Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "So make it accusative with a dependent noun or its present-tense counterpart *** And after that, mention the nominative case for the predicate."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said: "So make it accusative with a dependent noun or its present-tense counterpart *** And after that, mention the nominative case for the predicate"
"Make it accusative" is an imperative verb.
The "fa" in "so make it accusative" is for separation, meaning that after you have known that it functions like "inna," you make it accusative with it.
"A dependent noun" is the object of "make it accusative."
"Or its present-tense counterpart": "present-tense counterpart" is coordinated with "a dependent noun," and it is a dependent noun, with the pronoun being the thing to which it is dependent.
"And after that, mention the nominative case for the predicate" "After that"
"After" is a circumstantial phrase dependent on "that," and the "kaf" is a letter of address.
And "the predicate" is the object of "mention," placed before the verb.
And the circumstantial phrase in "after that" is connected to "mention."
And "its nominative case" is a state, meaning the state of it being in the nominative case for it, and the pronoun is not a personal pronoun but rather the feminine "ta." The intended meaning of the phrase is: "And mention the predicate after that, i.e., after the noun, in the nominative case for it," meaning the state of it being in the nominative case for it.
"And the singular is constructed" We return to the meaning and say that the intended meaning of his words "a dependent noun or its present-tense counterpart" is, yes, the intended meaning of "or its present-tense counterpart" is that which resembles a dependent noun. That which resembles a dependent noun is that to which something is attached for the completion of its meaning. That to which something is attached for the completion of its meaning means that what follows it is connected to it in terms of meaning, just as the thing to which a dependent noun is dependent is connected to the dependent noun. For this reason, it is called resembling a dependent noun.
As for the dependent noun, you say, "There is no standing man's boy." This is a dependent noun: "There is no standing man's boy."
As for that which resembles a dependent noun, you say, "There is no ugly deed of his that is praiseworthy." "There is no ugly deed of his that is praiseworthy." "Ugly" here is not a dependent noun, but something is attached to it for the completion of its meaning, which is "his deed." "Deed" is the subject with "ugly," and "praiseworthy" is the predicate of "there is no." The attached element can also be in the accusative case, such as if you say, "There is no existing car's rider." "There is no existing car's rider." And their saying, "There is no present mountain's climber." Here, the attached element is what? It is in the accusative case. It can also be in the genitive case, such as: "There is no present reader of the book." Then "of the book" is a preposition and a genitive noun connected to what? To "reader." So the important point is that the meaning of his words: "or its present-tense counterpart" is that which resembles it. We know that the resembling element is that to which something is attached for the completion of its meaning, so it has a connection to it, either by the nominative case, or the accusative case, or the genitive case.
They said: "Or by coordination." By coordination, such as if you name a man twenty-three instead of naming him Abdullah, you name him twenty-three. So you say, "Twenty-three stood," "I saw twenty-three," and "I passed by twenty-three." So you say, when "there is no" enters it: "There is no present twenty-three." You make "twenty" accusative. Why? Because its meaning is not complete except by coordination. If I say "there is no twenty," I do not know that it is my son. But when I say "twenty-three," I know that it is my son. So it is necessary, yes, it is necessary to mention the twenty. So the attached element can be a subject, or an object, or a genitive, or...
And his words: "And after that, mention the nominative case for the predicate" indicate that it is necessary to maintain the order between the noun of "there is no" and its predicate. The predicate is mentioned after the noun, and the predicate is not mentioned before the noun. So it is not correct to say, "There is no man in the house," or "There is no man in the house" (with the noun in the accusative), but it is necessary to maintain the order.
And his words: "its nominative case" indicate that "there is no" (the negator of the genus) functions in the subject and predicate just as "inna" and its sisters function. And the nominative case of its noun is not a nominative case based on the original state, but rather a new nominative case that occurred with the entry of what? With the entry of "there is no" (the negator of the genus).
Now, the summary is: that "there is no" (the negator of the genus) functions like "inna." Then, if its noun is a dependent noun or resembles a dependent noun, it must be in the accusative case, right? And when it must be in the accusative case, it becomes marked with a diacritic. "There is no ugly deed of his that is praiseworthy," "There is no existing car's rider," "There is no present reader of the book."
Now, he said: "And the singular is constructed in the open state" The intended meaning of "the singular" here is...
"Make it accusative" is an imperative verb.
The "fa" in "so make it accusative" is for separation, meaning that after you have known that it functions like "inna," you make it accusative with it.
"A dependent noun" is the object of "make it accusative."
"Or its present-tense counterpart": "present-tense counterpart" is coordinated with "a dependent noun," and it is a dependent noun, with the pronoun being the thing to which it is dependent.
"And after that, mention the nominative case for the predicate" "After that"
"After" is a circumstantial phrase dependent on "that," and the "kaf" is a letter of address.
And "the predicate" is the object of "mention," placed before the verb.
And the circumstantial phrase in "after that" is connected to "mention."
And "its nominative case" is a state, meaning the state of it being in the nominative case for it, and the pronoun is not a personal pronoun but rather the feminine "ta." The intended meaning of the phrase is: "And mention the predicate after that, i.e., after the noun, in the nominative case for it," meaning the state of it being in the nominative case for it.
"And the singular is constructed" We return to the meaning and say that the intended meaning of his words "a dependent noun or its present-tense counterpart" is, yes, the intended meaning of "or its present-tense counterpart" is that which resembles a dependent noun. That which resembles a dependent noun is that to which something is attached for the completion of its meaning. That to which something is attached for the completion of its meaning means that what follows it is connected to it in terms of meaning, just as the thing to which a dependent noun is dependent is connected to the dependent noun. For this reason, it is called resembling a dependent noun.
As for the dependent noun, you say, "There is no standing man's boy." This is a dependent noun: "There is no standing man's boy."
As for that which resembles a dependent noun, you say, "There is no ugly deed of his that is praiseworthy." "There is no ugly deed of his that is praiseworthy." "Ugly" here is not a dependent noun, but something is attached to it for the completion of its meaning, which is "his deed." "Deed" is the subject with "ugly," and "praiseworthy" is the predicate of "there is no." The attached element can also be in the accusative case, such as if you say, "There is no existing car's rider." "There is no existing car's rider." And their saying, "There is no present mountain's climber." Here, the attached element is what? It is in the accusative case. It can also be in the genitive case, such as: "There is no present reader of the book." Then "of the book" is a preposition and a genitive noun connected to what? To "reader." So the important point is that the meaning of his words: "or its present-tense counterpart" is that which resembles it. We know that the resembling element is that to which something is attached for the completion of its meaning, so it has a connection to it, either by the nominative case, or the accusative case, or the genitive case.
They said: "Or by coordination." By coordination, such as if you name a man twenty-three instead of naming him Abdullah, you name him twenty-three. So you say, "Twenty-three stood," "I saw twenty-three," and "I passed by twenty-three." So you say, when "there is no" enters it: "There is no present twenty-three." You make "twenty" accusative. Why? Because its meaning is not complete except by coordination. If I say "there is no twenty," I do not know that it is my son. But when I say "twenty-three," I know that it is my son. So it is necessary, yes, it is necessary to mention the twenty. So the attached element can be a subject, or an object, or a genitive, or...
And his words: "And after that, mention the nominative case for the predicate" indicate that it is necessary to maintain the order between the noun of "there is no" and its predicate. The predicate is mentioned after the noun, and the predicate is not mentioned before the noun. So it is not correct to say, "There is no man in the house," or "There is no man in the house" (with the noun in the accusative), but it is necessary to maintain the order.
And his words: "its nominative case" indicate that "there is no" (the negator of the genus) functions in the subject and predicate just as "inna" and its sisters function. And the nominative case of its noun is not a nominative case based on the original state, but rather a new nominative case that occurred with the entry of what? With the entry of "there is no" (the negator of the genus).
Now, the summary is: that "there is no" (the negator of the genus) functions like "inna." Then, if its noun is a dependent noun or resembles a dependent noun, it must be in the accusative case, right? And when it must be in the accusative case, it becomes marked with a diacritic. "There is no ugly deed of his that is praiseworthy," "There is no existing car's rider," "There is no present reader of the book."
Now, he said: "And the singular is constructed in the open state" The intended meaning of "the singular" here is...