Lesson Forty-Five

Lesson Forty-Five

الدَّرْسُ الْخَامِسُ وَالْأَرْبَعُونَ

The Sixth Observation: The Originality and Derivativeness of the Verbal Noun

الْإِفَادَةُ السَّادِسَةُ: أَصَالَةُ الْمَصْدَرِ وَفَرْعِيَّتُهُ

The Basrans and Kufans differed concerning the originality and derivativeness of the verbal noun and the verb. According to the Kufans, the verb is the original and the verbal noun is its derivative; according to the Basrans, the reverse is true. The basis of the disagreement is this: Is the past-tense verb the original and that from which derivation occurs, while the verbal noun is a derivative and something derived, or is the reverse true?

اخْتَلَفَ الْبَصْرِيُّونَ وَالْكُوفِيُّونَ فِي أَصَالَةِ الْمَصْدَرِ وَالْفِعْلِ وَفَرْعِيَّتِهِمَا، فَالْفِعْلُ أَصْلٌ عِنْدَ الْكُوفِيِّينَ وَالْمَصْدَرُ فَرْعُهُ، وَعِنْدَ الْبَصْرِيِّينَ عَكْسُهُ، وَأَصْلُ الِاخْتِلَافِ أَنَّ الْفِعْلَ الْمَاضِيَ أَصْلٌ وَمُشْتَقٌّ مِنْهُ، وَالْمَصْدَرُ فَرْعٌ وَمُشْتَقٌّ؟ أَمْ بِالْعَكْسِ؟

According to the Basrans, the verbal noun is the original and that from which derivation occurs. They support this with a semantic argument: the meaning of the verbal noun is the material and origin of the meanings of all verbs and derived nouns. The verbal noun is therefore the origin of all derivatives.

فَعِنْدَ الْبَصْرِيِّينَ “الْمَصْدَرُ” أَصْلٌ وَمُشْتَقٌّ مِنْهُ، وَيَسْتَدِلُّونَ بِأَمْرٍ مَعْنَوِيٍّ: أَنَّ الْمَعْنَى الْمَصْدَرِيَّ مَادَّةٌ وَأَصْلٌ لِمَعَانِي جَمِيعِ الْأَفْعَالِ وَالْأَسْمَاءِ الْمُشْتَقَّةِ، فَيَكُونُ الْمَصْدَرُ أَصْلًا لِجَمِيعِ الْمُشْتَقَّاتِ.

Among the arguments used to establish that the verbal noun is the original and the verb a derivative is the fashioning of vessels and ornaments from gold. The substance of gold and silver exists first, and vessels and ornaments are then fashioned from them. The substance of gold and silver is therefore the original, while what is fashioned from it is the derivative. In the same way, they say, the verbal noun exists first and the verb is then taken from it. Thus the verbal noun is the original and the verb is the derivative.

وَمِمَّا يُسْتَدَلُّ بِهِ عَلَى كَوْنِ الْمَصْدَرِ أَصْلًا وَالْفِعْلِ فَرْعًا صَوْغُ الْأَوَانِي وَالْحُلِيِّ مِنَ الذَّهَبِ، بِأَنَّ مَادَّةَ الذَّهَبِ وَالْفِضَّةِ تُوجَدُ أَوَّلًا ثُمَّ تُصَاغُ مِنْهُمَا الْأَوَانِي وَالْحُلِيُّ، فَالْأَصْلُ هُوَ مَادَّةُ الذَّهَبِ وَالْفِضَّةِ، وَالْفَرْعُ هُوَ الْمَصُوغُ مِنْهَا، فَهَكَذَا الْمَصْدَرُ أَيْضًا يُوجَدُ أَوَّلًا ثُمَّ يُؤْخَذُ مِنْهُ الْفِعْلُ، فَالْمَصْدَرُ هُوَ الْأَصْلُ وَالْفِعْلُ هُوَ الْفَرْعُ.

According to the Kufans, the past-tense verb is the original. They support this with formal linguistic considerations. For example, the verbal noun frequently follows the verb in weak-letter modification, and weak-letter modification is a formal matter. For this reason they say: The verbal noun is formally a derivative of the verb.

وَعِنْدَ الْكُوفِيِّينَ “الْفِعْلُ الْمَاضِي أَصْلٌ”، وَيَسْتَدِلُّونَ بِأُمُورٍ لَفْظِيَّةٍ، مَثَلًا: أَنَّ الْمَصْدَرَ كَثِيرًا مَا يَكُونُ تَابِعًا لِلْفِعْلِ فِي الْإِعْلَالِ، وَالْإِعْلَالُ أَمْرٌ لَفْظِيٌّ، وَلِأَجْلِ هَذَا يَقُولُونَ: “إِنَّ الْمَصْدَرَ فَرْعٌ لِلْفِعْلِ لَفْظًا”.

The teacher used to prefer the Kufan position. You will also find strong proofs for the superiority of this position, as follows:

وَكَانَ الْأُسْتَاذُ يُرَجِّحُ مَذْهَبَ الْكُوفِيِّينَ، وَلَتَجِدَنَّ دَلَائِلَ قَوِيَّةً أَيْضًا عَلَى رُجْحَانِ هَذَا الْمَذْهَبِ، وَهِيَ كَمَا يَلِي:

First Proof

أَوَّلًا:

The discussion concerns derivation, and derivation is one of the formal linguistic matters, even though it sometimes relates to meaning. We must therefore examine the word forms of the past-tense verb and the verbal noun and ask whether the past tense is suited to be the original and material, or the verbal noun.

أَنَّ الْكَلَامَ دَائِرٌ فِي الِاشْتِقَاقِ، وَالِاشْتِقَاقُ مِنَ الْأُمُورِ اللَّفْظِيَّةِ، وَإِنْ كَانَ يَتَعَلَّقُ أَحْيَانًا بِالْمَعْنَى، فَلَا بُدَّ أَنْ نَتَأَمَّلَ فِي أَلْفَاظِ الْفِعْلِ الْمَاضِي وَالْمَصْدَرِ، بِأَنَّ الْفِعْلَ الْمَاضِيَ يَصْلُحُ أَنْ يَكُونَ أَصْلًا وَمَادَّةً، أَمِ الْمَصْدَرُ….؟

Upon examination, it becomes clear that the past tense is suited to be the original and material, not the verbal noun. Every letter found in the past tense is necessarily also found in the verbal noun, as in كَرَامَةٌ, the verbal noun of كَرُمَ, but the reverse is not true.

فَيَتَحَقَّقُ عِنْدَ التَّأَمُّلِ أَنَّ الْمَاضِيَ يَلِيقُ بِأَنْ يَكُونَ أَصْلًا وَمَادَّةً لَا الْمَصْدَرُ؛ لِأَنَّ جَمِيعَ الْحُرُوفِ الَّتِي تُوجَدُ فِي الْمَاضِي فَهِيَ تُوجَدُ فِي الْمَصْدَرِ أَيْضًا وُجُوبًا، مِثْلُ: كَرَامَةٍ مَصْدَرِ كَرُمَ، وَلَا عَكْسَ.

The letters of the verbal noun exceed those of the past tense in all patterns except the seven patterns of the basic triliteral verb, namely قَتَلَ، فَسُقَ، شَكَرَ، طَلَبَ، خَنِقَ، صَغُرَ، هَدَى, and except three patterns among verbs other than the basic triliteral, namely تَفَاعَلَ، تَفَعْلَلَ، تَفَعَّلَ.

وَهَكَذَا تَزِيدُ حُرُوفُ الْمَصْدَرِ عَلَى حُرُوفِ الْمَاضِي فِي جَمِيعِ الْأَوْزَانِ غَيْرَ الْأَوْزَانِ السَّبْعَةِ لِلثُّلَاثِيِّ الْمُجَرَّدِ - أَعْنِي: قَتَلَ، فَسُقَ، شَكَرَ، طَلَبَ، خَنِقَ، صَغُرَ، هَدَى - وَغَيْرَ الْأَوْزَانِ الثَّلَاثَةِ لِغَيْرِ الثُّلَاثِيِّ الْمُجَرَّدِ - أَعْنِي: تَفَاعَلَ، تَفَعْلَلَ، تَفَعَّلَ -.

It is apparent that what is found throughout all the derivatives is more suited to be the original and material, not the reverse. Likewise, that to which letters are added has a greater claim to originality and materiality than what has been augmented. The presence of the letters of the past tense in the verbal nouns is very clear. It is therefore established that the past tense is the original and the verbal noun is a derivative.

وَالظَّاهِرُ أَنَّ الَّذِي يُوجَدُ فِي جَمِيعِ الْفُرُوعِ يَلِيقُ بِأَنْ يَكُونَ أَصْلًا وَمَادَّةً، وَلَا عَكْسَهُ، وَهَكَذَا أَنَّ الْمَزِيدَ عَلَيْهِ أَحَقُّ وَأَلْيَقُ بِالْأَصَالَةِ وَالْمَادِّيَّةِ لَا الْمَزِيدُ، وَوُجُودُ حُرُوفِ الْمَاضِي فِي الْمَصَادِرِ وَاضِحٌ جِدًّا، فَثَبَتَ أَنَّ الْمَاضِيَ أَصْلٌ وَالْمَصْدَرُ فَرْعٌ.

As for the wāw in اِخْشَوْشَنَ and the alif in اِدْهَامَّ not being present in اِخْشِيشَانٌ and إِدْهِيمَامٌ, both became yāʾ because they occurred after a kasrah in the two verbal nouns, according to the rule of مِيعَادٌ and مَخَارِيطُ (Rule 3). If the verbal noun were the material and original, the past-tense forms would have been اِخْشِيشَنَ and إِدْهِيمَمَ, and the same would apply to all verbs and nouns derived from them. There is no rule that changes yāʾ into wāw in the past tense اِخْشَوْشَنَ or into alif in the past tense اِدْهَامَّ.

أَمَّا الْوَاوُ الْمَوْجُودَةُ فِي “اِخْشَوْشَنَ” وَالْأَلِفُ فِي “اِدْهَامَّ” غَيْرُ مَوْجُودَتَيْنِ فِي “اِخْشِيشَانٍ وَإِدْهِيمَامٍ”؛ فَلِأَجْلِ وُقُوعِهِمَا بَعْدَ الْكَسْرَةِ فِي الْمَصْدَرَيْنِ صَارَتَا يَاءً طِبْقًا لِـ”مِيعَادٍ وَمَخَارِيطَ” (ق: ٣)، وَلَوْ كَانَ الْمَصْدَرُ مَادَّةً وَأَصْلًا لَكَانَ الْمَاضِي “اِخْشِيشَنَ وَإِدْهِيمَمَ”، وَهَكَذَا جَمِيعُ الْأَفْعَالِ وَالْأَسْمَاءِ الْمُشْتَقَّةِ مِنْهُمَا؛ لِأَنَّهُ لَا تُوجَدُ قَاعِدَةٌ لِإِبْدَالِ الْيَاءِ بِالْوَاوِ فِي “اِخْشَوْشَنَ”، وَالْأَلِفِ فِي “اِدْهَامَّ” الْمَاضِيَيْنِ.

As for not finding the repeated letter in the verbal noun of Form II even though it is repeated in the past tense, as in صَرَّفَ تَصْرِيفًا, it has been replaced by yāʾ. For example, تَحْمِيدٌ was originally تَحَمْمِيدٌ. The second mīm was changed to yāʾ, so it is originally present in the verbal noun. We have frequently seen in doubled forms that the second letter is replaced by a weak letter to remove heaviness. For example, دَسَّاهَا was originally دَسَّسَهَا, and the second sīn was changed to alif.

وَأَمَّا عَدَمُ وُجْدَانِ الْحَرْفِ الْمُكَرَّرِ فِي “التَّفْعِيلِ” مَعَ كَوْنِهِ مُكَرَّرًا فِي الْمَاضِي، مِثْلُ: صَرَّفَ تَصْرِيفًا؛ فَإِنَّهُ تَبَدَّلَ بِالْيَاءِ، مِثْلُ: “تَحْمِيدٍ” كَانَ فِي الْأَصْلِ “تَحَمْمِيدٌ”، فَقُلِبَتِ الْمِيمُ الثَّانِيَةُ يَاءً فَإِنَّهَا فِي الْمَصْدَرِ مَوْجُودَةٌ أَصْلًا، وَكَثِيرًا مَا رَأَيْنَا فِي الْمُضَاعَفِ أَنَّ الْحَرْفَ الثَّانِيَ يُبْدَلُ بِحَرْفِ الْعِلَّةِ دَفْعًا لِلثِّقَلِ، مِثْلُ: “دَسَّاهَا” كَانَ فِي الْأَصْلِ: دَسَّسَهَا، فَالسِّينُ الثَّانِيَةُ تَبَدَّلَتْ بِالْأَلِفِ.

Question: Other verbal nouns from Form II and Form III contradict your answer, such as تَبْصِرَةٌ، تَسْمِيَةٌ، سَلَامٌ، كَلَامٌ، قِتَالٌ and قِيتَالٌ. It is apparent that not all the letters of the past tense are found in these verbal nouns.

سُؤَالٌ: يَنْقُضُ جَوَابَكُمْ هَذَا مَصَادِرُ أُخْرَى مِنَ التَّفْعِيلِ وَالْمُفَاعَلَةِ، مِثْلُ: تَبْصِرَةٍ وَتَسْمِيَةٍ وَسَلَامٍ وَكَلَامٍ وَقِتَالٍ وَقِيتَالٍ، كَمَا هُوَ الظَّاهِرُ أَنَّ حُرُوفَ الْمَاضِي كُلَّهَا لَا تُوجَدُ فِي هَذِهِ الْمَصَادِرِ؟

Answer: Consideration is given to the verbal nouns that occur in the form as the original and general pattern. Verbal nouns that occur only rarely are not considered. From another perspective, it has been said that سَلَامٌ and كَلَامٌ are nouns expressing the verbal-noun meaning, not true verbal nouns. As for the pattern تَفْعِلَةٌ, they said that its original pattern is تَفْعِيلٌ.

جَوَابٌ: تُعْتَبَرُ الْمَصَادِرُ الَّتِي تُوجَدُ فِي الْبَابِ أَصْلًا وَكُلِّيَّةً، أَمَّا الْمَصَادِرُ الْقَلِيلَةُ الْوُجُودِ فَلَا اعْتِبَارَ لَهَا، وَمِنْ نَاحِيَةٍ أُخْرَى قِيلَ: إِنَّ “السَّلَامَ وَالْكَلَامَ” اسْمَا مَصْدَرٍ، وَلَيْسَا بِمَصْدَرَيْنِ، وَأَمَّا وَزْنُ “تَفْعِلَةٍ” فَقَالُوا: أَصْلُهُ تَفْعِيلٌ.

Thus تَسْمِيَةٌ was originally تَسْمِيوٌ. The yāʾ was deleted and a tāʾ was added at the end as compensation. The wāw was changed to yāʾ because it was the fourth radical, according to the rule of يُدْعَى (Rule 20), producing تَسْمِيَةٌ.

فَـ”التَّسْمِيَةُ” فِي الْأَصْلِ “تَسْمِيوٌ”، حُذِفَتِ الْيَاءُ وَزِيدَتْ فِي الْآخِرِ تَاءٌ لِلْعِوَضِ، وَالْوَاوُ تَبَدَّلَتْ بِالْيَاءِ لِرَابِعِيَّتِهَا طِبْقًا لِـ”يُدْعَى” (ق: ٢٠) فَصَارَتْ “تَسْمِيَةً”.

In قِيتَالٌ, the alif that occurred in the past tense قَاتَلَ was changed to yāʾ because of the kasrah before it. As for قِتَالٌ, it is a contracted form of قِيتَالٌ. Thus all the letters of the past tense are present in the verbal nouns, even if only by estimation.

وَفِي “قِيتَالٍ” تَبَدَّلَتِ الْأَلِفُ - الَّتِي كَانَتْ فِي الْمَاضِي، أَيْ قَاتَلَ - بِالْيَاءِ لِلْكَسْرَةِ مَا قَبْلَهَا، وَأَمَّا “قِتَالٌ” فَهُوَ مُخَفَّفُ “قِيتَالٍ”، فَحُرُوفُ الْمَاضِي بِتَمَامِهَا تُوجَدُ فِي الْمَصَادِرِ وَلَوْ تَقْدِيرًا.

Second Proof

ثَانِيًا:

The verb exists without the verbal noun, but not the reverse, as with لَيْسَ and عَسَى. If the verbal noun were the original, the derivative would not exist without its original.

الْفِعْلُ يُوجَدُ بِدُونِ الْمَصْدَرِ وَلَيْسَ الْعَكْسُ، مِثْلُ: “لَيْسَ وَعَسَى” فَلَوْ كَانَ الْمَصْدَرُ أَصْلًا لَمَا وُجِدَ الْفَرْعُ بِدُونِ الْأَصْلِ.

As for the claim that there are barren verbal nouns, meaning that they have no verbs and possess only active-participle forms, such as مَتْنٌ and تَقْسِيمٌ, we do not concede this. Verbs are derived from both of them, as is apparent from Mukhtār al-Ṣiḥāḥ and al-Qāmūs.

وَأَمَّا مَا قِيلَ: إِنَّ هُنَاكَ مَصَادِرَ عَقِيمَةً، أَيْ لَيْسَتْ لَهَا أَفْعَالٌ إِلَّا صِيَغُ اسْمِ الْفَاعِلِ، مِثْلُ: “مَتْنٌ وَتَقْسِيمٌ”، فَلَا نُسَلِّمُ هَذَا؛ لِأَنَّ مِنْ كِلَيْهِمَا تَأْتِي الْأَفْعَالُ، كَمَا هُوَ ظَاهِرٌ مِنْ “مُخْتَارِ الصِّحَاحِ” وَ“الْقَامُوسِ”.

Third Proof

ثَالِثًا:

The Basrans say that the verbal-noun meaning is the material and origin of the meanings of verbs and derived nouns because the word form of the verb is derived from the word form of the verbal noun. But when we consider the reality of formal linguistic derivation, it becomes clear that it consists in a relationship between two words in both wording and meaning. Whenever we can construct and derive one word from another, we make the first the constructed and derived form, and the second that upon which it is constructed and from which it is derived.

إِنَّ الْبَصْرِيِّينَ يَقُولُونَ: إِنَّ الْمَعْنَى الْمَصْدَرِيَّ مَادَّةٌ وَأَصْلٌ لِمَعَانِي الْأَفْعَالِ وَالْأَسْمَاءِ الْمُشْتَقَّةِ؛ لِأَنَّ لَفْظَ الْفِعْلِ يَكُونُ مُشْتَقًّا مِنْ لَفْظِ الْمَصْدَرِ، لَكِنْ إِذَا تَفَكَّرْنَا فِي حَقِيقَةِ الِاشْتِقَاقِ اللَّفْظِيِّ فَيَظْهَرُ أَنَّ حَقِيقَةَ الِاشْتِقَاقِ اللَّفْظِيِّ هُوَ: أَنْ تُوجَدَ مُنَاسَبَةٌ بَيْنَ الْكَلِمَتَيْنِ لَفْظًا وَمَعْنًى، وَمَهْمَا تَيَسَّرَ لَنَا بِنَاءُ لَفْظٍ وَاشْتِقَاقُهُ مِنْ لَفْظٍ آخَرَ نَجْعَلُ الْأَوَّلَ مَبْنِيًّا وَمُشْتَقًّا وَالثَّانِيَ مَبْنِيًّا عَلَيْهِ وَمُشْتَقًّا مِنْهُ.

As for your argument from fashioning vessels and ornaments from gold and silver, gold and silver first exist and the vessels and ornaments are then fashioned from them. Gold and silver are therefore originals, while manufactured objects such as vessels and ornaments are derivatives. You then compare the verbal noun and verb to them by saying that the verbal noun exists first and verbs are later taken from it.

وَأَمَّا اسْتِدْلَالُكُمْ بِصَوْغِ الْأَوَانِي وَالْحُلِيِّ مِنَ الذَّهَبِ وَالْفِضَّةِ: بِأَنَّهُ أَوَّلًا يُوجَدُ الذَّهَبُ وَالْفِضَّةُ ثُمَّ تُصَاغُ مِنْهُمَا الْأَوَانِي وَالْحُلِيُّ فَصَارَ الذَّهَبُ وَالْفِضَّةُ أَصْلًا، وَأَمَّا الْمَصْنُوعُ كَالْأَوَانِي وَالْحُلِيِّ فَصَارَتْ فَرْعًا، ثُمَّ قِسْتُمْ عَلَيْهَا الْمَصْدَرَ وَالْفِعْلَ بِأَنَّ الْمَصْدَرَ يُوجَدُ أَوَّلًا ثُمَّ تُؤْخَذُ مِنْهُ الْأَفْعَالُ.

This argument is also invalid because it is an analogy involving a material difference. The object to which comparison is made consists of physical bodies, in which priority and posteriority can be conceived. But the compared objects, the verb and the verbal noun, do not admit such priority and posteriority because they are meanings, and meanings exist together by virtue of linguistic assignment and usage.

وَلَكِنَّ هَذَا الِاسْتِدْلَالَ أَيْضًا بَاطِلٌ؛ لِأَنَّ هَذَا قِيَاسٌ مَعَ الْفَارِقِ؛ لِأَنَّ الْمَقِيسَ عَلَيْهِ مِنَ الْأَجْسَامِ فَيُتَصَوَّرُ فِيهِ الْأَوَّلِيَّةُ وَالثَّانَوِيَّةُ، وَلَكِنَّ الْمَقِيسَ - الْفِعْلُ وَالْمَصْدَرُ - مَا لَا يُتَصَوَّرُ فِيهِ الْأَوَّلِيَّةُ وَالثَّانَوِيَّةُ؛ لِكَوْنِهِمَا مِنَ الْمَعَانِي، وَالْمَعَانِي تُوجَدُ مَعًا بِاعْتِبَارِ الْوَضْعِ وَالِاسْتِعْمَالِ.

A Benefit

فَائِدَةٌ:

Many people who are not careful investigators make an error when explaining this disagreement. They say that the disagreement between the Kufans and Basrans concerns originality and derivativeness absolutely: according to the Basrans the verbal noun is the original because the verb is derived from it, while according to the Kufans the verb is the original because the verbal noun follows the verb in weak-letter modification.

إِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِنَ النَّاسِ غَيْرِ الْمُحَقِّقِينَ يُخْطِئُونَ فِي بَيَانِ هَذَا الِاخْتِلَافِ وَيَقُولُونَ: إِنَّ الِاخْتِلَافَ بَيْنَ الْكُوفِيِّينَ وَالْبَصْرِيِّينَ فِي الْأَصَالَةِ وَالْفَرْعِيَّةِ مُطْلَقًا، فَالْمَصْدَرُ أَصْلٌ عِنْدَ الْبَصْرِيِّينَ؛ لِأَنَّ الْفِعْلَ مُشْتَقٌّ مِنْهُ، وَعِنْدَ الْكُوفِيِّينَ الْفِعْلُ أَصْلٌ؛ لِأَنَّ الْمَصْدَرَ تَابِعٌ لِلْفِعْلِ فِي الْإِعْلَالِ.

They then arbitrate between the two groups by saying that the verbal noun is the original with respect to derivation, while the verb is the original with respect to weak-letter modification. All of this is incorrect. The correct position is what we have stated.

ثُمَّ يُحَاكِمُونَ بَيْنَ هَؤُلَاءِ وَهَؤُلَاءِ: أَنَّ الْمَصْدَرَ أَصْلٌ مِنْ حَيْثُ الِاشْتِقَاقُ، وَالْفِعْلُ أَصْلٌ مِنْ حَيْثُ الْإِعْلَالُ، وَهَذَا كُلُّهُ خَطَأٌ، وَالصَّحِيحُ مَا قُلْنَاهُ.

In conclusion, according to the Basrans the derived nouns are six: the active participle, passive participle, noun of place or time, instrument noun, adjective resembling the active participle, and comparative or superlative noun. According to the Kufans they are seven, because the verbal noun is added to these six.

فَالْحَاصِلُ أَنَّ الْأَسْمَاءَ الْمُشْتَقَّةَ سِتَّةٌ عِنْدَ الْبَصْرِيِّينَ، وَهِيَ: اسْمُ الْفَاعِلِ وَاسْمُ الْمَفْعُولِ وَاسْمُ الظَّرْفِ وَاسْمُ الْآلَةِ وَالصِّفَةُ الْمُشَبَّهَةُ وَاسْمُ التَّفْضِيلِ، وَعِنْدَ الْكُوفِيِّينَ سَبْعَةٌ وَيُضَمُّ إِلَى هَذِهِ السِّتَّةِ الْمَصْدَرُ أَيْضًا.

The disagreement originally concerns derivation, not originality and derivativeness: whether the verb is derived from the verbal noun or the reverse. The strong proofs require preference for the second position, which is the Kufan position, as we have explained.

وَالِاخْتِلَافُ أَصْلًا فِي الِاشْتِقَاقِ لَا فِي الْأَصَالَةِ وَالْفَرْعِيَّةِ، بِأَنَّ الْفِعْلَ مُشْتَقٌّ مِنَ الْمَصْدَرِ أَوْ عَكْسَهُ، فَتَقْتَضِي الْأَدِلَّةُ الْقَوِيَّةُ تَرْجِيحَ الثَّانِي الَّذِي هُوَ مَذْهَبُ الْكُوفِيِّينَ كَمَا بَيَّنَّاهُ.