What is the meaning of the dialect of "The fleas ate us"?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Regarding the dialect of the fleas, he says: It is permissible if they agree in anything other than the singular. If they match in anything other than the singular, it is permissible to make the description the subject, and what follows it the agent, which suffices for the predicate. And what follows it is the agent, which suffices for the predicate. As for the dialect of the rest of the Arabs, they say: Here, it is not permissible for the description to be the subject; rather, it is obligatory for the description to be a preceding predicate, as he said: "And the second is a subject, and this description is a predicate".
Regarding the fleas, the man says: "The fleas ate us". And what is correct? I mean, what is the correct form? The dialect of the Arabs other than this dialect is: "The fleas ate me". Good. And he says: "The men are standing," making "the men" the agent in the dialect of: "The fleas ate us". As for the rest of the Arabs, they say: No, "standing" is a description, a preceding predicate, and "the men" is a delayed subject. The difference is that the marker of dual and plural attaches to the operator in the dialect of the fleas, and does not attach to it in the well-known, prevalent dialect among the Arabs. This is the difference. Is the time up?
The student: O Shaykh!
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Good? Hmm?
The student: The verb!
The Shaykh : How?
The student: The subject, meaning by the description?
The Shaykh : The description is the verb, the operator, I mean. The marker of plural and dual in the dialect of the fleas attaches to the operator, whether it is a description or a verb. So they say: "The men are standing," where "the men" is the agent of "standing." And they say: "The men stood." They say: Just as you attach the feminine taa when it becomes feminine, they attached the waw of the group when it is a group. Yes, and they say: "The women struck," so "struck" is a past tense verb, and the noon is merely a marker for the women, and "the women" is the agent. "The men stood," he said: "Stood" is a verb, and the waw is merely a marker of plural, it is not the agent, in their view. And "the men" is the agent. Just as you say: "Hind struck," you say: "The women struck," so the taa is for the feminine, and the noon is also for the feminine, but it is a marker of plural, and that one is a marker of singular. This is the basis of the dialect of the fleas. Yes, how?
The student: Whose dialect is it?
The Shaykh : The dialect of: "The fleas ate us". But we will summarize it and say: Is the dialect of the fleas clear, everyone? Does the marker of dual and plural attach to the operator?
The student: No, in the well-known dialect.
The Shaykh : The well-known dialect among the Arabs does not attach it, and the dialect of: "The fleas ate them", attaches it. This is the dividing line. Is there anything else?
The student: My question was about the dialect of "The fleas ate us," whether the operators attach to it, and now you said: ...
The Shaykh : Fine.
The student: The time is up, O Shaykh.
Regarding the fleas, the man says: "The fleas ate us". And what is correct? I mean, what is the correct form? The dialect of the Arabs other than this dialect is: "The fleas ate me". Good. And he says: "The men are standing," making "the men" the agent in the dialect of: "The fleas ate us". As for the rest of the Arabs, they say: No, "standing" is a description, a preceding predicate, and "the men" is a delayed subject. The difference is that the marker of dual and plural attaches to the operator in the dialect of the fleas, and does not attach to it in the well-known, prevalent dialect among the Arabs. This is the difference. Is the time up?
The student: O Shaykh!
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Good? Hmm?
The student: The verb!
The Shaykh : How?
The student: The subject, meaning by the description?
The Shaykh : The description is the verb, the operator, I mean. The marker of plural and dual in the dialect of the fleas attaches to the operator, whether it is a description or a verb. So they say: "The men are standing," where "the men" is the agent of "standing." And they say: "The men stood." They say: Just as you attach the feminine taa when it becomes feminine, they attached the waw of the group when it is a group. Yes, and they say: "The women struck," so "struck" is a past tense verb, and the noon is merely a marker for the women, and "the women" is the agent. "The men stood," he said: "Stood" is a verb, and the waw is merely a marker of plural, it is not the agent, in their view. And "the men" is the agent. Just as you say: "Hind struck," you say: "The women struck," so the taa is for the feminine, and the noon is also for the feminine, but it is a marker of plural, and that one is a marker of singular. This is the basis of the dialect of the fleas. Yes, how?
The student: Whose dialect is it?
The Shaykh : The dialect of: "The fleas ate us". But we will summarize it and say: Is the dialect of the fleas clear, everyone? Does the marker of dual and plural attach to the operator?
The student: No, in the well-known dialect.
The Shaykh : The well-known dialect among the Arabs does not attach it, and the dialect of: "The fleas ate them", attaches it. This is the dividing line. Is there anything else?
The student: My question was about the dialect of "The fleas ate us," whether the operators attach to it, and now you said: ...
The Shaykh : Fine.
The student: The time is up, O Shaykh.