Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "Like *kana*, *zala*, *bata*, *adhha*, *asbaha* *** *amsa*, *wasara*, *laysa*, *zala*, *baraha*"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said "Like *kana*, *zala*" Like *kana*, *zala*. This is a strange and unusual construction. One of you might say: You mentioned that one of the signs of a noun is the entry of a preposition, and that prepositions do not enter except upon nouns. Here, the *kaf* entered, and it is a preposition, upon *kana*, which is a verb. So what is the way out?
We say that its form was intended; its form was intended. Whenever the form is intended, it is permissible for a preposition to enter upon it, whether it is a verb, a verbal sentence, or a nominal sentence. As for *zala*, it is the subject, so *kana* is the predicate placed before it, and *zala* and what is conjoined to it is the subject placed after it. Yes.
"Like *kana*, *zala*" The *zala* here is with the *th* (thā'), the sister of the *t* (tā'), and it is called the slanted *th* (thā' al-mashālah), the slanted *th*. Yes, because it was derived with the *alif*, meaning it was derived with the *alif*. *Zala* means "became." There is also *dala* with the *d* (dhād) from *dalāl* (misguidance), which is not from this category. So if you say "The man was lost, a wanderer," from *dalāl* (misguidance), it is not from this category. For this reason, we parse "The man was lost, a wanderer" by parsing "the man" as the doer and "a wanderer" as a state. We do not say that it is from the category of the sisters of *kana*, nor does it indicate what *zala* indicates, because *zala* indicates becoming and a type of continuity. An example of it is the saying of Allah the Exalted:[An-Nahl 16:58] meaning he became and continued until he was black-faced. The second is *bata*. *Bata* is from *baytūtah*, which is sleeping at night; this is the original meaning. It is also used for mere staying overnight, so you say: "The man stayed overnight sleeping," and you say: "The man stayed overnight awake." Both are correct. And *bata* raises the subject and makes the predicate accusative.
*Adhha*: *Adhha* is from *duhā*, which is the rising of the day. *Adhha* fasting means "became fasting," but you specified it in a particular time, which is the *duhā* (late morning). You say: "The man became fasting in the *duhā*."
Now, *asbaha* is like it. *Asbaha* is from *subh* (morning). Which is first? The morning.
*Amsa*: It is also like it. "The man became hungry in the evening," meaning he became hungry in the evening.
And *sara*: *Sara* is from *sayrūrah* (becoming), not from *sayr* (gathering), because *sara* comes from *sayr* and comes from *sayrūrah*. That is, the transition from one state to another. Which is intended here? *Sayrūrah*. So you say: "The clay became a pitcher." The clay became a pitcher.
And the friend became an enemy, and the enemy became a friend.
And the rider became a pedestrian, or the pedestrian became a rider, and so on.
As for *sayr* which means gathering, it is not from this category. Of that is the saying of Allah the Exalted:[Al-Baqarah 2:260] meaning He gathered them to you.
*Laysa*: It is for negation. It is a verb that indicates negation. Some grammarians said that *laysa* is not a verb but a particle, because it resembles a particle in not being inflected while still having grammatical effect. Working particles are not inflected. So he says this word is working and not inflected, so it is a particle. But the correct view is that it is a verb, without doubt. The evidence for that is the saying of Allah the Exalted: "And repentance is not for those who do evil deeds." The feminine *tā'* entered it, and this indicates that it is a verb. What kind? Past tense. Now, *laysa*.
*Zala*: The *zala* whose present tense is *yazalu*, not the one whose present tense is *yazūlu*, and not the one whose present tense is *yazīlu*. Because *zala* is a past tense verb, and it has one form, one shape, but its present tense differs. It comes as *yazalu*, *yazūlu*, and *yazīlu*. So which one has the grammatical effect of *kana*? The *zala* whose present tense is *yazalu*. Of that is the saying of Allah the Exalted:[Hud 11:118] "And they will be dispersed." This is a defective past tense verb that raises the subject and makes the predicate accusative. But its subject here is a pronoun built on sukun in the position of nominative.
And "differing": its predicate. Now.
As for the *zala* whose present tense is *yazūlu*, it does not have the grammatical effect of *kana*, but it is a complete verb. You say: "The sun set." Here, the present tense is "the sun sets," the sun sets. Likewise, the *zala* whose present tense is *yazīlu* is not from the sisters of *kana*. And this, which I mean, the *zala* whose present tense is *yazīlu*, means to distinguish. You say: "Distinguish my property from my wealth," meaning distinguish it clearly? So *zala* has three present tenses, three present tense verbs: the first is *yazalu*, the second is *yazūlu*, and the third is *yazīlu*. And the one that has the grammatical effect of *kana* is the one whose present tense is *yazalu*. Now.
And *baraha*: The root of *baraha* is taken from *barāh*, which is spaciousness, but it indicates continuity when it is from the sisters of *kana*, as will come later.
We say that its form was intended; its form was intended. Whenever the form is intended, it is permissible for a preposition to enter upon it, whether it is a verb, a verbal sentence, or a nominal sentence. As for *zala*, it is the subject, so *kana* is the predicate placed before it, and *zala* and what is conjoined to it is the subject placed after it. Yes.
"Like *kana*, *zala*" The *zala* here is with the *th* (thā'), the sister of the *t* (tā'), and it is called the slanted *th* (thā' al-mashālah), the slanted *th*. Yes, because it was derived with the *alif*, meaning it was derived with the *alif*. *Zala* means "became." There is also *dala* with the *d* (dhād) from *dalāl* (misguidance), which is not from this category. So if you say "The man was lost, a wanderer," from *dalāl* (misguidance), it is not from this category. For this reason, we parse "The man was lost, a wanderer" by parsing "the man" as the doer and "a wanderer" as a state. We do not say that it is from the category of the sisters of *kana*, nor does it indicate what *zala* indicates, because *zala* indicates becoming and a type of continuity. An example of it is the saying of Allah the Exalted:
And when one of them is informed of [the birth of] a female, his face becomes dark
وإذا بشر أحدهم بالأنثى ظل وجهه مسوداً*Adhha*: *Adhha* is from *duhā*, which is the rising of the day. *Adhha* fasting means "became fasting," but you specified it in a particular time, which is the *duhā* (late morning). You say: "The man became fasting in the *duhā*."
Now, *asbaha* is like it. *Asbaha* is from *subh* (morning). Which is first? The morning.
*Amsa*: It is also like it. "The man became hungry in the evening," meaning he became hungry in the evening.
And *sara*: *Sara* is from *sayrūrah* (becoming), not from *sayr* (gathering), because *sara* comes from *sayr* and comes from *sayrūrah*. That is, the transition from one state to another. Which is intended here? *Sayrūrah*. So you say: "The clay became a pitcher." The clay became a pitcher.
And the friend became an enemy, and the enemy became a friend.
And the rider became a pedestrian, or the pedestrian became a rider, and so on.
As for *sayr* which means gathering, it is not from this category. Of that is the saying of Allah the Exalted:
Take four birds and commit them to yourself
فخذ أربعة من الطير فصرهن إليك*Laysa*: It is for negation. It is a verb that indicates negation. Some grammarians said that *laysa* is not a verb but a particle, because it resembles a particle in not being inflected while still having grammatical effect. Working particles are not inflected. So he says this word is working and not inflected, so it is a particle. But the correct view is that it is a verb, without doubt. The evidence for that is the saying of Allah the Exalted: "And repentance is not for those who do evil deeds." The feminine *tā'* entered it, and this indicates that it is a verb. What kind? Past tense. Now, *laysa*.
*Zala*: The *zala* whose present tense is *yazalu*, not the one whose present tense is *yazūlu*, and not the one whose present tense is *yazīlu*. Because *zala* is a past tense verb, and it has one form, one shape, but its present tense differs. It comes as *yazalu*, *yazūlu*, and *yazīlu*. So which one has the grammatical effect of *kana*? The *zala* whose present tense is *yazalu*. Of that is the saying of Allah the Exalted:
but they will not cease to differ.
ولا يزالون مختلفينAnd "differing": its predicate. Now.
As for the *zala* whose present tense is *yazūlu*, it does not have the grammatical effect of *kana*, but it is a complete verb. You say: "The sun set." Here, the present tense is "the sun sets," the sun sets. Likewise, the *zala* whose present tense is *yazīlu* is not from the sisters of *kana*. And this, which I mean, the *zala* whose present tense is *yazīlu*, means to distinguish. You say: "Distinguish my property from my wealth," meaning distinguish it clearly? So *zala* has three present tenses, three present tense verbs: the first is *yazalu*, the second is *yazūlu*, and the third is *yazīlu*. And the one that has the grammatical effect of *kana* is the one whose present tense is *yazalu*. Now.
And *baraha*: The root of *baraha* is taken from *barāh*, which is spaciousness, but it indicates continuity when it is from the sisters of *kana*, as will come later.