Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And they inform by a circumstantial phrase or a preposition *** intending the meaning of 'existing' or 'settled'"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And they inform by a circumstantial phrase or a preposition *** intending the meaning of 'existing' or 'settled'":
As if someone said to Ibn Malik: You divided the predicate into a single word and a sentence, and only those. So what do you say if the speaker says: "Muhammad is in the house," or "Muhammad is with you"? The first is a preposition and its object, and the second is a circumstantial phrase. This is common in the Arabic language. The Arabs inform by a circumstantial phrase and by what? By a preposition. And he was content with his saying: "by a preposition" instead of saying "a preposition and its object," for the preposition alone is nothing, but a preposition with its object is what is intended.
"They inform by a circumstantial phrase or a preposition": meaning with its object. This is common in the Arabic language, and no one denies it, is that not so?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So what is the answer to your division? Or what is the answer regarding your division of the predicate into only a single word and a sentence? He said:
"Intending the meaning of 'existing'": and this is a single word. "Or 'settled'": and this is a sentence. So it is as if he is saying: Even the circumstantial phrase and the preposition with its object do not depart from being what? A single word or a sentence, if we assume the meaning of "existing," then the predicate is?
The student: Singular.
The Shaykh : If we assume the meaning of "existing," the predicate is a single word. If we assume "settled," the predicate is a sentence. For this reason, we say: "Muhammad is in the house." "In the house" is a preposition and its object, connected to an omitted word assumed to be "existing," which is the predicate of the subject. Or we say: "Muhammad is in the house." "In the house" is a preposition and its object, connected to an omitted word assumed to be "settled." So the predicate in the first case is a single word, and in the second: a sentence. Now, which is better, assuming "existing" or "settled"? We say Ibn Malik placed "existing" first:
"Intending the meaning of 'existing' or 'settled'".
And it is more appropriate to assume "existing," because the original state of the predicate is to be a single word. And because if we assumed the predicate to be a sentence, it would be a compound, and the original state is the absence of compounding. It would require you to say: the sentence is from the verb and the subject in the position of nominative as the predicate of the subject, and the connector is the hidden pronoun, and so on. If you assume it to be a single word, you do not need this. For this reason, he said: he placed "existing" before "settled." Now, some scholars said: The preposition with its object and the circumstantial phrase itself is the predicate. They say: "Zayd is in the house." "In the house" is a preposition and its object, the predicate of the subject, and there is no need for assumption. On this view, how many divisions is the predicate?
The student: Three.
The Shaykh : Three divisions: a single word, a sentence, and a phrase. And this view is the stronger position based on the correct, clear, and stronger rule, which is that the original state is what?
The student: Facilitation.
The Shaykh : Facilitation and not assuming. "The original state is facilitation and not assuming". So we say: The preposition with its object itself is the predicate, and the circumstantial phrase is the predicate. The important thing is that this verse mentioned by Ibn Malik is as if it is an answer to an assumed question, which is: You said that the predicate is either a single word or a sentence, and here it comes as a circumstantial phrase and a preposition with its object?! He said: The circumstantial phrase and the preposition with its object are either a single word or a sentence. And for that reason, we assume "existing" or "settled."
"And they inform by a circumstantial phrase or a preposition", meaning with its object, "intending the meaning of 'existing' or 'settled'".
Then he said: "And a time noun does not become a predicate".
The student: It ended.
The Shaykh : The time has ended?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Fine.
The student: On the stronger view, is it?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Does it have a connection?
The Shaykh : What?
The student: No connection.
The Shaykh : No connection.
The student: Shaykh!
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: May Allah reward you. Who said that the Arabs intended "existing" or "settled"?
The Shaykh : What?
As if someone said to Ibn Malik: You divided the predicate into a single word and a sentence, and only those. So what do you say if the speaker says: "Muhammad is in the house," or "Muhammad is with you"? The first is a preposition and its object, and the second is a circumstantial phrase. This is common in the Arabic language. The Arabs inform by a circumstantial phrase and by what? By a preposition. And he was content with his saying: "by a preposition" instead of saying "a preposition and its object," for the preposition alone is nothing, but a preposition with its object is what is intended.
"They inform by a circumstantial phrase or a preposition": meaning with its object. This is common in the Arabic language, and no one denies it, is that not so?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So what is the answer to your division? Or what is the answer regarding your division of the predicate into only a single word and a sentence? He said:
"Intending the meaning of 'existing'": and this is a single word. "Or 'settled'": and this is a sentence. So it is as if he is saying: Even the circumstantial phrase and the preposition with its object do not depart from being what? A single word or a sentence, if we assume the meaning of "existing," then the predicate is?
The student: Singular.
The Shaykh : If we assume the meaning of "existing," the predicate is a single word. If we assume "settled," the predicate is a sentence. For this reason, we say: "Muhammad is in the house." "In the house" is a preposition and its object, connected to an omitted word assumed to be "existing," which is the predicate of the subject. Or we say: "Muhammad is in the house." "In the house" is a preposition and its object, connected to an omitted word assumed to be "settled." So the predicate in the first case is a single word, and in the second: a sentence. Now, which is better, assuming "existing" or "settled"? We say Ibn Malik placed "existing" first:
"Intending the meaning of 'existing' or 'settled'".
And it is more appropriate to assume "existing," because the original state of the predicate is to be a single word. And because if we assumed the predicate to be a sentence, it would be a compound, and the original state is the absence of compounding. It would require you to say: the sentence is from the verb and the subject in the position of nominative as the predicate of the subject, and the connector is the hidden pronoun, and so on. If you assume it to be a single word, you do not need this. For this reason, he said: he placed "existing" before "settled." Now, some scholars said: The preposition with its object and the circumstantial phrase itself is the predicate. They say: "Zayd is in the house." "In the house" is a preposition and its object, the predicate of the subject, and there is no need for assumption. On this view, how many divisions is the predicate?
The student: Three.
The Shaykh : Three divisions: a single word, a sentence, and a phrase. And this view is the stronger position based on the correct, clear, and stronger rule, which is that the original state is what?
The student: Facilitation.
The Shaykh : Facilitation and not assuming. "The original state is facilitation and not assuming". So we say: The preposition with its object itself is the predicate, and the circumstantial phrase is the predicate. The important thing is that this verse mentioned by Ibn Malik is as if it is an answer to an assumed question, which is: You said that the predicate is either a single word or a sentence, and here it comes as a circumstantial phrase and a preposition with its object?! He said: The circumstantial phrase and the preposition with its object are either a single word or a sentence. And for that reason, we assume "existing" or "settled."
"And they inform by a circumstantial phrase or a preposition", meaning with its object, "intending the meaning of 'existing' or 'settled'".
Then he said: "And a time noun does not become a predicate".
The student: It ended.
The Shaykh : The time has ended?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Fine.
The student: On the stronger view, is it?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Does it have a connection?
The Shaykh : What?
The student: No connection.
The Shaykh : No connection.
The student: Shaykh!
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: May Allah reward you. Who said that the Arabs intended "existing" or "settled"?
The Shaykh : What?