Continuation of the discussion of what was previously taken from the chapter on the section concerning what...
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Even though Allah the Exalted said: The third condition is perfection
The student: That its predicate not precede its subject, nor even be upon it
The Shaykh : That its predicate not precede its subject
The student: Nor even be upon it
The Shaykh : Nor even be upon it, for if its predicate precedes its subject
The student: It does not function
The Shaykh : It does not function, for example
The student: For example: Is Zayd standing?
The Shaykh : Is standing
The student: Zayd
The Shaykh : Zayd, correct?
The student: Correct
The Shaykh : Now, the fourth condition is by Bandar
The student: That the object of the predicate not precede
The Shaykh : That the object of the predicate not precede
The student: The object of the predicate
The Shaykh : Its subject
The student: Its subject
The Shaykh : Except
The student: If it is an adverb of time or place, or a preposition with its noun
The Shaykh : Except if it is an adverb of time or place, or a preposition with its noun, for example: The first example
The student: Is Zayd eating your food?
The Shaykh : Is Zayd eating your food?
The student: It is not permissible to put "eating" in the accusative case
The Shaykh : So it is not permissible to put "eating" in the accusative case, meaning one does not say "eating" in the accusative. Now, if it is an adverb of time or place, or a preposition with its noun, it is permissible and it functions; otherwise, its function is invalid
The student: It functions
The Shaykh : how
The student: It functions
The Shaykh : Its example
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes... Correct. "There is no man in the house standing" is correct? "There is no Zayd in the house residing" — this is a preposition with its noun, an adverb of time or place
The student: ...
The Shaykh : "There is no Zayd with you residing" Yes
The student: Why, O Shaykh...
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: "Residing" and "standing" — he says "There is no Zayd with you standing... in the position of the accusative case"
The Shaykh : What do you say about this? This is a mistake, this is a great mistake
The student: Why, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Because you have now made the adverb of time or place, or the preposition with its noun, the predicate
The student: ... The preposition with its noun is a preceding predicate
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: A preceding predicate
The Shaykh : We are talking about the function of "ma" (not). If you say "There is no Zayd with you," then "ma" is a negator, "with you" is a preceding predicate, and "Zayd" is a delayed subject. And we want to make "ma" function like "laysa" (is not)
The student: Now, but "ma" functions like "laysa," O Shaykh. Doesn't "laysa" put the predicate in the accusative case...
The Shaykh : Yes, we say "There is no Zayd with you residing"
The student: But some of them say, O Shaykh, that the adverb of time or place, or the preposition with its noun, is in the position of the accusative case, and they prevented the function of "ma"
The Shaykh : This is not the case. We have now made "with you" the object of "residing," not the predicate. And this is the intention: that the object of the predicate be an adverb of time or place, or a preposition with its noun, so that it precedes the subject, and it becomes permissible. Now
The student: Is the order a condition, and according to what Khalid said, the order is fulfilled
The Shaykh : Yes, that is not our issue. It is non-functioning. Now
"Ma ma Zayd standing," "Kharraj ma ma Zayd standing" or "standing"
The student: There is a detail if we consider "ma" a negator
The Shaykh : If we consider "ma" — the first one or the second one?
The student: The second one is a negator, "Ma ma Zayd standing"
The Shaykh : If we consider the second "ma" a negator
The student: "Ma ma Zayd standing"
The Shaykh : Then the function is invalid
The student: If we consider it an emphasis, then the function remains: "Ma ma Zayd standing"
The Shaykh : And what is the difference?
The student: Because if we consider the first one a negator, then the negation of the negation is affirmation, and the negation is negated
The Shaykh : If we consider it a negator and a negation particle enters it
The student: It is considered that the negation of the negation is affirmation, and the negation is negated, and we conditioned its function that the negation remains
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: If we consider the second one a negator, the negation is negated. But if we consider it an emphasis, an emphasis of the first "ma," then the negation is not negated, it remains on its original state
The Shaykh : Then the function is valid, and it functions, correct?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Now, then the author said, he started the lesson tonight
"And it raises the conjoined with 'bal' or 'lakin' *** From after the accusative with 'ma' where it settled"
The student: Shaykh, in a condition
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: In a condition mentioned by the author that we did not mention
The Shaykh : And He
The student: And it is his saying: "That its predicate not be replaced by an affirmative, for if it is replaced, its function is invalid"
The Shaykh : This condition was not mentioned. This is from Ibn Aqil, Ibn Aqil, and this is included in the author's saying: "With the remaining of the negation"
This is not a human
ما هذا بشراًThe student: That its predicate not precede its subject, nor even be upon it
The Shaykh : That its predicate not precede its subject
The student: Nor even be upon it
The Shaykh : Nor even be upon it, for if its predicate precedes its subject
The student: It does not function
The Shaykh : It does not function, for example
The student: For example: Is Zayd standing?
The Shaykh : Is standing
The student: Zayd
The Shaykh : Zayd, correct?
The student: Correct
The Shaykh : Now, the fourth condition is by Bandar
The student: That the object of the predicate not precede
The Shaykh : That the object of the predicate not precede
The student: The object of the predicate
The Shaykh : Its subject
The student: Its subject
The Shaykh : Except
The student: If it is an adverb of time or place, or a preposition with its noun
The Shaykh : Except if it is an adverb of time or place, or a preposition with its noun, for example: The first example
The student: Is Zayd eating your food?
The Shaykh : Is Zayd eating your food?
The student: It is not permissible to put "eating" in the accusative case
The Shaykh : So it is not permissible to put "eating" in the accusative case, meaning one does not say "eating" in the accusative. Now, if it is an adverb of time or place, or a preposition with its noun, it is permissible and it functions; otherwise, its function is invalid
The student: It functions
The Shaykh : how
The student: It functions
The Shaykh : Its example
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes... Correct. "There is no man in the house standing" is correct? "There is no Zayd in the house residing" — this is a preposition with its noun, an adverb of time or place
The student: ...
The Shaykh : "There is no Zayd with you residing" Yes
The student: Why, O Shaykh...
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: "Residing" and "standing" — he says "There is no Zayd with you standing... in the position of the accusative case"
The Shaykh : What do you say about this? This is a mistake, this is a great mistake
The student: Why, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Because you have now made the adverb of time or place, or the preposition with its noun, the predicate
The student: ... The preposition with its noun is a preceding predicate
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: A preceding predicate
The Shaykh : We are talking about the function of "ma" (not). If you say "There is no Zayd with you," then "ma" is a negator, "with you" is a preceding predicate, and "Zayd" is a delayed subject. And we want to make "ma" function like "laysa" (is not)
The student: Now, but "ma" functions like "laysa," O Shaykh. Doesn't "laysa" put the predicate in the accusative case...
The Shaykh : Yes, we say "There is no Zayd with you residing"
The student: But some of them say, O Shaykh, that the adverb of time or place, or the preposition with its noun, is in the position of the accusative case, and they prevented the function of "ma"
The Shaykh : This is not the case. We have now made "with you" the object of "residing," not the predicate. And this is the intention: that the object of the predicate be an adverb of time or place, or a preposition with its noun, so that it precedes the subject, and it becomes permissible. Now
The student: Is the order a condition, and according to what Khalid said, the order is fulfilled
The Shaykh : Yes, that is not our issue. It is non-functioning. Now
"Ma ma Zayd standing," "Kharraj ma ma Zayd standing" or "standing"
The student: There is a detail if we consider "ma" a negator
The Shaykh : If we consider "ma" — the first one or the second one?
The student: The second one is a negator, "Ma ma Zayd standing"
The Shaykh : If we consider the second "ma" a negator
The student: "Ma ma Zayd standing"
The Shaykh : Then the function is invalid
The student: If we consider it an emphasis, then the function remains: "Ma ma Zayd standing"
The Shaykh : And what is the difference?
The student: Because if we consider the first one a negator, then the negation of the negation is affirmation, and the negation is negated
The Shaykh : If we consider it a negator and a negation particle enters it
The student: It is considered that the negation of the negation is affirmation, and the negation is negated, and we conditioned its function that the negation remains
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: If we consider the second one a negator, the negation is negated. But if we consider it an emphasis, an emphasis of the first "ma," then the negation is not negated, it remains on its original state
The Shaykh : Then the function is valid, and it functions, correct?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Now, then the author said, he started the lesson tonight
"And it raises the conjoined with 'bal' or 'lakin' *** From after the accusative with 'ma' where it settled"
The student: Shaykh, in a condition
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: In a condition mentioned by the author that we did not mention
The Shaykh : And He
The student: And it is his saying: "That its predicate not be replaced by an affirmative, for if it is replaced, its function is invalid"
The Shaykh : This condition was not mentioned. This is from Ibn Aqil, Ibn Aqil, and this is included in the author's saying: "With the remaining of the negation"