The noble scholar referred in the latter part of (Bayān al-Miftāḥ) to the fact that in such cases the adverbial phrase is the predicate of (lā) where he said: "In his statement: (lā talaqqī li-ishāratihi) that (li-ishāratihi) is not governed by talaqqī, otherwise it would have been obligatory to render it accusative by analogy with the annexed, but it is the predicate of (lā), so reflect and compare similar constructions to what has been mentioned." End of quote. I say: This is evident when it is said: (lā budda min kadhā). However, when it is said: (lā budda li-kadhā min kadhā), the predicate is the first adverbial phrase, unless it is said that there are multiple predicates, reflect on this. Then in his statement: "It is permissible for it to be related to what (lā budda) indicates, meaning: lā budda min kadhā," there is a consideration, as there is no difference between this implied and the mentioned, so there is no need for its implication, reflect on this. It appeared in some expressions: (lā budda wa-an yakūna) and Saʿd used it in his books as well. Al-Fanari said: The wāw is an addition in the predicate. Some commentators said: This wāw is for attachment, meaning for the increased attachment of (lā) to the predicate. End of quote. There is a discussion on this, as the construction formed from (an) and the verb is not suitable to be a predicate in meaning. If it is said: The omission of the preposition after "anna" and "an" is consistent,