occurs, and it is problematic because what is meant by saying "such and such happened in the year forty" is what actually occurred after thirty-nine. The explanation of the addition in this context, considering this meaning, is not clear, since the addition is not in the sense of possession, as the added-to is neither a genus for the addition nor a container for it. Thus, the meaning of attributing the year to forty is that it is a part of it, as in (the hand of Zayd), and this does not convey the intended meaning, as it could refer to any year among them, whether the last or not, which contradicts the assumption. It can be said that the context indicates that the intended meaning is the last, because the purpose of dating is to precisely determine the time of the recorded event. If the apparent meaning of the expression were intended, where the dated year is one of forty such that it could apply to any assumed year, specifying forty, for example, would not provide complete distinction for the intended meaning. However, the context of intending precision by specifying the time necessitates that this year is the one completing the count of forty, or it could be said that an addition is omitted due to this context, with the estimation being: in the year after forty. The addition is explanatory, meaning: in a year that is the last of forty, so consider it. It ends. I say: it appears to me that there is no need to estimate the addition after making the addition explanatory, for forty, as it is used to refer to the whole, is also used to refer to the last of it, and similarly with other numbers, as evidenced by your saying: this is one, this is two, this is three. Thus, two is used for the second, and three for the third, as it is used for the whole of two and the whole of three, so consider. And Allāh knows best [what is correct]