Section

The second category comprises what is outwardly clear in conveying the speaker’s intent yet still allows for interpretation. One must therefore look at the contexts in which it occurs: if its usage is consistently upon a single sense, it becomes impossible to interpret it in a way that contradicts its apparent meaning, for interpretation is applied only to a case (1) that appears rarely, standing apart from its parallels; it is then interpreted so that (2) it may be brought back into conformity with those parallels. Such interpretation is not inadmissible, because when the speaker’s habit is known—through the repeated (3) employment of a meaning with which the addressee (4) is familiar—then, should a passage arise that departs from that norm, the listener refers it back, on the basis of what he knows of the speaker’s custom, to that consistent habit. This is what the mind and natural disposition perceive, and what all (5) rational people acknowledge.

The foremost authorities of Arabic have declared explicitly that an element may be deemed omitted only when, in the very place where its omission is alleged, its explicit occurrence is more frequent than its omission. Hence, the locus in which deletion is claimed must be suited to explicit mention, and that explicit mention must, moreover, outweigh the omission (6), so that (7) when it occurs without being stated in a given context, the abundance of its stated occurrence in analogous contexts makes it clear that it has been removed here and should be supplied implicitly. Such is the practice of anyone who seeks clarity of expression.