then each expression would have multiple literal meanings. If that were so, none of those meanings would come to mind before the others when these expressions were used without qualification, since the evidence for their literal senses would necessarily be equal. Yet there is no doubt that what first comes to mind when ‘lion’ is used without qualification is the predatory beast, and when ‘donkey’ is so used, the animal. The same applies to the remaining examples. Moreover, throughout the ages, people have continually transmitted in their speech and writings, from those who established linguistic usage, the designation of one usage as literal and the other as figurative.

If it is objected:

‘If Arabic contains a figurative expression, its meaning must either be specified by an accompanying indication or not. In the first case, the expression, together with that indication, admits no meaning other than the one intended; thus, together with the indication, it is literal in that meaning. In the second case, it is likewise literal, since literal usage means nothing other than an expression used to convey a meaning without an accompanying indication. Furthermore, there is no instance that cannot be expressed by the literal expression specific to it. Using a figurative expression instead, despite its need for an accompanying indication and without any necessity, is therefore far removed from the wisdom and eloquence of those who established linguistic usage.’

We reply:

The answer to the first objection is that, when a figurative usage is not widely familiar, it conveys its meaning only with an accompanying indication. Figurative usage means nothing other than this kind of use of the expression concerned. Moreover, figurative and literal are attributes of expressions, not of nonverbal indications; hence, literalness cannot be an attribute of the combination.