That is: there is no separation, and it may be interpreted as "it is necessary," because its origin in affirmation is: "the matter dispersed," and "dispersed" means "separated," and the horses came dispersed, meaning: scattered. So when separation and divergence between two things are negated, a constant connection between them is established, making one necessary for the other, hence they interpreted it as "it is necessary." And "budda" is a noun built on the fathah with "lā" the negator, because it is its subject and the predicate is omitted, meaning: "for us" or the like, and it may be explicitly stated. Al-Fanari mentioned in the margins of al-Muṭawwal: that the preposition and the genitive are related to the negated, meaning "budda," according to the Baghdadis who allowed: "lā ṭāliʿa jabalin" [without] the tanwīn of the extended noun, treating it as if it were annexed, while the Basrans required the tanwīn in such a case, and considered the relation of the adverb in which the noun was built on the fathah, as in our case, to be omitted, which is the predicate of the subject, meaning: "lā budda is established for us." And his saying: "from such-and-such" is the predicate of an omitted subject, meaning: the negated "budda" from such-and-such. And this negated nominal sentence has no place in the parsing, because it is a resumed sentence in expression. And it is permissible that "from such-and-such" is related to what "lā budda" indicates, meaning: there is no avoiding such-and-such.