Şerhu'r-Risaleti'l-Vaz'iyye.
(شرح الرسالة الوضعية.)

Name: Şerhu'r-Risaleti'l-Vaz'iyye.
Author: Ali es-Samarkandi.

Title	Şerhu'r-Risaleti'l-Vaz'iyye.
Title Original	شرح الرسالة الوضعية.
Author	Ali es-Samarkandi.
Author Original	علي السمرقندي
Subject	Afro-Asiatic (Hami-Semitic) languages / Other languages / Language and linguistics
Type	Book
Language	Arabic
Digital	Yes
Manuscript	Yes
Physical Dimensions	202x138-126x77 mm.
Library:	Turkish Manuscripts Association Presidency
Library Asset ID	231421
Record ID	231421
Library Location	Süleymaniye Library/Çorlulu Ali Pasha
Notes	The work has been attributed to many authors due to the commonality of names and proportions, as well as the fact that authors living in close periods wrote works on the same or similar subject. In the copy numbered Serez / 03880-001, the text begins as "kale Celâlü'l-mille ve'd-dîn ed-Devvânî...", and a corrective note was made on the margin as "this commentary belongs to Ebu'l-Kâsım el-Leysî es-Samerkandî". This correction is probably based on the information given by Kâtip Çelebi. Kâtip Çelebi gives the beginning of the text and attributes the work to Ebu'l-Kâsım el-Leysî (after 889/1485) and states that it was completed in 888. (Keşf, I, 898) However, we see in the records that the work is widely attributed to Ali Kuşçu (879/1474), and less commonly to a person named Hoca Ali es-Semerkandî. Kâtip Çelebi also mentioned the name "Hoca Ali es-Semerkandî" and stated that his commentary was the oldest commentary written on Îcî's treatise and that Ali Kuşçu wrote talika to the commentary of Hoca Ali es-Samerkandî. Therefore, according to Kâtip Çelebi, Hoca Ali and Ali Kuşçu are two separate people and the text we have belongs neither to one nor to the other. The work is included in many copy manuscripts (e.g. General / 1274/1, Yeni Cami / 00778-003, Atıf Efendi / 02418-002) and copy record (Carullah / 01877-006, Atıf Efendi / 02411) was attributed to Ali Kuşçu and was published accordingly. (e.g. Regional Manuscripts Printing / BB00007172/2, 1280, Regional Manuscripts Printing / BB00007173/2, 1305) He is also attributed to Hoca Ali es-Samerkandî in some manuscripts (e.g. Laleli / 00371-002, Hacı Mahmud Efendi / 05847-004, Hamidiye / 01451-004) On the other hand, there is another text attributed to Hoca Ali es-Samarkandî. (Nuruosmaniye / 04509-010, Nuruosmaniye / 04508-003, Laleli / 02994) There are recent studies defending the text's belonging to Ali Kuşçu, as well as Hoca Ali's work on Alâ'eddin Ali b. There is also a study by Yahyâ es-Samerkandî el-Karamânî (860/1456) that concludes with the opinion that the text belongs to him. (For a summary of the opinions and evaluation, see Processing, 17-27) Since it was not supported by manuscripts, any of the opinions and possibilities could not be preferred over the other in this thesis. Instead, it was merely attributed to the work's common name "Ali es-Samarkandî", as was done in the identification slip. On the back of the identification slip, it was recorded that Kâtip Çelebi attributed the work to Ebu'l-Leys es-Semerkandî, but based on the examinations in Mehmet es-Sefâihî Bey's notebook, the work belonged to Ali es-Semerkandî. It has been noted that whether Ali es-Semerkandî is Ali Kuşçu or not is a separate issue, and again, according to Mehmet es-Sefâihî Bey's statements, there is a strong possibility that the author is Ali Kuşçu. It is a commentary written by a person named Ali es-Semerkandî, whose identity is unknown, based on the short treatise written by Adudüddin el-Îcî (756/1355), which deals with the types of relationships between language and objects.
Sample Text	[19b] Praise be to God who endowed man with knowledge of the conditions and constructions of speech, and made the letters the origins of his word and the circumstances of its meanings, and praying for what is derived from the source of virtue and wisdom, who brings together the virtues of actions and the noble qualities of goodness connected to his words, the types of happiness and guidance implicit in his signs... And after that, when it became widespread... the admiyal message that the Lord Imam informed... the mujtahids supported the truth and the religion... and it included precise issues... and it was not necessary for him to explain... he said The compiler, may God have mercy on him, after the naming, this is the benefit of the person referred to with these mental expressions that he wanted to write and explain their parts. The status of the person who specifies, the observer, and the tangible is descended, so I used the word “this subject” for every tangible reference. The benefit in the language is what I acquired of knowledge or money, which is derived from the word “faid” meaning the creation of money or good [37b]. The meaning is that they alternated in reality, one in place of the other, with the sentence being a definite adverb, since what is considered is the adverb. He concluded the message by repelling what might occur to some misconceptions, which is that the ruling regarding words regarding the totality, partiality, scientificity, and the like is based on the meanings used in them. If I say, for example, “A man of wealth came to me,” and I meant Zaid with him, he might imagine that it is partial because of its use in the partial. Likewise, if he was confined to a town in which the pun was memorized in Zayd, and I said, “The one who memorized the pun in this town is present,” then he might imagine that these words are personal signs due to the union of what is meant by each of them, and of the specific knowledge and the point of defense. What was mentioned is that what is considered in the words is the case of the situation and the subject of it in a universal matter, and if it is used here in a person, then it is not partial, unlike Zayd, for it is partial. To put it to that person, as is the case in such a picture.
Eser türü	Şerh.
Tasnif numarası/Konu	492.7 / Arap dili
Koleksiyon no.	00418-002
Yaprak, satır, sütun sayısı	19b-37b+I yk., 15 st. ;
Yazım şekli (Mensur/Manzum)	Mensur.
Alfabe ve yazı türü	Arap harfli-Nesih
Kaynak/Referans	Akın İşleme, “Ebu’l-Kâsım Ali el-Leysî es-Semerkandî’nin Şerhu’r-Risâleti’l-Vaz‘iyye (Şerhu’l-Kebîr) İsimli Eserinin Tahkik ve Değerlendirmesi”, Yüksek lisans tezi, Marmara Ünv. İstanbul, 2018.Kâtib Çelebi, “Keşfü’z-Zunûn an Esâmi’l-Kütübi ve’l-Fünûn”, nşr. Mehmet Şerafettin Yaltkaya, c.I, 1941.
Temellük ve Vakıf kayıtları	Vakıf kaydı, Sadrâzam Çorlulu Ali Paşa, 1a
Mühürler	Vakıf mührü, “Dersa'âdet Birinci Dâire-i Vakfiyye“, Ia, sonda IbVakıf mührü, Sadrâzam Çorlulu Ali Paşa, “Hâzâ mimmâ Vakafehu’l-Vezîru’l-A‘zam Ali Paşa b. el-Hâcc Muhammed Ağa Afallâhu anhumâ”, 1120, 1a, 2a, 20a

View in source Turkish Manuscripts Association Presidency

Turkish Manuscripts Association Presidency

Şerhu'r-Risaleti'l-Vaz'iyye.

(شرح الرسالة الوضعية.)

Author Ali es-Samarkandi.

Author Original علي السمرقندي

Subject Afro-Asiatic (Hami-Semitic) languages / Other languages / Language and linguistics

Type Book

Language Arabic

Digital Yes

Manuscript Yes

Physical Dimensions 202x138-126x77 mm.

Library Turkish Manuscripts Association Presidency

Library Asset ID 231421

Record ID 231421

Library Location Süleymaniye Library/Çorlulu Ali Pasha

Notes The work has been attributed to many authors due to the commonality of names and proportions, as well as the fact that authors living in close periods wrote works on the same or similar subject. In the copy numbered Serez / 03880-001, the text begins as "kale Celâlü'l-mille ve'd-dîn ed-Devvânî...", and a corrective note was made on the margin as "this commentary belongs to Ebu'l-Kâsım el-Leysî es-Samerkandî". This correction is probably based on the information given by Kâtip Çelebi. Kâtip Çelebi gives the beginning of the text and attributes the work to Ebu'l-Kâsım el-Leysî (after 889/1485) and states that it was completed in 888. (Keşf, I, 898) However, we see in the records that the work is widely attributed to Ali Kuşçu (879/1474), and less commonly to a person named Hoca Ali es-Semerkandî. Kâtip Çelebi also mentioned the name "Hoca Ali es-Semerkandî" and stated that his commentary was the oldest commentary written on Îcî's treatise and that Ali Kuşçu wrote talika to the commentary of Hoca Ali es-Samerkandî. Therefore, according to Kâtip Çelebi, Hoca Ali and Ali Kuşçu are two separate people and the text we have belongs neither to one nor to the other. The work is included in many copy manuscripts (e.g. General / 1274/1, Yeni Cami / 00778-003, Atıf Efendi / 02418-002) and copy record (Carullah / 01877-006, Atıf Efendi / 02411) was attributed to Ali Kuşçu and was published accordingly. (e.g. Regional Manuscripts Printing / BB00007172/2, 1280, Regional Manuscripts Printing / BB00007173/2, 1305) He is also attributed to Hoca Ali es-Samerkandî in some manuscripts (e.g. Laleli / 00371-002, Hacı Mahmud Efendi / 05847-004, Hamidiye / 01451-004) On the other hand, there is another text attributed to Hoca Ali es-Samarkandî. (Nuruosmaniye / 04509-010, Nuruosmaniye / 04508-003, Laleli / 02994) There are recent studies defending the text's belonging to Ali Kuşçu, as well as Hoca Ali's work on Alâ'eddin Ali b. There is also a study by Yahyâ es-Samerkandî el-Karamânî (860/1456) that concludes with the opinion that the text belongs to him. (For a summary of the opinions and evaluation, see Processing, 17-27) Since it was not supported by manuscripts, any of the opinions and possibilities could not be preferred over the other in this thesis. Instead, it was merely attributed to the work's common name "Ali es-Samarkandî", as was done in the identification slip. On the back of the identification slip, it was recorded that Kâtip Çelebi attributed the work to Ebu'l-Leys es-Semerkandî, but based on the examinations in Mehmet es-Sefâihî Bey's notebook, the work belonged to Ali es-Semerkandî. It has been noted that whether Ali es-Semerkandî is Ali Kuşçu or not is a separate issue, and again, according to Mehmet es-Sefâihî Bey's statements, there is a strong possibility that the author is Ali Kuşçu. It is a commentary written by a person named Ali es-Semerkandî, whose identity is unknown, based on the short treatise written by Adudüddin el-Îcî (756/1355), which deals with the types of relationships between language and objects.

Sample Text [19b] Praise be to God who endowed man with knowledge of the conditions and constructions of speech, and made the letters the origins of his word and the circumstances of its meanings, and praying for what is derived from the source of virtue and wisdom, who brings together the virtues of actions and the noble qualities of goodness connected to his words, the types of happiness and guidance implicit in his signs... And after that, when it became widespread... the admiyal message that the Lord Imam informed... the mujtahids supported the truth and the religion... and it included precise issues... and it was not necessary for him to explain... he said The compiler, may God have mercy on him, after the naming, this is the benefit of the person referred to with these mental expressions that he wanted to write and explain their parts. The status of the person who specifies, the observer, and the tangible is descended, so I used the word “this subject” for every tangible reference. The benefit in the language is what I acquired of knowledge or money, which is derived from the word “faid” meaning the creation of money or good [37b]. The meaning is that they alternated in reality, one in place of the other, with the sentence being a definite adverb, since what is considered is the adverb. He concluded the message by repelling what might occur to some misconceptions, which is that the ruling regarding words regarding the totality, partiality, scientificity, and the like is based on the meanings used in them. If I say, for example, “A man of wealth came to me,” and I meant Zaid with him, he might imagine that it is partial because of its use in the partial. Likewise, if he was confined to a town in which the pun was memorized in Zayd, and I said, “The one who memorized the pun in this town is present,” then he might imagine that these words are personal signs due to the union of what is meant by each of them, and of the specific knowledge and the point of defense. What was mentioned is that what is considered in the words is the case of the situation and the subject of it in a universal matter, and if it is used here in a person, then it is not partial, unlike Zayd, for it is partial. To put it to that person, as is the case in such a picture.

Eser türü Şerh.

Tasnif numarası/Konu 492.7 / Arap dili

Koleksiyon no. 00418-002

Yaprak, satır, sütun sayısı 19b-37b+I yk., 15 st. ;

Yazım şekli (Mensur/Manzum) Mensur.

Alfabe ve yazı türü Arap harfli-Nesih

Kaynak/Referans Akın İşleme, “Ebu’l-Kâsım Ali el-Leysî es-Semerkandî’nin Şerhu’r-Risâleti’l-Vaz‘iyye (Şerhu’l-Kebîr) İsimli Eserinin Tahkik ve Değerlendirmesi”, Yüksek lisans tezi, Marmara Ünv. İstanbul, 2018.Kâtib Çelebi, “Keşfü’z-Zunûn an Esâmi’l-Kütübi ve’l-Fünûn”, nşr. Mehmet Şerafettin Yaltkaya, c.I, 1941.

Temellük ve Vakıf kayıtları Vakıf kaydı, Sadrâzam Çorlulu Ali Paşa, 1a

Mühürler Vakıf mührü, “Dersa'âdet Birinci Dâire-i Vakfiyye“, Ia, sonda IbVakıf mührü, Sadrâzam Çorlulu Ali Paşa, “Hâzâ mimmâ Vakafehu’l-Vezîru’l-A‘zam Ali Paşa b. el-Hâcc Muhammed Ağa Afallâhu anhumâ”, 1120, 1a, 2a, 20a