ELLIPS: Ellipsis

    From The Encyclopedia of Arabic Rhetoric

    الحذف
    ELLIPS: Ellipsis
    CategorySentence Construction & Syntactical Stylistics
    (ʿilm al-maʿānī)
    SubcategoryTextual Additions & Omissions
    Built upon14 sources
      
    Annotation Unit
    ARDT CodeELLIPS
    Level1 (Rhetorical device)
       ↳ Has 3 subtypes
      
    Included in Taxonomy
    ARDTv0.1.1
    v0.1.0
      
    External Identifiers
    BALAGHAScoreELLIPS
    BalaghaBaseQ55
    OpenAlexW4415329813
      
    Applications
    BalaghaCorpusSee examples
     
    About this page
    Created22 April 2024
    Modified2 November 2026
     
    Cite this page
    🔗 DOIhttps://doi.org/10.64393/balagha.Q55
     
    Use this page
    DownloadPDF     JSON     HTML

    Definition

    Ellipsis (al-ḥadhf) is an Arabic rhetorical device in which linguistic material that would ordinarily be expressed is deliberately omitted while remaining recoverable from a contextual indicator (qarīna). The omitted material may range from an individual word or constituent to a complete sentence or larger stretch of discourse.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

    The rhetorical tradition also treats recoverable deletion used to achieve economy of expression as ījāz al-ḥadhf ("brevity by deletion").[4][5][9][10][11]

    Background Information

    The Arabic designation al-ḥadhf means "deletion", "omission", or "removal". Its underlying sense is that of cutting away or dropping part of something. Classical lexicographical explanations associate the root with cutting or removing something from an edge or side.[12]

    In rhetoric, the term refers to the deliberate omission of linguistic material that would otherwise be expressed, provided that the omission is supported by an adequate contextual or grammatical indicator. The designation therefore identifies the device's Linguistic Operation directly: material is left unexpressed while its absence and intended significance remain recognisable.[1][8][6]

    The term is traditionally contrasted with al-dhikr ("explicit mention"), which expresses material overtly rather than omitting it.[1][2]

    Linguistic Operations

    Ellipsis operates by removing linguistic material from the overt expression while leaving sufficient information for the omitted material to be recovered. The operation can apply at different grammatical and textual scopes, from individual words or sentence constituents to complete clauses, sentences, or larger stretches of discourse.[1][2][4][5]

    For the omission to function rhetorically, there must be sufficient evidence for the omitted material to be identified or inferred. This evidence may arise from grammatical structure, linguistic context, or the intended meaning. Without an adequate indication of deletion, the expression cannot reliably be analysed as Ellipsis.[1][2][8][6]

    Classical accounts distinguish deletion according to the linguistic material affected. Al-Qazwīnī discusses omission of a word or sentence constituent, a complete sentence, or multiple sentences, including omission of an annexed element (muḍāf), a described noun (mawṣūf), and material associated with conditional constructions. Al-Taftāzānī likewise discusses deletion of sentence constituents and larger grammatical constructions.[6][7]

    The sources give particularly extensive treatment to deletion of major sentence constituents, including the subject or doer (al-musnad ilayh), the predicate or verb (al-musnad), and the object (al-mafʿūl bih).[1][2][13][14][15]

    These differences concern the linguistic target or scope of a single underlying operation: identifiable linguistic material is left unexpressed while remaining recoverable.

    Recognition

    Ellipsis may be present when the overt expression appears to lack linguistic material that can nevertheless be recovered from the surrounding text, communicative situation, shared knowledge, or grammatical structure.[1][2][3]

    The sources distinguish different kinds of contextual evidence that can license recovery. ʿAtīq distinguishes a linguistic indicator (qarīna lafẓiyya) from a semantic or contextual indicator (qarīna maʿnawiyya).[1] Funūn al-Balāgha likewise discusses recovery through evidence supplied by the linguistic context, the communicative situation, rational inference, conventional or habitual knowledge, and grammatical structure.[2]

    A linguistic indicator may therefore take the form of an explicit linguistic dependency or structural requirement, while in other cases the omitted material is supplied from the situation or from knowledge shared by communicator and addressee.[1][2][3]

    For annotation, use the contextual indicator to locate a possible omission, but annotate the deletion rather than the indicator that reveals it. A practical sequence is:

    1. Cue — What indicates that linguistic material may be missing?
    2. Recovery — Can the omitted material be identified with sufficient confidence?
    3. Deletion — What word, constituent, clause, sentence, or larger linguistic material has actually been left unexpressed?
    4. Scope — Determine the extent of the recovered material. The omission may involve an individual word or constituent, a complete predication or proposition, or a larger stretch requiring recovery of multiple propositions.

    The omission must be identifiable through an adequate contextual or grammatical indicator. In some cases, the omitted expression can be reconstructed with considerable precision; in others, such as generalising omission of the object, the grammatical position is identifiable while the intended reference remains unrestricted. Do not annotate ELLIPS merely because an expression is short, implicit, or context-dependent.[1][2][8]

    Communicative Enhancements

    The sources associate Ellipsis with a range of rhetorical effects and motivations. These include:

    • Economy of expression — omission can reduce the amount of overt wording while leaving the intended meaning recoverable. When recoverable deletion is used for this purpose, the rhetorical tradition treats it as ījāz al-ḥadhf ("brevity by deletion").[4][5][9][10][11]
    • Concealment of the subject — arising from Ellipsis of the Subject or Doer: the identity of the agent is suppressed, preventing the addressee from assigning responsibility to a specific person. This may serve self-protection, irony, or discretion.[1][2]
    • Protection from danger — arising from Ellipsis of the Subject or Doer: in contexts where naming the agent could place the communicator at risk, the passive voice suppresses the agent, producing a self-protective omission.[13][3]
    • Facilitating denial (taysīr al-inkār) — arising from Ellipsis of the Subject or Doer: omitting a named subject leaves the communicator room for plausible deniability, since explicit attribution would constitute binding evidence.[1][2]
    • Urgency and immediate reaction — arising from Ellipsis of the Subject or Doer: in exclamatory contexts, omitting the subject focuses the utterance on the core element, conveying immediacy and heightened affect (e.g. ḥarīq — "Fire!").[13]
    • Musical symmetry — arising from Ellipsis of the Subject or Doer: in parallelistic structures, the subject of the second unit is omitted to maintain phonetic balance and assonance with the first.[13]
    • Avoiding redundancy — arising from Ellipsis of the Predicate or Verb: when the omitted element is fully recoverable from a preceding question or statement, stating it would be superfluous and would diminish the quality of expression.[13][14][3]
    • Restriction and specification — arising from Ellipsis of the Predicate or Verb: the predicate is omitted to confine the statement to the subject alone, conveying that a quality belongs exclusively to that subject.[1][2]
    • Narrowness of situation — arising from Ellipsis of the Predicate or Verb: the communicator omits the predicate under emotional pressure — grief, urgency, or fear of missing an opportunity — compressing the utterance into its most essential element.[1][2]
    • Generalisation (al-taʿmīm) — arising from Ellipsis of the Object: omitting the object of a transitive verb removes any restriction on what the verb applies to, expanding its scope to everything that could fall under it.[1][2][15]
    • Inferability — the object is omitted when it can be easily inferred by the addressee from the context, making explicit statement unnecessary.[15]
    • Directing attention to the agent — the communicator's main focus is on the subject as the doer of the action rather than on the object; the object is therefore not highlighted and is omitted.[2][15]
    • Suspense followed by clarification (al-ibhām thumma al-bayān) — arising from Ellipsis of the Object: the omission creates momentary ambiguity that fixes the meaning more firmly in the mind of the addressee once it is resolved.[2]
    • Glorification of the object — arising from Ellipsis of the Object: the object is too elevated to be named explicitly alongside the verb, and is suppressed out of deference to its dignity.[2]
    • Propriety in speech — arising from Ellipsis of the Object: the object is suppressed out of politeness, modesty, or decorum.[2]
    • Preservation of rhyme, metre, or sajʿ — arising across subtypes: including the omitted element would disrupt phonetic or prosodic structure.[1][2][3]

    Applying the Recognition Framework

    The information on this page can be used to evaluate whether this device is present in a candidate lexical item using the Specific Device Recognition part of the Universal Framework for Identifying Arabic Rhetorical Devices:

    • Use the Definition, Mechanism, and Recognition sections of this page in Step 1.
    • Apply the substitution test in Step 2.
    • Consider contextual indicators in Step 3.
    • Use the Diagnostic Communicative Enhancements section of this page in Step 4.

    Examples of Ellipsis

    وَاسْأَلِ الْقَرْيَةَ

    Ask the town. (Q12:82)

    Explanation
    The expression omits the annexed noun people (ahl), yielding the understood sense ask the people of the town (wa-sʾal ahl al-qarya). The omitted element is recoverable from the expression and context.[16][9][10][17][18]

    This example illustrates Ellipsis outside the three Level 2 patterns represented below: the deleted material is an annexed element rather than a subject or doer, predicate or verb, or object.

    Subtypes of Ellipsis

    The sources describe Ellipsis across a wider range of linguistic targets and scopes. ʿAtīq (2006) explicitly organises his treatment around deletion of the subject or doer (ḥadhf al-musnad ilayh), predicate or verb (ḥadhf al-musnad), and object (ḥadhf al-mafʿūl bih). Ṭabāna independently treats the first two under the same Arabic designations.[1][19][20]

    These three recurrent and operationally identifiable deletion patterns are represented as Level 2 annotation subtypes. They do not constitute an exhaustive inventory of the linguistic material that Ellipsis may omit.

    ELLIPS-SJD: Ellipsis of the Subject or Doer (ḥadhf al-musnad ilayh)

    Annotation Unit
    ARDTELLIPS-SJD
    Level2 (Subtype)
    BalaghaBaseQ430
    Official Arabic nameḥadhf al-musnad ilayh[21]

    A form of Ellipsis in which there is omission of the grammatical subject (mubtadaʾ) or the doer of the verb (fāʿil) from the sentence. ʿAtīq (2006) provides the most detailed treatment, distinguishing between motivations for omitting the subject when it is a mubtadaʾ and when it is a fāʿil.[1] Abdul-Raof (2006) enumerates seven pragmatic motivations for this subtype.[13] Ṭabāna independently treats this operation under the explicit designation ḥadhf al-musnad ilayh.[19]

    The principal motivations attested in the sources include:

    • Praise or dispraise context — in a running discourse of praise or blame, a succinct predicate is introduced that subsumes what has been established; restating the subject would be redundant.[13][2]
    • Known information — the subject is known to both communicator and addressee and does not need to be stated; this frequently occurs in passive constructions where the agent is God or another universally known actor.[13][1][3]
    • Immediate reaction — elliptical utterances produced in response to a sudden or urgent event omit the subject to maximise speed and impact.[13]
    • Musical symmetry — in parallelistic structures, the second unit omits its subject to preserve phonetic balance and assonance with the first.[13]
    • Fear — the communicator omits the agent to avoid self-incrimination or to protect themselves from the person or authority named.[13][3]
    • Facilitating denial — omitting the subject leaves the communicator room to deny a position if challenged, because explicit attribution would constitute binding evidence.[1][2]
    • Directing attention to the event — the communicator wishes the addressee to focus on the event rather than its agent, including in Qurʾānic eschatological descriptions where the focus is on the cosmic event itself.[2]
    • Preservation of rhyme or sajʿ — including the subject would disrupt phonetic structure.[1][2]
    • Avoiding redundancy in answers — the subject is fully recoverable from a preceding question, making restatement superfluous.[1][2]

    حريق!

    Fire!

    Explanation
    The full construction would be hādhihi ḥarīq ("This is fire"). The subject hādhihi is omitted because the situation immediately supplies it. The motivation is urgency: the omission focuses the utterance on the essential element and conveys immediate alarm.[13]

    سُرِقَ المتاعُ وأُغلقت الأبوابُ.

    The goods were stolen and the doors were locked.

    Explanation
    Both verbs are passive, suppressing the agent. The motivation is self-protection and concealment: naming the responsible party could expose the communicator to danger. The full active constructions would be: saraqa fulānun al-matāʿ wa-aghlaqal abwāb ("So-and-so stole the goods and locked the doors").

    "Tell me about the new director." "Brilliant, but rather impatient."

    Explanation
    The description "Brilliant, but rather impatient" omits the subject "the new director", which is recoverable from the preceding request. The full statement would be "The new director is brilliant, but rather impatient." The omission directs attention to the qualities being attributed to the already-established subject.

    ELLIPS-PRV: Ellipsis of the Predicate or Verb (ḥadhf al-musnad)

    Annotation Unit
    ARDTELLIPS-PRV
    Level2 (Subtype)
    BalaghaBaseQ431
    Official Arabic nameḥadhf al-musnad[22]

    A form of Ellipsis in which there is omission of the predicate (khabar) or the verb (fiʿl) from the sentence. ʿAtīq (2006) and ʿAbbās (1997) treat this subtype, the latter citing al-Qazwīnī's al-Talkhīṣ as the canonical source for its motivations.[1][2] Abdul-Raof (2006) illustrates it in the context of responses to questions.[14] Ṭabāna likewise treats the operation under the designation ḥadhf al-musnad.[20]

    The principal motivations attested in the sources include:

    • Avoiding redundancy in answers — when the predicate or verb is fully recoverable from the question, stating it in the answer is superfluous; a one-word answer supplies only the subject.[14][2]
    • Answering an implicit question — where a sentence appears in a context implying a question, the predicate is omitted because the implicit question already provides it.[1][2]
    • Known information inferable from context — the predicate names a quality so strongly associated with the subject in context that stating it is superfluous, as in constructions with the surprise particle (idhā al-fajāʾiyya).[14]
    • Restriction and specification — the predicate is omitted to restrict the statement to the subject alone.[1][2]
    • Narrowness of the situation — the communicator omits the predicate under emotional pressure (grief, urgency, fear of missing an opportunity).[1][2]

    مَنْ كَتَبَ هَذِهِ الرِّوَايَةَ الرَّائِعَةَ؟ زَيدٌ.

    Who wrote this wonderful novel? Zaid.

    Explanation
    The one-word answer Zaydun is the subject; the predicate kataba hādhihi al-riwāya al-rāʾiʿa is omitted because it is fully recoverable from the question. The motivation is avoiding redundancy. The full answer would be: Zaydun kataba hādhihi al-riwāya al-rāʾiʿa.[14]

    سَأَلَنِي: مَنْ فَازَ بِالْجَائِزَةِ؟ فَقُلْتُ: خَالِدٌ.

    He asked me: "Who won the prize?" I replied: "Khalid."

    Explanation
    The answer Khālidun omits the predicate fāza bi-l-jāʾiza ("won the prize"), which is recoverable from the preceding question. The full answer would be Khālidun fāza bi-l-jāʾiza ("Khalid won the prize"). The omission avoids repeating information already supplied by the question.

    "Who solved the puzzle?" "The quiet apprentice."

    Explanation
    The answer "The quiet apprentice" omits the predicate "solved the puzzle", which is recoverable from the preceding question. The full statement would be "The quiet apprentice solved the puzzle." The omission avoids repeating the action already specified in the question.

    ELLIPS-OBJ: Ellipsis of the Object (ḥadhf al-mafʿūl bih)

    Annotation Unit
    ARDTELLIPS-OBJ
    Level2 (Subtype)
    BalaghaBaseQ432
    Official Arabic nameḥadhf al-mafʿūl bih[23]

    A form of Ellipsis in which there is omission of the grammatical object of a transitive verb. This subtype is treated most extensively by ʿAbbās (1997), drawing on ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī's analysis in Dalāʾil al-Iʿjāz.[2][15]

    The principal motivations attested in the sources include:

    • Generalisation — omitting the object extends the scope of the verb to everything that could fall under it; specifying the object would restrict it unnecessarily.[1][2]
    • Directing attention to the agent — the communicator intends to affirm the action and its agent, without the object being relevant to the communicative purpose.[2]
    • Preventing a false impression — if stating the object would mislead the addressee into thinking something unintended is meant, the object is omitted to pre-empt the misreading.[2]
    • The object is known from context — the object has been established in the preceding discourse and restating it is superfluous.[2]
    • Glorification of the object — the object is too elevated to be named alongside the verb and is suppressed out of deference.[2]
    • Propriety in speech — the object is suppressed out of politeness, modesty, or decorum.[2]
    • Suspense followed by clarification — the omission creates momentary ambiguity that is then resolved, fixing the meaning more firmly in the addressee's mind.[2]
    • Preservation of the final letter of rhyming prose — as in Qurʾānic fawāṣil, omitting the object preserves phonetic unity at the verse ending.[2]

    وَاللَّهُ يَدْعُو إِلَىٰ دَارِ السَّلَامِ

    And Allah invites to the Home of Peace. (Q10:25)

    Explanation
    The object of yadʿū ("invites") is omitted. The full construction would name those invited. By omitting the object, the invitation is extended without restriction to all, conveying generalisation (al-taʿmīm) more effectively than any explicit object could.[1][2]

    يُعطي ويمنع، ويرفع ويضع.

    He gives and withholds, raises and brings low.

    Explanation
    All four verbs are transitive but none has an explicit object. The motivation is generalisation: each action is extended to everything that could be given, withheld, raised, or lowered. Inserting an explicit object in any clause would restrict its scope and diminish the rhetorical effect.

    "The generous give freely; the selfish only take."

    Explanation
    The transitive verbs "give" and "take" appear without expressed objects. Rather than identifying particular things given or taken, the omission presents the actions generally, contrasting generosity with selfishness. Supplying specific objects would narrow the scope of the statement.

    Different From

    • BREVTY: Brevity (ījāz al-qaṣr) — traditional accounts distinguish ījāz al-ḥadhf, in which linguistic material is omitted, from ījāz al-qaṣr, in which extensive meaning is concentrated in comparatively little overt wording without deletion.[24][9][10][11][17][18] In the Encyclopedia's operation-first taxonomy, recoverable deletion is represented by Ellipsis, while semantic concentration without deletion is represented by Brevity.
    • MENTIO: Mention (al-dhikr) — the explicit statement of a sentence element, discussed in the classical sources as the direct counterpart and default (al-aṣl) of Ellipsis. Mention is the norm in Arabic discourse; Ellipsis requires a positive rhetorical justification to depart from it.[1][2][3]
    • IHTBK: Interweaving (al-iḥtibāk) — a device in which a segment is divided into two parts and certain elements are omitted from each, with the absent element in each part recoverable from the element cited in the other. Interweaving involves coordinated mutual omission across two parallel units; Ellipsis involves the omission of a single element recoverable from the broader context, without requiring a paired structure.[25]
    • TRUNC: Truncation (al-iktifāʾ) — the selective use of part of a known expression, relying on the addressee to supply the missing part from shared familiarity with that expression or idiom. Inferential Sufficiency depends specifically on the addressee's knowledge of a fixed expression; Ellipsis is the broader device in which recovery may be achieved through any contextual indicator.[25]

    Notes

    Historical

    • The classical tradition regarded Ellipsis as one of the most characteristic features of Arabic eloquence. ʿAbbās (1997) quotes ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī as identifying it as among the finest chapters of rhetoric, where the largest number of literary subtleties and rhetorical beauties appear.[2]
    • ʿAbbās (1997) notes that the early scholars — the mutaqaddimūn — focused on the features, motivations, rhetorical effects, and merits of Ellipsis, whereas the later scholars (mutaʾakhkhirūn) treated it in a manner that, in his view, distanced the reader from its psychological and rhetorical aims.[2]
    • Abdel Haleem (2020) notes that Ellipsis is a normal feature of Arabic discourse and daily speech — not an archaism — and that reactions treating it as strange or ungrammatical (such as Nöldeke's reaction to ḥadhf in the Qurʾān) reflect unfamiliarity with this Arabic norm rather than a deficiency in the text.[26]

    Technical

    • The broader rhetorical category al-ījāz traditionally includes ījāz al-ḥadhf, in which recoverable linguistic material is omitted, alongside ījāz al-qaṣr, in which extensive meaning is concentrated in little wording without deletion.[24][9][10][11][17][18]
    • Ellipsis is traditionally paired with explicit mention (al-dhikr) within ʿilm al-maʿānī. The default (al-aṣl) is explicit mention; omission requires an appropriate contextual indicator and rhetorical justification.[1][2]
    • ʿAtīq distinguishes between a linguistic indicator (qarīna lafẓiyya) and a semantic or contextual indicator (qarīna maʿnawiyya) through which omitted material may be recovered.[1]
    • Funūn al-Balāgha explicitly organises its treatment under omission of a word (ḥadhf al-kalima) and omission of a sentence (ḥadhf al-jumla), demonstrating that Ellipsis may operate at more than one linguistic scope.[2]
    • Hatim (2010) discusses Ellipsis together with related patterns including al-iktifāʾ and al-iḥtibāk, while distinguishing the structural relationships involved.[25]
    • Hatim (2010) also provides a finer-grained classification of the contextual resources through which omitted material may be recovered, including linguistic and discourse context as well as different forms of shared knowledge.[17]
    • ʿAkkāwī (1996) reports historical alternative designations for recoverable deletion used in brevity: al-Jāḥiẓ uses al-ījāz al-maḥdhūf, while Abū ʿUbayda uses mujāz al-mukhtaṣar.[4]

    In the Encyclopedia's operation-first taxonomy, ījāz al-ḥadhf is treated under ELLIPS because its defining Linguistic Operation is recoverable deletion. BREVTY is reserved for the distinct non-deletion operation represented by ījāz al-qaṣr.

    The different classifications of contextual indicators are used as guidance for recognising and recovering Ellipsis rather than as annotation-subtype hierarchies. Distinctions in the linguistic target or scope of deletion likewise describe dimensions of the Linguistic Operation rather than an exhaustive AU hierarchy. ELLIPS remains applicable where recoverable deletion is present but no represented Level 2 subtype applies.

    References

    1. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Atīq, ʿIlm al-Maʿānī (Cairo: Dār al-Āfāq al-ʿArabiyya, 2006), 97-104, ISBN 9773440764.
    2. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar Faḍl Ḥasan ʿAbbās, Al-Balāgha: Funūnuhā wa-Afnānuhā - ʿIlm al-Maʿānī (Irbid: Dār al-Furqān lil-Nashr wa-al-Tawzīʿ, 1997), 247-296.
    3. ↑ a b c d e f g h i Ḥafnī Nāṣif, Muḥammad Diyāb, Sultan Muḥammad and Muṣṭafā Ṭammām, Durūs al-Balāgha (Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 2012), 41-44, ISBN 9786144162798.
    4. ↑ a b c d e Inʿam Fawwal ʿAkkawi, al-Muʿjam al-Mufassal fi ʿUlum al-Balagha: al-Badiʿ wa-l-Bayan wa-l-Maʿani (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1996), 245.
    5. ↑ a b c d Inʿam Fawwal ʿAkkawi, al-Muʿjam al-Mufassal fi ʿUlum al-Balagha: al-Badiʿ wa-l-Bayan wa-l-Maʿani (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1996), 245-246.
    6. ↑ a b c d Jalāl al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Qazwīnī, known as al-Khaṭīb al-Qazwīnī, al-Īḍāḥ fī ʿUlūm al-Balāgha: al-Maʿānī wa-al-Bayān wa-al-Badīʿ, ed. and comm. Ibrāhīm Shams al-Dīn (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 2003), 145-151, ISBN 9782745139078.
    7. ↑ a b Saʿd al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī, al-Muṭawwal: Sharḥ Talkhīṣ Miftāḥ al-ʿUlūm, ed. ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd Hindāwī, Shurūḥ al-Talkhīṣ 3, 3rd ed. (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 2013), 486-487, ISBN 9782745131768.
    8. ↑ a b c d Badawī Ṭabāna, Muʿjam al-Balāgha al-ʿArabiyya, 3rd rev. and expanded ed. (Jeddah: Dār al-Manāra; Riyadh: Dār al-Rifāʿī, 1988), 155-157.
    9. ↑ a b c d e Aḥmad al-Hāshimī, Jawāhir al-Balāgha fī al-Maʿānī wa-al-Bayān wa-al-Badīʿ (Windsor: Hindāwī Foundation, 2019), 223–240, ISBN 9781527316386.
    10. ↑ a b c d e Ayman Amin Abd Al-Ghani, Al-Kāfī fī al-Balāgha: Al-Bayān, wa al-Badiʿ wa al-Maʿānī (Cairo: Dār al-Tawfīqiyya lil-Turāth, 2011), 381-397.
    11. ↑ a b c d ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Atīq, ʿIlm al-Maʿānī (Cairo: Dār al-Āfāq al-ʿArabiyya, 2006), 133-157, ISBN 9773440764.
    12. ↑ Inʿam Fawwal ʿAkkawi, al-Muʿjam al-Mufassal fi ʿUlum al-Balagha: al-Badiʿ wa-l-Bayan wa-l-Maʿani (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1996), 530-531.
    13. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l Hussein Abdul-Raof, Arabic Rhetoric: A Pragmatic Analysis (Oxford: Routledge, 2006), 133-136, ISBN 9780415386098. DOI: 10.4324/9780203965399
    14. ↑ a b c d e f Hussein Abdul-Raof, Arabic Rhetoric: A Pragmatic Analysis (Oxford: Routledge, 2006), 159-160, ISBN 9780415386098. DOI: 10.4324/9780203965399
    15. ↑ a b c d e Hussein Abdul-Raof, Arabic Rhetoric: A Pragmatic Analysis (Oxford: Routledge, 2006), 165-166, ISBN 9780415386098. DOI: 10.4324/9780203965399
    16. ↑ G.J.H. van Gelder, ‘Ījāz’, in Encyclopedia of Arabic Literature, ed. Julie Scott Meisami and Paul Starkey (London: Routledge, 1998), 390, ISBN 0415068088.
    17. ↑ a b c d Basil Hatim, Arabic Rhetoric: The Pragmatics of Deviation from Linguistic Norms, LINCOM Studies in Communication 04 (Munich: Lincom Europa, 2010), 198-231, ISBN 9783929075731.
    18. ↑ a b c Pierre Cachia, The Arch Rhetorician: Or The Schemer’s Skimmer: A Handbook of Late Arabic Badīʻ Drawn from ʻAbd al-Ghanī an-Nābulsī’s Nafaḥāt al-Azhār ʻala Nasamāt al-Asḥār, Studies in Arabic Language and Literature 3 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1998), pp. 52-53; §81, ISBN 9783447040327.
    19. ↑ a b Badawī Ṭabāna, Muʿjam al-Balāgha al-ʿArabiyya, 3rd rev. and expanded ed. (Jeddah: Dār al-Manāra; Riyadh: Dār al-Rifāʿī, 1988), 158-159.
    20. ↑ a b Badawī Ṭabāna, Muʿjam al-Balāgha al-ʿArabiyya, 3rd rev. and expanded ed. (Jeddah: Dār al-Manāra; Riyadh: Dār al-Rifāʿī, 1988), 157-158.
    21. ↑ ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Atīq, ʿIlm al-Maʿānī (Cairo: Dār al-Āfāq al-ʿArabiyya, 2006), 97, ISBN 9773440764.
    22. ↑ ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Atīq, ʿIlm al-Maʿānī (Cairo: Dār al-Āfāq al-ʿArabiyya, 2006), 101, ISBN 9773440764.
    23. ↑ ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Atīq, ʿIlm al-Maʿānī (Cairo: Dār al-Āfāq al-ʿArabiyya, 2006), 103, ISBN 9773440764.
    24. ↑ a b Inʿam Fawwal ʿAkkawi, al-Muʿjam al-Mufassal fi ʿUlum al-Balagha: al-Badiʿ wa-l-Bayan wa-l-Maʿani (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1996), 246-247.
    25. ↑ a b c Basil Hatim, Arabic Rhetoric: The Pragmatics of Deviation from Linguistic Norms, LINCOM Studies in Communication 04 (Munich: Lincom Europa, 2010), 182, ISBN 9783929075731.
    26. ↑ Muhammad Abdel Haleem, ‘Rhetorical Devices and Stylistic Features of Qur’anic Grammar’, The Oxford Handbook of Qur’anic Studies, ed. Mustafa Shah and Muhammad Abdel Haleem (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 333, ISBN 9780199698646. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199698646.013.22

    Page History

    You are viewing the live version of this page. Would you like to view the version included in the Arabic Rhetorical Device Taxonomy (v0.1.1)?
    Retrieved from "https://al-balagha.com/index.php?title=ELLIPS:_Ellipsis&oldid=19415"