Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "As for a connected resumptive pronoun, if it is in the accusative case *** by a verb or an adjective, like 'the one we hope will give.'"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And omission is frequent among them, making things clear"
"As for a connected resumptive pronoun, if it is in the accusative case *** by a verb or an adjective, like 'the one we hope will give'",
"And omission is frequent among them": meaning among the Arabs, "frequent, making things clear": meaning clear.
"As for a connected resumptive pronoun": this is one condition; the second is that it is in the accusative case by a verb or an adjective. So, if the resumptive pronoun is in the accusative case by a verb or an adjective and is connected, then it is permissible to omit it. The example is: "like the one we hope will give". "Man" (who) here is not a conditional particle, but rather a relative pronoun meaning "the one who," i.e., "like the one whom we hope will give to us". "Yahab" (will give) here is nominative in its original form, but it was made accusative for the sake of the rhyme, because it is the end of the verse. -Pay attention- "the one we hope will give": its original form is "the one whom we hope will give," meaning will give to us. Is the pronoun in "we hope" connected or disconnected?
The student: Attached.
The Shaykh : It is connected, and what puts it in the accusative case? A verb. So the conditions are met for it; the conditions are met for it. Now, if I said: "The one whom we hope will give," is that permissible?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: The pronoun is disconnected.
The Shaykh : Because the pronoun is disconnected. So, if the speaker says: "I want a connected pronoun," we say: If you want a connected pronoun, the benefit of the disconnected pronoun is lost. Because if you say: "Like the one whom we hope," it is not like saying: "Like the one whom we hope." Because the first sentence: "Like the one whom we hope," conveys what?
The student: Specification.
The Shaykh : It conveys specification and restriction. As for: "The one whom we hope," it does not convey specification and restriction. For this reason, we say: "Like the one whom we hope," it is not permissible to omit the resumptive pronoun in it, because if you omitted the resumptive pronoun in it, the intended meaning of the speech would be disrupted, and that is?
The student: Restriction.
The Shaykh : Restriction. Now, if I said: "The one whom we hope for no one else but him," "The one whom we hope for no one else but him will give"?
The student: Omission.
The Shaykh : So you omitted it and said: "The one whom we hope for no one else but will give," is that permissible or not?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible. So, the omission of the resumptive pronoun in the accusative case requires two conditions. The first condition?
The student: Connection.
The Shaykh : That it is connected, and the second is that it is in the accusative case by a verb or an adjective. Now, if I said: "Came the one who is standing," and I omitted the resumptive pronoun, and said: "Came the one who is standing"?
The student: It is not valid.
The Shaykh : How?
The student: It is not valid.
The Shaykh : It is in the accusative case, my brothers, and connected.
The student: Even then it is not valid.
The Shaykh : It is in the accusative case and connected, but it is in the accusative case by something other than a verb or an adjective, so it is not permissible to omit it, because Ibn Malik stipulated that it must be in the accusative case by a verb or an adjective. The verb was given in the example: "like the one we hope will give". The adjective: "Came the one whom we hope will give," "al-rajahu" (whom we hope) means: whom we hope. So here it is correct to omit it, because it is in the accusative case by what? By an adjective. It is in the accusative case by an adjective. So, if it is in the accusative case by an adjective or a verb, it is permissible. But if it is in the accusative case by something else, it is not permissible. Now, if I said: "The one I am giving you a dirham," "The one I am giving you a dirham," and I omitted the pronoun, and said: "The one I am giving you a dirham," is that permissible or not?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Why? Because it is in the accusative case by an adjective: "mu'ti" (giving). "Mu'ti" is an adjective. "The one I am giving you a dirham," so you said: "The one I am giving you," "mu'ti-ka" (giving you) -with the kaff- a dirham. We say: This is correct because it is in the accusative case by an adjective.
Summary of tonight's lesson: It is permissible to omit the resumptive pronoun in the accusative case on the condition that it is connected, and that what puts it in the accusative case is a verb or an adjective, a verb or an adjective. Now, the author says: It is frequent, but it is not the most frequent. It is frequent, but it is not the most frequent. Its existence is the most frequent, but its omission is frequent.
"As for a connected resumptive pronoun, if it is in the accusative case *** by a verb or an adjective, like 'the one we hope will give'",
"And omission is frequent among them": meaning among the Arabs, "frequent, making things clear": meaning clear.
"As for a connected resumptive pronoun": this is one condition; the second is that it is in the accusative case by a verb or an adjective. So, if the resumptive pronoun is in the accusative case by a verb or an adjective and is connected, then it is permissible to omit it. The example is: "like the one we hope will give". "Man" (who) here is not a conditional particle, but rather a relative pronoun meaning "the one who," i.e., "like the one whom we hope will give to us". "Yahab" (will give) here is nominative in its original form, but it was made accusative for the sake of the rhyme, because it is the end of the verse. -Pay attention- "the one we hope will give": its original form is "the one whom we hope will give," meaning will give to us. Is the pronoun in "we hope" connected or disconnected?
The student: Attached.
The Shaykh : It is connected, and what puts it in the accusative case? A verb. So the conditions are met for it; the conditions are met for it. Now, if I said: "The one whom we hope will give," is that permissible?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: The pronoun is disconnected.
The Shaykh : Because the pronoun is disconnected. So, if the speaker says: "I want a connected pronoun," we say: If you want a connected pronoun, the benefit of the disconnected pronoun is lost. Because if you say: "Like the one whom we hope," it is not like saying: "Like the one whom we hope." Because the first sentence: "Like the one whom we hope," conveys what?
The student: Specification.
The Shaykh : It conveys specification and restriction. As for: "The one whom we hope," it does not convey specification and restriction. For this reason, we say: "Like the one whom we hope," it is not permissible to omit the resumptive pronoun in it, because if you omitted the resumptive pronoun in it, the intended meaning of the speech would be disrupted, and that is?
The student: Restriction.
The Shaykh : Restriction. Now, if I said: "The one whom we hope for no one else but him," "The one whom we hope for no one else but him will give"?
The student: Omission.
The Shaykh : So you omitted it and said: "The one whom we hope for no one else but will give," is that permissible or not?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible. So, the omission of the resumptive pronoun in the accusative case requires two conditions. The first condition?
The student: Connection.
The Shaykh : That it is connected, and the second is that it is in the accusative case by a verb or an adjective. Now, if I said: "Came the one who is standing," and I omitted the resumptive pronoun, and said: "Came the one who is standing"?
The student: It is not valid.
The Shaykh : How?
The student: It is not valid.
The Shaykh : It is in the accusative case, my brothers, and connected.
The student: Even then it is not valid.
The Shaykh : It is in the accusative case and connected, but it is in the accusative case by something other than a verb or an adjective, so it is not permissible to omit it, because Ibn Malik stipulated that it must be in the accusative case by a verb or an adjective. The verb was given in the example: "like the one we hope will give". The adjective: "Came the one whom we hope will give," "al-rajahu" (whom we hope) means: whom we hope. So here it is correct to omit it, because it is in the accusative case by what? By an adjective. It is in the accusative case by an adjective. So, if it is in the accusative case by an adjective or a verb, it is permissible. But if it is in the accusative case by something else, it is not permissible. Now, if I said: "The one I am giving you a dirham," "The one I am giving you a dirham," and I omitted the pronoun, and said: "The one I am giving you a dirham," is that permissible or not?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Why? Because it is in the accusative case by an adjective: "mu'ti" (giving). "Mu'ti" is an adjective. "The one I am giving you a dirham," so you said: "The one I am giving you," "mu'ti-ka" (giving you) -with the kaff- a dirham. We say: This is correct because it is in the accusative case by an adjective.
Summary of tonight's lesson: It is permissible to omit the resumptive pronoun in the accusative case on the condition that it is connected, and that what puts it in the accusative case is a verb or an adjective, a verb or an adjective. Now, the author says: It is frequent, but it is not the most frequent. It is frequent, but it is not the most frequent. Its existence is the most frequent, but its omission is frequent.