The Question of the Wasp: The Legendary Arabic Grammar Debate That Ended in Tragedy

According to historical accounts, Sibawayhi (سيبويه), the renowned grammarian from Basra, was challenged by his rival from Kūfa, al-Kisā’i (الْكِسائِي), on an intricate point of Arabic grammar.

This pivotal debate, primarily concerning the correct usage of a pronoun, became famously known as “the Question of the Wasp” (al-masʾalaẗ al-zanbūrīyyah – المسألة الزنبورية or مسألة الزنبور), representing one of the most significant linguistic disputes in Arabic history.

So let’s take a look at what perhaps the most famous grammar dispute of all time was about.

What is the “Question of the Wasp”?

If you say the following sentence in Arabic, should you use both pronouns in the nominative case (هُوَ and هِيَ) or do you use the sec­ond pronoun in the accusative case (هُوَ and إِيّاها)?

كُنْتُ أَظُنُّ أَنَّ الْعَقْرَبَ أَشَدُّ لَسْعَةً مِن الزُّنْبُورِ فَإِذا هُوَ هِيَ ‏

كُنْتُ أَظُنُّ أَنَّ الْعَقْرَبَ أَشَدُّ لَسْعَةً مِن الزُّنْبُورِ فَإِذا هُوَ إِيّاها

The sentence means:

I used to think that the sting of a scorpion was more intense than that of a wasp, but [I discovered that] it was the same.

The following translation clarifies what the pronouns refer to: I used to think that the scorpion was more vehement in stinging than the hor­net, and lo, he is (as vehement as) she.

Sībawayhi said that هُوَ هِيَ was correct. Al-Kisa’i said the opposite.

A similar question in English would be whether it is she or it is her should be correct.

In other words, whether the word in question should be nominative, i.e., in the independent case (رَفْع), or accusa­tive, i.e., in the dependent case (نَصْب).

What Sibawayhi proposed

Now let’s break down the last part and determine the parts of the sentence. Here is Sibawayhi’s result:

What al-Kisa’i proposed

Al-Kisa’i agreed to every­thing we’ve said so far and thus also to Sibawaiyhi’s analysis – except for the last word (إِيّاها). How can we explain إِيّاها? There are two ways to han­dle إِيّاها.

He as­sumed that there was a verb, but it was deleted (مَحْذُوف) and is still implic­itly understood. It could have been the verb to be equivalent to (يُساوِيها). Therefore, we ap­ply the rules of a ver­bal sentence (جُمْلة>فِعْلِيّة).

Now it is getting even more complicated. Although many peo­ple say that إِيّاها is the accusative case of هِيَ, this is not entirely correct.إِيّاها has a fixed shape and has to end with a سُكُون on the Aleph in any case as the Aleph can’t carry any other sign. It al­ways must be اْ . There­fore, we have to be more precise and say that إِيّاها is placed in the po­sition of an accusative (فِي <مَحَلّ نَصْب).

We still have to solve one thing: Where is the predi­cate (خَبَرْ) for the subject (مُبْتَدَأ), i.e., هُوَ, of the primary (nominal) sen­tence? Sīb­awayhi said that it is هِيَ. Following option 1, however, it is the entire verbal sentence (with the estimated, deleted verb).

It is actually pretty common that an entire sentence serves as the خَبَرْ. In such a situation, we assign a place value and say that the sen­tence occupies the position of a nominative case (فِي مَحَلّ رَفْع) be­cause the rule says that the predicate has to be in the nomi­native case. That’s all pretty confusing, but it is a way to justify why you see the per­sonal pro­noun in the accusative case.

We already said that هُوَ is the subject of the primary nominal sen­tence. This subject also needs a predicate. So, where is here? The predi­cate is represented by كانَ, including its two governed factors (وَمَعْمُولَيْها). They altogether serve as the predicate of the nominal sen­tence and altogether fill the posi­tion of a nomi­native (فِي مَحَلّ رَفْع).

Back then, public debates about grammar were a form of enter­tainment in which the goal was not so much to establish a truth as to defeat an opponent in front of an audience. Sībawayhi was con­vinced that an accusative (مَنْصُوب), which would be إِيّاها, can’t be the predicate of a nominal sen­tence.

Suddenly, his rival, al-Kisā’i, presented four Bedouins who were pretending to have just happened to be wait­ing at the door. They announced that a true Bedouin would only say إِيّاها.

What happened after the dispute?

Sībawayhi left Baghdad and went to Shi­raz in Persia where he soon died of anger and grief at the result of the debate, consoled by a payment of 10,000 dirhams solicited for him by al-Kisāʾī, as legend has it. Others say that he died from illness. He passed away in 796 (180 AH), per­haps at the age of forty.

Followers of the Basra school claim that al-Kisā’i had bribed them before to support his answer. Fol­lowers of the Kūfa school reject this and say that it would be an insult to throw such allega­tions on al-Kisā’i’s name. In the end, all four Bedouins testified that هُوَ إِيّاها was correct. Sīb­awayhi, it seemed, was wrong.

The dispute was typical for the discussions at that time because it dealt with “what can be said” and “what can’t be said” in Ara­bic. Sīb­awayhi was being judged on this ability to speak correctly and not on the logic of his analysis. If one made a mistake, it sim­ply meant that he didn’t say it in the way the Bedouins speak.

Translation attempts

Note: The translation of the last part of the famous sentence is tricky. It is not clear which words the feminine pronouns, in fact, re­late to. Several translators came to different results.

In my mother tongue (German), I would say: Ich glaubte, der Skorpion stäche heftiger als die Hornisse/Wespe, und siehe, sie ist (in dieser Beziehung wie) er.

A more detailed in-depth analysis is found in the book Arabic for Nerds 2.

• Omar al-Mukhtar and the Airplanes Under the Throne
• A Few Arabic Letters, Estonia, and a 900-Year-Old Mystery | al-Idrisi’s Famous Map
• Inside the Arabic Language Academy’s Race to Finish Al-Mu’jam Al-Kabeer
• Reading the Unreadable: AI & Early Arab-American Stories
• The Human Blockchain: How al-Isnād (الْإِسْنَاد) Verified History Before the Internet