Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And what is pluralized with a ta and an alif *** is broken in the genitive and the accusative together."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then the author said:
"And what is pluralized with a ta and an alif *** is broken in the genitive and the accusative together"
"Ma" is the subject, and "bi-ta wa alif" is attached to "jama'a" (pluralized), and the clause "yukassar" (is broken) is the predicate of the subject. This means that what is pluralized with a ta and an alif is broken in the genitive and the accusative together. Here he says: it is broken in the genitive and the accusative. What remains for us? The nominative. He is silent about it, so it remains on the original rule, meaning it is raised with a dammah, and it is accussed and genitived with a kasrah. In the state of the accusative, the kasrah is a substitute for the fathah, whereas in the state of the genitive, it is on the original rule.
But what is the ruling of this? He says: "And what is pluralized with a ta and an alif", meaning: what is pluralized by the addition of an alif and a ta. That is, an alif and a ta are brought in to form the plural. An alif and a ta are brought in to form the plural. This is broken in the genitive on the original rule, and it is broken in the state of the accusative as a substitute, and it is raised with a dammah on the original rule. Here he refers to the feminine plural. What is the feminine plural? It is what is pluralized with an alif and a ta added to its singular form. This is the criterion for it: whether rational or non-rational, whether it denotes a quality or a thing, whether masculine or feminine, whatever it is. Every plural that is pluralized with an alif and a ta added to its singular form, we consider it what? A sound feminine plural. We raise it with a dammah, we accuse it with a kasrah, and we genitive it with a kasrah. Put it in your notes.
An example of this: you say "Muslimah" (a Muslim woman), and its plural is "Muslimat" (Muslim women). An alif and a ta were added, so it became a plural. And do not say: the ta in "Muslimah." He says: because the ta in "Muslimah" is not a true ta, but it is a hah. The evidence for this is that the writing of the ta in "Muslimah" is different from the writing of the ta in "Muslimat." In "Muslimah" it is connected (marbutah), and in "Muslimat" it is open (mufatahah). Is that not so? So the ta in "Muslimat" is not the ta in "Muslimah." All right.
And you say regarding "A'ishah" (a proper name), you say in it "A'ishat" (plural of A'ishah). "A'ishat" is a sound feminine plural. And you say regarding "bayt" (house), "abwat" (houses). Ah, no, that is not correct. Why? Because the ta is original. The ta is original. In "bayt," the ta is original. In "abwat," the ta in "abwat" is the same ta that is in "bayt." So the addition in "abwat" to the singular is the addition of one letter, which is the alif. And we say: it must be an alif and a ta added to the singular. All right.
"Ghazat" (warriors). "Ghazat." You say "Ghazi" (a warrior), its plural is "Ghazat." It is a sound feminine plural. It has an alif and it has a ta. But the alif is original. The alif in "Ghazat" is original, and the ta... ah, is added. Correct, the ta is added, but it is not the ta of the plural. The evidence that it is not the ta of the plural is that it comes connected (marbutah). "Ghazat" comes connected, and the ta of the plural comes open, not connected.
So, if we find a plural where the ta in it is original, it is not accussed with a kasrah. It is not accussed with a kasrah. For example: "abwat." If we find a plural where the alif is original and the ta is added, it is not accussed with a kasrah, because the alif is original. If we find a plural where the alif is added and the ta is added, then at that time it is accussed with a kasrah. It is accussed with a kasrah as a substitute for the fathah. Is that clear, everyone? All right. "Amwat" (the dead).
The student: No. The ta is original.
The Shaykh : The ta is original because it is "mayyit" (a dead person), so the ta is original. Therefore, it is not accussed with a kasrah. What is accussed with a kasrah is what is pluralized with an alif and a ta, meaning added to what? To the singular. To its singular. All right. If it is said: "Asma'" (names), "Asma'at" (plural of Asma'). Ah, is that a plural? A plural. A plural, because it has an alif and a ta added. Yes.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : "Asma'" and its pattern is "fa'la'." "Fa'la'" like "ashya'" (things). Its pattern, even though "ashya'" has a change by transposition (i'lal bil-qalb al-makani), but "Asma'" its pattern is "fa'la'" from "samaw" (to be high). For this reason, it does not decline (is not sahn). Unlike "Asma'" (names), unlike "Asma'" which is the plural of "ism" (name), for it does decline.[An-Najm 53:23] Because the hamzah in it is not the alif of femininity. And as for "Asma'" (the name of the woman), it does not decline because it has what? The elongated alif of femininity. All right. The plural of "Hind."
The student: "Hindat."
The Shaykh : "Hindat" is accussed with a kasrah or not?
The student: It is accussed.
The Shaykh : Because it has an alif and a ta added. So the result is that this chapter is very easy, and it is that every plural that is pluralized with an alif and a ta added to the singular, then its ruling is that it is raised with a dammah, genitived with a kasrah, and accussed with a kasrah. Ibn Malik said:
"And what is pluralized with a ta and an alif *** is broken in the genitive and the accusative together".
"And what is pluralized with a ta and an alif *** is broken in the genitive and the accusative together"
"Ma" is the subject, and "bi-ta wa alif" is attached to "jama'a" (pluralized), and the clause "yukassar" (is broken) is the predicate of the subject. This means that what is pluralized with a ta and an alif is broken in the genitive and the accusative together. Here he says: it is broken in the genitive and the accusative. What remains for us? The nominative. He is silent about it, so it remains on the original rule, meaning it is raised with a dammah, and it is accussed and genitived with a kasrah. In the state of the accusative, the kasrah is a substitute for the fathah, whereas in the state of the genitive, it is on the original rule.
But what is the ruling of this? He says: "And what is pluralized with a ta and an alif", meaning: what is pluralized by the addition of an alif and a ta. That is, an alif and a ta are brought in to form the plural. An alif and a ta are brought in to form the plural. This is broken in the genitive on the original rule, and it is broken in the state of the accusative as a substitute, and it is raised with a dammah on the original rule. Here he refers to the feminine plural. What is the feminine plural? It is what is pluralized with an alif and a ta added to its singular form. This is the criterion for it: whether rational or non-rational, whether it denotes a quality or a thing, whether masculine or feminine, whatever it is. Every plural that is pluralized with an alif and a ta added to its singular form, we consider it what? A sound feminine plural. We raise it with a dammah, we accuse it with a kasrah, and we genitive it with a kasrah. Put it in your notes.
An example of this: you say "Muslimah" (a Muslim woman), and its plural is "Muslimat" (Muslim women). An alif and a ta were added, so it became a plural. And do not say: the ta in "Muslimah." He says: because the ta in "Muslimah" is not a true ta, but it is a hah. The evidence for this is that the writing of the ta in "Muslimah" is different from the writing of the ta in "Muslimat." In "Muslimah" it is connected (marbutah), and in "Muslimat" it is open (mufatahah). Is that not so? So the ta in "Muslimat" is not the ta in "Muslimah." All right.
And you say regarding "A'ishah" (a proper name), you say in it "A'ishat" (plural of A'ishah). "A'ishat" is a sound feminine plural. And you say regarding "bayt" (house), "abwat" (houses). Ah, no, that is not correct. Why? Because the ta is original. The ta is original. In "bayt," the ta is original. In "abwat," the ta in "abwat" is the same ta that is in "bayt." So the addition in "abwat" to the singular is the addition of one letter, which is the alif. And we say: it must be an alif and a ta added to the singular. All right.
"Ghazat" (warriors). "Ghazat." You say "Ghazi" (a warrior), its plural is "Ghazat." It is a sound feminine plural. It has an alif and it has a ta. But the alif is original. The alif in "Ghazat" is original, and the ta... ah, is added. Correct, the ta is added, but it is not the ta of the plural. The evidence that it is not the ta of the plural is that it comes connected (marbutah). "Ghazat" comes connected, and the ta of the plural comes open, not connected.
So, if we find a plural where the ta in it is original, it is not accussed with a kasrah. It is not accussed with a kasrah. For example: "abwat." If we find a plural where the alif is original and the ta is added, it is not accussed with a kasrah, because the alif is original. If we find a plural where the alif is added and the ta is added, then at that time it is accussed with a kasrah. It is accussed with a kasrah as a substitute for the fathah. Is that clear, everyone? All right. "Amwat" (the dead).
The student: No. The ta is original.
The Shaykh : The ta is original because it is "mayyit" (a dead person), so the ta is original. Therefore, it is not accussed with a kasrah. What is accussed with a kasrah is what is pluralized with an alif and a ta, meaning added to what? To the singular. To its singular. All right. If it is said: "Asma'" (names), "Asma'at" (plural of Asma'). Ah, is that a plural? A plural. A plural, because it has an alif and a ta added. Yes.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : "Asma'" and its pattern is "fa'la'." "Fa'la'" like "ashya'" (things). Its pattern, even though "ashya'" has a change by transposition (i'lal bil-qalb al-makani), but "Asma'" its pattern is "fa'la'" from "samaw" (to be high). For this reason, it does not decline (is not sahn). Unlike "Asma'" (names), unlike "Asma'" which is the plural of "ism" (name), for it does decline.
They are not but [mere] names you have named
إن هي إلا أسماء سميتموهاThe student: "Hindat."
The Shaykh : "Hindat" is accussed with a kasrah or not?
The student: It is accussed.
The Shaykh : Because it has an alif and a ta added. So the result is that this chapter is very easy, and it is that every plural that is pluralized with an alif and a ta added to the singular, then its ruling is that it is raised with a dammah, genitived with a kasrah, and accussed with a kasrah. Ibn Malik said:
"And what is pluralized with a ta and an alif *** is broken in the genitive and the accusative together".