Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And they attached to *in* *lakin* and *an* *** from without *layt* and *la'all* and *ka'ann*."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said: "And they attached to *in* *lakin* and *an* ***" with a shaddah on the *mim*
"*** from without *layt* and *la'all* and *ka'ann*"
So these particles are divided into two categories: *in* and
Well, we forgot to parse the verse
He said: "And they attached to *in* *lakin* ***"
"Attached" here is built for an unspecified agent, so who attached *in*, *lakin*, and *an*?
The student: The Arabs.
The Shaykh : The Arabs or the grammarians?
The student: The Arabs.
The Shaykh : Look at who is relied upon in parsing words?
The student: The Arabs.
The Shaykh : The Arabs, the Arabs are the ones who are relied upon, meaning that the Arabs attached to *in* *lakin* and *an*, and his saying: "attached to *an*", the preposition and its object are connected to "attached"
And *lakin*: the substitute for the agent of "attached," how can it be a substitute for the agent when it is a particle? Because the intended meaning is its word, and *an* is conjoined to *lakin*
"from without *layt* and *la'all* and *ka'ann*", "from without" here means except *layt*, *la'all*, and *ka'ann*, so it means exception, so *layt*, *la'all*, and *ka'ann* are not attached to *in* in the permissibility of raising, but the accusative is obligatory, an example of that: "I know that Zayd is standing and 'Amr," is this correct or not correct?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : "I know that Zayd is standing and 'Amr," correct?
"I know that Zayd is standing and 'Amr is"
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct, well, but you say "that Zayd is standing but 'Amr did not stand," correct? Well, or ... not correct, the example is not correct, but "but 'Amr did not stand and Bakr is" correct?
The student: Error
The Shaykh : No, correct, well, but "but 'Amr is standing and Bakr is"
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct, meaning it is permissible in the conjoined to the name of *lakin* and its predicate, both options are permissible, just as it is permissible in the conjoined to the name of *in* and its predicate
So these six particles are divided into two categories in the permissibility of raising the conjoined to their name after completing the predicate
Three of them permit both raising and accusative, and they are *in*, *an*, and *lakin*
And three of them do not permit it, and they are *layt*, *la'all*, and *ka'ann*, and the reason it is not permissible to raise the conjoined to these three is that the meaning differs greatly, for example *layt*, "I wish Zayd were standing and 'Amr is," here you would make 'Amr a subject, is there a wish that you wish he were standing? No, because if you made it a subject, you cut it off from what came before, you cut it off from what came before, so the wish does not include it, so we say the same for *la'all*
"Perhaps Zayd is standing and 'Amr is," 'Amr with the nominative, we say it is not correct, because if you did so, it would not be clear to us that he is included in the hope that attached to Zayd
Likewise *ka'ann*, "As if Zayd is a lion and 'Amr is," it does not make sense, because we do not know if you want "as if Zayd is a lion and 'Amr is" completely or not, and "as if 'Amr is a lion," we do not know, well, so I must say: "I wish Zayd were standing and what?" and "'Amr is," "As if Zayd is a lion, what?" and "'Amr is," it is necessary, "Perhaps," no, yes, "Perhaps Zayd is successful"
The student: and 'Amr
The Shaykh : and 'Amr is, or and 'Amr is
The student: and 'Amr is
The Shaykh : and 'Amr is, well
The questioner : Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes.
"*** from without *layt* and *la'all* and *ka'ann*"
So these particles are divided into two categories: *in* and
Well, we forgot to parse the verse
He said: "And they attached to *in* *lakin* ***"
"Attached" here is built for an unspecified agent, so who attached *in*, *lakin*, and *an*?
The student: The Arabs.
The Shaykh : The Arabs or the grammarians?
The student: The Arabs.
The Shaykh : Look at who is relied upon in parsing words?
The student: The Arabs.
The Shaykh : The Arabs, the Arabs are the ones who are relied upon, meaning that the Arabs attached to *in* *lakin* and *an*, and his saying: "attached to *an*", the preposition and its object are connected to "attached"
And *lakin*: the substitute for the agent of "attached," how can it be a substitute for the agent when it is a particle? Because the intended meaning is its word, and *an* is conjoined to *lakin*
"from without *layt* and *la'all* and *ka'ann*", "from without" here means except *layt*, *la'all*, and *ka'ann*, so it means exception, so *layt*, *la'all*, and *ka'ann* are not attached to *in* in the permissibility of raising, but the accusative is obligatory, an example of that: "I know that Zayd is standing and 'Amr," is this correct or not correct?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : "I know that Zayd is standing and 'Amr," correct?
"I know that Zayd is standing and 'Amr is"
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct, well, but you say "that Zayd is standing but 'Amr did not stand," correct? Well, or ... not correct, the example is not correct, but "but 'Amr did not stand and Bakr is" correct?
The student: Error
The Shaykh : No, correct, well, but "but 'Amr is standing and Bakr is"
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct, meaning it is permissible in the conjoined to the name of *lakin* and its predicate, both options are permissible, just as it is permissible in the conjoined to the name of *in* and its predicate
So these six particles are divided into two categories in the permissibility of raising the conjoined to their name after completing the predicate
Three of them permit both raising and accusative, and they are *in*, *an*, and *lakin*
And three of them do not permit it, and they are *layt*, *la'all*, and *ka'ann*, and the reason it is not permissible to raise the conjoined to these three is that the meaning differs greatly, for example *layt*, "I wish Zayd were standing and 'Amr is," here you would make 'Amr a subject, is there a wish that you wish he were standing? No, because if you made it a subject, you cut it off from what came before, you cut it off from what came before, so the wish does not include it, so we say the same for *la'all*
"Perhaps Zayd is standing and 'Amr is," 'Amr with the nominative, we say it is not correct, because if you did so, it would not be clear to us that he is included in the hope that attached to Zayd
Likewise *ka'ann*, "As if Zayd is a lion and 'Amr is," it does not make sense, because we do not know if you want "as if Zayd is a lion and 'Amr is" completely or not, and "as if 'Amr is a lion," we do not know, well, so I must say: "I wish Zayd were standing and what?" and "'Amr is," "As if Zayd is a lion, what?" and "'Amr is," it is necessary, "Perhaps," no, yes, "Perhaps Zayd is successful"
The student: and 'Amr
The Shaykh : and 'Amr is, or and 'Amr is
The student: and 'Amr is
The Shaykh : and 'Amr is, well
The questioner : Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes.