Continuation of the discussion of the chapter on the beginning.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : What is the condition for a description to suffice for its raised noun in place of the predicate of the beginning?
The student: That it be preceded by a negation or a question.
The Shaykh : That is one.
The student: That the beginning be a description.
The Shaykh : A description?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Well, the first condition, if the first condition is not met, O Abd al-Razzaq, is it valid for the beginning to suffice with its raised noun?!
The student: No, O Shaykh, it is not valid.
The Shaykh : Yes? Yes, O!
The student: It is valid, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : It is valid, even if it does not rely on it?!
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : It is valid.
The student: "A winner, the men of sound judgment".
The Shaykh : But did Ibn Malik say: "A winner, the men of sound judgment" is permissible in all cases?
The student: No, no, I do not know, this says they permitted this among the Arabs.
The Shaykh : In any case, there is disagreement in it, there is disagreement in it, the truth is that there is disagreement in it, but what the author followed must rely on a question or a negation, he said: And it may be permissible based on a weak opinion according to the author, or based on something occurring from the Arabs, but it is rare, what is the description intended in this chapter?
The student: That the doer is attached to the name of the beginning.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Therefore he said: "And analogize to the question of negation": meaning, analogize the passive participle to the active participle.
The Shaykh : Yes, well, an example of the active participle?
The student: Are the two men standing?
The Shaykh : And the passive participle?
The student: Is the man struck?
The Shaykh : How?
The student: Are the two men struck?
The Shaykh : Struck?
The student: The two men!
The Shaykh : The two men, well, its parsing?
The student: Me, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes, I do.
The student: The hamza is for questioning, struck is a beginning raised, and its sign of raising is a visible dammah on its end, and the two men is a doer that fills the place of the predicate, raised by alif.
The Shaykh : The hamza is for questioning, and struck?
The student: Struck is a beginning.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: And the two men is a doer.
The Shaykh : Raised by what? Raised, complete it!
The student: The two men is a doer raised.
The Shaykh : No, a beginning, struck is a beginning.
The student: Raised and its sign of raising is the visible dammah on its end.
The Shaykh : Raised by what?
The student: By the beginning.
The Shaykh : Huh? By the beginning and its sign of raising?
The student: The visible dammah on its end.
The Shaykh : Well, and it is in the form of?
The student: The passive participle.
The Shaykh : Yes, and the two men?
The student: A substitute for the doer.
The Shaykh : A substitute for the doer suffices?
The student: It suffices for the predicate.
The Shaykh : For the predicate, well.
The student: Is the original a doer or a substitute for the doer?
The Shaykh : No, a substitute for the doer, struck, well, we now have three sentences: Are the two men standing, is the man standing, are the two men standing, is the man standing, four, come on, O Nasser!!
The student: Which one!?
The Shaykh : The first one.
The student: Is the man standing?
The Shaykh : Yes, is the expression correct or not? Correct?!
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Is it valid for standing to be a preceding predicate?
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because, O Shaykh, it is singular, it is not valid to say: The two men is a doer.
The Shaykh : What are the reasons?
The student: Meaning, O Shaykh, the description is singular.
The Shaykh : Due to lack of agreement.
The student: The agreement of the predicate with the beginning.
The Shaykh : The agreement of the predicate with the beginning, well: Are the two men standing, Khuzraj!
The student: Are the two men standing!
The Shaykh : Is the expression valid or not?
The student: The expression is valid.
The Shaykh : Well, is it valid to make standing a beginning and the two men a doer?
The student: No, it is not valid.
The Shaykh : Absolutely.
The student: Absolutely.
The Shaykh : In all the languages of the Arabs?!
The student: Except in the language: "The lice ate me".
The Shaykh : Except in the language: "The lice ate me", well, according to the opinion of the majority, how do we parse standing? Are the two men standing?
The student: A preceding predicate.
The Shaykh : A preceding predicate.
The student: And the two men: a delayed beginning.
The Shaykh : And the two men a delayed beginning, well: Are the two men standing, is this expression permissible or not permissible?
The student: Are the two men standing?!
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : Do we parse the man as a doer?!
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : Do we parse it as a doer!
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : Never?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Well, in the language of some of the Arabs which is: "The lice ate me"?
The student: Are the two men standing?!
The Shaykh : Yes, I do.
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : Even in the language of the lice?! What do you say, O people?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct, because in the language of the lice, they only permit the sign of duality and plurality, if it is dual or plural, well.
The student: That it be preceded by a negation or a question.
The Shaykh : That is one.
The student: That the beginning be a description.
The Shaykh : A description?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Well, the first condition, if the first condition is not met, O Abd al-Razzaq, is it valid for the beginning to suffice with its raised noun?!
The student: No, O Shaykh, it is not valid.
The Shaykh : Yes? Yes, O!
The student: It is valid, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : It is valid, even if it does not rely on it?!
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : It is valid.
The student: "A winner, the men of sound judgment".
The Shaykh : But did Ibn Malik say: "A winner, the men of sound judgment" is permissible in all cases?
The student: No, no, I do not know, this says they permitted this among the Arabs.
The Shaykh : In any case, there is disagreement in it, there is disagreement in it, the truth is that there is disagreement in it, but what the author followed must rely on a question or a negation, he said: And it may be permissible based on a weak opinion according to the author, or based on something occurring from the Arabs, but it is rare, what is the description intended in this chapter?
The student: That the doer is attached to the name of the beginning.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Therefore he said: "And analogize to the question of negation": meaning, analogize the passive participle to the active participle.
The Shaykh : Yes, well, an example of the active participle?
The student: Are the two men standing?
The Shaykh : And the passive participle?
The student: Is the man struck?
The Shaykh : How?
The student: Are the two men struck?
The Shaykh : Struck?
The student: The two men!
The Shaykh : The two men, well, its parsing?
The student: Me, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes, I do.
The student: The hamza is for questioning, struck is a beginning raised, and its sign of raising is a visible dammah on its end, and the two men is a doer that fills the place of the predicate, raised by alif.
The Shaykh : The hamza is for questioning, and struck?
The student: Struck is a beginning.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: And the two men is a doer.
The Shaykh : Raised by what? Raised, complete it!
The student: The two men is a doer raised.
The Shaykh : No, a beginning, struck is a beginning.
The student: Raised and its sign of raising is the visible dammah on its end.
The Shaykh : Raised by what?
The student: By the beginning.
The Shaykh : Huh? By the beginning and its sign of raising?
The student: The visible dammah on its end.
The Shaykh : Well, and it is in the form of?
The student: The passive participle.
The Shaykh : Yes, and the two men?
The student: A substitute for the doer.
The Shaykh : A substitute for the doer suffices?
The student: It suffices for the predicate.
The Shaykh : For the predicate, well.
The student: Is the original a doer or a substitute for the doer?
The Shaykh : No, a substitute for the doer, struck, well, we now have three sentences: Are the two men standing, is the man standing, are the two men standing, is the man standing, four, come on, O Nasser!!
The student: Which one!?
The Shaykh : The first one.
The student: Is the man standing?
The Shaykh : Yes, is the expression correct or not? Correct?!
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Is it valid for standing to be a preceding predicate?
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because, O Shaykh, it is singular, it is not valid to say: The two men is a doer.
The Shaykh : What are the reasons?
The student: Meaning, O Shaykh, the description is singular.
The Shaykh : Due to lack of agreement.
The student: The agreement of the predicate with the beginning.
The Shaykh : The agreement of the predicate with the beginning, well: Are the two men standing, Khuzraj!
The student: Are the two men standing!
The Shaykh : Is the expression valid or not?
The student: The expression is valid.
The Shaykh : Well, is it valid to make standing a beginning and the two men a doer?
The student: No, it is not valid.
The Shaykh : Absolutely.
The student: Absolutely.
The Shaykh : In all the languages of the Arabs?!
The student: Except in the language: "The lice ate me".
The Shaykh : Except in the language: "The lice ate me", well, according to the opinion of the majority, how do we parse standing? Are the two men standing?
The student: A preceding predicate.
The Shaykh : A preceding predicate.
The student: And the two men: a delayed beginning.
The Shaykh : And the two men a delayed beginning, well: Are the two men standing, is this expression permissible or not permissible?
The student: Are the two men standing?!
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : Do we parse the man as a doer?!
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : Do we parse it as a doer!
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : Never?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Well, in the language of some of the Arabs which is: "The lice ate me"?
The student: Are the two men standing?!
The Shaykh : Yes, I do.
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : Even in the language of the lice?! What do you say, O people?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct, because in the language of the lice, they only permit the sign of duality and plurality, if it is dual or plural, well.