Should it not be said that "inna" changed the movement of the subject to accusative, while the predicate remained in the nominative and did not change?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : The Shaykh ... We denied this yesterday. I denied it yesterday. I mentioned that it is not said that "inna" is a particle of emphasis and accusative.
The Shaykh : Correct?
The questioner : Should it not be said that "inna" only changed the subject to a noun, and the predicate was originally in the nominative?
The Shaykh : And what did we say? We said this is not correct. It introduced a new nominative case.
The questioner : Different from the first one?
The Shaykh : Different from the first one. Ibn Malik says: "Kan raises the subject." Look, it raises the subject. It did not say it leaves it in its state. It says "Kan" raises the subject as a noun and puts the predicate in the accusative, and he said:
"For inna, anna, laita, lakin, and kana are the opposite of what is done by kan" Yes.
The Shaykh : Correct?
The questioner : Should it not be said that "inna" only changed the subject to a noun, and the predicate was originally in the nominative?
The Shaykh : And what did we say? We said this is not correct. It introduced a new nominative case.
The questioner : Different from the first one?
The Shaykh : Different from the first one. Ibn Malik says: "Kan raises the subject." Look, it raises the subject. It did not say it leaves it in its state. It says "Kan" raises the subject as a noun and puts the predicate in the accusative, and he said:
"For inna, anna, laita, lakin, and kana are the opposite of what is done by kan" Yes.