Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And they assigned to some species a name *** like the name of individuals in form, and it is general."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And they assigned to some species a name *** like the name of individuals in form, and it is general".
"They assigned": The pronoun refers to the Arabs, because they are the people of speech and the people of formulation, and it does not refer to the grammarians, because most of the grammarians are latecomers to the language who do not have the authority to coin anything in the Arabic language. And who has that authority?
The student: The Arabs.
The Shaykh : The Arabs, meaning the Arabs assigned to some species a name. There are species, types, and individuals. The name we discussed first is the personal name. What the author is discussing now is the generic name. The generic name. And I said: there are species, types, and individuals. An example of that: grain is a species, and wheat is a type. And this vessel contains wheat. I say: this wheat. This is a specific individual in itself. He says:
"And they assigned to some species a name": Its original form is "ismun" (a name), but the alif was deleted, either according to the dialect of Rabi'ah, who stop on the accusative without an alif, or due to the necessity of poetry. But he says: Yes, "like the name of individuals in form, and it is general": Like the name of individuals in form, meaning in the verbal rulings, it is given the ruling of a personal name. But in meaning, it is general. Yes, he says: What are the verbal rulings that result from this? Everything that is affected by a personal name is affected by a generic name. Among these is that one of the obstacles to inflection (i'rab) is being a proper name, and feminine ending. Qatadah: why is it prevented from inflection?
The student: Because it is a proper name and has a feminine ending.
The Shaykh : Because it is a proper name and has a feminine ending. If a generic name comes to us with a feminine ending (ta marbutah), we prevent it from inflection, because its ruling is the verbal ruling, like a personal name. And it is also correct for a state (hal) to come from it, meaning: from a generic name, just as it is correct from a personal name. Likewise, it is permissible to begin a sentence with it, just as it is permissible to begin with a personal name. The important point is that all the verbal rulings that are established for a personal name are established for a generic name. But in meaning, it is not like a personal name, because a personal name specifies a particular individual, whereas a generic name is general. And therefore he said: "and it is general": "General": Its original form is "a'amm" (more general). Its original form is "a'amm", but the alif was deleted for ease of pronunciation, like "khayr" (good) and "sharr" (bad). What is their original form?
The student: "Akhayr" and "asharr".
The Shaykh : "Akhayr" and "asharr". So "amm" here is a superlative adjective from which the hamzah was deleted, so it became "amm". It is also permissible for "amm" here to be a past tense verb, meaning it is not a superlative adjective, i.e., it generalized the individuals, unlike what? The personal name. So the personal name has two rulings: verbal and semantic. The verbal is what we referred to first regarding the rulings related to the form: such as not being inflected, the permissibility of beginning a sentence with it, the coming of a state from it, and the like. The semantic is that it indicates a specific thing. "A name that specifies the named absolutely is its name". The generic name has two rulings: a verbal ruling, like what? Like the ruling of a personal name completely. And a semantic ruling like an indefinite noun. It is like an indefinite noun in meaning, because it generalizes all individuals. It generalizes all individuals. It does not specialize in one individual. And at that time we say: In his statement, there are two possibilities: that it is a superlative adjective from which the hamzah was deleted for ease of pronunciation, and the estimation is "and it is more general," meaning more general than a personal name, because it includes all individuals, and a personal name does not include more than one. Or we say: "Amm" is a past tense verb, i.e., it generalized all its individuals, unlike a personal name. He said: "and it is general": So its ruling in terms of meaning is the ruling of
The student: The personal name.
The Shaykh : No, in terms of meaning, its ruling is the ruling of an indefinite noun. It generalizes all individuals. In terms of form, its ruling is the ruling of a personal name.
"They assigned": The pronoun refers to the Arabs, because they are the people of speech and the people of formulation, and it does not refer to the grammarians, because most of the grammarians are latecomers to the language who do not have the authority to coin anything in the Arabic language. And who has that authority?
The student: The Arabs.
The Shaykh : The Arabs, meaning the Arabs assigned to some species a name. There are species, types, and individuals. The name we discussed first is the personal name. What the author is discussing now is the generic name. The generic name. And I said: there are species, types, and individuals. An example of that: grain is a species, and wheat is a type. And this vessel contains wheat. I say: this wheat. This is a specific individual in itself. He says:
"And they assigned to some species a name": Its original form is "ismun" (a name), but the alif was deleted, either according to the dialect of Rabi'ah, who stop on the accusative without an alif, or due to the necessity of poetry. But he says: Yes, "like the name of individuals in form, and it is general": Like the name of individuals in form, meaning in the verbal rulings, it is given the ruling of a personal name. But in meaning, it is general. Yes, he says: What are the verbal rulings that result from this? Everything that is affected by a personal name is affected by a generic name. Among these is that one of the obstacles to inflection (i'rab) is being a proper name, and feminine ending. Qatadah: why is it prevented from inflection?
The student: Because it is a proper name and has a feminine ending.
The Shaykh : Because it is a proper name and has a feminine ending. If a generic name comes to us with a feminine ending (ta marbutah), we prevent it from inflection, because its ruling is the verbal ruling, like a personal name. And it is also correct for a state (hal) to come from it, meaning: from a generic name, just as it is correct from a personal name. Likewise, it is permissible to begin a sentence with it, just as it is permissible to begin with a personal name. The important point is that all the verbal rulings that are established for a personal name are established for a generic name. But in meaning, it is not like a personal name, because a personal name specifies a particular individual, whereas a generic name is general. And therefore he said: "and it is general": "General": Its original form is "a'amm" (more general). Its original form is "a'amm", but the alif was deleted for ease of pronunciation, like "khayr" (good) and "sharr" (bad). What is their original form?
The student: "Akhayr" and "asharr".
The Shaykh : "Akhayr" and "asharr". So "amm" here is a superlative adjective from which the hamzah was deleted, so it became "amm". It is also permissible for "amm" here to be a past tense verb, meaning it is not a superlative adjective, i.e., it generalized the individuals, unlike what? The personal name. So the personal name has two rulings: verbal and semantic. The verbal is what we referred to first regarding the rulings related to the form: such as not being inflected, the permissibility of beginning a sentence with it, the coming of a state from it, and the like. The semantic is that it indicates a specific thing. "A name that specifies the named absolutely is its name". The generic name has two rulings: a verbal ruling, like what? Like the ruling of a personal name completely. And a semantic ruling like an indefinite noun. It is like an indefinite noun in meaning, because it generalizes all individuals. It generalizes all individuals. It does not specialize in one individual. And at that time we say: In his statement, there are two possibilities: that it is a superlative adjective from which the hamzah was deleted for ease of pronunciation, and the estimation is "and it is more general," meaning more general than a personal name, because it includes all individuals, and a personal name does not include more than one. Or we say: "Amm" is a past tense verb, i.e., it generalized all its individuals, unlike a personal name. He said: "and it is general": So its ruling in terms of meaning is the ruling of
The student: The personal name.
The Shaykh : No, in terms of meaning, its ruling is the ruling of an indefinite noun. It generalizes all individuals. In terms of form, its ruling is the ruling of a personal name.