But this is mistaken according to scholars of Arabic, for mā here is the particle that blocks grammatical governance, not the negative particle. This blocking mā attaches to anna and its sister particles, preventing them from exercising grammatical governance. This is because governing particles are, in principle, restricted to a particular class of words: when they are restricted to nouns or verbs, without effectively forming part of the word itself, they govern those words. Thus, anna and its sister particles are restricted to nouns and therefore govern them. They are called “verb-like particles” because they assign accusative and nominative case and consist of several letters. Prepositions are restricted to nouns and therefore govern them, while conditional particles are restricted to verbs and therefore govern them. Interrogative particles, by contrast, introduce both nominal and verbal sentences and exercise no grammatical governance. The same applies to nominalizing mā.
Accordingly, grammatical analogy would also require negative mā not to exercise governance, as in the dialect of Tamīm. It does, however, exercise governance in the Hijāzī dialect, in which the Quran was revealed, as in His words, exalted is He:
“They are not their mothers,”
and:
“This is no human being.”
This usage is accepted because of its resemblance to laysa (“is not”). Here, when blocking mā attaches to inna, it removes its restriction to nouns, allowing it to introduce both nominal and verbal sentences; its grammatical governance therefore ceases. Examples include His words:
“You are only a warner,”
and His words:
“You are only being repaid for what you used to do.”
The mā following anna may also be a noun rather than a particle, as in His words:
“What they have made is a magician’s trick,”
with “trick” in the nominative. That is: what they have made is a magician’s trick. This differs from His words:
“You can only pass judgment in this worldly life.”
For the accusative reading cannot be sustained if mā means “that which.” Restriction is present in both interpretations, but if