Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And a single word comes, and a sentence comes *** containing the meaning for which it was brought."

The Shaykh : Then he said:
"And a single word comes, and a sentence comes *** containing the meaning for which it was brought
And you inform with a circumstantial phrase or a preposition *** intending a meaning that is present or established".
A single word comes, and a sentence comes:
"And you inform with a circumstantial phrase or a preposition *** intending a meaning that is present or established":
So the predicate comes in three forms: a single word, a sentence, and a semi-sentence. This is what he indicated by saying:
"And you inform with a circumstantial phrase or a preposition *** intending a meaning that is present or established".
The student: Look, is what you have the same?

The Shaykh : No, no, my order is recitation; I did not follow the book. The book says: "containing the meaning for which it was brought".
"And if it is a meaning of it, suffice *** with it, as in 'Allah is sufficient for me and He suffices'
And the static single word is empty, even *** if absolute".
Then he said: "And you inform", but we declined the last verse to make it with its siblings. The predicate is of three types: a single word, second: a sentence, and third: a semi-sentence, which is the circumstantial phrase, and the preposition with its noun. Here we say: What is the single word? It is what is not a sentence and not a semi-sentence, nor its like. The single word in the chapter of the predicate: is what is not a sentence and not a semi-sentence. In the chapter of inflection: it is what is not plural, not dual, and not annexed to them. But here we say: what is not a sentence and not a semi-sentence. "The man is standing," is the predicate a single word or a sentence?
The student: Singular.

The Shaykh : "The man is standing"?
The student: A sentence.

The Shaykh : "The man is standing"?!
The student: Singular.
Another student: A sentence.

The Shaykh : Okay, "The man is understanding"?
The student: Singular.

The Shaykh : "The man is not understanding"?
The student: Singular.
Another student: A semi-sentence.

The Shaykh : "The man is not understanding"?!
The student: A sentence.

The Shaykh : So these two examples apply to you: some of you are understanding, and some of you are not understanding. "The man is understanding": a single word. "The man is not understanding": a single word. Where is the preposition with its noun? Where is the circumstantial phrase? "Not" is not a circumstantial phrase, and it is not in a preposition with its noun. So: the single word is what is not a sentence and not a semi-sentence. "The man's knowledge is little"?
The student: A sentence.

The Shaykh : "The man's knowledge is little"!
The student: A sentence.

The Shaykh : A sentence?
The student: Yes, indeed.

The Shaykh : Okay, "The man's father stood up"?
The student: A sentence.

The Shaykh : A sentence. So this example is a sentence: "The man is in the house"?
The student: A semi-sentence.

The Shaykh : A semi-sentence. "The man is in front of you"?
The student: A semi-sentence.

The Shaykh : A semi-sentence, because it is a circumstantial phrase. These are the three divisions of the predicate. But regarding the sentence, Ibn Malik says: "containing the meaning for which it was brought":
Meaning, this sentence that is the predicate must contain the meaning of the subject. And the meaning of "containing" is: that we know it has a connection to it. This is due to the existence of a link between this sentence and the subject. There must be a link that connects this sentence to the subject. This is the meaning of his saying:
"containing the meaning for which it was brought".
So if I said: "The man, Zayd stood up," is it valid to be a predicate?
The student: Yes?

The Shaykh : Why?
The student: There is no link.

The Shaykh : There is no link. "The man, Zayd stood up"! Okay, "The man, Zayd's father stood up"?
The student: There is a link.

The Shaykh : There is a link. What is it? The pronoun. So there must be a link that connects the sentence to the subject so that we know that this sentence contains it, and that it is a description of it. Because the predicate, as we know, is a description of the subject. So if it does not contain something that links it to the subject, then it does not become a description of it. So what is necessary?
The student: A link.

The Shaykh : A link. The link in the example we mentioned: "The man, his father stood up," is a pronoun. ?
The student: A demonstrative noun.

The Shaykh : Wait, may Allah reward you. Is there a link in it?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : "Clothing": subject, and "piety": what is added to it, and "that": subject, and "good": predicate of the second subject. Is there a link? What is it?! The demonstrative. Because his saying: means: the clothing of piety. So this is a link. So the demonstrative noun is a link.
, "Al-Haqqah": subject, its predicate is a sentence: . Okay, what is in it? Is there a link?!
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh :: Is there a link? The link is repeating the subject with its word. Because repeating the subject with its word is a stronger link than repeating the subject with its pronoun. Did you not say: that our saying "The man, his father stood up," has a link?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : And it is the pronoun. If the pronoun links, and it is the meaning of the subject, how if the subject is repeated with its word?! . Here we say: What is the link? Repeating the subject with its word. Because the second "Al-Haqqah" is the first "Al-Haqqah." "Al-Qari'ah": subject, and the sentence "What is Al-Qari'ah" is its predicate. So what is the link?
The student: Repeating the subject with its word.

The Shaykh : Repeating the subject with its word. So if it is said: How is repeating the subject with its word a link? We say: Because the connection of the sentence by repeating the word of the subject to the subject is stronger than its connection by repeating the pronoun. Because the pronoun indicates the referent, and it is not the referent itself. Okay, "The student is a good man," or "The student is a good man." "The student is a good man." And if you wish, you can also say: "The student of knowledge is a good man." Does the second sentence: "A good man" have a connection to the subject?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : How? Because "a good man": this is general. It includes, by priority, the subject, which is: the student of knowledge. "The student of knowledge is a good man." There is no doubt that there is a link. The link is that: "A good man," no addressee doubts that the intended meaning by your saying: "A good man," is the student, he is the student of knowledge. And this is an apparent link. So if someone says: Can we not claim that the link here is repeating the subject with its word?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : The answer: No. Because "the man" is not "the student." It is not valid to say: this is repeating the subject with its word. Because it is not repeating the subject with its word. But it is repeating the subject with its meaning. Due to the generality of the individuals. Due to the generality of the individuals in your saying: "A good man." Is that it? But the clock did not announce the apparent.
The student: It was announced.

The Shaykh : It was announced?! Okay, and I think -if Allah wills- the meaning is clear. So the links are now?
The student: Four.

The Shaykh : Four: the pronoun, the demonstrative, repeating the subject with its word, and by generality. And Allah knows best.
The student: But this, O Shaykh?

The Shaykh : Now we have taken four, and Ibn Malik says: "containing the meaning for which it was brought": and this is a general expression.