Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "Connect or separate the haa of *salani* and what *** resembles it in *kanta*; the Khalaf claimed it."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"Connect or separate the haa of *salani* and what *** resembles it". The *aw* here indicates a choice: connect or separate. This means that both connecting and separating the haa in *salani* are permissible, not the yaa. What resembles the haa in *salani*? Let us return to *salani* so we know what resembles it. *Salani* means "ask me," as in "Ask me, and I will give you." The meaning is not "ask me about news," but here the asking is from the asking of giving. The past tense of *salani* is *sa'ala*. If you say *sa'alanihi*, is it permissible to connect or separate the haa in *sa'alani*? What? Answer, everyone: connecting and separating are permissible, because he said: "Connect or separate". Connect or separate, he says: "Connect or separate the haa of *salani* and what resembles it". So you say *salanihi*, which is connecting, and you say *salani iyyah*, which is separating. It is permissible for me to say *salanihi*, and it is permissible for me to say *salani iyyah*. It is permissible for me to say *sa'alanihi*, and it is permissible for me to say *sa'alani iyyah*. Now, what resembles *salani*? Everything that governs two objects, the original of which is not the subject and the predicate, resembles *salani*. Every verb that governs two objects, the original of which is not the subject and the predicate. Good. "I clothed him with the garment," "I clothed him with it"—is it permissible or not?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Because *kasa* is among the verbs that resemble *salani*, as it governs two objects, the original of which is not the subject and the predicate. Good. "I gave him the dirham," "I gave him it"—is it permissible? This is among the verbs that resemble *salani* because it governed two objects, the original of which is not the subject and the predicate. Good. The author says: "Connect or separate". And we said that *aw* indicates a choice. So which is more eloquent and sounder, may Allah have mercy on you: connecting or separating?
The student: Connecting.
The Shaykh : Where did we take this from? We took this from two aspects. The first aspect: The author placed *sall* (connect) before *fa-sil* (separate). The placement indicates that it is not definitive, but it suggests that it is preferable. The second: The original state is connection. This is the original state, and separation in this case is an exception. Otherwise, the original state is connection. The original state is connection. Therefore, we prefer that the original state is that connecting is preferable from two aspects: a verbal aspect understood from the author's words, which is his placing [connecting] first, and a conceptual aspect: which is that connecting is the original state. Good.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: A second aspect in the parsing of the example.
The Shaykh : No, this example is for the sake of necessity. The apparent [meaning] is: "The haa of *salani* and what *** resembles it in *kanta*; the Khalaf claimed it
Likewise, you thought of me and my connection.
"In *kanta*, the Khalaf claimed it" means it was attributed to the grammarians of the Khalaf. It was attributed to the grammarians of the Khalaf. That is, there is disagreement regarding *kanta*. *Kanta* means: *kana* and its sisters have disagreement regarding them. The indicator is pointing to the fact that the time is up, and we stop here.
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Because *kasa* is among the verbs that resemble *salani*, as it governs two objects, the original of which is not the subject and the predicate. Good. "I gave him the dirham," "I gave him it"—is it permissible? This is among the verbs that resemble *salani* because it governed two objects, the original of which is not the subject and the predicate. Good. The author says: "Connect or separate". And we said that *aw* indicates a choice. So which is more eloquent and sounder, may Allah have mercy on you: connecting or separating?
The student: Connecting.
The Shaykh : Where did we take this from? We took this from two aspects. The first aspect: The author placed *sall* (connect) before *fa-sil* (separate). The placement indicates that it is not definitive, but it suggests that it is preferable. The second: The original state is connection. This is the original state, and separation in this case is an exception. Otherwise, the original state is connection. The original state is connection. Therefore, we prefer that the original state is that connecting is preferable from two aspects: a verbal aspect understood from the author's words, which is his placing [connecting] first, and a conceptual aspect: which is that connecting is the original state. Good.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: A second aspect in the parsing of the example.
The Shaykh : No, this example is for the sake of necessity. The apparent [meaning] is: "The haa of *salani* and what *** resembles it in *kanta*; the Khalaf claimed it
Likewise, you thought of me and my connection.
"In *kanta*, the Khalaf claimed it" means it was attributed to the grammarians of the Khalaf. It was attributed to the grammarians of the Khalaf. That is, there is disagreement regarding *kanta*. *Kanta* means: *kana* and its sisters have disagreement regarding them. The indicator is pointing to the fact that the time is up, and we stop here.