Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And after a waw that specifies 'with' *** like every maker and what he made."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And after a waw": This is the third place where the deletion of the predicate is obligatory; the predicate must be deleted: "after a waw that specifies 'with'":
That is, after the waw of accompaniment that cannot be a conjunction, that cannot be a conjunction, but rather it means "with." If it means "with," then it is not possible to mention the predicate.
"like every maker and what he made":
The meaning is: every maker and what he made are associated, so the predicate is omitted, and the implied meaning is: every maker and what he made are associated. Now, "every" is the subject, "maker" is the noun to which it is added, and the waw is a conjunction particle, or a particle of accompaniment?
The student: Accompaniment.
The Shaykh : The waw is for accompaniment, and "what he made": it is possible that "ma" is a relative pronoun, meaning: and what he made, or that it is a verbal noun particle, meaning: and his making. This is closer, so we say: every maker and his making are associated. Now, "every student and his book," is that correct?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Now, "every person and his garment"?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Correct. So, if the waw means "with" and it is specified as being for accompaniment, then the predicate is omitted by obligation. If someone were to say: the waw here means "with," so it becomes an adverb of time, and the adverb becomes the predicate, and the implied meaning is: every maker exists with his making, every person exists with his garment, every person exists with his book, and the like. If this were said, it would have a valid aspect, because if it is specified that it is a waw meaning "with," then "with" is an adverb that is suitable to be a predicate.
And his saying: "specified 'with'":
It is understood from this that if the waw were suitable to be a conjunction, and not specified for accompaniment, then the deletion of the predicate is not obligatory. For example, if you say: Zayd and 'Amr are companions, Zayd and 'Amr are companions. And at that time, we say: if the predicate is known, it is permissible to delete it or mention it. If the predicate is specific and not known from what the waw conveys, it is obligatory to mention it. Is that clear, everyone? Zayd and 'Amr, this waw is a conjunction, and it is permissible for it to be for accompaniment, but it is not specified, so it is a conjunction. If you say: Zayd and 'Amr, what does the waw convey? It conveys their association in coming, so you say: they are associated. It is permissible to delete the predicate. But if you intended to say: Zayd and 'Amr are fighting, here deletion is not permissible, because if you say: Zayd and 'Amr, and you intend "fighting," who would understand that? Unlike: Zayd and 'Amr are associated, because the waw necessitates sharing and association. So now the issue is in three categories: The first category: that the waw means "with" and does not allow conjunction, here the predicate is omitted by obligation, being dispensed with by the waw of accompaniment. The second: that the conjunction is by a waw that is not specified for accompaniment, here we say: if evidence indicates the omitted predicate, what happens?
The student: It is deleted.
The Shaykh : No, if evidence indicates the omitted predicate!
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible to mention it or delete it, and if the evidence does not indicate it?
The student: It is obligatory.
The Shaykh : It is obligatory to mention it, yes.
He said: "like every maker and what he made":
That is, every maker and what he made are associated, and "ma" here, we said: the preferred option is to estimate it as a verbal noun particle.
That is, after the waw of accompaniment that cannot be a conjunction, that cannot be a conjunction, but rather it means "with." If it means "with," then it is not possible to mention the predicate.
"like every maker and what he made":
The meaning is: every maker and what he made are associated, so the predicate is omitted, and the implied meaning is: every maker and what he made are associated. Now, "every" is the subject, "maker" is the noun to which it is added, and the waw is a conjunction particle, or a particle of accompaniment?
The student: Accompaniment.
The Shaykh : The waw is for accompaniment, and "what he made": it is possible that "ma" is a relative pronoun, meaning: and what he made, or that it is a verbal noun particle, meaning: and his making. This is closer, so we say: every maker and his making are associated. Now, "every student and his book," is that correct?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Now, "every person and his garment"?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Correct. So, if the waw means "with" and it is specified as being for accompaniment, then the predicate is omitted by obligation. If someone were to say: the waw here means "with," so it becomes an adverb of time, and the adverb becomes the predicate, and the implied meaning is: every maker exists with his making, every person exists with his garment, every person exists with his book, and the like. If this were said, it would have a valid aspect, because if it is specified that it is a waw meaning "with," then "with" is an adverb that is suitable to be a predicate.
And his saying: "specified 'with'":
It is understood from this that if the waw were suitable to be a conjunction, and not specified for accompaniment, then the deletion of the predicate is not obligatory. For example, if you say: Zayd and 'Amr are companions, Zayd and 'Amr are companions. And at that time, we say: if the predicate is known, it is permissible to delete it or mention it. If the predicate is specific and not known from what the waw conveys, it is obligatory to mention it. Is that clear, everyone? Zayd and 'Amr, this waw is a conjunction, and it is permissible for it to be for accompaniment, but it is not specified, so it is a conjunction. If you say: Zayd and 'Amr, what does the waw convey? It conveys their association in coming, so you say: they are associated. It is permissible to delete the predicate. But if you intended to say: Zayd and 'Amr are fighting, here deletion is not permissible, because if you say: Zayd and 'Amr, and you intend "fighting," who would understand that? Unlike: Zayd and 'Amr are associated, because the waw necessitates sharing and association. So now the issue is in three categories: The first category: that the waw means "with" and does not allow conjunction, here the predicate is omitted by obligation, being dispensed with by the waw of accompaniment. The second: that the conjunction is by a waw that is not specified for accompaniment, here we say: if evidence indicates the omitted predicate, what happens?
The student: It is deleted.
The Shaykh : No, if evidence indicates the omitted predicate!
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible to mention it or delete it, and if the evidence does not indicate it?
The student: It is obligatory.
The Shaykh : It is obligatory to mention it, yes.
He said: "like every maker and what he made":
That is, every maker and what he made are associated, and "ma" here, we said: the preferred option is to estimate it as a verbal noun particle.