The Specifier
The specifier is an indefinite accusative noun that clears up a vagueness in a thing or in a relation, answering the question of what: ishtaraytu raṭlan ʿasalan, ṭāba Muḥammadun nafsan. The specifier of a thing follows numbers and measures; the specifier of a relation clarifies a whole clause.
A specifier removes vagueness. Say that you bought a measure and the listener waits to hear a measure of what; say wheat and the sentence settles. Sometimes the vagueness sits in one word, and sometimes it sits in the sentence as a whole, and those two cases behave differently. The specifier is also the accusative most often confused with the circumstantial accusative, so this lesson ends with the two questions that separate them.
Learn: removing vagueness
The specifier is an indefinite, solid, additional noun that explains something vague before it, carrying the sense of min, of.
By the end of this lesson
- Separate a specifier of a single word from a specifier of a whole sentence.
- Say when the accusative is obligatory and when the genitive is permitted.
- Trace a transformed specifier back to the subject or object it came from.
- Apply the two questions that separate specifier from circumstantial accusative.
Three words in that definition are load-bearing. Indefinite, so a definite noun there is something else. Solid, jāmid, meaning not derived from a verb, which contrasts with the ḥāl that usually is derived. And carrying the sense of min, which is the test.
اشْتَرَيْتُ صَاعًا قَمْحًا
ishtaraytu ṣāʿan qamḥan
I bought a measure of wheat.
Show the i‘rāb
اشتريتُ فعل وفاعل، صاعًا مفعول به منصوب وعلامة نصبه الفتحة الظاهرة، قمحًا تمييز منصوب وعلامة نصبه الفتحة الظاهرة.
Two accusatives with different jobs. ṣāʿan is what was bought; qamḥan says what the measure consisted of. Insert min between them, ṣāʿan min qamḥin, and the meaning is unchanged, which is the test passing.
See: the specifier of a single word
After measures of volume, weight and area, and after numbers. It is called explicit because the vague word it explains is actually spoken.
اِشْتَرَيْتُ فَدَّانًا أَرْضًا
ishtaraytu faddānan arḍan
I bought an acre of land.
Show the i‘rāb
اشتريتُ فعل وفاعل، فدّانًا مفعول به منصوب وعلامة نصبه الفتحة الظاهرة، أرضًا تمييز منصوب وعلامة نصبه الفتحة الظاهرة.
This kind also permits the genitive: faddānan min arḍin, or faddāna arḍin by annexation. All three are correct, which is not true of the second kind.
إِنِّي رَأَيْتُ أَحَدَ عَشَرَ كَوْكَبًا
innī raʾaytu aḥada ʿashara kawkaban
Indeed I saw eleven stars.
Show the i‘rāb
إنّ حرف توكيد ونصب، والياء ضمير متصل في محل نصب اسم إنّ، رأيتُ فعل وفاعل، أحدَ عشرَ اسم عدد مركب مبني على فتح الجزأين في محل نصب مفعول به، كوكبًا تمييز منصوب وعلامة نصبه الفتحة الظاهرة.
Note the pattern of number specifiers: three to ten take a genitive plural, eleven to ninety-nine take an accusative singular as here, and one hundred upward takes a genitive singular. The number itself is built on the fatḥa of both parts in the compound teens.
Understand: the specifier of relation
Here the vagueness is in the sentence as a whole, not in any single word. Most examples are transformed from an original subject or object, and tracing that origin is what makes the construction clear.
طَابَ مُحَمَّدٌ نَفْسًا
ṭāba Muḥammadun nafsan
Muhammad was good in soul.
Show the i‘rāb
طاب فعل ماضٍ مبني على الفتح، محمدٌ فاعل مرفوع وعلامة رفعه الضمة الظاهرة، نفسًا تمييز منصوب وعلامة نصبه الفتحة الظاهرة.
The original sentence was ṭābat nafsu Muḥammadin, 'Muhammad's soul was good', where nafs was the doer. Moving it into the accusative as a specifier shifts the focus onto Muhammad himself. Tracing the transformation is the most reliable way to recognise this kind.
وَفَجَّرْنَا الْأَرْضَ عُيُونًا
wa-fajjarnā l-arḍa ʿuyūnan
And We caused the earth to burst forth with springs.
Show the i‘rāb
فجّرنا فعل ماضٍ مبني على السكون لاتصاله بنا، ونا ضمير متصل في محل رفع فاعل، الأرضَ مفعول به منصوب وعلامة نصبه الفتحة الظاهرة، عيونًا تمييز منصوب وعلامة نصبه الفتحة الظاهرة.
The original was fajjarnā ʿuyūna l-arḍi. The specifier here must be accusative: a transformed specifier of relation does not permit the genitive, because the accusative is precisely what marks it as transformed.
Check yourself
Which kind of specifier is this, and could it be genitive instead?
اِشْتَرَيْتُ رِطْلًا زَيْتًا
Show the answer
A specifier of a single word, after a measure of weight. Yes: riṭlan min zaytin or riṭla zaytin are both correct.
The vague word riṭlan is spoken, so this is the explicit kind, which permits the genitive with min or by annexation. Only the transformed specifier of relation is locked into the accusative.
Specifier or circumstantial accusative?
Both are indefinite accusatives that come after the sentence is otherwise complete, which is why they are confused. Two questions separate them cleanly.
- What does it answer? A ḥāl answers "how?"; a specifier answers "of what?" or "in what respect?"
- Is it derived or solid? A ḥāl is usually a participle (rākiban, mubtasiman); a specifier is usually a solid noun (qamḥan, nafsan).
- Can min be inserted? If yes, specifier. If not, ḥāl.
- Can it be fronted? A ḥāl may precede its governor; a specifier may not.
Sources
The two kinds, the rulings on case, and the number specifiers follow these texts.
- Ibn Hishām al-Anṣārī, أوضح المسالك: the two kinds and the conditions on each.
- Ibn ʿAqīl, شرح ابن عقيل على ألفية ابن مالك: transformed specifiers and the disagreement over fronting.
- Al-Ashmūnī, شرح الأشموني على الألفية: the specifier of numbers.
Quranic evidence
A rule is clearest in a text you already know by heart. Each ayah below contains the very construction this lesson teaches, and every one has a full word-by-word i'rab on this site. Read the ayah first and try to find the construction yourself, then open its i'rab to check.
- صِبْغَةَ ٱللَّهِ ۖ وَمَنْ أَحْسَنُ مِنَ ٱللَّهِ صِبْغَةًۭ ۖ وَنَحْنُ لَهُۥ عَٰبِدُونَ
- ءَأَنتُمْ أَشَدُّ خَلْقًا أَمِ ٱلسَّمَآءُ ۚ بَنَىٰهَا
- فَمَن يَعْمَلْ مِثْقَالَ ذَرَّةٍ خَيْرًۭا يَرَهُۥ
- فَأَهْلَكْنَآ أَشَدَّ مِنْهُم بَطْشًۭا وَمَضَىٰ مَثَلُ ٱلْأَوَّلِينَ
- يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ لِمَ تَقُولُونَ مَا لَا تَفْعَلُونَ
- وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا۟ ٱلزِّنَىٰٓ ۖ إِنَّهُۥ كَانَ فَٰحِشَةًۭ وَسَآءَ سَبِيلًۭا
Common questions
Frequently asked
What is the difference between the two kinds of specifier?
A specifier of a single word resolves vagueness in one noun already spoken: measures, weights, areas and numbers. A specifier of relation resolves vagueness in the sentence as a whole, with no single vague word to point to, as in ṭāba Muḥammadun nafsan.
May a specifier be genitive?
Only in the first kind. After measures it may be genitive with min or by annexation: ṣāʿun min qamḥin, ṣāʿu qamḥin. A transformed specifier of relation must be accusative, because the accusative is what marks it as transformed.
Can a specifier be definite or a sentence?
No. It is indefinite and a solid noun, jāmid, by rule. Anything definite in that position, or any clause, is something else: an adjective, a circumstantial accusative, or an annexed noun.
Can a specifier precede its governor?
Not in the Baṣran analysis followed here, and that is one reliable way to tell it from the circumstantial accusative, which may be fronted. The Kūfans permitted it where the governor is a fully inflected verb.
How is the specifier of numbers three to ten parsed?
As a genitive plural annexed to the number: thalāthatu kutubin, "three books". From eleven to ninety-nine it is an accusative singular: aḥada ʿashara kawkaban. From one hundred upward it returns to the genitive singular: miʾatu rajulin.
What is the quickest way to spot a specifier?
Try inserting min before it. If "of" or "in terms of" fits the sense, it is a specifier: ishtaraytu ṣāʿan qamḥan means a measure of wheat. If instead the word answers "how?", it is a circumstantial accusative.