Discussion of what was previously taken from the last chapter on *Inna* and its sisters.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : With excellence until the Day of Judgment. What is the meaning of Ibn Malik’s statement:
"And *Lakin* and *Ann* were attached to *Inna*, but not *La* and *La'all* and *Kann*"?
The student: I
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : To what were they attached? They were attached to *Inna*, *Lakin*, and *Ann*. In what respect?
The student: By their function.
The Shaykh : No.
The student: I mean...
The Shaykh : And what is their function?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, no, Muhammad.
The student: Yes, they are attached to *Ann* when they have completed their object, when they have completed their complements, the nominative case is permissible.
The Shaykh : That when it is conjoined.
The student: Yes, when it is conjoined to the object of *Ann* after *Ann* has completed its function, the nominative case is permissible.
The Shaykh : When it is conjoined to its noun after the completion of the predicate, it is permissible in the conjoined word.
The student: Two Faces.
The Shaykh : Two aspects of the accusative case.
The student: And the nominative case.
The Shaykh : And the nominative case, is that right?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : How many were attached?
The student: Two
The Shaykh : Two.
The student: *Lakin* and *Ann*.
The Shaykh : Two, or else two?
The student: Two were attached.
The Shaykh : What is the meaning of his statement: "but not *La* and *La'all* and *Kann*"?
The student: It means that *La*, *La'all*, and *Kann* do not perform the function of *Inna* in the permissibility of the two aspects.
The Shaykh : They do not function.
The student: Conjoined to its noun... its complements. Only one aspect is permissible in them, which is the accusative case.
The Shaykh : That is enough. We need an example of that...
The student: With *La*.
The Shaykh : With *Lakin*.
The student: But.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: *Lakin* Allah is All-Knowing and Merciful.
The Shaykh : No, that does not work. We need the conjunction to its noun, to its noun.
The student: *Lakin* Muhammad.
The Shaykh : Muhammad (accusative).
The student: *Lakin* Muhammad (accusative) is noble, and Zayd (nominative).
The Shaykh : And Zayd (nominative), is that right?
The student: And Zayd (accusative).
The Shaykh : And Zayd (nominative) is not permissible.
The student: And it is not permissible.
The Shaykh : Because he said: but not *La* and *La'all* and *Kann*.
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : How?
The student: It is permissible...
The Shaykh : But yes, *Lakin*. So the two aspects are permissible with *Lakin*. *Lakin* Zayd (accusative).
The student: *Lakin* Zayd (accusative) is noble, and Muhammad (nominative).
The Shaykh : And Muhammad (nominative), and it is permissible.
The student: It is permissible, and Muhammad (accusative).
The Shaykh : Okay, *Ann* 'Abdullah.
The student: ... *Ann* Zayd (accusative) is standing, and 'Amr (accusative).
The Shaykh : I knew that Zayd.
The student: Zayd (accusative).
The Shaykh : I knew that.
The student: I knew that Zayd (accusative) is standing, and 'Amr (accusative).
The Shaykh : 'Amr (accusative), and it is permissible.
The student: 'Amr (nominative).
The Shaykh : 'Amr (nominative), is that correct, everyone? Okay. "but not *La* and *La'all* and *Kann*". An example with *La*.
The student: *La* Zayd (accusative) and 'Amr (accusative) are standing.
The Shaykh : Wrong. This is after completion. The conjunction here is after completion.
The student: *La* Zayd (accusative) is standing, and 'Amr (accusative).
The Shaykh : *La* Zayd (accusative) is standing, and 'Amr (accusative), is that right? And it is permissible, and 'Amr (nominative).
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because the conjunction to...
The Shaykh : Nasser
The student: Because the meaning differs greatly...
The Shaykh : Correct.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed
The student: Because if we said "and 'Amr (nominative)," the meaning would change. I hope that Zayd (accusative) is standing, and likewise 'Amr (accusative). But if we said, if we said "and 'Amr (nominative)," it would go beyond the scope of hoping.
Okay, *La'all* Sharafi.
The student: Listen, O Shaykh
The Shaykh : But not *La* and *La'all*.
The student: *La'all* 'Amr (accusative). *La'all* the student (accusative) stopped. *La'all* the student understands his brother.
The Shaykh : I am afraid you will say "and his brother" is conjoined to "understands," to.
The student: It is not permissible... *La'all* the student.
The Shaykh : Give an example, and then we will see if it is permissible or not.
The student: *La'all* the student understands.
The Shaykh : Understood.
The student: Understood. *La'all* the student (accusative) is understood, and his brother (accusative).
The Shaykh : And his brother (accusative).
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And "and his brother (nominative)" is not permissible.
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: The meaning becomes distorted.
The Shaykh : Due to the difference in meaning.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Since 'Amr (nominative) does not enter the scope of hope or expectation. If we said "and 'Amr (nominative)," it would become a subject with a deleted predicate.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Come on, Khalid. *Kann*.
The student: *Kann* Zayd (accusative) is standing, and 'Amr (accusative).
The Shaykh : And 'Amr (accusative), or and 'Amr (nominative)?
"And *Lakin* and *Ann* were attached to *Inna*, but not *La* and *La'all* and *Kann*"?
The student: I
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : To what were they attached? They were attached to *Inna*, *Lakin*, and *Ann*. In what respect?
The student: By their function.
The Shaykh : No.
The student: I mean...
The Shaykh : And what is their function?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, no, Muhammad.
The student: Yes, they are attached to *Ann* when they have completed their object, when they have completed their complements, the nominative case is permissible.
The Shaykh : That when it is conjoined.
The student: Yes, when it is conjoined to the object of *Ann* after *Ann* has completed its function, the nominative case is permissible.
The Shaykh : When it is conjoined to its noun after the completion of the predicate, it is permissible in the conjoined word.
The student: Two Faces.
The Shaykh : Two aspects of the accusative case.
The student: And the nominative case.
The Shaykh : And the nominative case, is that right?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : How many were attached?
The student: Two
The Shaykh : Two.
The student: *Lakin* and *Ann*.
The Shaykh : Two, or else two?
The student: Two were attached.
The Shaykh : What is the meaning of his statement: "but not *La* and *La'all* and *Kann*"?
The student: It means that *La*, *La'all*, and *Kann* do not perform the function of *Inna* in the permissibility of the two aspects.
The Shaykh : They do not function.
The student: Conjoined to its noun... its complements. Only one aspect is permissible in them, which is the accusative case.
The Shaykh : That is enough. We need an example of that...
The student: With *La*.
The Shaykh : With *Lakin*.
The student: But.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: *Lakin* Allah is All-Knowing and Merciful.
The Shaykh : No, that does not work. We need the conjunction to its noun, to its noun.
The student: *Lakin* Muhammad.
The Shaykh : Muhammad (accusative).
The student: *Lakin* Muhammad (accusative) is noble, and Zayd (nominative).
The Shaykh : And Zayd (nominative), is that right?
The student: And Zayd (accusative).
The Shaykh : And Zayd (nominative) is not permissible.
The student: And it is not permissible.
The Shaykh : Because he said: but not *La* and *La'all* and *Kann*.
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : How?
The student: It is permissible...
The Shaykh : But yes, *Lakin*. So the two aspects are permissible with *Lakin*. *Lakin* Zayd (accusative).
The student: *Lakin* Zayd (accusative) is noble, and Muhammad (nominative).
The Shaykh : And Muhammad (nominative), and it is permissible.
The student: It is permissible, and Muhammad (accusative).
The Shaykh : Okay, *Ann* 'Abdullah.
The student: ... *Ann* Zayd (accusative) is standing, and 'Amr (accusative).
The Shaykh : I knew that Zayd.
The student: Zayd (accusative).
The Shaykh : I knew that.
The student: I knew that Zayd (accusative) is standing, and 'Amr (accusative).
The Shaykh : 'Amr (accusative), and it is permissible.
The student: 'Amr (nominative).
The Shaykh : 'Amr (nominative), is that correct, everyone? Okay. "but not *La* and *La'all* and *Kann*". An example with *La*.
The student: *La* Zayd (accusative) and 'Amr (accusative) are standing.
The Shaykh : Wrong. This is after completion. The conjunction here is after completion.
The student: *La* Zayd (accusative) is standing, and 'Amr (accusative).
The Shaykh : *La* Zayd (accusative) is standing, and 'Amr (accusative), is that right? And it is permissible, and 'Amr (nominative).
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because the conjunction to...
The Shaykh : Nasser
The student: Because the meaning differs greatly...
The Shaykh : Correct.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed
The student: Because if we said "and 'Amr (nominative)," the meaning would change. I hope that Zayd (accusative) is standing, and likewise 'Amr (accusative). But if we said, if we said "and 'Amr (nominative)," it would go beyond the scope of hoping.
Okay, *La'all* Sharafi.
The student: Listen, O Shaykh
The Shaykh : But not *La* and *La'all*.
The student: *La'all* 'Amr (accusative). *La'all* the student (accusative) stopped. *La'all* the student understands his brother.
The Shaykh : I am afraid you will say "and his brother" is conjoined to "understands," to.
The student: It is not permissible... *La'all* the student.
The Shaykh : Give an example, and then we will see if it is permissible or not.
The student: *La'all* the student understands.
The Shaykh : Understood.
The student: Understood. *La'all* the student (accusative) is understood, and his brother (accusative).
The Shaykh : And his brother (accusative).
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And "and his brother (nominative)" is not permissible.
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: The meaning becomes distorted.
The Shaykh : Due to the difference in meaning.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Since 'Amr (nominative) does not enter the scope of hope or expectation. If we said "and 'Amr (nominative)," it would become a subject with a deleted predicate.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Come on, Khalid. *Kann*.
The student: *Kann* Zayd (accusative) is standing, and 'Amr (accusative).
The Shaykh : And 'Amr (accusative), or and 'Amr (nominative)?