Dependent Metaphor: Further Analysis, Unqualified, Stripped and Reinforced Types

1. Dependent metaphor: the next inquiry

Dependent metaphor employs a verb, derivative, or particle figuratively through an underlying semantic transfer. This invites two questions: where the transfer is first understood, and what contextual feature prevents a literal reading.

In “naṭaqat al-ḥāl,” circumstances are not literally given a human tongue; their disclosure is likened to speech. In “li-yakūna lahum ʿaduwwan wa ḥazanan,” an eventual consequence is expressed through the language of purpose. The level at which each metaphorical relation is established differs.

The discussion then moves to unqualified, stripped, and reinforced metaphors, a different classification based on accompanying descriptions and associated details.

2. Purpose and outcome in the particle lām

لِيَكُونَ لَهُمْ عَدُوًّا وَحَزَنًا
So that he would become an enemy and a cause of grief for them.

Those who picked up Moses did not intend to acquire an enemy. The eventual outcome is expressed in the form normally used for an intended goal, hence the label *lām of consequence*.

One analysis sees a resemblance between the relation of an action to its intended purpose and its relation to a later outcome; the particle “lām” follows this relational transfer. An outcome is not identical to the actor's intention, and the verse does not say that it was their conscious aim.

3. The underlying resemblance and the contextual clue

نطقت الحال
The circumstances spoke.

The verb “naṭaqat” literally describes speaking. What circumstances convey is compared to the communicative power of speech, so the verb of speaking is applied to a non-speaking situation. The unusual attribution itself alerts us to the figurative sense.

An unconventional subject is not an automatic diagnosis in every passage. Sometimes predication supplies the clue; sometimes a wider circumstance or accompanying words do. The clue excludes the literal meaning; it is not the definition of the shared resemblance.

4. Two analytical routes for the relational metaphor

One analysis of the lām of consequence first compares the relation of purpose with the relation of result and explains the particle's use through that resemblance. A particle conveys a relation between its attachments, not an isolated object-like meaning.

Another explanation begins by considering the outcome in relation to the underlying intended aim. Both recognize that an outcome is presented in the rhetorical form of a goal; they differ in identifying the initial locus of transfer.

The practical result is that one must not read every purposive-looking lām as proof of conscious intention. Its attached verb and full context matter.

5. Killing miserliness and reviving generosity

قتل البخل وأحيا السماحا
He killed miserliness and brought generosity to life.

Miserliness is not an organism that can literally be killed, and generosity is not a body whose biological life is restored. “Killed” conveys the decisive removal of meanness; “revived” conveys the vigorous establishment of generosity.

The ideas of killing and bringing to life are related by resemblance to powerful removal and flourishing. Their expression through verbs makes the passage pertinent to dependent metaphor, not an assertion of literal killing or physical life.

6. A clue in the subject or object

With “naṭaqat al-ḥāl,” the subject “the situation” receives an action that normally belongs to a speaker. In “qatala al-bukhl,” the object is miserliness, and in “aḥyā al-samāḥa,” generosity; neither is a living body.

Subject-based clue: attributing speech or deliberate action to circumstances can indicate figurative predication.
Object-based clue: killing meanness or reviving generosity cannot be read as physical acts.

At times subject and object both contribute. One should not erase the verb's role in the metaphor by transferring every figurative feature to a noun alone.

7. Glad tidings of painful punishment

فَبَشِّرْهُمْ بِعَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍ
Announce to them painful punishment.

“Bashshara” normally introduces glad news, whereas painful punishment is not a cause for joy. The deliberate combination creates rhetorical force: the language of glad tidings is attached to punishment.

One reading treats it as a sarcastic or ironic metaphor (tahakkumiyyah), using the opposite register to intensify warning. The word's ordinary pleasant association does not turn the punishment into good news. “Bi-ʿadhābin alīm” is the clue that excludes literal glad tidings.

8. The form of the clue versus the resemblance

A contextual clue may be verbal, such as a semantically incompatible subject or object, or it may arise from the broader situation. Its presence is necessary to rule out an unintended literal reading, but the clue alone does not determine the precise metaphorical class.

In “killing miserliness,” the resemblance links decisive removal to killing, while the clue is miserliness as the object. With “glad tidings of painful punishment,” opposition creates a sarcastic effect.

The reader should separately identify literal sense, intended transfer and relation, and the feature that blocks the literal reading.

9. Three types by accompanying description

واللفظ ثلاثة أقسام
The borrowed expression has three classes.

Once a metaphor has been established, its accompanying language gives three classes: muṭlaqah (unqualified), mujarradah (stripped), and murashshaḥah (reinforced). This is separate from whether the borrowed expression is a noun, verb, or particle.

The criterion is whether an additional description is specially appropriate to the target (mustaʿār lahu), to the source (mustaʿār minhu), or to neither side in particular.

A clue that blocks literal meaning is not automatically stripping or reinforcement. Accompanying details may elaborate the image, while the clue serves an interpretive necessity.

10. Muṭlaqah: unqualified metaphor

ما لم تقترن بصفة ولا تفريع مما يلائم المستعار له والمستعار منه
A metaphor without a special descriptive addition or extension suited to either the target or the source.

Unqualified metaphor does not mean a metaphor without any contextual indication; metaphor always requires a clue. Here it means that no extra expression has been added to emphasize either the target's distinctive properties or those of the source.

For example, in a context identifying a brave man, simply calling him “asad” without adding characteristic actions of a lion or of the man exemplifies this category.

11. The contextual reading of “ʿindī asad”

عندي أسد
I have a lion with me.

Taken alone, this can be a literal statement about an animal. Calling it metaphorical without context would be unwarranted. If the surrounding discourse establishes that a brave person is intended, “asad” is metaphorical, and in the absence of distinctive accompanying details it is unqualified.

An unqualified metaphor retains the borrowed term without developing additional source or target imagery. The example especially clarifies the distinction between a situational clue and a reinforcing qualification.

12. Mujarradah: stripped metaphor

وهي ما قرنت بما يلائم المستعار له
A metaphor accompanied by something appropriate to its target.

The target (mustaʿār lahu) is the person or thing figuratively described. When the additional language emphasizes traits that belong to that actual target, the discourse draws attention back from the borrowed image toward its real referent. This is tajrīd.

For instance, when a generous person's imagery is developed with a reference to his giving, that action belongs to the human giver, not literally to a garment used as an image. Such an addition may make the metaphor stripped.

13. Stripping in “ʿUmar al-ridāʾ”

عمر الرداء
A figure presented through the garment image, associated here with generous giving.

The source associates the garment (ridāʾ) with the idea of giving. Clothing covers the wearer's exposed state; giving can similarly protect and display a person's standing. The metaphor transfers the garment image to the act or quality of generosity.

Details suited to the gift or the generous person would favor the target and hence yield a stripped metaphor. The judgment rests on the function of the accompanying description, not on the word “garment” alone.

14. A human description alongside a metaphor

إذا تبسّم ضاحكاً
When he smiled with laughter.

A metaphorical designation may be accompanied by a description that calls attention to the target's actual human behavior. References to smiling or laughing can return the reader from a borrowed image to the person described; the crucial question is which side the qualification suits.

Yet the word “smiling” alone does not prove the presence of a metaphor. First identify the expression transferred, the referent, and how the qualifying action relates to it; only then classify the metaphor as stripped or otherwise.

15. Murashshaḥah: reinforced metaphor

وهي ما قرنت بما يلائم المستعار منه
A metaphor accompanied by something appropriate to its source.

The source (mustaʿār minhu) is the original image from which the word is taken. In calling a brave human “asad,” the source is the lion. References to its mane, claws, or hunting behavior can extend the metaphor beyond its name and make the whole leonine image vivid.

This is tarshīḥ, reinforcement. It intensifies the rhetorical claim that the target belongs to the source's kind, but these details are part of an imagined portrayal, not a literal zoological assertion.

16. “With a lion fully armed”

لدى أسد شاكي السلاح
I have a lion who is fully armed.

Here “asad” designates a brave human, while “equipped with weapons” belongs to the human fighter. The phrase therefore adds an element appropriate to the target, not to an actual lion. It should not be called reinforced merely because a bold image appears.

By contrast, adding a lion's mane, claws, or paws evokes the source creature and supplies reinforcement. The borrowed term can remain identical while the kind of accompanying description determines the classification.

17. Mane and unclipped claws as reinforcing details

مُقْذَفٌ له لِبَدٌ أظفارُه لم تُقَلَّمْ
Powerful, with a mane and claws that have not been trimmed.

The image of a lion is applied to a brave person and then expanded with a mane (libad) and claws (aẓfār). These are salient features of the source animal. Their addition therefore counts as reinforcement (tarshīḥ).

No literal mane or claws are being claimed for the praised human. Reinforcement is the rhetorical elaboration of the source image, not just any ornament added to a sentence.

18. Why reinforcement often strengthens the metaphor

A metaphor rhetorically treats the target as belonging to the source's kind. When details characteristic of that source are then attached to the target, the image develops as though the initial claim were fully real.

Asad — calling a brave man a lion.
With mane and claws — carrying the source animal's features further into the portrayal.

The latter creates a more vivid, unified resemblance. For this reason, reinforced metaphor is often considered stronger in hyperbole than the unqualified or stripped forms. This concerns a particular mode of intensification, not a blanket judgment that every reinforced sentence is artistically superior.

19. When target and source details occur together

A single metaphor may attract details suited to both source and target. Calling a soldier “asad” and mentioning both his claws and his weapons evokes the animal's attributes and the human fighter's equipment.

The analysis must distinguish which expression functions as a clue, which is source-oriented reinforcement, and which draws attention back to the target. One description should not be indiscriminately assigned to both categories.

Moreover, an expression that serves as the necessary clue to the metaphor is not automatically an independent instance of stripping or reinforcement.

20. The necessary clue is not the same as reinforcement

A metaphor requires an indication that blocks the intended literal sense. Yet it can still be unqualified: that term means no supplementary source- or target-oriented description, not the absence of any clue.

Clue: evidence that “lion” refers to a brave person rather than an animal.
Reinforcement: evocative lion-features such as mane and claws that strengthen the borrowed image.

Keeping these functions separate avoids the mistake of classifying every metaphor as reinforced simply because it has a clue.

21. Reinforcement and the feigned forgetting of comparison

ومبناها على تناسي التشبيه
Its basis is treating the comparison as though forgotten.

The speaker knows that the brave person is not actually a lion. In reinforcement, however, the language develops as if all relevant attributes of the source also belonged to the target. This is called tanāsī al-tashbīh, the rhetorical suppression, not an actual denial, of the comparison.

The hyperbole is not achieved merely by saying “very brave”; it is achieved by continuing the leonine image through distinctive attributes of the source.

22. Expressing elevated rank as spatial height

وصَعِدَ حتى يظنَّ الجَهولُ بأنَّ له حاجةً في السماء
He rose so high that an ignorant person thought he had business in heaven.

The intended praise concerns exalted rank, not a person's bodily ascent. Moral and social elevation is expressed through physical height, and the image is then extended toward the sky.

The imagined errand in heaven continues the metaphorical elevation. An ignorant observer's literal misunderstanding makes the hyperbole vivid and illustrates how the language can act as though the underlying comparison were forgotten.

23. Imagery sustained without literal assertion

Calling exalted rank “ascending” introduces the basic spatial resemblance. Continuing with an imagined proximity to heaven extends the borrowed image in the same direction.

Two different layers must be distinguished:
Intended meaning: the praised person possesses exceptionally high status.
Imagined depiction: he appears to have physically reached the heavens.

The visual extension conveys intensity, not a historical claim of bodily travel. This distinction matters when distinguishing reinforcement from a simple claim of excellence.

24. A sun that shades from the sun

قامت تظلّلني ومن عجبٍ شمسٌ تظلّلني من الشمس
She stood shading me—astonishingly, a sun shades me from the sun.

The beloved is called a sun through a comparison of beauty and radiance. The poem then assigns that metaphorical “sun” a role that contrasts with what the literal sun does: the beloved protects the speaker from the sun's rays.

The effect is not merely the familiar image of a radiant face. The surprise arises from the interplay between the metaphorical sun and the real one.

25. Wonder and prohibition as rhetorical consequences

لا تعجبوا من بلى غلالته قد زرّ أزراره على القمر
Do not be surprised that his garment has worn; he fastened its buttons upon the moon.

The beloved's face is figured as the moon, and the poet develops a seemingly causal consequence concerning the garment. “Do not be surprised” helps present an imagined explanation as naturally acceptable.

The prohibition is a rhetorical device, not a legal ruling. It shows the speaker proceeding as if the boundary between the compared face and the moon had disappeared.

26. Building a consequence upon the figurative branch

وإذا جاز البناء على الفرع مع الاعتراف بالأصل
And when a consequence may be built upon the figurative branch while acknowledging the original.

A speaker may explicitly preserve both sides of a comparison, then derive further claims from the source image. This resembles reinforcement, but if both the subject and the comparison image are overtly stated, one must be careful before calling the entire expression a technical metaphor.

For instance, calling a person “the sun” and then reasoning from the sun's distance extends the image. The human referent is still acknowledged, even though the discourse develops along solar properties.

27. “She is the sun; her dwelling is in heaven”

هي الشمس مسكنها في السماء
She is the sun, whose dwelling is in heaven.

Both “hiya” (she, the beloved) and “al-shams” (the sun) are explicitly mentioned. Thus the principal formulation resembles an emphatic simile (tashbīh balīgh), asserting the two as though identical. The poet then draws upon the sun's heavenly distance to express the beloved's inaccessibility.

It should not automatically be classified as a straightforward explicit metaphor: the target remains stated, whereas a standard explicit metaphor borrows the source name in place of an omitted target.

28. The boundary between emphatic simile and metaphor

هي الشمس
She is the sun.

Here both the target “hiya” and the source “al-shams” are present. The comparison particle and specified resemblance have been omitted to intensify the identification, but that omission alone does not make the construction a technical metaphor.

رأيت أسداً يرمي
I saw a lion shooting arrows.

In the latter the brave person is not explicitly named; “asad” occupies the target's place, with “yarmī” serving as the clue. Therefore omitting a comparison particle and borrowing the source term must not be confused.

29. Comparative synthesis of the classifications

CategoryDecisive criterionResult
Original / dependentBorrowed word and initial transferGeneric noun versus verb/particle relation
UnqualifiedNo additional source/target qualifierBorrowed image left undeveloped
StrippedTarget-oriented detailsActual referent's traits emphasized
ReinforcedSource-oriented detailsBorrowed image developed
Emphatic simileBoth parties present, particle/feature omittedStrong identification without borrowing alone

These classifications examine different dimensions. A single expression may be both original and reinforced because the first concerns the type of borrowed word, while the second concerns the accompanying imagery.

30. Conclusions and transition

In dependent metaphor, the transferred use of a verb or particle is explained through its underlying meaning. A clue can lie in the subject, object, a word, or the surrounding situation; the resemblance and the clue must be distinguished.

The second classification concerns accompanying details: unqualified has no special source/target addition, stripped adds target-related traits, and reinforced adds source-related traits. Reinforcement is especially vivid when the borrowed image is sustained through further claims.

“Hiya al-shams” also demonstrates why explicitly mentioning the target matters when distinguishing emphatic simile from metaphor. The following section begins al-majāz al-murakkab, figurative use of a whole compound expression.