Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And *kana* may be added in the middle, just as *** *kana* was the soundest of knowledge from those who came before."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said: "And *kana* may be added in the middle". Only *kana* is added among its sister particles, and only in this specific form, without any of its derived forms. That is, it is not added in the present tense, nor as an active participle, nor as a passive participle; rather, it is added in the form *kana*. It is added in what? In the middle. The middle of a thing is what is inside it, meaning between its top and its bottom, like the stuffing of a mattress. This means that it is added between two connected things, between two connected things, such as the subject and the predicate, the adjective and the noun it modifies, the possessive and the possessed, and expressions of wonder and what is similar to them. The important point is that it is added between two things that are what? Connected, in the form *kana*. "And it may be added". And from his saying "it may be added" to the end, we know that this is not common. I forgot to parse the verse.
"It may be added": Is *qad* for diminution or for multiplication?
The student: For diminution.
The Shaykh : For diminution. And this is the rule: when it enters a present-tense verb, it is for diminution. From this is their saying, "Perhaps the miser will be generous," "perhaps he will be generous." But it sometimes occurs for realization, and it is with a present-tense verb, like the saying of Allah the Exalted:[Al-Ahzab 33:18]. Here, there is no doubt that it is for realization, and it is certainly not for diminution or hesitation, but rather for realization. Yes, "it may be added" here is for diminution.
And his saying "kana is added": How do we parse *kana*?
We say: *Kana* here is a passive subject, raised by a *dammah* that is estimated on its end, the appearance of which is prevented by...
The student: The *hikayah* (narrative form).
The Shaykh : The *hikayah*. In "in the middle" is a preposition and its object, attached to "added."
"Just as *kana* was the soundest of knowledge from those who came before". The *kaf* is a preposition.
"What *kana* was the soundest of knowledge from those who came before": The entire sentence is in the genitive case due to the *kaf*. The sign of its genitive case is a *kasrah* estimated on its end, the appearance of which is prevented by the *hikayah*. The proof for what we said about this parsing is that this sentence takes the place of a singular noun, because the meaning is, like this example, "Just as *kana* was the soundest of knowledge from those who came before", meaning like this example.
As for the detailed parsing of the sentence:
*Ma* is an expression of wonder, and it is a subject, built on *sukun* in the position of nominative case.
*Kana*: It is an extra verb, and we do not say it is for the past tense. We do not say it is for the past tense because it is stripped of meaning and time; it is extra.
*Asah*: It is a verb of wonder, built on *fathah*, with no position in parsing. Its subject is hidden by necessity, estimated as "he." This is one of the exceptions where the estimated subject is "he," where the hidden subject is by necessity. And the reason it is hidden by necessity in the verb of wonder is that it follows the course of similes, and similes are not changed.
*'Ilm*: It is the object of *asah*, in the accusative case with an explicit *fathah*. And *'ilm* is a possessive, and *min* is the possessed, built on *sukun* in the position of genitive case.
*Taqaadama*: It is a past-tense verb, and its subject is hidden by permission, estimated as "he," referring back to *min*. The sentence is a relative clause, with no position in parsing.
So, this verse explains one of the rulings of *kana*, which is that it is added between what? Two connected things. And when it is added, it has no grammatical function and no meaning because it is extra. This is one of its characteristics.
"It may be added": Is *qad* for diminution or for multiplication?
The student: For diminution.
The Shaykh : For diminution. And this is the rule: when it enters a present-tense verb, it is for diminution. From this is their saying, "Perhaps the miser will be generous," "perhaps he will be generous." But it sometimes occurs for realization, and it is with a present-tense verb, like the saying of Allah the Exalted:
Already Allah knows the hinderers among you
قد يعلم الله المعوقين منكمAnd his saying "kana is added": How do we parse *kana*?
We say: *Kana* here is a passive subject, raised by a *dammah* that is estimated on its end, the appearance of which is prevented by...
The student: The *hikayah* (narrative form).
The Shaykh : The *hikayah*. In "in the middle" is a preposition and its object, attached to "added."
"Just as *kana* was the soundest of knowledge from those who came before". The *kaf* is a preposition.
"What *kana* was the soundest of knowledge from those who came before": The entire sentence is in the genitive case due to the *kaf*. The sign of its genitive case is a *kasrah* estimated on its end, the appearance of which is prevented by the *hikayah*. The proof for what we said about this parsing is that this sentence takes the place of a singular noun, because the meaning is, like this example, "Just as *kana* was the soundest of knowledge from those who came before", meaning like this example.
As for the detailed parsing of the sentence:
*Ma* is an expression of wonder, and it is a subject, built on *sukun* in the position of nominative case.
*Kana*: It is an extra verb, and we do not say it is for the past tense. We do not say it is for the past tense because it is stripped of meaning and time; it is extra.
*Asah*: It is a verb of wonder, built on *fathah*, with no position in parsing. Its subject is hidden by necessity, estimated as "he." This is one of the exceptions where the estimated subject is "he," where the hidden subject is by necessity. And the reason it is hidden by necessity in the verb of wonder is that it follows the course of similes, and similes are not changed.
*'Ilm*: It is the object of *asah*, in the accusative case with an explicit *fathah*. And *'ilm* is a possessive, and *min* is the possessed, built on *sukun* in the position of genitive case.
*Taqaadama*: It is a past-tense verb, and its subject is hidden by permission, estimated as "he," referring back to *min*. The sentence is a relative clause, with no position in parsing.
So, this verse explains one of the rulings of *kana*, which is that it is added between what? Two connected things. And when it is added, it has no grammatical function and no meaning because it is extra. This is one of its characteristics.