Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "If the remainder is suitable for a complete connection, *** and omission is frequent and clear among them."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : All right, then the author said at the beginning of today's lesson: "And they refused to be omitted":
Meaning it is omitted, "If the remainder is suitable for a complete connection", "They refused": To whom does the pronoun refer?
The student: The Arabs.
The Shaykh : To the Arabs. "That it be omitted": It is permissible that "They refused" means the grammarians, because it is possible that the grammarians say: This is prohibited because it has not been heard; this is prohibited because it has not been heard. The closest is this: that the intended meaning is that the subject in "They refused" refers to the grammarians, because the Arabs do not have a stance of refusing or agreeing; they speak their speech and proceed. So it appears that his saying: "And they refused" means the grammarians. "They refused that it be omitted": That is, that it be deleted.
"If the remainder is suitable for a complete connection": The reason for this is that if the remainder is suitable for a complete connection, there is no evidence for the omitted part, because the remainder is suitable, so there is no evidence for the omitted part. An example is: "The one who is in the house came." "The one who is in the house came." Now, what is the beginning of the relative clause?
The student: He.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: He.
The Shaykh : It is "he." "The one who is in the house came." So if you omit it and say: "The one in the house came," it is not correct, because "in the house" is suitable to be a relative clause. So if the remainder after omission is suitable to be a relative clause, it is not permissible to omit the beginning of the relative clause. If someone asks: What is the difference between saying "The one who is in the house came" or "The one in the house came"? We say: The difference between them is specification. "The one who is in the house came" means: no one else. "The one in the house came" means: no one else? No, there may be someone else with him. So the benefit is specification. If someone says: "The one who is in the house came," and he wants to omit "he," we say: Do not omit it. He says: The remainder is suitable for the relative clause! We say: And this is what prevents you from omitting it. The remainder is not suitable for the relative clause in the way we want, with the beginning of the relative clause remaining. That is, the remainder does not indicate what the relative clause indicates when its beginning is present. Is that clear?
The student: It is clear.
The Shaykh : It is not clear. All right, "The one who is in the house came." "The one who is in the house came." This is the relative clause of the relative pronoun: the sentence of the subject and predicate is the relative clause of the relative pronoun. "He is in the house." "He" is the subject, and "in the house" is a prepositional phrase that is the predicate of the subject. This is the relative clause. So is the relative clause now a sentence or not a sentence?
The student: A nominal sentence.
The Shaykh : A nominal sentence. "The one in the house came." The relative clause is the prepositional phrase connected to an omitted word, estimated to be: "settled." "Settled in the house." So the relative clause is a partial sentence, not a full sentence. Do you understand, everyone? If someone says: So I omit "he" and keep "in the house," and the speech is complete by that. We say: It is true that the speech is complete by that, but the meaning that is obtained when we bring in what is lost?
The student: By "he."
The Shaykh : By "he." What is the meaning? Restriction and specification. "The one who is in the house came" means: no one else. But if you say: "The one in the house came," it is possible that there is someone else with him. So we say: If the remainder after omitting the beginning of the relative clause is suitable for the relative clause, it is not permissible to omit the beginning. It is not permissible, because even if it is grammatically correct, the intended meaning in establishing the beginning of the relative clause is lost. He said: "And they refused to be omitted
If the remainder is suitable for a complete connection":
And the summary of the matter now is that it is permissible to omit the raised return pronoun, the omission of the return pronoun. What is the return pronoun? The one that refers to the relative pronoun. It is permissible on the condition that the beginning of the relative clause is present, that the beginning of the relative clause is present, and that the relative clause is long, except in the case of "ayy" (which), where it is permissible to omit the beginning of its relative clause even if the relative clause is not long. If the relative clause is not long, it is frequent in "ayy" and rare in others. All right, the question regarding these conditions: Is the subject omitted?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : The passive subject?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : The name of "kana"?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No. All right, what remains for us is the return pronoun if it is in the accusative case: is it omitted?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : It will come. He said: "And omission is frequent and clear among them". Yes, in the waw. Yes?
The student: The one after it.
The Shaykh : Yes.
Meaning it is omitted, "If the remainder is suitable for a complete connection", "They refused": To whom does the pronoun refer?
The student: The Arabs.
The Shaykh : To the Arabs. "That it be omitted": It is permissible that "They refused" means the grammarians, because it is possible that the grammarians say: This is prohibited because it has not been heard; this is prohibited because it has not been heard. The closest is this: that the intended meaning is that the subject in "They refused" refers to the grammarians, because the Arabs do not have a stance of refusing or agreeing; they speak their speech and proceed. So it appears that his saying: "And they refused" means the grammarians. "They refused that it be omitted": That is, that it be deleted.
"If the remainder is suitable for a complete connection": The reason for this is that if the remainder is suitable for a complete connection, there is no evidence for the omitted part, because the remainder is suitable, so there is no evidence for the omitted part. An example is: "The one who is in the house came." "The one who is in the house came." Now, what is the beginning of the relative clause?
The student: He.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: He.
The Shaykh : It is "he." "The one who is in the house came." So if you omit it and say: "The one in the house came," it is not correct, because "in the house" is suitable to be a relative clause. So if the remainder after omission is suitable to be a relative clause, it is not permissible to omit the beginning of the relative clause. If someone asks: What is the difference between saying "The one who is in the house came" or "The one in the house came"? We say: The difference between them is specification. "The one who is in the house came" means: no one else. "The one in the house came" means: no one else? No, there may be someone else with him. So the benefit is specification. If someone says: "The one who is in the house came," and he wants to omit "he," we say: Do not omit it. He says: The remainder is suitable for the relative clause! We say: And this is what prevents you from omitting it. The remainder is not suitable for the relative clause in the way we want, with the beginning of the relative clause remaining. That is, the remainder does not indicate what the relative clause indicates when its beginning is present. Is that clear?
The student: It is clear.
The Shaykh : It is not clear. All right, "The one who is in the house came." "The one who is in the house came." This is the relative clause of the relative pronoun: the sentence of the subject and predicate is the relative clause of the relative pronoun. "He is in the house." "He" is the subject, and "in the house" is a prepositional phrase that is the predicate of the subject. This is the relative clause. So is the relative clause now a sentence or not a sentence?
The student: A nominal sentence.
The Shaykh : A nominal sentence. "The one in the house came." The relative clause is the prepositional phrase connected to an omitted word, estimated to be: "settled." "Settled in the house." So the relative clause is a partial sentence, not a full sentence. Do you understand, everyone? If someone says: So I omit "he" and keep "in the house," and the speech is complete by that. We say: It is true that the speech is complete by that, but the meaning that is obtained when we bring in what is lost?
The student: By "he."
The Shaykh : By "he." What is the meaning? Restriction and specification. "The one who is in the house came" means: no one else. But if you say: "The one in the house came," it is possible that there is someone else with him. So we say: If the remainder after omitting the beginning of the relative clause is suitable for the relative clause, it is not permissible to omit the beginning. It is not permissible, because even if it is grammatically correct, the intended meaning in establishing the beginning of the relative clause is lost. He said: "And they refused to be omitted
If the remainder is suitable for a complete connection":
And the summary of the matter now is that it is permissible to omit the raised return pronoun, the omission of the return pronoun. What is the return pronoun? The one that refers to the relative pronoun. It is permissible on the condition that the beginning of the relative clause is present, that the beginning of the relative clause is present, and that the relative clause is long, except in the case of "ayy" (which), where it is permissible to omit the beginning of its relative clause even if the relative clause is not long. If the relative clause is not long, it is frequent in "ayy" and rare in others. All right, the question regarding these conditions: Is the subject omitted?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : The passive subject?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : The name of "kana"?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No. All right, what remains for us is the return pronoun if it is in the accusative case: is it omitted?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : It will come. He said: "And omission is frequent and clear among them". Yes, in the waw. Yes?
The student: The one after it.
The Shaykh : Yes.