As for our saying that knowledge is only a subject of singularity, like knowledge, and that is why we called knowledge knowledge, because if we say, “I knew Zayd standing,” then we were not asking for Zaid for himself, nor were we asking for him to stand up for his own sake. Rather, what we were asking for was the ratio of Zaid’s standing up, and he is required to be one, for it is one specific relationship, and we taught Zaid alone by knowing and standing alone. By knowledge, we say, “I knew Zaid and I knew standing,” and this extent was absent from the grammarians. Imagine that attaching knowledge to Zaid in relation to standing is the same as his connection to Zaid and standing, and this is a mistake, for if Zaid had not been known to him, and standing also had been known to him before that, it would not have been valid to attribute what he did not know to what he did not know. Because it is not known whether this ratio is correct or not, and this type of knowledge is called, a