Classification of Simile by Its Two Terms: Sensory, Intellectual, Imagined, and Supposed
Read-only question overview. Answers and scoring remain inside authenticated learner attempts.
- What is the first basis of classification here?
- How are the cheek and the rose classified?
- Which sense directly underlies the faint-voice/whisper example?
- Why is it incorrect to restrict ḥissī to visible things?
- What is the sensory likeness in smooth skin and silk?
- To which sense does the fragrant-breath/ambergris example chiefly belong?
- What does treating knowledge and life as intellectual mean in this passage?
- Which claim wrongly exaggerates the knowledge–life comparison?
- Identify the mushabbah and mushabbah bih in death–predator.
- What is a principal rhetorical effect of comparing death to a predator?
- What kind of term is first in fragrance–noble character?
- Why can sensory-to-intellectual simile be more subtle?
- Why does the source add “or its material” to sensory?
- What is an unreal arrangement built from sensible objects?
- How are the teeth of ghouls treated in the cited example?
- What best distinguishes khayālī from wahmī?
- What does mentioning a ghoul’s teeth fail to establish?
- Which action is characteristic of mutakhayyilah?
- Which is a proper example of wijdānī awareness?
- How should the relation between a smile and pleasure be described?
- Why is invisibility alone insufficient to classify something as imaginary?
- What must not be confused with the terms in knowledge–life?
- Which pair runs from sensory to intellectual?
- Which analysis correctly distinguishes terms and shared aspect in cheek–rose?
- What defines wajh al-tashbīh?
- Two terms perceived by hearing can form a sensory-to-sensory simile.
- Calling knowledge and life intellectual proves they share every property.
- An imagined composite may contain sensible elements although the whole does not exist externally.
- An inwardly felt state is always directly perceived only through the five external senses.