to say that it must be one?

The second point: Grant that it does not entail oneness, on the grounds that Arabic calls a single body “one”—which is correct. But why must their use of the terms “person” and “volume” entail that it is one? At best, it entails neither oneness nor its negation. Indeed, “this person” may refer to the visible person together with the clothes he wears and the limbs he possesses.

The third point is that shakhs (“person”) is a singular noun whose plurals are ashkhās and shukhūs. It can denote either a particular individual or the class in general, like other comparable words, such as “human being,” “horse,” and the like. The generic sense is more apparent than reference to a particular individual. This is shown by the fact that when a negative particle precedes it—such as mā (“not”) in “There is no person with me” or “There is no human being with me”—the apparent meaning is to negate the entire class. It may, however, be intended to deny that there is just one, as when someone says, “I do not have one person with me, but two.” This remains possible unless it is preceded by an element specific to the generic sense, such as the class-negating lā (“no”) or min (“any”), as in “No person is with me” or “I do not have any person with me.” In these cases, the generic sense must be intended.

That being so, the assertion