Continuation of the discussion of what was previously taken from the last chapter on *Inna* and its sisters.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : I knew
The student: Zayd
The Shaykh : I knew that
The student: I knew that Zayd is standing and 'Amr
The Shaykh : and 'Amr, and it is permissible
The student: 'Amr
The Shaykh : 'Amr, is that correct, everyone? Good. "excluding *layta*, *la'all*, and *kann*" For example, *layta*
The student: *Layta* Zayd and 'Amr are standing
The Shaykh : That is incorrect. This is after completion. The conjunction here is after completion.
The student: *Layta* Zayd is standing and 'Amr
The Shaykh : *Layta* Zayd is standing and 'Amr, like that, and it is permissible and 'Amr
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because the conjunction on ...
The Shaykh : Nasser
The student: Because the meaning differs greatly ...
The Shaykh : Correct.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, because if we said and 'Amr, the meaning would change. I wish that Zayd is standing, and likewise 'Amr. But if we said and 'Amr, it would go beyond the scope of wishing.
Good, *la'all* Sharafi
The student: Listen, O Shaykh
The Shaykh : excluding *layta*, *la'all*, *la'all*
The student: *La'all* 'Amr, *la'all* the student 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 understood and his brother
The Shaykh : and his brother
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : and it is not permissible and his brother
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 does not enter the scope of hope or expectation if we said 'Amr, it would become a subject with a deleted predicate.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Come on, Khalid, *kann*
The student: *Kann* Zayd is standing and 'Amr, *kann* Zayd is standing and 'Amr
The Shaykh : and 'Amr, or and 'Amr?
The student: and 'Amr is
The Shaykh : and 'Amr
The student: 'Amr in the accusative case
The Shaykh : In the accusative case, why does it not come in the nominative case?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Why does it not come in the nominative case?
The student: Because the meaning changes. If we said that Zayd is standing and 'Amr, the meaning differs from if we said that Zayd is standing and 'Amr.
The Shaykh : How does it differ?
The student: It will be this ... realization, if we raise it, it is realized ... it is not ...
The Shaykh : But if we said *kann* Zayd is understanding, this is not for comparison. It is for comparison if the predicate is static. Glory be to Allah, forgive
The student: If the predicate ... there is doubt in *kann*
The Shaykh : No, or expectation. Good, give one for comparison.
The student: *Kann* Zayd is a lion
The Shaykh : Yes, and what?
The student: and 'Amr is
The Shaykh : and 'Amr, and it is not permissible and 'Amr, because if you said: *Kann* Zayd is a lion and 'Amr, 'Amr would not be within the scope of comparison; it would be outside the scope of comparison, unlike if you said and 'Amr. Like that, Muhammad?
The student: Zayd
The Shaykh : I knew that
The student: I knew that Zayd is standing and 'Amr
The Shaykh : and 'Amr, and it is permissible
The student: 'Amr
The Shaykh : 'Amr, is that correct, everyone? Good. "excluding *layta*, *la'all*, and *kann*" For example, *layta*
The student: *Layta* Zayd and 'Amr are standing
The Shaykh : That is incorrect. This is after completion. The conjunction here is after completion.
The student: *Layta* Zayd is standing and 'Amr
The Shaykh : *Layta* Zayd is standing and 'Amr, like that, and it is permissible and 'Amr
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because the conjunction on ...
The Shaykh : Nasser
The student: Because the meaning differs greatly ...
The Shaykh : Correct.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, because if we said and 'Amr, the meaning would change. I wish that Zayd is standing, and likewise 'Amr. But if we said and 'Amr, it would go beyond the scope of wishing.
Good, *la'all* Sharafi
The student: Listen, O Shaykh
The Shaykh : excluding *layta*, *la'all*, *la'all*
The student: *La'all* 'Amr, *la'all* the student 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 understood and his brother
The Shaykh : and his brother
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : and it is not permissible and his brother
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 does not enter the scope of hope or expectation if we said 'Amr, it would become a subject with a deleted predicate.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Come on, Khalid, *kann*
The student: *Kann* Zayd is standing and 'Amr, *kann* Zayd is standing and 'Amr
The Shaykh : and 'Amr, or and 'Amr?
The student: and 'Amr is
The Shaykh : and 'Amr
The student: 'Amr in the accusative case
The Shaykh : In the accusative case, why does it not come in the nominative case?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Why does it not come in the nominative case?
The student: Because the meaning changes. If we said that Zayd is standing and 'Amr, the meaning differs from if we said that Zayd is standing and 'Amr.
The Shaykh : How does it differ?
The student: It will be this ... realization, if we raise it, it is realized ... it is not ...
The Shaykh : But if we said *kann* Zayd is understanding, this is not for comparison. It is for comparison if the predicate is static. Glory be to Allah, forgive
The student: If the predicate ... there is doubt in *kann*
The Shaykh : No, or expectation. Good, give one for comparison.
The student: *Kann* Zayd is a lion
The Shaykh : Yes, and what?
The student: and 'Amr is
The Shaykh : and 'Amr, and it is not permissible and 'Amr, because if you said: *Kann* Zayd is a lion and 'Amr, 'Amr would not be within the scope of comparison; it would be outside the scope of comparison, unlike if you said and 'Amr. Like that, Muhammad?