"THE REPLACEMENT OF ONE SOURCE WITH ANOTHER WHEN BOTH CONVEY A SIMILAR MEANING

Abstract

This section aims to address a possible misconception that may arise in understanding the meaning of the condition mentioned in its title. It is not intended to imply restriction or limitation, but rather to acknowledge a linguistic phenomenon that occurs. The substitution of one verbal noun (masdar) for another does not necessarily require the meanings to be identical; rather, it indicates the possibility of such substitution whenever there is a shared meaning between them, even if their meanings differ.

This expansion in usage is rooted in a fundamental principle within the structure of the Arabic language. Although language generally follows its established rules and foundations, it may occasionally deviate from them, leading to the use of a word in a sense other than its original one. However, this deviation does not constitute a complete departure, as semantic connections remain between the original and the employed meanings.

This semantic flexibility is attributed to the centrality of meaning within the linguistic framework. Eloquence is measured by it, grammatical parsing is based upon it, and the arrangement of words follows the order of meanings in the mind. Consequently, Arabs permitted a degree of interchangeability among words, provided the intended meaning was conveyed; thus, words are subordinate to meanings, not the reverse.

Grammarians have long upheld the primacy of meaning and have referred to it in numerous grammatical contexts. For example, Sibawayh, Al-Mubarrad, and others argued against the permissibility of using a temporal adverbial phrase (Time Adverbial) as a predicate of an inanimate subject, reasoning that temporal circumstances do not inherently convey the notion of stability in inanimate entities, making the occurrence of an inanimate subject “existing in time” meaningless.

Similarly, this principle extends to the substitution of one verbal noun for another when there is semantic compatibility. This form of linguistic expansion is most apparent in the category of the absolute object (Absolute Object), which is employed to emphasize the action, specify its type, or indicate its frequency—for example: “He struck a strike,” “The prince struck,” or “He struck him twice.”

Sometimes, the role of the absolute object is assumed by words that are not originally verbal nouns but are nevertheless placed in the accusative case to function as absolute objects in place of a verbal noun, such as instrument nouns or the words” (all) and” (some) when attached to a verbal noun.

The rationale behind this is that the verb operates on what its indication signifies—it unquestionably operates on its verbal noun, as in the phrase “I stood a standing), to demonstrate the indication of the term. It also operates on expressions that share its meaning, even if they are not morphologically derived from the verb, provided there is a semantic or derivational connection that justifies the substitution.

A verbal noun not derived from the verb may substitute for the original verbal noun if it is synonymous in meaning or derived from another verb sharing the same root or pattern, as long as this does not cause ambiguity and supports correct comprehension.

This substitution is classified into two types:

• The first: a verbal noun that shares derivational origin with the verb but is not directly derived from it; rather, it is derived from a different verb.
• The second: a verbal noun synonymous with the verb in meaning, even if it does not share its derivation.

Such substitution occurs only after confirming clarity of meaning, which indicates that the Arabs valued meanings highly. Once meanings were secured, they showed flexibility in expressing them. This linguistic practice has a rhetorical advantage, as it allows for the condensation of diverse meanings into concise expressions, grants style breadth and flexibility, and opens the door to multiple interpretations and readings.