Continuation of the answer to the question: "Can we say that if we want to know whether a letter is original or non-original, we dualize or pluralize the word?"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : And we made do with the taa of the plural; we made do with it in place of its presence. You know, because the taa in *shajarah* (tree) was brought in for femininity, and it is in a state of separation. So when we pluralize it, we say *shajaraat* (trees), and we make do with the taa of the plural in place of its femininity. Yes.
The questioner : Can we say that if we want to be sure that a letter is original or not, we dualize or pluralize?
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, but the measure is what indicates it to you. The measure: some words decline and others do not?
The questioner : They do not decline.
The Shaykh : Yes, names.
The questioner : They do not decline.
The Shaykh : They decline[An-Najm 53:23].
The questioner : Other than proper names.
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, it is the plural of a noun.
The questioner : It is movable (declinable).
The Shaykh : It is movable. What is the difference between *asmaa* (names) and *ashya* (things)?
The questioner : The hamzah is original.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : The hamzah in *ism* (name) is original.
The Shaykh : No.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, yes.
The questioner : *Asmaa* is on the pattern of *af'al* (plural of *fa'il*).
The Shaykh : The hamzah is original, and *ashya* (things).
The questioner : It is on the pattern of *fa'laa* ... .
The Shaykh : Exactly, yes.
The questioner : The original form of *ashya* ... .
The Shaykh : For *fa'laa*, yes. So the hamzah in *ashya*, the first hamzah in *ashya*, this one is original, and it is the *lam* (final letter) of the word, but it was moved forward. So its original form is *shayya* on the pattern of *fa'laa*, then the hamzah was moved forward and it became *ashya*. And for that reason we say: its pattern is *aa* *fa'laa*, and its pattern is not *fa'laa*. And the hamzah at the end, this one is extra for femininity. Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Ah.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It will come to us, if Allah wills. It will come to us. Yes.
The questioner : Can we say that if we want to be sure that a letter is original or not, we dualize or pluralize?
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, but the measure is what indicates it to you. The measure: some words decline and others do not?
The questioner : They do not decline.
The Shaykh : Yes,
Do not ask about things
لا تسألوا عن أشياءThe questioner : They do not decline.
The Shaykh : They decline
They are not but [mere] names you have named
إن هي إلا أسماءٌ سميتموهاThe questioner : Other than proper names.
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, it is the plural of a noun.
The questioner : It is movable (declinable).
The Shaykh : It is movable. What is the difference between *asmaa* (names) and *ashya* (things)?
The questioner : The hamzah is original.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : The hamzah in *ism* (name) is original.
The Shaykh : No.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, yes.
The questioner : *Asmaa* is on the pattern of *af'al* (plural of *fa'il*).
The Shaykh : The hamzah is original, and *ashya* (things).
The questioner : It is on the pattern of *fa'laa* ... .
The Shaykh : Exactly, yes.
The questioner : The original form of *ashya* ... .
The Shaykh : For *fa'laa*, yes. So the hamzah in *ashya*, the first hamzah in *ashya*, this one is original, and it is the *lam* (final letter) of the word, but it was moved forward. So its original form is *shayya* on the pattern of *fa'laa*, then the hamzah was moved forward and it became *ashya*. And for that reason we say: its pattern is *aa* *fa'laa*, and its pattern is not *fa'laa*. And the hamzah at the end, this one is extra for femininity. Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Ah.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It will come to us, if Allah wills. It will come to us. Yes.