The definite article may be used in both instances, yet the meaning may still differ, as with the expression “the messenger.” This is because the addressee’s knowledge forms part of what determines the meaning, while the expression is literal in both instances. How much more, then, when definiteness through a possessive construction is compared with definiteness through the definite article?

It is thus clear that the expression denoting a human being’s back is not the same expression as that denoting the back of a road. Accordingly, the difference in meaning between the two expressions does not entail homonymy, because homonymy does not occur in a single expression whose meaning differs; and that is not the case here.

If it is objected, “This would entail that there are no homonymous expressions in the language, since a homonymous expression is used only alongside something that clarifies which of its two meanings is intended,” the reply is: Either this conclusion necessarily follows or it does not. If it does not, the objection falls away. If it does, we accept the position of those who deny homonymy, provided that this is indeed the case, just as one accepts the position of those who deny figurative usage.

If it is asked, “How can you deny the existence of homonymy when evidence has established it?” the reply is: We do not concede that evidence has established its existence in the manner they claim. The author of the book, Abū al-Hasan al-Āmidī, himself acknowledges the weakness of the arguments advanced by those who affirm it. He has offered an argument of his own that is weaker still than those advanced by others. For, in his discussion of these questions, he says: