Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And it is permissible for you to raise a conjoined word to a nominative case, if after 'an' you have completed [the construction]."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said: "And it is permissible for you to raise a conjoined word to a nominative case, if after 'an' you have completed [the construction]"
Who parses "permissible for you to raise"? On the condition that he has not seen it parsed.
The student: "Permissible" is a fronted subject (fa'il).
The Shaykh : And what is the fronting?
The student: A fronted subject, meaning its raising is permissible, [it is] raised.
The Shaykh : What is this statement?
The student: Accusative by the active participle.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: "Permissible" can be a subject (mubtada').
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: And "its raising" is a subject that fills the place of the predicate.
The Shaykh : Okay, this is one view, 'Abd.
The student: "Permissible" is a fronted predicate (khabar).
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: And "its raising" is a delayed subject (mubtada' mu'akhkhar).
The Shaykh : Yes, "permissible" is a fronted predicate, and "its raising" is a delayed subject. We now have two views. Are these two parsings correct? Ahmad.
The student: The second is correct.
The Shaykh : Which one?
The student: That "permissible" is a fronted predicate, and "its raising" is a delayed subject.
The Shaykh : A delayed subject, and the first? It says "permissible" is a subject and "its raising" is a subject that fills the place of the predicate, yes.
The student: Both are permissible.
The Shaykh : Both are permissible, equally.
The student: ... singular.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: It was mentioned that it comes as two singulars.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: The first can be a subject and the second a subject that fills the place of the predicate, or the second can be a subject and the first a predicate.
The Shaykh : Meaning, even if it is not dependent.
The student: Subject and predicate.
The Shaykh : Even if it is not dependent.
The student: Yes, yes, according to a view.
The Shaykh : What "according to a view" do you bring me? The views of Ibn Jinni? This is according to a view... yes.
The student: Shaykh, the view that "permissible" is a fronted predicate.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: It is more likely, because he intends to inform that the raising is permissible, not that the permissible [thing]...
The Shaykh : No, that is not the reason, yes.
The student: I, Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes, you, not 'Abd, the second one.
The student: "Permissible" is a fronted predicate, and "its raising" is a delayed subject.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because it is permissible for "permissible" to be a subject if it is dependent on a question.
The Shaykh : Because it is a condition for the active participle to be satisfied by its raised noun that it be dependent on a question or a negation, is that not so? But it is permissible, albeit weakly, for "permissible" to be a subject and "raising" to be a predicate, due to Ibn Malik's statement in the Alfiyyah: "And it is permissible, like 'successful are the people of guidance'" Yes, in any case, the correct parsing in the standard language is to make "permissible" a fronted predicate and "its raising" a delayed subject. Okay.
As for his saying "conjoined": it is an object, and the operator is the verbal noun in his saying "raising."
And his saying "to an accusative if": it is connected to "conjoined."
And his saying "after you have completed": it is connected to "raising," meaning it is permissible to raise the conjoined word to an accusative after "an" if you have completed [the construction]. What did you complete? The noun and the predicate, meaning the noun and the predicate came.
He said (may Allah have mercy on him): "Permissible for you to raise" Is it permissible legally or linguistically?
The student: Linguistically.
The Shaykh : Permissible linguistically, yes, permissible linguistically. If you conjoin to "an" and its noun and predicate, that you raise the conjoined word, okay. And that you make it accusative, is it permissible to make it accusative? Yes, rather it is more likely, because his saying "permissible for you to raise" indicates that the original ruling is prohibition, so the word "permissible" does not mean that it is the more likely option; rather, the more likely option is the accusative.
An example of that: "If Zayd is standing and 'Amr." For 'Amr, you have two options: the first option is "and 'Amra" (accusative), and the second option is "and 'Amru" (nominative).
Write it down now. We have two options: "If Zayd is standing and 'Amra," "If Zayd is standing and 'Amru." Okay, if it is "and 'Amra," it is conjoined to...
The student: The name of *in* (a particle introducing a negative statement).
The Shaykh : The noun of "an," and the word conjoined to an accusative is accusative, and there is no doubt in that. If it is in the nominative, to what is it conjoined? It was said that it is conjoined to "an" and its noun, because their position is that of a subject. It was said that it is conjoined to the position of the noun of "an," because its original position is nominative, its original state is that of a subject. It was said that it is a subject and its predicate is omitted, and the implied meaning is: "and 'Amr is standing," so the conjunction here is the conjunction of a sentence to a sentence. Okay.
And his saying: "after you have completed" implies that if you conjoin to the accusative of "an" before completion, then the nominative is not permissible. An example: "If Zayd and 'Amr are in the mosque," "If Zayd and 'Amr are in the mosque." It is not permissible to say "If Zayd and 'Amru are in the mosque." Why? Because it has not completed its objects, so you must say: "and 'Amra" conjoined to what? To the noun of "an," to Zayd, and the word conjoined to an accusative is accusative, and you say "in the mosque," and you say "If Zayd and 'Amr are standing" or "If Zayd and 'Amru are standing."
The student: The first one.
The Shaykh : The first, "and 'Amra," and that is because it has not completed its objects. So the author (may Allah have mercy on him) benefited us here in this verse that among the characteristics of "an" is that it is permissible, if you conjoin to its noun after completing its objects, to make it nominative or accusative. Is there anything like it? Explain.
Who parses "permissible for you to raise"? On the condition that he has not seen it parsed.
The student: "Permissible" is a fronted subject (fa'il).
The Shaykh : And what is the fronting?
The student: A fronted subject, meaning its raising is permissible, [it is] raised.
The Shaykh : What is this statement?
The student: Accusative by the active participle.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: "Permissible" can be a subject (mubtada').
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: And "its raising" is a subject that fills the place of the predicate.
The Shaykh : Okay, this is one view, 'Abd.
The student: "Permissible" is a fronted predicate (khabar).
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: And "its raising" is a delayed subject (mubtada' mu'akhkhar).
The Shaykh : Yes, "permissible" is a fronted predicate, and "its raising" is a delayed subject. We now have two views. Are these two parsings correct? Ahmad.
The student: The second is correct.
The Shaykh : Which one?
The student: That "permissible" is a fronted predicate, and "its raising" is a delayed subject.
The Shaykh : A delayed subject, and the first? It says "permissible" is a subject and "its raising" is a subject that fills the place of the predicate, yes.
The student: Both are permissible.
The Shaykh : Both are permissible, equally.
The student: ... singular.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: It was mentioned that it comes as two singulars.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: The first can be a subject and the second a subject that fills the place of the predicate, or the second can be a subject and the first a predicate.
The Shaykh : Meaning, even if it is not dependent.
The student: Subject and predicate.
The Shaykh : Even if it is not dependent.
The student: Yes, yes, according to a view.
The Shaykh : What "according to a view" do you bring me? The views of Ibn Jinni? This is according to a view... yes.
The student: Shaykh, the view that "permissible" is a fronted predicate.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: It is more likely, because he intends to inform that the raising is permissible, not that the permissible [thing]...
The Shaykh : No, that is not the reason, yes.
The student: I, Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes, you, not 'Abd, the second one.
The student: "Permissible" is a fronted predicate, and "its raising" is a delayed subject.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because it is permissible for "permissible" to be a subject if it is dependent on a question.
The Shaykh : Because it is a condition for the active participle to be satisfied by its raised noun that it be dependent on a question or a negation, is that not so? But it is permissible, albeit weakly, for "permissible" to be a subject and "raising" to be a predicate, due to Ibn Malik's statement in the Alfiyyah: "And it is permissible, like 'successful are the people of guidance'" Yes, in any case, the correct parsing in the standard language is to make "permissible" a fronted predicate and "its raising" a delayed subject. Okay.
As for his saying "conjoined": it is an object, and the operator is the verbal noun in his saying "raising."
And his saying "to an accusative if": it is connected to "conjoined."
And his saying "after you have completed": it is connected to "raising," meaning it is permissible to raise the conjoined word to an accusative after "an" if you have completed [the construction]. What did you complete? The noun and the predicate, meaning the noun and the predicate came.
He said (may Allah have mercy on him): "Permissible for you to raise" Is it permissible legally or linguistically?
The student: Linguistically.
The Shaykh : Permissible linguistically, yes, permissible linguistically. If you conjoin to "an" and its noun and predicate, that you raise the conjoined word, okay. And that you make it accusative, is it permissible to make it accusative? Yes, rather it is more likely, because his saying "permissible for you to raise" indicates that the original ruling is prohibition, so the word "permissible" does not mean that it is the more likely option; rather, the more likely option is the accusative.
An example of that: "If Zayd is standing and 'Amr." For 'Amr, you have two options: the first option is "and 'Amra" (accusative), and the second option is "and 'Amru" (nominative).
Write it down now. We have two options: "If Zayd is standing and 'Amra," "If Zayd is standing and 'Amru." Okay, if it is "and 'Amra," it is conjoined to...
The student: The name of *in* (a particle introducing a negative statement).
The Shaykh : The noun of "an," and the word conjoined to an accusative is accusative, and there is no doubt in that. If it is in the nominative, to what is it conjoined? It was said that it is conjoined to "an" and its noun, because their position is that of a subject. It was said that it is conjoined to the position of the noun of "an," because its original position is nominative, its original state is that of a subject. It was said that it is a subject and its predicate is omitted, and the implied meaning is: "and 'Amr is standing," so the conjunction here is the conjunction of a sentence to a sentence. Okay.
And his saying: "after you have completed" implies that if you conjoin to the accusative of "an" before completion, then the nominative is not permissible. An example: "If Zayd and 'Amr are in the mosque," "If Zayd and 'Amr are in the mosque." It is not permissible to say "If Zayd and 'Amru are in the mosque." Why? Because it has not completed its objects, so you must say: "and 'Amra" conjoined to what? To the noun of "an," to Zayd, and the word conjoined to an accusative is accusative, and you say "in the mosque," and you say "If Zayd and 'Amr are standing" or "If Zayd and 'Amru are standing."
The student: The first one.
The Shaykh : The first, "and 'Amra," and that is because it has not completed its objects. So the author (may Allah have mercy on him) benefited us here in this verse that among the characteristics of "an" is that it is permissible, if you conjoin to its noun after completing its objects, to make it nominative or accusative. Is there anything like it? Explain.