Commentary on the author's statement: "And the grammarians have two views regarding the case where the governor does not differ, such as when you say, 'I honored and gave to Zayd.' One of them is..."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The reader: "before you, and it was said—and this is better—: rather, the governor is what preceded, meaning: Allah promised the hypocrites as He promised those before you, and cursed them as He cursed those before you, and for them is a constant punishment like those before you. Or its position is accusative, and it is permissible for it to be nominative, meaning: a punishment like the punishment of those before you.
And the reality of the matter according to this view is: that the letter kaf was taken by two governors that put in the accusative, or one that puts in the accusative and one that puts in the nominative, of the same kind as their saying: 'I honored and Zayd honored me,' and the grammarians"
The Shaykh : What, what?
The reader: "And the grammarians have two views regarding the case where the governor does not differ, such as when you say, 'I honored and gave to Zayd': One of them is: the view of Sibawayhi and his followers, that the governor of the noun is one of them, and that the other had its object deleted, because he does not see two governors meeting on a single object.
And the second is: the view of al-Farra and others of the Kufans, that both verbs governed this noun, and he holds that the two governors govern the single object".
The Shaykh : Which of them is more correct?
The reader: The first.
The Shaykh : The second. We have a rule regarding the disagreement of grammarians, which is to follow the easier one, as long as the meaning does not object to it. Here, the meaning does not object to it. If you say, 'I presented and honored Zayd,' what prevents 'presented' and 'honored' from governing Zayd? Because both presentation and honor fell upon him. As for saying, 'I did not honor Zayd; it is the governor, and the object was deleted from the first,' and its original form was 'I presented him and honored Zayd'—who said this? The original state is the absence of deletion. Then, if the context came with this style, it would be awkward: 'I presented him and honored Zayd.' This is awkward. So I hold the view of the Kufans in this matter, that the object is the object of both verbs, and there is no harm in a third governor coming, such as 'I presented and honored and gave and gifted and here.'
The student: And I gave in charity.
The Shaykh : And I gave in charity.
The student: And I bequeathed.
The Shaykh : It becomes the object of all the governors, and what prevents it?
The student: Shaykh, the nominative and accusative.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: The nominative and accusative.
The Shaykh : The nominative and accusative, this is looked into, but if it is possible. And for this reason, we said, as long as the meaning does not object to it. If it objects, then it is not possible. All right.
And the reality of the matter according to this view is: that the letter kaf was taken by two governors that put in the accusative, or one that puts in the accusative and one that puts in the nominative, of the same kind as their saying: 'I honored and Zayd honored me,' and the grammarians"
The Shaykh : What, what?
The reader: "And the grammarians have two views regarding the case where the governor does not differ, such as when you say, 'I honored and gave to Zayd': One of them is: the view of Sibawayhi and his followers, that the governor of the noun is one of them, and that the other had its object deleted, because he does not see two governors meeting on a single object.
And the second is: the view of al-Farra and others of the Kufans, that both verbs governed this noun, and he holds that the two governors govern the single object".
The Shaykh : Which of them is more correct?
The reader: The first.
The Shaykh : The second. We have a rule regarding the disagreement of grammarians, which is to follow the easier one, as long as the meaning does not object to it. Here, the meaning does not object to it. If you say, 'I presented and honored Zayd,' what prevents 'presented' and 'honored' from governing Zayd? Because both presentation and honor fell upon him. As for saying, 'I did not honor Zayd; it is the governor, and the object was deleted from the first,' and its original form was 'I presented him and honored Zayd'—who said this? The original state is the absence of deletion. Then, if the context came with this style, it would be awkward: 'I presented him and honored Zayd.' This is awkward. So I hold the view of the Kufans in this matter, that the object is the object of both verbs, and there is no harm in a third governor coming, such as 'I presented and honored and gave and gifted and here.'
The student: And I gave in charity.
The Shaykh : And I gave in charity.
The student: And I bequeathed.
The Shaykh : It becomes the object of all the governors, and what prevents it?
The student: Shaykh, the nominative and accusative.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: The nominative and accusative.
The Shaykh : The nominative and accusative, this is looked into, but if it is possible. And for this reason, we said, as long as the meaning does not object to it. If it objects, then it is not possible. All right.