Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And omitting what is known is permissible, just as you say: 'Zayd' after 'Who is with you?'"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : And there remains a new point of discussion: the omission of the subject and the predicate. Is it permissible to omit the subject and to omit the predicate, and is it permissible to omit both of them together? The author (may Allah have mercy on him) clarified this and said:
"And omitting what is known is permissible, just as you say: 'Zayd' after 'Who is with you?'"
and so on. He said: "Omitting what is known": This verse is in the chapter on the subject and the predicate. Is this ruling specific to the subject and the predicate, or does it apply in every context? The answer is: it applies in every context.
Omitting what is known, whether it is the subject, the predicate, the state, or the object, is permissible if it is known. For this reason, this is considered a rule; this verse is considered a rule: "Omitting what is known is permissible in every context". By this, we know that the foundation of speech is knowledge and benefit. It has been mentioned to us previously that it is not permissible to begin with an indefinite noun unless it provides what? Unless it provides benefit: "Like 'At Zayd's house'". And it has been mentioned to us previously that if the subject is confused with the predicate, it is not permissible to place the predicate before the subject. Therefore, the entire foundation of speech is based on benefit and knowledge. If something that is known is omitted, its omission is permissible. Then the author gave examples and said:
"Just as you say: 'Zayd' after 'Who is with you?'": A questioner asked and said: "Who is with you?" addressing two people. He said: "Zayd." What was omitted now?
The student: The predicate.
The Shaykh : The predicate, not the subject.
The student: The predicate.
The Shaykh :"Who is with you?"? He said: "Zayd."
The student: A predicate.
The Shaykh : The implied meaning is: "Zayd is with us." This involves placing the predicate before the subject.
"And omitting what is known is permissible, just as you say: 'Zayd' after 'Who is with you?'"
and so on. He said: "Omitting what is known": This verse is in the chapter on the subject and the predicate. Is this ruling specific to the subject and the predicate, or does it apply in every context? The answer is: it applies in every context.
Omitting what is known, whether it is the subject, the predicate, the state, or the object, is permissible if it is known. For this reason, this is considered a rule; this verse is considered a rule: "Omitting what is known is permissible in every context". By this, we know that the foundation of speech is knowledge and benefit. It has been mentioned to us previously that it is not permissible to begin with an indefinite noun unless it provides what? Unless it provides benefit: "Like 'At Zayd's house'". And it has been mentioned to us previously that if the subject is confused with the predicate, it is not permissible to place the predicate before the subject. Therefore, the entire foundation of speech is based on benefit and knowledge. If something that is known is omitted, its omission is permissible. Then the author gave examples and said:
"Just as you say: 'Zayd' after 'Who is with you?'": A questioner asked and said: "Who is with you?" addressing two people. He said: "Zayd." What was omitted now?
The student: The predicate.
The Shaykh : The predicate, not the subject.
The student: The predicate.
The Shaykh :"Who is with you?"? He said: "Zayd."
The student: A predicate.
The Shaykh : The implied meaning is: "Zayd is with us." This involves placing the predicate before the subject.