Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And they raised the subject by the beginning *** Likewise, they raised the predicate by the subject."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then the author said: "And they raised the subject by the beginning":
The author clarified in this verse by what the subject is raised, because we do not find a verbal operator that precedes it and operates on it, or a verbal operator that follows it and operates on it. "Zayd stood up," we know that Zayd is raised by what? By "stood up," clear? But "Zayd is standing," by what is Zayd raised? He said: It is raised by the beginning, meaning: because we began with it, it deserved to be raised. So the operator in it is conceptual, not verbal. We have finished with the subject, we know that it is raised by a conceptual operator, which is: the beginning. By what is the predicate raised? He said:
"Likewise, they raised the predicate by the subject": The predicate is raised by a verbal operator, which is the subject, did you understand? So the operator of the subject is conceptual, and the operator of the predicate is verbal. For this reason, you say in your statement "Zayd is standing": Zayd is a subject raised by the beginning, and its sign of raising is a visible dammah on its end. "Standing" is the predicate of the subject, raised by the subject, and its sign of raising is a dammah on its end. It was said: Both are raised by the beginning. And it was said: Each of them raised the other. And in this, Ibn Malik says in al-Kafiyyah:
"And the people of Kufa said the two parts *** Raised each other, and this is weak in support",
The people of Kufa said the two parts raised each other, each one raised the other, "and this is weak in support", and the disagreement in reality has no benefit. The important thing is to know that the subject is raised, and that the predicate is raised, and that if a person came and said: "Zayd (accusative) is standing", we would say: It is an error. Or if he said: "Zayd (nominative) standing (accusative)", we would say: It is an error. It is obligatory to raise both. As for by what they were raised, what is the benefit?! And did the Arab, when he said "Zayd is standing," have it in his mind that Zayd was raised because it was begun with? Yes, we do not think so, Allah knows best. For this reason, we say: This disagreement has no utility. But the scholars do it for practice, practicing the minds. Why was this raised and why was this raised?! We say: One of them raised the other, or they were raised by the beginning, or this one by the beginning and this one by the subject. It does not matter. The important thing is to know that both are raised. Then the author said:
"The predicate is the part that completes the benefit".
The student: And the predicate!
The Shaykh : Hmm, how?
The student: I forgot the waw.
The Shaykh : And the predicate.
The author clarified in this verse by what the subject is raised, because we do not find a verbal operator that precedes it and operates on it, or a verbal operator that follows it and operates on it. "Zayd stood up," we know that Zayd is raised by what? By "stood up," clear? But "Zayd is standing," by what is Zayd raised? He said: It is raised by the beginning, meaning: because we began with it, it deserved to be raised. So the operator in it is conceptual, not verbal. We have finished with the subject, we know that it is raised by a conceptual operator, which is: the beginning. By what is the predicate raised? He said:
"Likewise, they raised the predicate by the subject": The predicate is raised by a verbal operator, which is the subject, did you understand? So the operator of the subject is conceptual, and the operator of the predicate is verbal. For this reason, you say in your statement "Zayd is standing": Zayd is a subject raised by the beginning, and its sign of raising is a visible dammah on its end. "Standing" is the predicate of the subject, raised by the subject, and its sign of raising is a dammah on its end. It was said: Both are raised by the beginning. And it was said: Each of them raised the other. And in this, Ibn Malik says in al-Kafiyyah:
"And the people of Kufa said the two parts *** Raised each other, and this is weak in support",
The people of Kufa said the two parts raised each other, each one raised the other, "and this is weak in support", and the disagreement in reality has no benefit. The important thing is to know that the subject is raised, and that the predicate is raised, and that if a person came and said: "Zayd (accusative) is standing", we would say: It is an error. Or if he said: "Zayd (nominative) standing (accusative)", we would say: It is an error. It is obligatory to raise both. As for by what they were raised, what is the benefit?! And did the Arab, when he said "Zayd is standing," have it in his mind that Zayd was raised because it was begun with? Yes, we do not think so, Allah knows best. For this reason, we say: This disagreement has no utility. But the scholars do it for practice, practicing the minds. Why was this raised and why was this raised?! We say: One of them raised the other, or they were raised by the beginning, or this one by the beginning and this one by the subject. It does not matter. The important thing is to know that both are raised. Then the author said:
"The predicate is the part that completes the benefit".
The student: And the predicate!
The Shaykh : Hmm, how?
The student: I forgot the waw.
The Shaykh : And the predicate.