according to him, (mā) is the predicate of "lā," and it requires separating (siyy) from the annexation without substitution. It was said: the predicate of "lā" being definite, and the response is that "mā" is considered an indefinite described [noun]. As for the response that it might refer back to the statement of S (169) in: "lā rajula qāʾimun" that the elevation of the predicate is due to what it was elevated by, not by "lā" the negator, it does not benefit in our context as is evident. Sometimes the word "lā" is omitted for ease, even though it is intended, and thus the meaning does not change, as in His saying: "taftaʾu tadhkuru" (170) meaning: "lā taftaʾu," but al-Balyānī (171) mentioned in the explanation of the summary (13) of the comprehensive collection that the usage of "sīyma" without [lā] (172) has no parallel in the speech of the Arabs. The yāʾ may be lightened with the presence of "lā" and its omission. It may be said: "lā sawāʾa [mā]" (173) in place of "lā sīyma." The wāw that enters upon it in some instances, as in his saying (174): "wa-lā sīyma yawman bi-dārati jaljal" is parenthetical, as mentioned by al-Raḍī (175). [It was said: circumstantial] (176). And it was said: it is a conjunction. Then it was counted