Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And la-ta does not operate except in the time of action *** And the omission of the raised noun is widespread, and the opposite is rare"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : It raises the subject and declines the predicate.
And al-mar'u (the man): its subject is raised by it with a visible dammah.
And maytan (dead): its predicate is declined by it, and the sign of its declension is a visible fathah at its end.
Then he said: "And la-ta does not operate except in the time of action ***" This is a condition specific to la-ta that it does not operate except in the time. Is the intended meaning of "time" the time itself or the word "time"?
It was said that the intended meaning is the word "time," and it was said that the intended meaning is the time, meaning what indicates the time, and this is more correct. But I will parse the verse before explaining it, as is the custom.
He said: "And la-ta does not operate except in the time of action"
Ma: a negator.
And li-lata: a preposition and its object, a fronted predicate. And fi sawa: a preposition and its object, connected to "operate." Sawa is a possessive noun, and "time" is the possessed noun.
And "action": a delayed subject, raised by being a subject, and the sign of its raising is a hidden dammah on its end. And the sign of its raising is a hidden dammah on its end, prevented from appearing due to regard for the rhyme. Its original form is "amalu" (action with a dammah). Yes, but someone might say that the sign of its raising is a visible dammah on its end, but it was made quiescent for the sake of stopping, just as you say: "Zayd stood up, Zayd stood up." The first is more apparent. The first is more apparent because "action" now does not... if you moved it, if you connected it and said:
"And la-ta does not operate except in the time of action *** And the omission of the raised noun is widespread, and the opposite is rare"
It does not make sense. So this quiescence is not for the sake of stopping, but for the sake of regard for the rhyme. So it is raised with a hidden dammah on its end, prevented from appearing due to regard for the rhyme.
Now, did la-ta operate here or not? Is my question whether it is operating or not operating?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because of the lack of order.
The Shaykh : Yes, because of the lack of order.
He said: "*** And the omission of the raised noun is widespread"
"Omission": a subject, and it is a possessive noun connected to "dhi" (of).
And "dhi": a possessive noun connected to "al-rafa'" (the raising).
And "fasha" (became widespread): a past tense verb, and its subject is hidden by permission, estimated to be "he." The sentence is the predicate of "omission." The meaning is that the omission of the raised noun is frequent.
And "the opposite": which is the omission of the declined noun. "Qal" (is rare). What is the declined noun and what is the raised noun? Its subject is the raised noun, and its predicate is the declined noun. So la-ta is distinguished by the fact that it does not operate except in the time, as he said: "And la-ta does not operate except in the time of action ***"
Second, it is necessary to omit one of its two objects. It is necessary to omit one of its two objects, either the subject, which is more common, or the predicate, which is less common.
Now, an example of this is His saying, Blessed and Exalted is He:[Sad 38:3] We will parse "la-ta hin manas."
La: a negator that raises the subject and declines the predicate. And the ta is the ta of femininity. Its subject is omitted. We do not say it is hidden, because the author says: "The omission of the raised noun" It is omitted, so we do not say it is hidden. Why do we not say it is hidden? Because "la" is a particle, and a particle does not carry a pronoun. A particle is weak; without another word, it neither goes nor comes. Its meaning is not known except by another word. So how can it carry a pronoun? Which is stronger, the noun or the particle?
The student: The noun.
The Shaykh : If we said its subject is hidden, this would not be appropriate. This noun is higher than being hidden in the lowest degree. This is not possible. For this reason, we say its subject is omitted. If we said it was hidden, that would be an error.
Now, the ta is for femininity. Its subject is omitted, and the estimated meaning is: "And la-ta al-hin (the time) is a time of escape." Meaning, that time is not a time of escape when they called out, but it is of no benefit, for the punishment has already descended. So that time is not a time of escape. And the omission of the raised noun is widespread, and the opposite is rare. Now, we asked first whether the intended meaning of "time" is the time or the word "time."
The student : Time
The Shaykh : And we said that the intended meaning is the time.
The student: And that is the most correct.
The Shaykh : And that is the most correct. And he cited as evidence for it the saying of the poet: "The rebels regretted, but there was no hour of regret" "The rebels regretted" means the plural of "baghi" (rebel). "But there was no hour of regret" Meaning, the hour is not an hour of regret.
So you see now that la-ta operated with a word other than the word "time," but with a word that indicates the time and the moment. Yes. So the intended meaning of his saying: "Except in the time" is the time.
The verse: "The rebels regretted, but there was no hour of regret *** And rebellion is the pasture of its seeker, and its end is wretched"
This hemistich should be written in gold ink. Rebellion "is the pasture of its seeker, and its end is wretched" Meaning, the pasture of its seeker is wretched, because the end always comes to the rebels. How near is the end of the rebel.
Now, the verbs of proximity. The verbs of proximity. The author says: "The opposite is rare" We forgot it. The opposite is rare. What is the opposite?
The student: The omission of the predicate.
The Shaykh : The omission of the predicate, and the retention of the subject. So if the poet said: "The rebels regretted, but there was no hour of regret," we would say "hour" is the subject and the predicate is omitted. Yes.
And al-mar'u (the man): its subject is raised by it with a visible dammah.
And maytan (dead): its predicate is declined by it, and the sign of its declension is a visible fathah at its end.
Then he said: "And la-ta does not operate except in the time of action ***" This is a condition specific to la-ta that it does not operate except in the time. Is the intended meaning of "time" the time itself or the word "time"?
It was said that the intended meaning is the word "time," and it was said that the intended meaning is the time, meaning what indicates the time, and this is more correct. But I will parse the verse before explaining it, as is the custom.
He said: "And la-ta does not operate except in the time of action"
Ma: a negator.
And li-lata: a preposition and its object, a fronted predicate. And fi sawa: a preposition and its object, connected to "operate." Sawa is a possessive noun, and "time" is the possessed noun.
And "action": a delayed subject, raised by being a subject, and the sign of its raising is a hidden dammah on its end. And the sign of its raising is a hidden dammah on its end, prevented from appearing due to regard for the rhyme. Its original form is "amalu" (action with a dammah). Yes, but someone might say that the sign of its raising is a visible dammah on its end, but it was made quiescent for the sake of stopping, just as you say: "Zayd stood up, Zayd stood up." The first is more apparent. The first is more apparent because "action" now does not... if you moved it, if you connected it and said:
"And la-ta does not operate except in the time of action *** And the omission of the raised noun is widespread, and the opposite is rare"
It does not make sense. So this quiescence is not for the sake of stopping, but for the sake of regard for the rhyme. So it is raised with a hidden dammah on its end, prevented from appearing due to regard for the rhyme.
Now, did la-ta operate here or not? Is my question whether it is operating or not operating?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because of the lack of order.
The Shaykh : Yes, because of the lack of order.
He said: "*** And the omission of the raised noun is widespread"
"Omission": a subject, and it is a possessive noun connected to "dhi" (of).
And "dhi": a possessive noun connected to "al-rafa'" (the raising).
And "fasha" (became widespread): a past tense verb, and its subject is hidden by permission, estimated to be "he." The sentence is the predicate of "omission." The meaning is that the omission of the raised noun is frequent.
And "the opposite": which is the omission of the declined noun. "Qal" (is rare). What is the declined noun and what is the raised noun? Its subject is the raised noun, and its predicate is the declined noun. So la-ta is distinguished by the fact that it does not operate except in the time, as he said: "And la-ta does not operate except in the time of action ***"
Second, it is necessary to omit one of its two objects. It is necessary to omit one of its two objects, either the subject, which is more common, or the predicate, which is less common.
Now, an example of this is His saying, Blessed and Exalted is He:
and they [then] called out; but it was not a time for escape.
فنادوا ولات حين مناصLa: a negator that raises the subject and declines the predicate. And the ta is the ta of femininity. Its subject is omitted. We do not say it is hidden, because the author says: "The omission of the raised noun" It is omitted, so we do not say it is hidden. Why do we not say it is hidden? Because "la" is a particle, and a particle does not carry a pronoun. A particle is weak; without another word, it neither goes nor comes. Its meaning is not known except by another word. So how can it carry a pronoun? Which is stronger, the noun or the particle?
The student: The noun.
The Shaykh : If we said its subject is hidden, this would not be appropriate. This noun is higher than being hidden in the lowest degree. This is not possible. For this reason, we say its subject is omitted. If we said it was hidden, that would be an error.
Now, the ta is for femininity. Its subject is omitted, and the estimated meaning is: "And la-ta al-hin (the time) is a time of escape." Meaning, that time is not a time of escape when they called out, but it is of no benefit, for the punishment has already descended. So that time is not a time of escape. And the omission of the raised noun is widespread, and the opposite is rare. Now, we asked first whether the intended meaning of "time" is the time or the word "time."
The student : Time
The Shaykh : And we said that the intended meaning is the time.
The student: And that is the most correct.
The Shaykh : And that is the most correct. And he cited as evidence for it the saying of the poet: "The rebels regretted, but there was no hour of regret" "The rebels regretted" means the plural of "baghi" (rebel). "But there was no hour of regret" Meaning, the hour is not an hour of regret.
So you see now that la-ta operated with a word other than the word "time," but with a word that indicates the time and the moment. Yes. So the intended meaning of his saying: "Except in the time" is the time.
The verse: "The rebels regretted, but there was no hour of regret *** And rebellion is the pasture of its seeker, and its end is wretched"
This hemistich should be written in gold ink. Rebellion "is the pasture of its seeker, and its end is wretched" Meaning, the pasture of its seeker is wretched, because the end always comes to the rebels. How near is the end of the rebel.
Now, the verbs of proximity. The verbs of proximity. The author says: "The opposite is rare" We forgot it. The opposite is rare. What is the opposite?
The student: The omission of the predicate.
The Shaykh : The omission of the predicate, and the retention of the subject. So if the poet said: "The rebels regretted, but there was no hour of regret," we would say "hour" is the subject and the predicate is omitted. Yes.