Rather, the correct view in that regard according to us is that it be called Arabic-Non-Arabic, or Abyssinian-Arabic, since both nations use it—in their expression and speech—just as they use the rest of their speech and expression. Thus, no other words in the speech of either nation are more deserving of being attributed to it than these words (1).

Likewise, the rule regarding every word and noun in which the vocalizations and meanings among different nations coincide, and which is found to be used in every such nation just as the rest of their speech is used, is that attributing it to each of these nations is like what we have described—such as dirham, dīnār, dawāh (inkstand), and qalam (pen), regarding which the tongues of the Persians and the Arabs agreed in identical vocalizations and identical meaning—in that it merits being attributed to each of those nations simultaneously and jointly (2).

And that is the meaning of those from whom we have narrated statements regarding the words that passed at the beginning of this chapter, such as some of them attributing certain words to the Abyssinian tongue, some attributing them to the Persian tongue, and some attributing them to the Roman tongue. For whoever attributed any of that to what he attributed it to did not—by attributing it to that—negate its being Arabic; nor did whoever among them said "it is Arabic" negate its meriting attribution to those in whose speech it also exists among other nations. Affirmation is only an indication of negation in matters where two meanings cannot coexist, such as someone saying, "So-and-so is standing," whereby his statement indicates that he is not sitting, and similar instances where coexistence is impossible due to mutual exclusion. But as for that which can coexist, it falls outside of this meaning. That is like someone saying, "So-and-so is standing and speaking to so-and-so"; affirming standing for him contains nothing that indicates the negation of his speaking to another,