If you ask: Is it permissible for it to be a purpose clause, or in the accusative due to the removal of the preposition, or as a specification? I say: The first is not permissible because the accusative for causation must be a verbal noun, and the second is not permissible for two reasons: The first: The omission of the preposition is based on auditory evidence, and the use of such a construction is consistently widespread in the speech of scholars. The second: They have committed to using such expressions in an indefinite form, and if it were due to the omission of the preposition, it would remain in its definite form as it was with the presence of the preposition, as the definiteness remains in the saying: "You pass by the houses without turning, your speech to me is then forbidden," and its original is: "You pass by the houses," or "by the houses." Nor the third, because specification is either an explanation of a singular, like "a pound of oil," or an explanation of a relation, like "Zayd was good-natured," and this is neither of them. As for it not being an explanation of a singular, it is because no ambiguous term has preceded it to be specified. And as for it not being an explanation of a relation, it is because no relation has preceded it. If you say: It is possible that it is a specification of the relationship by assuming an addition, meaning: its explanation linguistically, so it would be like the expression "I liked [its fragrance] as a father,"