Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And a sentence or its like, which is connected *** to it, is like 'the one with me whose son was nursed.'"

The Shaykh : For this reason, he said: "And a sentence or its like, which is connected *** to it":
"Sentence": a predicate placed before the subject; "or its like": a conjoined phrase; "which": a subject placed after the predicate; "connected to it": the relative clause of the relative pronoun. The meaning of the verse is: and that which is connected to it is a sentence or a phrase resembling a sentence. This means that the relative clause of a relative pronoun can be a sentence or a phrase resembling a sentence. A sentence is either a verbal sentence or a nominal sentence, and a phrase resembling a sentence is either an adverb of time or place or a preposition with its noun. Do you understand? So a sentence is either nominal or verbal, and a phrase resembling a sentence is either an adverb or a preposition with its noun. It cannot be a single noun. It is not possible for it to be a single noun. Therefore, it is not permissible for you to say: "The one whose father came", and why? The relative clause is not complete. It must be a sentence or a phrase resembling a sentence. A sentence is either nominal or verbal, and a phrase resembling a sentence is either an adverb or a preposition with its noun. Good. The author gave two examples. He provided two examples and said: "Like the one with me whose son was nursed":
"Who": means "the one who"; "and with me": an adverb, and it is the relative clause of the relative pronoun, so it is a phrase resembling a sentence; "whose son was nursed": "whose" is a relative pronoun, "son" is the subject, and the sentence "was nursed" is its predicate. The sentence is the relative clause of the relative pronoun. In the second example, the relative clause is a sentence, and in the first: "like the one with me"?
The student: A phrase resembling a sentence.

The Shaykh : A phrase resembling a sentence. And in both examples, along with what preceded them, there is an unarranged interweaving and separation, correct? Because in the first, he said "a sentence or its like," so he started with the sentence, but in the examples, he started with the phrase resembling a sentence. This is an unarranged interweaving and separation. The rhetoricians say: "a confused interweaving and separation", but we avoid the confusion and say: an unarranged interweaving and separation. Good. Consider: "with me": the one with me, the one with me. It has been established in the rules that every adverb or preposition with its noun must have a related word. For this reason, we called it a phrase resembling a sentence, not a sentence, a phrase resembling a sentence, because it must have what?
The student: A related word.

The Shaykh : A related word, meaning something to which it is related. So what is the related word in the phrase resembling a sentence? The related word is a deleted verb. The related word is a deleted verb, and it is necessary. For example: "the one with me." The implied meaning is: "the one who settled with me," "the one who settled with me." You say: "The one with me came." Did you estimate the deleted word?
The student: The one who settled with me came.

The Shaykh : The one who settled with me came. And if you wish to clarify the specific related word, you say: "The one who resided with me came," because settling is a broad meaning, and residing is a specific meaning. So you may estimate the specific meaning, and you may estimate the general meaning. In any case, what is the deleted word in a phrase resembling a sentence when it occurs as the relative clause of a relative pronoun?
The student: A verb.

The Shaykh : A verb, and it is necessary. Good. So if someone says: Does not Ibn Malik say:
"And they informed with an adverb or with a preposition *** intending the meaning of 'existing' or 'settled'"
And "existing" is not a verb. We said: there is a difference between this and that. Because the original state of the predicate is that it is not a sentence. For this reason, he said: "intending the meaning of 'existing'". He placed the noun before. The original state of the relative clause of a relative pronoun is that it is a sentence, and it is not connected with a single noun. A relative pronoun is not connected with a single noun. For this reason, if a person says: "The one with me came," I estimate: "The one who is settled with me came." We say: it is not permissible. Rather, you must say: "The one who -what?- settled with me came," to complete the sentence. Because if you said: "The one who is settled with me came," it would necessitate estimating a subject, with "settled" being its predicate. So we would now have two deleted words. And if we estimate "settled," the deleted word becomes one, and that is preferable. The less the deletion, the better. The summary: what must the relative clause of a relative pronoun be?
The student: A sentence.

The Shaykh : A sentence or a phrase resembling a sentence. And a phrase resembling a sentence must have a verb estimated for it to which it is related, a verb to which it is related. Good, this is the rule. "with me": we said its original form is: "the one who settled with me." The preposition with its noun: "The one in the house came," "The one in the house came." We say: "in the house" is a preposition with its noun related to a deleted relative clause of the relative pronoun. The implied meaning is: "The one who resided in the house came," or "settled in the house," or something similar. The sentence mentioned by the author now: "whose son was nursed". Is the sentence now nominal or verbal?
The student: Nominal.

The Shaykh : Nominal, because a nominal sentence is one that begins with a noun, and a verbal sentence is one that begins with a verb. And the sentence here is: "his son was nursed". And "son" is a noun, not a verb?
The student: A noun.

The Shaykh : A noun. So the author exemplified the phrase resembling a sentence with an adverb, and exemplified the sentence with a sentence of what type?
The student: Nominal.

The Shaykh : Nominal. We now need an example of a preposition with its noun, and an example of a verbal sentence. Good. The preposition with its noun, we exemplified it earlier with what? "The one in the house came." The verbal sentence: Allah the Exalted said: , and the one who brought the truth. "Brought" is a past tense verb, so this sentence is verbal. Good. The sentence now in the author's words is a declarative sentence, not an interrogative or imperative sentence. It is a declarative sentence, not an interrogative or imperative one. Does his example indicate that it is a condition for the relative clause of a relative pronoun that it not be an interrogative or imperative sentence, based on the fact that examples define the conditions? Because the book is concise; it may mention examples, and the conditions are derived from the examples. So do we say: that these two examples mentioned by Ibn Malik indicate that it is a condition for the sentence that it not be an interrogative or imperative sentence? Meaning that it must be declarative. The answer: Yes, this is the well-known view among grammarians. So it is not correct for you to say: "The one whom I hit came". "The one whom I hit came," it is not permissible. If such a thing occurs in the speech of the Arabs, and the Arabs judge us and we do not judge them, then a declarative sentence is estimated for this interrogative or imperative sentence. How do we estimate it? "The one whom I hit came," we estimate: "The one about whom it is said 'hit him' came." And the sentence "it is said" is declarative or interrogative or imperative?
The student: Declarative.

The Shaykh : Declarative. Good. "The one whether he stood up came," is it correct or not correct? "The one whether he stood up came"?!
The student: It is not correct.

The Shaykh : I ask you now, did we benefit from anything?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : So it is not correct, it is not correct for me to say: "The one whether he stood up came," because the sentence is an interrogative sentence, a question. And we say: it is a condition that the sentence be declarative. Good. If it is declarative, and such an expression occurs in the speech of the Arabs: "The one whether he stood up came," we say to the Arab: you made a grammatical error, did you err in the language or not?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : No, we do not say that. The Arabs judge us and we do not judge them. We say: it is necessary to estimate something by which his speech becomes correct. And what do we say? "The one about whom it is said 'whether he stood up' came," correct?
The student: It is permissible.

The Shaykh : For this reason, they said about a man who hosted a group of people, and they left him during the day. They did not give them anything all day long. And when it was night, they came with milk, most of which was water. They did not bring it during the day so that he would not see it. They said: we will bring it at night, most of it water, and it will suffice for food. So he said:
"Until when the darkness covered and mixed *** they came with a cup: 'Have you ever seen the wolf?'".
"Mudhqa" means mixed. "With a mudhqa" is an indefinite noun that requires a description. The description is: "Have you ever seen the wolf?" "Have" is a question word, and a question word does not become a description for a predicate. They said the implied meaning is: "They came with a cup about which it is said: 'Have you ever seen the wolf?'" What do you imagine the color of this milk is? Grayish, gray, yes, did you understand? And the poet chose the wolf because it is a beast of the night, it is the one that comes at night. So it is as if he said: this milk has the color of the wolf, and the time of its arrival is the time of the wolf's arrival. In any case, we brought this so that you know that if something contrary to the rules of the grammarians occurs in the speech of the Arabs, then the rules of the grammarians do not judge the Arabs. Rather, what must be done?
The student: That we estimate.

The Shaykh : We estimate what makes speech valid according to the rules. Sometimes a person comes and says: Why do we estimate? Since we have established that we do not judge the Arabs, why don't we say: If the meaning is understood, there is no harm if the sentence is declarative, or what? Or imperative?
Therefore, if someone said: "He came who is not handsome," he came who is not handsome, yes, the sentence: "He is not handsome" is an exclamatory sentence for the purpose of creating praise, it is not declarative, so is it valid to function as a predicate?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : No, my intention is for it to function as a relative clause?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : According to the rule we mentioned, it is not valid, so what do we do if he expressed it this way and said: "He came who is not handsome"?
The student: He came who is said of him, "He is not handsome."

The Shaykh : He came who is said of him, "He is not handsome," clear? Good, and if I said: "The students who did not understand grammar were present," is the expression valid or not valid?
The student: It is valid.

The Shaykh : Is the expression valid in meaning or in wording?
The student: In meaning.

The Shaykh : If Allah wills, in wording and meaning. "The students who did not understand grammar were present," we say: This is, if Allah wills, what? A correct expression in wording and meaning, but according to the rules?
The student: It is not correct.

The Shaykh : No, it is corrected, it is said of them, it is said of them, "They did not understand," good.
The author's statement: "A relative clause must follow it", and he placed the relative clause after the relative pronoun, is it taken from this that it is necessary that nothing foreign be separated between the relative clause and the relative pronoun? Yes?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : No, it is taken from this, it is taken from this, because it is necessary that the relative clause follow the relative pronoun, because it is its relative clause and it is not complete without it, so if something foreign is brought in?
The student: It is not valid.

The Shaykh : Yes, it is not valid, if I said for example: "He came who Zayd is standing in the house," you want "in the house" to be: "in the house" the relative clause for "who," is it valid or not?
The student: It is not correct.

The Shaykh : It is not valid, meaning it is not permissible to separate the relative clause and the relative pronoun with something foreign to both of them, but if it is not foreign, there is no harm, its example: "He came who Zayd he honored," meaning: "He came who honored Zayd," this is no harm, because Zayd is the object of the verb that occurred as the relative clause, so it is not foreign to the relative clause, so it is a condition for the relative clause that nothing foreign be separated between it and the relative pronoun, good, so as for the poet's statement, describing the wolf when he met him, and there was no one around him but the wolf, he said: "You dined": he addresses the wolf saying:
"You dined, and if you make a covenant with me, do not betray me *** Let us be like those, O wolf, who are friends"
What is in this? "Let us be like those, O wolf, who are friends", here it is separated by what?
The student: By the vocative.

The Shaykh : By the vocative, they said: This is anomalous, because the vocative is foreign to the relative clause, but he facilitated it by the ease that he is addressing the wolf, so he said: "Let us be like those, O wolf, who are friends".
The student: The time is up.

The Shaykh : The time is up, do you say?
The student: Yes.