that is with the king subsists in the person making it. These expressions retain their apparent meanings and are literal, just like the earlier examples.

Indeed, grammarians say that an adverbial expression is, strictly speaking, connected only to an explicit or implicit verb. When it is connected to entities or attributes in the predicate of a nominal sentence, an attributive expression, or a circumstantial qualifier, its governing element is a verb or an active participle with a general meaning. Thus, when one says, “Zayd is in the house,” the implied wording is “has settled in the house” or “is settled in the house,” or an expression such as “was,” “came to be,” “was found,” “being,” “existing,” and the like.

They say that explicitly mentioning the governing element of an adverbial expression in the predicate of a nominal sentence is “an abrogated law.” Their more discerning scholars, however, say that this was never a law at all: speakers of the language never expressed themselves this way. Rather, grammatical analogy requires it, but it is left unspoken because the meaning is clear without it and there is no need to state it. Their purpose is to apply consistently the principle that an adverbial expression takes the accusative only through an explicit or implied verb. Some dispute this, and the subject involves discussions for which this is not the place.

They also say, “So-and-so is, in so-and-so’s estimation, learned, upright, or a Muslim”; “This, in his view, is permissible or forbidden”; and “This, in his estimation, is beloved or disliked, great or insignificant,” and the like. An instance of this is what Allah Most High says concerning