and another interpretation is that "ma" is an indefinite adjective for "kaʾin" or a substitute for it. So when you say, "I will certainly strike a man, whoever he may be," the meaning is: I will certainly strike a man, whoever exists. The meaning is general, as in the first case, meaning: any person. They have interpreted the verse of Allāh: "a parable of a gnat" (Sūrah al-Baqarah, 26) according to these two interpretations. It appeared in the expression of "al-Muṭawwal": whoever he may be, whether it is me or someone else. Al-Fāḍil al-Fanari said: "kāʾin" is a circumstantial noun, and "man" is described in the accusative case as a predicate for "kāʾin," with the pronoun being omitted, meaning: whoever he may be. It was objected that the omission of the predicate of kāna is not permissible. This was stated by Ibn Hishām and the author of "al-Lubāb" and others. It was answered that here it is based on auditory evidence contrary to analogy. If it were said that kāna is complete, and its subject refers to "man," there would be no need for what was mentioned. And "I" is the predicate of an omitted subject, meaning: it is I or someone else, or a substitute for "man kāna," on the basis that it is a case of borrowing the nominative pronoun for the accusative, as it was borrowed for the genitive in: [what] "I was." End.

The scholar of the Romans, Ḥasan Jalabī al-Fanārī, said: "al-latīyā" is the diminutive of "allatī" contrary to analogy, because the rule of diminutive is that the first letter of the diminutive is to be given a ḍammah. And this remained in its original form, but they compensated for the initial vowel by adding an alif at the end, as they did in