Explanation of the saying of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And connecting what with the one having letters invalidates *** their operation, and the operation may remain."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said: "And connecting what with the one having letters invalidates *** their operation, and the operation may remain"
His saying: "Connecting" is the subject (mubtada').
"With the one having letters" is attached to "connecting."
The student: We took...
The Shaykh : We did not take it.
Good, "And connecting what with the one having letters invalidates"
"Connecting" is the subject, and it is added to "what."
"With the one having letters" is attached to "connecting."
And "invalidates" is the predicate (khabar) of "connecting."
And his saying: "their operation": there are two possibilities for it: the accusative case, assuming that "invalidates" is a noun with a tanwin, or the genitive case, assuming that it is an added noun without tanwin, so it becomes an added noun.
So you would say, for example, in the first case: "invalidates their operation" (accusative), and in the second case you would say: "invalidates of their operation" (genitive), but the first meaning is more appropriate, meaning that it should be in the accusative case so that the active participle is in the position of a verb, as if he said: "Connecting what with the one having letters invalidates their operation."
"And the operation may remain": "may" (qad) here is for minimization; and "remains" is a present tense verb built for the passive voice.
And "the operation" is the substitute for the agent (na'ib al-fa'il).
He said (may Allah have mercy on him): If "what" is connected and it is a particle with these letters, it invalidates their operation. And I said "and it is a particle" to avoid confusion with the relative "what" (ma al-mawsulah), because the relative "what" does not invalidate their operation, because the relative "what" is the name itself, like His saying (Glorified and Exalted is He):[Al-An'am 6:134] Here, "what" did not invalidate the operation of "in" (inna). Why? Because it is a relative pronoun, meaning "in" (inna) that you are threatened with is surely coming. Good, an example of that: you say: "Inna Zaydan qayyum" (Inna Zayd is standing), is it operating now or not operating? "Inna Zaydan qayyum," it is operating. Good.
And you say: "Innama Zaydun qayyum" (Innama Zayd is standing), you must leave it unoperated, and Zayd must be in the nominative case after "in" (inna), "Innama Zayd qayyum."
And here, does the meaning differ if the "what" that invalidated the operation is connected? Does the meaning differ as the grammar differed, or not?
The answer: Yes, it differs. If you say "Inna Zaydan qayyum," it does not prevent others from being standing as well. But if you say: "Innama Zayd qayyum," this is a tool of restriction that restricts Zayd to standing; it restricts Zayd to standing. And it may also be that it restricted him, yes, it restricted Zayd to standing so that no one else stood. But this is not definite unless you say "Innama Zayd al-qayyum" (Innama Zayd the standing one), here the restriction of standing to Zayd is definite. Good, so the meaning differs. And you say, for example: "I know that Zayd is standing," correct? "I know that Zayd is standing," "what" (ma) entered it, "I know that what" (alima annama) what? "Zaydun qayyum" (Zayd is standing), and it cannot operate.
Good, and you say: "Kanna Zaydan fahimun" (Kanna Zayd is understanding), correct? Correct. You insert "what" (ma), "Kannama Zaydun fahim" (Kannama Zayd is understanding). And you say: "Layta al-talib" (May the student), "Layta al-taliba harisan" (May the student be eager), "Layta al-taliba harisun" (May the student be eager), correct? Good, and you say: "Laytama al-talibu harisun" (Laytama the student is eager), "Laytama al-talibu harisun," you leave it unoperated because when "what" (ma) enters, it invalidates the operation. And this is called, I mean "what" (ma), it is called a "kaf" (barrier). Why? Because it prevented these letters from operating.
Good, the author said (may Allah have mercy on him): "And the operation may remain". "May remain": "may" (qad) here is for minimization, meaning "may" (qad) "what" (ma) enters these letters and the operation remains, but it is rare, as Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) indicated. And the apparent meaning of his words is that it is rare in all these tools, because he said: "With the one having letters", then he said "And the operation may remain". So the remaining of the operation after "what" (ma) enters these letters is rare in all these tools. But they say, I mean the grammarians, that it has not been heard except in "layta" (may), meaning it has not been heard that the operation remained with "what" (ma) except in "layta," not in others. And on this basis, the minimization in Ibn Malik's words is with regard to the tools, not with regard to the sentences. "The operation may remain," and if you relate "layta" to these tools, it becomes what? Rare, or many? Rare, because it is one of six. So "the operation may remain," the minimization here is with regard to the specific identities of these tools, not with regard to the whole. And we said that in order to agree with the words of other grammarians (may Allah have mercy on them).
An example of that in "layta": you say: "Laytama Zaydan qayyum" (May Zayd be standing), did you operate it or leave it unoperated? "Laytama Zaydan qayyumun" (May Zayd be standing), you operated it.
"Laytama Zaydun qayyum" (May Zayd be standing), you left it unoperated. And it has been narrated in both ways, the saying of the poet:
"She said: Would that this pigeon were for us *** To our pigeon and half of it, indeed"
"Indeed" (faqad) means "only." She said: "Would that this pigeon were for us." And in a narration: "She said: Would that this pigeon were for us". Which one operated? The first or the second?
The student: The first one.
The Shaykh : The first, "al-hamama" (the pigeon) in the accusative case for us. And the one you are talking about, "Zarqa' al-Yamama" (the Blue Pigeon), they say that "Zarqa' al-Yamama" is a woman with very strong eyesight, and that she can see a distance of three days on a mount. And a flock of pigeons passed by her, and she determined their number and said that their number was ninety-nine pigeons. And it is known that the number of ninety-nine pigeons would pass by before the completion of this count, and yet she determined it. They say that this flock of pigeons came to water, to water with a net, and was caught in this water and counted, and they found it as she said, ninety-nine pigeons. And with this, the poet says:
"And judge as the girl of the tribe judged when she looked *** At a flock of pigeons coming to the dry land
She said: Would that this pigeon were for us *** To our pigeon and half of it, indeed
They counted it and found it as she mentioned *** Ninety-nine, neither less nor more"
And she said verses, saying "May" (layta).
His saying: "Connecting" is the subject (mubtada').
"With the one having letters" is attached to "connecting."
The student: We took...
The Shaykh : We did not take it.
Good, "And connecting what with the one having letters invalidates"
"Connecting" is the subject, and it is added to "what."
"With the one having letters" is attached to "connecting."
And "invalidates" is the predicate (khabar) of "connecting."
And his saying: "their operation": there are two possibilities for it: the accusative case, assuming that "invalidates" is a noun with a tanwin, or the genitive case, assuming that it is an added noun without tanwin, so it becomes an added noun.
So you would say, for example, in the first case: "invalidates their operation" (accusative), and in the second case you would say: "invalidates of their operation" (genitive), but the first meaning is more appropriate, meaning that it should be in the accusative case so that the active participle is in the position of a verb, as if he said: "Connecting what with the one having letters invalidates their operation."
"And the operation may remain": "may" (qad) here is for minimization; and "remains" is a present tense verb built for the passive voice.
And "the operation" is the substitute for the agent (na'ib al-fa'il).
He said (may Allah have mercy on him): If "what" is connected and it is a particle with these letters, it invalidates their operation. And I said "and it is a particle" to avoid confusion with the relative "what" (ma al-mawsulah), because the relative "what" does not invalidate their operation, because the relative "what" is the name itself, like His saying (Glorified and Exalted is He):
Indeed, what you are promised is coming
إن ما توعدون لآتAnd you say: "Innama Zaydun qayyum" (Innama Zayd is standing), you must leave it unoperated, and Zayd must be in the nominative case after "in" (inna), "Innama Zayd qayyum."
And here, does the meaning differ if the "what" that invalidated the operation is connected? Does the meaning differ as the grammar differed, or not?
The answer: Yes, it differs. If you say "Inna Zaydan qayyum," it does not prevent others from being standing as well. But if you say: "Innama Zayd qayyum," this is a tool of restriction that restricts Zayd to standing; it restricts Zayd to standing. And it may also be that it restricted him, yes, it restricted Zayd to standing so that no one else stood. But this is not definite unless you say "Innama Zayd al-qayyum" (Innama Zayd the standing one), here the restriction of standing to Zayd is definite. Good, so the meaning differs. And you say, for example: "I know that Zayd is standing," correct? "I know that Zayd is standing," "what" (ma) entered it, "I know that what" (alima annama) what? "Zaydun qayyum" (Zayd is standing), and it cannot operate.
Good, and you say: "Kanna Zaydan fahimun" (Kanna Zayd is understanding), correct? Correct. You insert "what" (ma), "Kannama Zaydun fahim" (Kannama Zayd is understanding). And you say: "Layta al-talib" (May the student), "Layta al-taliba harisan" (May the student be eager), "Layta al-taliba harisun" (May the student be eager), correct? Good, and you say: "Laytama al-talibu harisun" (Laytama the student is eager), "Laytama al-talibu harisun," you leave it unoperated because when "what" (ma) enters, it invalidates the operation. And this is called, I mean "what" (ma), it is called a "kaf" (barrier). Why? Because it prevented these letters from operating.
Good, the author said (may Allah have mercy on him): "And the operation may remain". "May remain": "may" (qad) here is for minimization, meaning "may" (qad) "what" (ma) enters these letters and the operation remains, but it is rare, as Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) indicated. And the apparent meaning of his words is that it is rare in all these tools, because he said: "With the one having letters", then he said "And the operation may remain". So the remaining of the operation after "what" (ma) enters these letters is rare in all these tools. But they say, I mean the grammarians, that it has not been heard except in "layta" (may), meaning it has not been heard that the operation remained with "what" (ma) except in "layta," not in others. And on this basis, the minimization in Ibn Malik's words is with regard to the tools, not with regard to the sentences. "The operation may remain," and if you relate "layta" to these tools, it becomes what? Rare, or many? Rare, because it is one of six. So "the operation may remain," the minimization here is with regard to the specific identities of these tools, not with regard to the whole. And we said that in order to agree with the words of other grammarians (may Allah have mercy on them).
An example of that in "layta": you say: "Laytama Zaydan qayyum" (May Zayd be standing), did you operate it or leave it unoperated? "Laytama Zaydan qayyumun" (May Zayd be standing), you operated it.
"Laytama Zaydun qayyum" (May Zayd be standing), you left it unoperated. And it has been narrated in both ways, the saying of the poet:
"She said: Would that this pigeon were for us *** To our pigeon and half of it, indeed"
"Indeed" (faqad) means "only." She said: "Would that this pigeon were for us." And in a narration: "She said: Would that this pigeon were for us". Which one operated? The first or the second?
The student: The first one.
The Shaykh : The first, "al-hamama" (the pigeon) in the accusative case for us. And the one you are talking about, "Zarqa' al-Yamama" (the Blue Pigeon), they say that "Zarqa' al-Yamama" is a woman with very strong eyesight, and that she can see a distance of three days on a mount. And a flock of pigeons passed by her, and she determined their number and said that their number was ninety-nine pigeons. And it is known that the number of ninety-nine pigeons would pass by before the completion of this count, and yet she determined it. They say that this flock of pigeons came to water, to water with a net, and was caught in this water and counted, and they found it as she said, ninety-nine pigeons. And with this, the poet says:
"And judge as the girl of the tribe judged when she looked *** At a flock of pigeons coming to the dry land
She said: Would that this pigeon were for us *** To our pigeon and half of it, indeed
They counted it and found it as she mentioned *** Ninety-nine, neither less nor more"
And she said verses, saying "May" (layta).