Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "The relative pronoun for names is *alladhi*, for the feminine *allati* *** and the *ya* is not retained when they are dual."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said: "The relative pronoun for names is *alladhi*": The word "relative pronoun" can be parsed as the subject, and "alladhi" as the predicate of the subject. This is when we want to state what the relative pronoun for names is. It is also permissible for "alladhi" and what is conjoined to it to be the predicate, with "relative pronoun for names" as the subject. This is when we want to clarify that "alladhi" and what is conjoined to it are the relative pronoun for names. Both interpretations are permissible. It is permissible for you to state that "alladhi" and its followers are relative pronouns, and it is permissible to state what the relative pronoun for names is, saying: "It is *alladhi* and what is conjoined to it". The author's statement: "The relative pronoun for names" is a precaution to exclude the relative pronoun for particles and the relative pronoun for verbs. However, there is no such thing as a relative pronoun for verbs; only the relative pronoun for particles exists. The relative pronoun for particles is every particle that forms a verbal noun with what follows it. That is, every particle that combines with what follows it to form a verbal noun is a relative particle. "Inna, ann, law, kay, and the verbal noun *ma*". These five are relative particles because they combine with what follows them to form a verbal noun. The verb that is converted into a verbal noun is its relative clause. So if you say: "It is established with me that so-and-so arrived," is *inna* here a relative particle or a relative pronoun?
The student: A relative particle.
The Shaykh : A relative particle, because it is converted into a verbal noun, so you say: "It is established with me that so-and-so arrived." Good, "I like that you stand up"?
The student: A relative particle.
The Shaykh : *Ann* is a relative particle because it combines with what follows it to form a verbal noun, so you say: "I like your standing up." *Law*:, meaning: "They wished to flatter you." So *law* here is a relative particle. What comes after it?
The student: *Kay*.
The Shaykh : *Kay*. "I came so that I might learn," meaning: "I came to learn." So it is a relative particle. The verbal noun *ma* you say: "I like what you do," if you make it a verbal noun particle. It is also permissible to make it a relative pronoun, but if you make it a verbal noun particle, which is permissible, then it is a verbal noun particle, and the implied meaning is: "I like your doing." Good, so the relative pronoun for names, Ibn Malik used it as a precaution against the relative pronoun for particles, not against the relative pronoun for verbs, because it does not exist.
"For the masculine singular *alladhi*, for the feminine *allati*". *Alladhi* is for the masculine singular. His statement: "For the feminine *allati*": This is conjoined to *alladhi*. But Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) often omits the conjunction particle for the sake of poetic necessity and brevity. Otherwise, the implied meaning is: "Alladhi and for the feminine *allati*", meaning: And the relative pronoun for the feminine is *allati*. If someone says: You said that *alladhi* is the relative pronoun for the masculine. How did you know that it is the relative pronoun for the masculine? We say: We knew that, or I knew that, by the statement of Ibn Malik: "For the feminine *allati*". So from this, we know that the preceding *alladhi* is for whom?
The student: For the masculine.
The Shaykh : For the masculine. "And the *ya* is not retained when they are dual". The *ya* after the *dhal* and the *ya* after the *ta*: "Is not retained when they are dual". The *ya* is the subject, and "is not retained" is the predicate of the subject. The clause is the predicate of the subject. And "when they are dual" is a condition. The *ma* in his statement: "When they are dual" is superfluous. And we have recited for you the verse of the Rajaz poet:
"O seeker, take the benefit: *** What comes after 'idha' is superfluous"
An easy point: The *ma* after *idha* is superfluous. Whenever *ma* comes to you after *idha*, it is superfluous:[Ash-Shuraa 42:37] "When they are dual": Meaning: When they are dual, it is not retained, meaning: Delete it. For example, if you want to dualize *alladhi*, do not say: *alladhiyan*, but delete the *ya* and say: "Alladhaan". And if you want to dualize *allati*, do not say: *allatiyan*, but delete the *ya* and say: "Allataan". So his meaning by the *ya* is: The *ya* after the *dhal* and the *ya* after the *ta*. So if you dualize, delete the *ya*. Why? Because the marker of the dual is a sukun (silent letter), and the *ya* here is silent. And the rule for two silent letters is what Ibn Malik indicated in the *Kafiyyah* where he said:
"If two silent letters meet, break the preceding *** And if it is a soft letter, its deletion is required",
"If two silent letters meet, break the preceding *** And if it is": Meaning the preceding one, "a soft letter" meaning: From the letters of softness, which are: *waw*, *alif*, and *ya*, "its deletion is required", meaning: It has become eligible for deletion. Did we recite it for you?
The student: Me?
The Shaykh : Yes, I do.
The student: "If two silent letters meet, break".
The Shaykh : Break.
The student: "Break the preceding".
The Shaykh :"And if it is a soft letter, its deletion is required". Good, you say: "The one I trust told me," and you say: "I read to the one I trust," and "I honored the one I trust." So the *ya* did not change, neither in the nominative, nor the genitive, nor the accusative. Why? Because it is built on sukun (silence). And it is said similarly for *allati*: When dualizing, he says: "And the *ya* is not retained when they are dual".
The student: A relative particle.
The Shaykh : A relative particle, because it is converted into a verbal noun, so you say: "It is established with me that so-and-so arrived." Good, "I like that you stand up"?
The student: A relative particle.
The Shaykh : *Ann* is a relative particle because it combines with what follows it to form a verbal noun, so you say: "I like your standing up." *Law*:
And they wish that you would disbelieve, so they would disbelieve
ودوا لو تدهنوا فيدهنونThe student: *Kay*.
The Shaykh : *Kay*. "I came so that I might learn," meaning: "I came to learn." So it is a relative particle. The verbal noun *ma* you say: "I like what you do," if you make it a verbal noun particle. It is also permissible to make it a relative pronoun, but if you make it a verbal noun particle, which is permissible, then it is a verbal noun particle, and the implied meaning is: "I like your doing." Good, so the relative pronoun for names, Ibn Malik used it as a precaution against the relative pronoun for particles, not against the relative pronoun for verbs, because it does not exist.
"For the masculine singular *alladhi*, for the feminine *allati*". *Alladhi* is for the masculine singular. His statement: "For the feminine *allati*": This is conjoined to *alladhi*. But Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) often omits the conjunction particle for the sake of poetic necessity and brevity. Otherwise, the implied meaning is: "Alladhi and for the feminine *allati*", meaning: And the relative pronoun for the feminine is *allati*. If someone says: You said that *alladhi* is the relative pronoun for the masculine. How did you know that it is the relative pronoun for the masculine? We say: We knew that, or I knew that, by the statement of Ibn Malik: "For the feminine *allati*". So from this, we know that the preceding *alladhi* is for whom?
The student: For the masculine.
The Shaykh : For the masculine. "And the *ya* is not retained when they are dual". The *ya* after the *dhal* and the *ya* after the *ta*: "Is not retained when they are dual". The *ya* is the subject, and "is not retained" is the predicate of the subject. The clause is the predicate of the subject. And "when they are dual" is a condition. The *ma* in his statement: "When they are dual" is superfluous. And we have recited for you the verse of the Rajaz poet:
"O seeker, take the benefit: *** What comes after 'idha' is superfluous"
An easy point: The *ma* after *idha* is superfluous. Whenever *ma* comes to you after *idha*, it is superfluous:
and when they are angry, they forgive,
وإذا ما غضبوا هم يغفرون"If two silent letters meet, break the preceding *** And if it is a soft letter, its deletion is required",
"If two silent letters meet, break the preceding *** And if it is": Meaning the preceding one, "a soft letter" meaning: From the letters of softness, which are: *waw*, *alif*, and *ya*, "its deletion is required", meaning: It has become eligible for deletion. Did we recite it for you?
The student: Me?
The Shaykh : Yes, I do.
The student: "If two silent letters meet, break".
The Shaykh : Break.
The student: "Break the preceding".
The Shaykh :"And if it is a soft letter, its deletion is required". Good, you say: "The one I trust told me," and you say: "I read to the one I trust," and "I honored the one I trust." So the *ya* did not change, neither in the nominative, nor the genitive, nor the accusative. Why? Because it is built on sukun (silence). And it is said similarly for *allati*: When dualizing, he says: "And the *ya* is not retained when they are dual".