we say: When the preposition is assumed, it becomes superfluous, related to the word "budda," and the predicate is omitted as mentioned before. Moreover, the author of "al-Mughnī" (88) does not affirm a wāw (89) for attachment, as mentioned by some scholars, and he favored that the wāw here is superfluous, which means its presence in the speech is like its absence. I saw in some margins that it was narrated from Abū Saʿīd al-Sīrāfī (90) in the book "S" (91) that he said: The wāw comes with the meaning of (from), and if this is confirmed, attributing the wāw here to it is more appropriate than claiming its superfluity, so it should be reviewed.

Ibn al-Ḥājib said: It is accusative as an absolute object, and it is from the emphatic source for something else. He stated this explicitly in his "Amālī" (92). There is a consideration from two aspects: First, the language is not a name for the event. Second, if it were an emphatic source for something else, it would only come after the sentence, as it is not permissible for it to precede or be in the middle, so one cannot say: (truly Zayd is my son) nor (Zayd truly is my son), even though al-Zajjāj (93) permits that