Mental Implication and Degrees of Clarity in Indication

Read-only question overview. Answers and scoring remain inside authenticated learner attempts.

• What problem does a polysemous word raise for the three modes?
• In the hypothetical al-shams example, why is indicating the rays from the body-and-rays whole inclusion?
• If al-shams is separately assigned to rays, how does it indicate the rays under that assignment?
• Why does the qualification “insofar as” matter?
• Why is mere co-occurrence in the external world insufficient for iltizām?
• What distinction is illustrated by blindness and sight?
• Which routes to a concomitant are admitted in the discussion?
• Which case is merely an accidental association rather than a sufficient basis of iltizām?
• Why can a rhetorical expression be clearer to one listener?
• What does understanding the technical sense of rafʿ in grammar illustrate?
• What distinguishes an established association from the particular meaning intended now?
• Why does mere lexical synonymy not establish the target difference in clarity?
• If a listener knows asad but not layth, what is missing?
• If two synonyms are known but one is recalled slowly, what distinction is illustrated?
• What does “his cheek resembles a rose” introduce beyond synonym substitution?
• Which expression can suggest generosity with fewer customary intermediate steps?
• Which sequence best captures the traditional inference from abundant ashes to generosity?
• Why is “abundant ashes” not equally transparent in every historical setting?
• Can an indirect expression be more evocative yet less immediate?
• What is illustrated by the progression human → animal → body?
• What is the correct account of “part” in taḍammun?
• Does already knowing “animal” invalidate taḍammun of “human” toward animal?
• What ultimately determines correspondence, inclusion, and implication?
• Which new substantive heading follows this treatment of indication?
• A polysemous term can have several separate assignments, each requiring its own analysis of the signified relation.
• Mental implication in bayān always requires every listener to apprehend the concomitant instantly without clues.
• Specialized convention can fix a technical sense, but any arbitrary personal association is not thereby a recognized indication.
• The multiple steps between abundant ashes and generosity make the rhetorical use necessarily invalid.
• Taḍammun can involve an analytic conceptual component, not only a material part.