Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): In the case of indefinite nouns, it is made to function like *laysa* (is not) with *la* *** and it is followed by *la* and *in* with this function.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The new lesson. The author said: "In the case of indefinite nouns, it is made to function like *laysa* (is not) with *la* ***"
"In the case of indefinite nouns" is a prepositional phrase attached to "is made to function."
*Kaysa*: The *kaf* is a preposition, but in reality it is a noun meaning "like." It is permissible to use the *kaf* as a noun, as Ibn Malik said:
"Like the *kaf*, and with it the cause is *** meant, and it is an addition for emphasis, and it is returned
and used as a noun"
Meaning it becomes a noun meaning "like." In any case, the implied meaning here is that it is made to function like *laysa* (is not) with *la* as a passive subject. That is, *la* is made to function in the case of indefinite nouns just as *laysa* (is not) functions, meaning like the function of *laysa* (is not). And when the *kaf* means "like," it becomes an absolute object, an absolute object, meaning it is in the state of being in the accusative case.
"And it is followed by *la* and *in*"
*Qad*: It indicates diminution because it entered upon the present tense verb.
*Tali*: It is a present tense verb.
*La*: It is the subject of *tali*.
*In*: It is conjoined to *la*.
*Dha*: It is the object of *tali*, in the accusative case with the alif, because it is one of the five nouns.
*La*: It is the possessive, and "function" is the possessed. Pay attention, if I made a mistake, well.
The student: *Dha* is a demonstrative pronoun.
The Shaykh : *Dha* is a demonstrative pronoun. It appears that you are not active in grammar.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : *Dha al-'amal*. I told you that *dha* is an object in the accusative case with the alif because it is one of the five nouns. I did not see anyone speak, and the correct view is that *dha* is a demonstrative pronoun, built on sukun, in the state of being in the accusative case.
And "al-'amal" (the function) is a substitute for *dha*, meaning this function is followed by *la* and *in*, this function.
Do you understand now? So *dha*, after we said it was inflected, is now built because it is a demonstrative pronoun. That is, "And it is followed by *la* and *in* with this function"
In this verse, the author (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned three particles that function like *laysa* (is not). The first is *la*, the second is *la*, and the third is *in*. But there are conditions for their function. The condition for the function of *la* is that it be in the case of indefinite nouns, that it be in the case of indefinite nouns, meaning it does not function at all, meaning it does not function in the case of definite nouns.
And from this is the saying of the poet:
"You are honored, so nothing on earth remains *** and no burden from what Allah has decreed protects" The evidence is his saying: "So nothing on earth remains." "Nothing" is an indefinite noun and "remains" is an indefinite noun. "And no burden" is like it, "from what Allah has decreed protects." So here this verse combines two evidences: one in the first hemistich and one in the second hemistich.
"You are honored, so nothing on earth remains *** and no burden from what Allah has decreed protects"
Do you understand? And his saying "in the case of indefinite nouns" implies that it does not function in anything other than indefinite nouns, but is left without function.
So if I said: *La Zaydun qayyaman* (Not Zayd is standing), it is not correct because it does not function except in the case of indefinite nouns.
*La al-rijala qayyimin* (Not the men are standing), it does not function because it does not function except in the case of indefinite nouns.
But the saying of the poet was brought up as an objection to this condition:
"And she settled in the black of the heart, not me seeking other than her *** nor me lagging from love of her"
The point of objection is that it functioned in a definite noun because *ana* (I) is a pronoun, so it functioned. They answered that this is anomalous, and others answered that this is rare. And on this basis, its function in indefinite nouns is more than its function in definite nouns, but it functions in definite nouns in a rare manner. And from this also is his saying:
"If generosity is not granted freedom from harm *** then praise is not gained and wealth is not lasting" And this is an excellent verse.
"If generosity is not granted freedom from harm, then praise is not gained and wealth is not lasting"
It is correct. The generous person, if his generosity is not pure from harm, meaning he does not harm the one he is generous to, then praise is not gained and wealth is not lasting, because his wealth will be exhausted, and he will not be praised because he harms the one he is generous to. So it will be a loss of religion and world, or a loss of form and meaning.
"If generosity is not granted," complete it, O Sa'd.
The student: If generosity is not granted from harm.
The Shaykh : No, "If generosity is not granted."
The student: From harm.
The Shaykh : No, the verse will be broken. Yes.
"In the case of indefinite nouns" is a prepositional phrase attached to "is made to function."
*Kaysa*: The *kaf* is a preposition, but in reality it is a noun meaning "like." It is permissible to use the *kaf* as a noun, as Ibn Malik said:
"Like the *kaf*, and with it the cause is *** meant, and it is an addition for emphasis, and it is returned
and used as a noun"
Meaning it becomes a noun meaning "like." In any case, the implied meaning here is that it is made to function like *laysa* (is not) with *la* as a passive subject. That is, *la* is made to function in the case of indefinite nouns just as *laysa* (is not) functions, meaning like the function of *laysa* (is not). And when the *kaf* means "like," it becomes an absolute object, an absolute object, meaning it is in the state of being in the accusative case.
"And it is followed by *la* and *in*"
*Qad*: It indicates diminution because it entered upon the present tense verb.
*Tali*: It is a present tense verb.
*La*: It is the subject of *tali*.
*In*: It is conjoined to *la*.
*Dha*: It is the object of *tali*, in the accusative case with the alif, because it is one of the five nouns.
*La*: It is the possessive, and "function" is the possessed. Pay attention, if I made a mistake, well.
The student: *Dha* is a demonstrative pronoun.
The Shaykh : *Dha* is a demonstrative pronoun. It appears that you are not active in grammar.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : *Dha al-'amal*. I told you that *dha* is an object in the accusative case with the alif because it is one of the five nouns. I did not see anyone speak, and the correct view is that *dha* is a demonstrative pronoun, built on sukun, in the state of being in the accusative case.
And "al-'amal" (the function) is a substitute for *dha*, meaning this function is followed by *la* and *in*, this function.
Do you understand now? So *dha*, after we said it was inflected, is now built because it is a demonstrative pronoun. That is, "And it is followed by *la* and *in* with this function"
In this verse, the author (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned three particles that function like *laysa* (is not). The first is *la*, the second is *la*, and the third is *in*. But there are conditions for their function. The condition for the function of *la* is that it be in the case of indefinite nouns, that it be in the case of indefinite nouns, meaning it does not function at all, meaning it does not function in the case of definite nouns.
And from this is the saying of the poet:
"You are honored, so nothing on earth remains *** and no burden from what Allah has decreed protects" The evidence is his saying: "So nothing on earth remains." "Nothing" is an indefinite noun and "remains" is an indefinite noun. "And no burden" is like it, "from what Allah has decreed protects." So here this verse combines two evidences: one in the first hemistich and one in the second hemistich.
"You are honored, so nothing on earth remains *** and no burden from what Allah has decreed protects"
Do you understand? And his saying "in the case of indefinite nouns" implies that it does not function in anything other than indefinite nouns, but is left without function.
So if I said: *La Zaydun qayyaman* (Not Zayd is standing), it is not correct because it does not function except in the case of indefinite nouns.
*La al-rijala qayyimin* (Not the men are standing), it does not function because it does not function except in the case of indefinite nouns.
But the saying of the poet was brought up as an objection to this condition:
"And she settled in the black of the heart, not me seeking other than her *** nor me lagging from love of her"
The point of objection is that it functioned in a definite noun because *ana* (I) is a pronoun, so it functioned. They answered that this is anomalous, and others answered that this is rare. And on this basis, its function in indefinite nouns is more than its function in definite nouns, but it functions in definite nouns in a rare manner. And from this also is his saying:
"If generosity is not granted freedom from harm *** then praise is not gained and wealth is not lasting" And this is an excellent verse.
"If generosity is not granted freedom from harm, then praise is not gained and wealth is not lasting"
It is correct. The generous person, if his generosity is not pure from harm, meaning he does not harm the one he is generous to, then praise is not gained and wealth is not lasting, because his wealth will be exhausted, and he will not be praised because he harms the one he is generous to. So it will be a loss of religion and world, or a loss of form and meaning.
"If generosity is not granted," complete it, O Sa'd.
The student: If generosity is not granted from harm.
The Shaykh : No, "If generosity is not granted."
The student: From harm.
The Shaykh : No, the verse will be broken. Yes.