CATEGORIZATION OF ṢIFAT MUSYABBAHAH (ATTRIBUTIVE ADJECTIVES OF ARABIC)

Ṣifat musyabbahah (SM) merupakan subkelas nomina Bahasa Arab, yang dimunculkan oleh para tata bahasawan klasik Bahasa Arab, yang bentuk dan maknanya tidak teratur. Tulisan ini bertujuan untuk mengkategorikan SM melalui pendekatan kelas kata lintas-bahasa. Data berupa SM bebas konteks dan SM terikat konteks yang diperoleh dari buku-buku tata bahasa Arab, serta korpus dan kamus daring Bahasa Arab. Kemudian, data dianalisis dengan pendekatan kelas kata lintas-bahasa, yaitu integrasi analisis sintaksis, morfologi, dan leksikal. Hasilnya ialah SM dapat dikategorikan ke dalam 6 jenis SM yang meliputi 1) SM dalam arti sempit, 2) SM sebagai bentuk/wazan antara ism fā’il dan ism maf’ūl, 3) SM sebagai inkorporasi nomina absolut, 4) SM sebagai leksikalisasi metaforis, 5) SM sebagai istilah kekerabatan dan kategori sosial, dan 6) ism non-SM.


INTRODUCTION
Ṣifat musyabbahah (SM) is one of important subjects in Arabic grammar that have irregular word-form and meaning. In this section, it will be presented what SM is, the problems, and research focus.

Definition of SM
SM is one of Arabic noun subclasses. Generally, SM is defined based on potential to be noun attribute, derivation, and abstraction of lexical features. For example, Al-Yamaniy & An-Nūr (2016:1) who elaborated various definitions of SM from various classical Arabic grammatical literatures 1 stated that: 'The essence of ṣifat musyabbahah is a derivative attributive noun, which is derived from intransitive verb in order to relate an event to an attributed-for
Each of SM-patterns overlap with other noun subclasses. Pattern ‫أ‬ َ ‫ﻓ‬ ‫ـ‬ ْ ‫ﻌ‬ َ ‫ﻞ‬ ُ , for example, is noun-pattern used for both SM and elative-noun (ism tafḍīl). Pattern ‫ﻓ‬ َ ‫ﻌ‬ ِ ‫ﻴ‬ ‫ﻞ‬ ٌ , for another example, is not only used for SM, but also for gerund, common noun, excessive noun and broken plural noun, e.g.  ', literally. (lit.). 'man like a lion' The linguistic phenomena in the examples were not much explained by grammarians. Al-Gulāyainiy (1993:190) According to him, this variation is a result of the morphophonological process. This claim may be applied to data 1-3, whereas data 4-6 aren' t very precise. Another possibility is that different patterns allow different categories. For example, maybe categorized as an excessive adjective (ṣigāh mubālagah) whose ‫ﻓ‬ ‫ـ‬ َ ‫ﻌ‬ ُ ‫ﻮ‬ ْ ‫ٌل‬ and ‫ﻓ‬ ‫ـ‬ َ ‫ﻌ‬ ْ ‫ﻼ‬ َ ‫ن‬ ُ are as apart of it`s word-patterns.

Derivation of SM
As mentioned already, SM is derived from verb. This notion causes three problems. Firstly, it is related to transitivity. Some grammarians believed that SM is only derived from intransitive verbs. However, other grammarians (Al-'Ubaidiy & Al-Jamīliy, 2012, Al-Maṣārawah Invalid source specified., Al-Gulāyainiy, 1993) said that SM can be derived from transitive verbs. The first grammarians group considered what is derived from transitive verbs is not SM, but excessive adjective. Secondly, there are SM`s which is asymmetrical to their`s verb-pattern. SMtriliteral should be derived from triliteral verb, but there are SM-triliteral derived from augmented-verb (fi'l mazīd) instead. For examples, ‫ﺣ‬ َ ‫ﺠ‬ ِ ‫ﲑ‬ ْ ٌ 'rocky' is derived from ‫ﺣ‬ َ ‫ﺠ‬ ‫ﱠ‬ ‫ﺮ‬ َ 'to be hard like rock'. Lastly, there are SM`s which verbs don't be found as derivational axis, e.g. ‫ﻟ‬ ُ ‫ﺒ‬ َ ‫ﺪ‬ ٌ 'abundant'.
Besides functioning as ṣifat, SM has 'amal (action of declension) or can be 'āmil (active element of declension). This notion can be found within section talking about 'amal aṣ-ṣifat almusyabbahah, viz. sintactic behaviour of SM causing changes of i'rāb 5 to word(s) within a clause or phrase. Al-Gulāyainiy (1993: 282-283) mentioned four types of SM action`s of declension, viz.

Lexical features
The lexical meaning of SM is less mentioned. It was claimed that some SM`s tendencically have specific lexical features. For example, the pattern ‫أ‬ -Gulāyainiy, 1993: 186). Nevertheless, SM which means defect doesn't always use SM-pattern ‫أ‬ َ ‫ﻓ‬ ‫ـ‬ ْ ‫ﻌ‬ َ ‫ﻞ‬ ُ , e.g. 'blind' can also be in the pattern ‫ﻓ‬ is the only pattern that is always mentioned as a specimen of the SMpattern which has regularity of meaning. As for the other SM-patterns, they had never been claimed to have a regularity of meaning.

Problem statements and Research focus
SM is Arabic noun subclass grammatical rule that was given by traditional Arabic grammarians to accommodate other derivative nouns which may be distributed as ṣifat, but it cannot be classified as ism fā'il, ism maf'ūl, ism tafḍīl dan ṣigah mubālagah. This notion causes three problems in the application. Firstly, functioning as ṣifat is main criteria, so that any ism functioning as ṣifat must be classified as SM, e.g. the word asadun 'lion' which classified as SM. The second is the problem of derivation (isytiqāq). SM is claimed as a derivative noun, viz. that is derived from verb or infinitive verb/gerund. In the application, it is found that there are SM`s that are asymmetrical against their`s verbpattern, and that there are SM`s that they don't have fi'l or maṣdar as derivational axis. This shows that SM is derived neither fi'l nor maṣdar, but derived from consonant-roots and affixes. This also applies to other Arabic open classes. The third problem is related to SMpattern. SM no has specific word-pattern and has various word-patterns that each overlaps with other noun subclasses. Moreover, several SM's have more than single pattern.
The lexical meaning of SM is less mentioned. Some lexical features of SM that was mentioned by grammarians have not been able to cover all of ism claimed as SM. The lexical features mentioned only indicate to adjectives. In fact, there are SM`s that have lexical features other than adjectives.
As mentioned already, the urgency of this research is that the study of the lexical features of SM was rather ignored. In fact, the study of word classes, or parts of speech, needs to pay attention to the semantic aspects which are then integrated with morphological and syntactic studies (Goddard and Wierzbicka, 2014:1). Therefore, the objective in this study is to analyze SM based on the parts of speech approach, viz. the integration between syntactic and morphological analysis, and lexical feature analysis. The purpose of this analysis is to categorize SM which has various lexical features.

PARTS OF SPEECH
SM is one of Arabic word subclasses. Word classes or parts of speech, such as verbs, nouns, and adjectives, are categorizations of words that have similarities of grammatical behavior (Kridalaksana, 2008). Parts of speech is universal property of human languages that can be identified to all human languages, although the principles of categorizations and results are different.
Cross-linguistically, parts of speech can be identified on two principles, viz. similarity of syntactic function and lexical meaning (Dixon & Aikhenvald, 2004). Syntactically, noun and verb classes are obligatory for all languages. This is because both fill the functions in the three types of basic universal clause as follows. Each clause consists of one predicate and core arguments, viz. subject, object and complement. The term predicate was originally used in Greek to identify all functions other than the subject. In modern linguistics, the term predicate refers to verbs, both transitive and intransitive verbs, and nonverbals which are considered as verbs. For example, (is) big is a nonverbal predicate in the English clause, the house is big. The core argument is a slot that must present in a clause construction. The subject argument is a core argument that must be presented in all clause types. The object argument only presents in a transitive clause and the copulative complement argument only present in copulative clauses. The subject and object can be identified as noun or noun phrase (NP). Whereas copulative complement can be identified as nouns and sometimes identified as parts of a verbal phrase (copulative verb + NP). Analysis of word classes through clauses only focuses on nouns and verbs. This makes both classes as obligatory categories in all languages.

SASDAYA,
Gadjah Mada Journal of Humanities, Vol. 5. No. 1, 2021 Muhammad Afrizal, Syamsul Hadi, Suhandono, Categorization of Ṣifat Musyabbahah 8 SM was compared with adjectives because SM must be functioning as an attribute/ṣifah and most of the lexical features of SM are adjectives.
Adjectives are part of the main classes together with verbs and nouns. Not all languages, as well as Arabic, have an adjective class independently. The grammatical characteristics of adjectives can be similar to nouns, or be similar to verbs, or similar to nouns and verbs, or not similar to verbs and nouns (Beck, 2002).
Nevertheless, Dixon & Aikhenvald (2004) said that adjectives can be cross-linguistically identified by the following criteria.
1. Adjectives can be functioning as attribute in noun phrases. 2. When functioning as intransitive predicate, adjectives can be intransitive verbs or noun complements of copulative verbs. 3. In several languages, adjectives can be identified in comparative constructions. 4. In several languages, adjective can be functioning as adverbs, or modifying verbs, which sometimes may be accompanied by morphological process. Dixon & Aikhenvald (2004) also claimed that "the recognition of word classes in a language must be on the basis of internal grammatical criteria for that language".

METHOD
This study aims to categorize SM based on the parts of speech approach. Hence, the data of this study are context-free SM and context-bound SM (phrase or clause) which were sourced from Arabic grammar books written by e.g. Al-Gulāyainiy (1993), Ad-Daḥdāḥ (1996), As-Sāqiy (1977), Ḥassān (1985Ḥassān ( ), Naḥlah (1994, and the specific works about SM written by e.g. 'Azīz (2009) Mustarīḥiy (2003) and Al-Yamaniy & An-Nūr (2016). Data used in that works were limited, viz. mostly they was sourced from Al-Qur`ān because it was the main corpus of Arabic grammar (Haywood & Nahmad, 1962). Therefore, the data were expanded by way of predicting a SM-pattern with a specific root and then searching it into Arabic online corpus and dictionaries 6 . For example, it was found that the root ‫ﺿ‬ ‫ﺮ‬ ‫ب‬ ḍrb 'to hit/beat' has SM ‫ﺿ‬ ‫ﺮ‬ ‫ﻳ‬ ‫ﺐ‬ darībun 'to be beaten' after it predicted and searched various possible SM-patterns against root ḍrb, such as ḍarībun, *ḍarbānu, *ḍarabun, dan *ḍaribun.
Data analysis in this study included syntactic, lexical, and morphological analysis. The first is syntactic analysis. Each noun which claimed as SM must be functioning as ṣifat in tarkīb waṣfiy. As for the principle of 'amal, it doesn't need to be applied because nouns which have 'amal include ism maṣdar, while it is not be included within ism ṣifat.
The second is meaning principle. The meaning what is meant is not stativeness (ṡābitah) because this concept is abstract. What is meant by meaning is the lexical meaning which covers lexical meaning of adjectives, nouns, and verbs.
The third is morphological analysis, viz. SM-pattern, verb-pattern of SM, and tafḍīl possibility. The analysis of SM-patterns is observing presence or absence of word-pattern ‫ﻓ‬ َ ‫ﺎ‬ ‫ﻋ‬ ِ ‫ﻞ‬ ٌ and ‫ﻣ‬ َ ‫ﻔ‬ ْ ‫ﻌ‬ ُ ‫ﻮ‬ ْ ‫ٌل‬ within a SM-subclass because both are identically word-pattern of ism fā'il and ism maf'ūl. The derivation analysis of SM is identifying verb-pattern as an axis of derivation, i.e triliteral or others, as well as the transitivity of it`s verb. the potential of SM has a paradigmatic relation with ism tafḍīl, viz. it is noun subclass which has word-pattern ‫أ‬ َ ‫ﻓ‬ ‫ﻌ‬ َ ‫ﻞ‬ ُ , and ‫ﻓ‬ ‫ـ‬ ُ ‫ﻌ‬ ْ ‫ﻠ‬ َ ‫ﻰ‬ as its feminine-form, indicating the superlative or comparative. This principle is adopted as was suggested by Dixon & Aikhenvald (2004: 11) as mentioned above.

RESULT OF CATEGORIZATION
The research resulted 6 types of SM as follows.

Type 1: SM in narrow sense
The use of this label followed "adjectives in the narrow sense" given by Dixon & Aikhenvald (2004: 1). The characteristics of type 1 are which a) must be functioning as ṣifat, b) has lexical features of adjective, c) is derived from intransitive verb and passive verb, d) allows word-pattern in classhood, e) mostly has paradigmatic relation with ism tafḍīl. Each of characteristics, except a) 7 , are explained as follows. The type 1 is SM's which theirs classhood has adjective lexical features 8 , viz. colour [e.g.

Type 2: SM as alternative word-pattern between ism fā'il and ism maf'ūl
The characteristics of type 2 are which a) must be functioning ṣifat, b) has lexical features of verbs, c) is generally derived from transitive verb, d) is not allowed word-pattern in classhood because both are ism fā'il and ism maf'ūl, e) a little has paradigmatic relation with ism tafḍīl. Each of characteristics, except d) 9 , are explained as follows.
The type 2 must be functioning as ṣifat. The underlined elements below, for examples, are type 2 of SM functioning as ṣifat which is as part of tarkīb waṣfiy in the brackets. (1) and hastened to entertain them with [a roasted calf]
'non-arab literally (lit.) speaking Arabic ones inarticulately', This type is only allowed to be derived from transitive verb, viz. which has in pattern most of ‫ﻞ‬ ', etc.] and none of ‫ﻓ‬ ‫ـ‬ َ ‫ﻌ‬ ُ ‫ﻞ‬ َ . When derived from transitive verb, SM indicates either passive meaning or active. If it is active, SM is often accompanied by meaning of excessiveness (mubālagah).
A few of type 2 has tafḍīl-pattern. Especially, they are which have lexical features of attention or indicate degree of continuum, e.g.

Type 3: SM as absolute noun incorporation
The characteristics of type 3 are which a) must be functioning as ṣifat, b) has lexical features of nouns, c) is derived from denominal verbs and sometimes has no verbs as derivational axises, d) isnn`t predictable in SM-patterns, e) has no paradigmatic relation with ism tafḍīl. The following examples illustrates how SM type 3 is derived.

SASDAYA,
Gadjah Mada Journal of Humanities, Vol. 5. No. 1, 2021 Muhammad Afrizal, Syamsul Hadi, Suhandono, Categorization of Ṣifat Musyabbahah 12 Generally, the SM-pattern of type 3 may be different with its noun-pattern. Whereas, which has SM-pattern similarly with its noun-pattern is jasadun as mentioned in the examples. SM-patterns of classhood cannot predictable. In classhood, type 3 is allowed SM-pattern ‫ﻣ‬ َ On derivational perspective, SM of type 3 can be derived from verb-triliteral, verbaugmented (mazīd), and verb-less. This indicates that type 3 is derived from noun, not from verb. This also weakens the notion that SM should be formed from verb. Likewise, the verbs of the examples above are derived from noun. This linguistic phenomenon is termed as noun incorporation, viz. "a construction in which a noun stem is combined with a verb to form a new, morphologically complex verb" (Sapir 1911cited Mithun & Barbara, 2000 The Arabic incorporation of noun was discussed by Glanville (2018) on his work entitled The Lexical Semantics of the Arabic Verb. In general, incorporation was defined by him as the incorporation of various lexeme into single word-form. In the incorporation, consonant root is lexical feature core of the word-form, such as ‫ﻛ‬ َ ‫ﺎ‬ ‫ﺗ‬ ِ ‫ﺐ‬ ٌ kātibun 'writer' that is incorporation of lexeme k-t-b 'to write' and ā-i 'agent'. In another discussion, Glanville (2018: 64-65) explained denominal incorporation that is forming a verb with nominal root. He gave some examples of nominal root incorporated with verb-pattern ifta'āla as follows. Denominal verb with pattern ifta'ala is incorporation a noun to a verb having complex semantic structure, viz. noun as an semantic object and pronoun as semantic agent and recipient (reflexive). This explanation applies to all verbs in the example above except the verb ‫ا‬ ‫ﻋ‬ ْ ‫ﺘ‬ ‫ـ‬ َ ‫ﻨ‬ َ ‫ﻖ‬ َ .
Based on the explanations, it can be deduced that type 3 is morphological incorporation of noun into adjective (read. SM) which is generally with morphological process. Semantic features incorporated into tipe 3 are complicated and difficult to be formulated. As for the examples, the semantic features that appear most often are having + noun (parts of body) + big/much, such as -َ ‫د‬ ِ ‫ن‬ ٌ 'having a big body' or 'obese'.

Type 4: SM as lexicalization of metaphor
The characteristics of type 4 are which a) must be functioning ṣifat because of tasybīh (metaphor), b) has lexical features of nouns, c) is derived from denominal verbs and often has no verbs as derivational axises, d) is in same pattern with its noun-pattern, e) has no paradigmatic relation with ism tafḍīl.
(1) The underlined elements above are absolute noun having lexical content fauna and artefact. They are functioning as ṣifat which aims to explain similarity of charateristic or behaviour between ṣifat and mauṣuf. In Arabic tradition, these phrases construction are encoded as "tasybīh".
Etymologically ‫ﺗ‬ َ ‫ﺸ‬ ‫ﺒ‬ ِ ‫ﻴ‬ ‫ﻪ‬ tasybīh is to similarize. Tasybīh, according to Al-Jārim & Amīn, (1999: 20), is to explain one thing or some things with another one because of one similar characteristic or more. Tasybīh can be counterparted with term "metaphor" in western linguistics tradition. Metaphor is defined by Lakoff & Johnson (2003) as "understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another". According to Bauer (2000), metaphor is one way of making new words by giving a new meaning to an old word. The metaphor commonly used in human language make it possible to create new lexeme and this phenomenon was named lexcilazation of metaphor (Bauer, 2000: 833). So, the word asadun, for Arabs, is reused to symbolize braveness", ḥimārun to "stupidity", and durarun to "valuableness". These examples at least prove this lexicalization. It also may be investigated through presence of denominal verb within Arabic dictionaries. For examples, we can find denominal verb asida and ẓaiba within Arabic-Indonesian dictionary Al-Munawwir (1997, 23 and 436) as below this paragraph. However, not all metaphorical SM's have a verb-form.

(In English) -
to become confused because seeing a lion to become (or be similar with) a lion (in character) lion the brave, the intrepid to resembling a coyote (in cunningness and evilness) a coyote, wolf thieves, weak people, poor and insulted Type 5: SM as term of kinship and social category The characteristics of type 5 are which a) a few may be functioning as ṣifat, b) has lexical features of kinship term and social category, c) is derived from denominal verbs and is often not found the verbs as the derivational axis, d) is in same pattern with its noun-pattern, e) has no paradigmatic relation with ism tafḍīl.
It is said that type 6 must not be functioning ṣifat because this type is restricted as ṣifat. Meanwhile, it said that it may be functioning as ṣifat because any ism may be functioning as ṣifat through metaphorical mechanism as type 4. So, this type is called with ism non-SM because that its syntactic behavior is so. The following provides examples of SM type 6 and available verbs as derivational axises.

SM Verb
------of both tarkīb badaliy above is to characterize, viz. that material substance of mubdal minhu is come from badal. Badawi et. al. (2004: 123) explained that characterizing material substance in classical Arabic can be expressed by either badaliy (apposition) or idāfiy (annexation). Both structures have been preserved within modern written Arabic. Another similar example found in the Qur'ān is as follows.

CONCLUSION
SM was often counterparted with adjectives by Western grammarians because the prominent lexical and grammatical features of SM is similar to adjectives. Nevertheless, SM is not similar exactly to adjective because SM has various lexical features other than adjectives and has grammatical features of noun as other Arabic nouns. In addition, the universality of adjectives in cross-linguistic studies of word classes is skeptical because not all languages have adjectives as an independent word class as well as Arabic.
SM is one of Arabic derivative noun subclasses that was given by traditional Arabic grammarians to accommodate other derivative nouns which can be functioning as ṣifat 'noun attribute' and have 'amal. But, it cannot be classified as ism fā'il, ism maf'ūl, ism tafḍīl dan ṣigah mubālagah. In other words, SM is "a trash class" of other Arabic derivative nouns. It also shows that traditional Arabic grammar emphazised a morphosyntactic paradigm. This is understandable because the categorization of Arabic word classes must be on the basis of internal Arabic grammatical criteria. Therefore, as a result, SM has complexities of word-forms and lexical meanings.
The complexity of the SM notions can be fixed by the elaboration of modern linguistics especially about parts of speech and SM notions as internal grammatical critera. The elaboration suggests five principles of categorization, i.e. a) be functioning as ṣifat, b) lexical features c) the derivation of SM, d) SM-patterns, e) paradigmatic relation with tafḍīl. The application of five principles results in six types of SM, viz. 1) SM in a narrow sense, 2) SM as alternative word-pattern between ism fā'il and ism maf'ūl, 3) SM as absolute noun incorporation, 4) SM as lexicalization of metaphor, 5) SM as a term of kinship and social category, 6) ism non-SM.