clue?

The traditions answer this differently. Accordingly, one theory’s definition should not be imposed on a rival analysis without further argument.

21. A transfer can involve more than resemblance

بأن كل مجاز يكون علاقته المشابهة لا يجب أن يكون استعارة لجواز أن يكون له علاقة أخرى
A figurative use involving resemblance need not always be classified as metaphor, since another relation may also be involved.

Recognizing some likeness is not enough to settle the figure’s technical category. The intention, the respect in which a word is used, and other possible relations must also be assessed. Indication, causation, or necessary connection may operate alongside similarity.

This qualification prevents every nonliteral expression from being forced into the metaphor category. The presence of a relation and its role as the decisive basis of the figure are different matters.

22. Resemblance versus indication in “spoke”

“Circumstances spoke” does not state literal human speech, but circumstances do indicate information. That expressive role creates a likeness between spoken communication and meaningful circumstances, yet the common effect does not automatically establish a single technical classification for every theory.

If “spoke” denotes the disclosure made by circumstances, a lexical-transfer analysis is available. If circumstances are assimilated to a speaker, implicit metaphor becomes central. If the focus rests on assigning the action to a non-speaker, attribution is the concern.

These are distinctions of analytical respect, not proof that the intended communicative meaning is unknown.

23. Rejecting derivative metaphor does not settle the alternative

Suppose “spoke” does not mean literal articulation. This can support a figurative-use analysis, but it does not automatically decide whether the relevant figure is metaphor, metonymic transfer, or primarily an attributional construction.

Refuting one description does not logically establish its rival without further evidence. Where the expression can involve indication or necessary association alongside similarity, the original context still matters for classification.

That is why the objections address the stronger claim that derivative metaphor must invariably be reduced to implicit metaphor.

24. Literal and figurative respects in spring imagery

In “spring caused the herbs to grow,” the growing of vegetation is a real event, and spring is closely associated with it. But treating the season as an independent ultimate agent may not be valid in the relevant philosophical or theological respect.

The meaning of the verb and the identity of the attributed agent must therefore be two distinct questions. If “caused to grow” keeps its established meaning, the transfer may be in attribution; if the verb itself changes sense, lexical analysis is needed.

The important rule is that figurative attribution does not automatically entail figurative word meaning.

25. Testing the possibility of implicit metaphor without imagination

وجود المكني عنها بدون التخييلية
The occurrence of implicit metaphor without imaginative metaphor.

Against a theory requiring a hypothetical imagined object as the sole clue, one may cite constructions where the hidden likeness is marked by an action or relation rather than by a nonexistent anatomical part.

Yet defenders of a broader notion of imagination may reply that the action itself is imaginatively attributed to the subject. The dispute cannot be resolved without checking whether the two sides use “imaginative metaphor” in exactly the same technical sense.

26. The claws of death as a model and its limits

أظفار المنية الشبيهة بالسبع
Claws of death, imagined as resembling a predator.

This expression vividly combines death, the predator image, and claws as the associated feature. It is therefore a helpful model for the relationship between implicit and imaginative metaphor, but one model cannot alone supply a universal rule for every verb, particle, and predicative construction.

The verbal use of “claws,” the hypothesized form, and the claim that death is predator-like should be distinguished. What makes a model illuminating does not necessarily become a definitional condition for every other instance.

27. The direct address to the earth

يَا أَرْضُ ابْلَعِي مَاءَكِ
O earth, swallow your water.

This is part of Qur’an 11:44. The earth is directly addressed and told to swallow water. The absorption of water is represented as though a living creature were taking something into its mouth.

One may analyze where the expression “swallow” transfers its meaning, or how the earth is implicitly compared to a living swallower, with the imperative serving as an associated clue. The grammatical construction remains the same even when rhetorical theories locate the figure differently.

28. The verb “swallow” and the hidden comparison

The clause contains a direct address, an imperative verb, and an object. Earth denotes the actual earth and water denotes real water; yet swallow ordinarily belongs to a living being taking something into its mouth.

A derivative-metaphor reading regards the verb as transferred to the earth’s absorption of water. An implicit-metaphor reading compares the earth covertly to a creature that swallows, while the imperative marks that image.

Identifying the verb's ordinary sense, its new use, and the nature of its addressee is more instructive than memorizing the figure's label alone.

29. Synthesis before the next chapter: entailment and clues

Three distinctions emerge. First, lexical transfer and figurative attribution are not identical. Second, each direction of dependence between implicit and imaginative metaphor requires its own argument. Third, an associated feature may be the clue to implicit comparison without requiring every clue to be the same kind of hypothetical bodily object.

QuestionTest
Where is the figure?Word, attribution, or whole expression
What is the clue?Sign that redirects from literal sense
What is the resemblance?Semantic basis of transfer
Is dependence necessary?Direction of claim and counterexamples

The next chapter asks not only whether a metaphor is technically recognizable, but also what makes a metaphor aesthetically strong and rhetorically effective.