Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And other than what follows, and other than the singular *** do not make it indeclinable, but aim for its accusative or nominative case."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : If one of these conditions is lacking, listen to the words of Ibn Malik:
"And other than what follows, and other than the singular *** do not make it indeclinable, but aim for its accusative or nominative case"
We will parse the verse.
"Other than what follows": "Other" is a fronted object for "make indeclinable" in his phrase "do not make it indeclinable," and it is attached to the relative pronoun "what."
"Follows": A present tense verb that is the relative clause of the relative pronoun; the subject pronoun is hidden, and the resumptive pronoun is omitted, with the implied meaning being "what follows it."
"And other than the singular": "Other" is conjoined to the first "other," and it is attached to "the singular."
"And do not": A prohibitive particle.
"Make indeclinable": A present tense verb in the jussive mood due to the prohibitive "do not," and the sign of its jussive mood is the deletion of the yā' and the kasrah before it indicates this; the subject is a hidden pronoun, implied to be "you."
"And make it accusative or nominative": "And" is a conjunction, and "make accusative" is an imperative verb with the hā' as an object pronoun, and the subject is a hidden pronoun implied to be "you."
"Or the nominative, aim for": "Or" is for variation.
"The nominative": A fronted object for his phrase "aim for."
"Aim for": An imperative verb built on sukūn, but moved with a kasrah for the sake of the rhyme. Now, we mentioned that it is permissible in three ways, on the condition that it be singular and that the described noun be indeclinable, or that no separator be placed between them.
He said: "And other than what follows, and other than the singular *** do not make it indeclinable, but aim for its accusative or nominative case"
"Other than what follows" means if a separator is placed between the descriptor and the described noun, then indeclinability is prohibited. What remains? The accusative and nominative cases. Why is indeclinability prohibited? Because indeclinability is for the sake of ordering with "lā" and its noun, and if a separator is placed between them, what happens? The ordering becomes difficult and impossible. For example, if you say: "Lā rajulan fī al-bayti ẓarīfan" (No man in the house is witty), "Lā rajulan fī al-bayti ẓarīfan." Here, "ẓarīfan" is a descriptor for what? For "rajulan" (man), and it is singular, and the described noun is singular, and the described noun is indeclinable, so all conditions are met. Only one condition remains, which is that there be no separation between them. This condition is lacking where separation exists. So what is permissible for the descriptor?
He says "Do not make it indeclinable, but aim for its accusative or nominative case", meaning that the accusative and nominative cases are permissible. So I say: "Lā rajulan fī al-bayti ẓarīfun" (No man in the house is witty), "Lā rajulan fī al-bayti ẓarīfan" (No man in the house is witty). Is that correct? Now, "Lā rajulan ḥāmilan kitābin ḥāḍirun" (No man carrying a book is present). What is permissible for "ḥāmilan" (carrying)? The nominative and accusative cases, and indeclinability is not permissible because it is not singular, as it is attached to something. Therefore, he said: "And other than the singular, do not make it indeclinable, but aim for its accusative or nominative case"
Now, "Lā rajulan ṭāli'an jablan ḥāḍirun" (No man climbing a mountain is present).
The student: The accusative.
The Shaykh : fatigue
The student: The nominative.
The Shaykh : And the nominative. "Lā rajulan ṭāli'un jablan ḥāḍirun" (No man climbing a mountain is present), "Lā rajulan ṭāli'a jablin" (No man climbing a mountain).
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Pay attention, pay attention. "Lā rajulan ṭāli'a jablin ḥāḍiru" (No man climbing a mountain is present). O brothers, where are you? "Lā rajulan ṭāli'a jablin ḥāḍirun" (No man climbing a mountain is present).
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : Is this correct? It is not correct.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : O brothers.
The student: It is not valid.
The Shaykh : Listen, what I have is that the options are gone. "Lā rajulan ṭāli'a jablin ḥāḍir" (No man climbing a mountain is present).
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct. Lā ilāha illā Allāh. Now, O my brothers, this is attached. "Ṭāli'a jablin" is attached, so it is in the accusative case. But if I said "Lā rajulan ṭāli'a jablan ḥāḍirun" (No man climbing a mountain is present), this is not correct. This is not correct. However, "Lā rajulan ṭāli'a jablin" (No man climbing a mountain) is correct because it is now in the accusative case. Is it indeclinable now? It cannot be indeclinable while it is attached. It cannot be indeclinable while it is attached. So this falls under his statement: "And other than the singular, do not make it indeclinable." "Other than the singular, do not make it indeclinable." I do not make it indeclinable, so it becomes "Lā rajulan ṭāli'a jablin ḥāḍirun" (No man climbing a mountain is present). The phrase is correct.
"Lā rajulan ṭāli'an jablan ḥāḍirun" (No man climbing a mountain is present). The phrase. Now, "Lā rajulan ṭāli'a jablan ḥāḍirun" (No man climbing a mountain is present) is not correct, is it? Why? Because the descriptor is now, yes, indeclinable. This is the reason for the incorrectness. The descriptor here is not made indeclinable because it is not singular. It is not singular. Is it included in the main points now? Now.
Now, what do we do with the descriptor? First, the descriptor is permissible in three ways with three conditions. The first, O Nasser.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The described noun. This is one. The second.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The second one.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, the third:
The student: That no separator be placed between them.
The Shaykh : That no separator be placed between them. That is complete. And the example: "Lā rajulan ẓarīfan fī al-bayti" (No witty man in the house), "Lā rajulan ẓarīfan fī al-bayti" (No witty man in the house), "Lā rajulan ẓarīfun fī al-bayti" (No witty man in the house). Is that correct? Now.
"Lā ṭāliban muhmalan fī al-majlis" (No neglected student in the assembly).
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Is it authentic?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, "Lā rajulan fī al-bayti ẓarīfan" (No man in the house is witty), "Lā rajulan fī al-bayti ẓarīfan" (No man in the house is witty).
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct. "Lā rajulan fī al-bayti ẓarīfun" (No man in the house is witty).
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : "Lā rajulan fī al-bayti ẓarīfan" (No man in the house is witty).
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : Not correct, is it, O Nasser? Now, "Lā rajulan ṭāli'an jablan ḥāḍirun" (No man climbing a mountain is present).
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Is it correct? "Lā rajulan ṭāli'an jablan ḥāḍirun" (No man climbing a mountain is present).
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : The problem for us is "jablan" (mountain). We say it is not correct. What do you say?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct. "Lā rajulan ṭāli'an jablan" (No man climbing a mountain). He says "other than the singular, do not make it indeclinable," but only because indeclinability is prohibited.
The student: "Jablan" (mountain).
The Shaykh : Yes, "jablan" (mountain). "Lā rajulan ṭāli'an jablan ḥāḍirun" (No man climbing a mountain is present). What do you say, O people?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : It is correct because he tells you that if it is not singular, only indeclinability is prohibited, and the accusative and nominative cases are permissible.
Now, "Lā rajulan ṭāli'a jablin ḥāḍirun" (No man climbing a mountain is present).
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct, O brothers. And the reason the tanwīn was omitted is not because it is a compound, but because of the attachment. Do you understand, O Nasser? The difficulty is resolved for you.
The student: It means it is in the accusative case.
The Shaykh : It is in the accusative case generally, but it was not given tanwīn because of the attachment. Now, if I said "Lā rajulan ṭāli'a jablan ḥāḍirun" (No man climbing a mountain is present), this is not correct. Why? Because "ṭāli'a" (climbing) is not established with something that completes its meaning, because if you said "Lā rajulan ṭāli'a" (No man climbing), we do not know what he is climbing. Is it a book? A car? A mountain? A staircase? So if you say "jablan" (a mountain), we know the meaning. In any case, I think the issue is very easy.
If the described noun is a compound, which is the meaning of his statement "for an indeclinable that follows," then three ways are permissible for the descriptor.
A compound... meaning indeclinable, three ways are permissible for the descriptor: indeclinability, accusative, and nominative, with three conditions. Listen to my words: with three conditions, with three conditions. Yes.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : We said if the described noun is a compound, meaning indeclinable, there is no need to say three conditions, because the first condition is the locus of the ruling. We did not say "if you describe a noun," we did not say "if it is a noun that is indeclinable." By Allah, I wish I had not entered into this detail. If it is a noun that is indeclinable, three ways are permissible for the descriptor: indeclinability on the fatḥah, indeclinability is better on the fatḥah, or on the yā', or on the kasrah. And the second.
The student: The accusative.
The Shaykh : The accusative. And the third.
The student: The nominative.
The Shaykh : The nominative. With one condition, or with two conditions?
The student: With two conditions.
The Shaykh : With two conditions only: that the descriptor be singular, or that no separator be placed between it and the described noun. Why did we say two conditions when we previously said three? Do not think that the issue has changed and that this is from the category of abrogation. There is no abrogation in grammar. But we were speaking and saying "if you describe a noun that is not indeclinable." But now we say "if you describe a compound." So the first condition dropped, because now the locus of the ruling is the indeclinable noun, so there is no need to say three conditions. And if one condition is lacking, what is permissible? Two ways: the accusative and the nominative. The accusative is because it is a descriptor for the place of the noun of "lā," and the nominative is for the place of "lā" and its noun, because the original state of "lā" and its noun is that they are in the place of the raised subject. Is this sufficient? It is sufficient. We do not add. And this, glory to Allah the Great, may Allah give you a response.
"And other than what follows, and other than the singular *** do not make it indeclinable, but aim for its accusative or nominative case"
We will parse the verse.
"Other than what follows": "Other" is a fronted object for "make indeclinable" in his phrase "do not make it indeclinable," and it is attached to the relative pronoun "what."
"Follows": A present tense verb that is the relative clause of the relative pronoun; the subject pronoun is hidden, and the resumptive pronoun is omitted, with the implied meaning being "what follows it."
"And other than the singular": "Other" is conjoined to the first "other," and it is attached to "the singular."
"And do not": A prohibitive particle.
"Make indeclinable": A present tense verb in the jussive mood due to the prohibitive "do not," and the sign of its jussive mood is the deletion of the yā' and the kasrah before it indicates this; the subject is a hidden pronoun, implied to be "you."
"And make it accusative or nominative": "And" is a conjunction, and "make accusative" is an imperative verb with the hā' as an object pronoun, and the subject is a hidden pronoun implied to be "you."
"Or the nominative, aim for": "Or" is for variation.
"The nominative": A fronted object for his phrase "aim for."
"Aim for": An imperative verb built on sukūn, but moved with a kasrah for the sake of the rhyme. Now, we mentioned that it is permissible in three ways, on the condition that it be singular and that the described noun be indeclinable, or that no separator be placed between them.
He said: "And other than what follows, and other than the singular *** do not make it indeclinable, but aim for its accusative or nominative case"
"Other than what follows" means if a separator is placed between the descriptor and the described noun, then indeclinability is prohibited. What remains? The accusative and nominative cases. Why is indeclinability prohibited? Because indeclinability is for the sake of ordering with "lā" and its noun, and if a separator is placed between them, what happens? The ordering becomes difficult and impossible. For example, if you say: "Lā rajulan fī al-bayti ẓarīfan" (No man in the house is witty), "Lā rajulan fī al-bayti ẓarīfan." Here, "ẓarīfan" is a descriptor for what? For "rajulan" (man), and it is singular, and the described noun is singular, and the described noun is indeclinable, so all conditions are met. Only one condition remains, which is that there be no separation between them. This condition is lacking where separation exists. So what is permissible for the descriptor?
He says "Do not make it indeclinable, but aim for its accusative or nominative case", meaning that the accusative and nominative cases are permissible. So I say: "Lā rajulan fī al-bayti ẓarīfun" (No man in the house is witty), "Lā rajulan fī al-bayti ẓarīfan" (No man in the house is witty). Is that correct? Now, "Lā rajulan ḥāmilan kitābin ḥāḍirun" (No man carrying a book is present). What is permissible for "ḥāmilan" (carrying)? The nominative and accusative cases, and indeclinability is not permissible because it is not singular, as it is attached to something. Therefore, he said: "And other than the singular, do not make it indeclinable, but aim for its accusative or nominative case"
Now, "Lā rajulan ṭāli'an jablan ḥāḍirun" (No man climbing a mountain is present).
The student: The accusative.
The Shaykh : fatigue
The student: The nominative.
The Shaykh : And the nominative. "Lā rajulan ṭāli'un jablan ḥāḍirun" (No man climbing a mountain is present), "Lā rajulan ṭāli'a jablin" (No man climbing a mountain).
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Pay attention, pay attention. "Lā rajulan ṭāli'a jablin ḥāḍiru" (No man climbing a mountain is present). O brothers, where are you? "Lā rajulan ṭāli'a jablin ḥāḍirun" (No man climbing a mountain is present).
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : Is this correct? It is not correct.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : O brothers.
The student: It is not valid.
The Shaykh : Listen, what I have is that the options are gone. "Lā rajulan ṭāli'a jablin ḥāḍir" (No man climbing a mountain is present).
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct. Lā ilāha illā Allāh. Now, O my brothers, this is attached. "Ṭāli'a jablin" is attached, so it is in the accusative case. But if I said "Lā rajulan ṭāli'a jablan ḥāḍirun" (No man climbing a mountain is present), this is not correct. This is not correct. However, "Lā rajulan ṭāli'a jablin" (No man climbing a mountain) is correct because it is now in the accusative case. Is it indeclinable now? It cannot be indeclinable while it is attached. It cannot be indeclinable while it is attached. So this falls under his statement: "And other than the singular, do not make it indeclinable." "Other than the singular, do not make it indeclinable." I do not make it indeclinable, so it becomes "Lā rajulan ṭāli'a jablin ḥāḍirun" (No man climbing a mountain is present). The phrase is correct.
"Lā rajulan ṭāli'an jablan ḥāḍirun" (No man climbing a mountain is present). The phrase. Now, "Lā rajulan ṭāli'a jablan ḥāḍirun" (No man climbing a mountain is present) is not correct, is it? Why? Because the descriptor is now, yes, indeclinable. This is the reason for the incorrectness. The descriptor here is not made indeclinable because it is not singular. It is not singular. Is it included in the main points now? Now.
Now, what do we do with the descriptor? First, the descriptor is permissible in three ways with three conditions. The first, O Nasser.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The described noun. This is one. The second.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The second one.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, the third:
The student: That no separator be placed between them.
The Shaykh : That no separator be placed between them. That is complete. And the example: "Lā rajulan ẓarīfan fī al-bayti" (No witty man in the house), "Lā rajulan ẓarīfan fī al-bayti" (No witty man in the house), "Lā rajulan ẓarīfun fī al-bayti" (No witty man in the house). Is that correct? Now.
"Lā ṭāliban muhmalan fī al-majlis" (No neglected student in the assembly).
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Is it authentic?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, "Lā rajulan fī al-bayti ẓarīfan" (No man in the house is witty), "Lā rajulan fī al-bayti ẓarīfan" (No man in the house is witty).
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct. "Lā rajulan fī al-bayti ẓarīfun" (No man in the house is witty).
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : "Lā rajulan fī al-bayti ẓarīfan" (No man in the house is witty).
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : Not correct, is it, O Nasser? Now, "Lā rajulan ṭāli'an jablan ḥāḍirun" (No man climbing a mountain is present).
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Is it correct? "Lā rajulan ṭāli'an jablan ḥāḍirun" (No man climbing a mountain is present).
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : The problem for us is "jablan" (mountain). We say it is not correct. What do you say?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct. "Lā rajulan ṭāli'an jablan" (No man climbing a mountain). He says "other than the singular, do not make it indeclinable," but only because indeclinability is prohibited.
The student: "Jablan" (mountain).
The Shaykh : Yes, "jablan" (mountain). "Lā rajulan ṭāli'an jablan ḥāḍirun" (No man climbing a mountain is present). What do you say, O people?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : It is correct because he tells you that if it is not singular, only indeclinability is prohibited, and the accusative and nominative cases are permissible.
Now, "Lā rajulan ṭāli'a jablin ḥāḍirun" (No man climbing a mountain is present).
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct, O brothers. And the reason the tanwīn was omitted is not because it is a compound, but because of the attachment. Do you understand, O Nasser? The difficulty is resolved for you.
The student: It means it is in the accusative case.
The Shaykh : It is in the accusative case generally, but it was not given tanwīn because of the attachment. Now, if I said "Lā rajulan ṭāli'a jablan ḥāḍirun" (No man climbing a mountain is present), this is not correct. Why? Because "ṭāli'a" (climbing) is not established with something that completes its meaning, because if you said "Lā rajulan ṭāli'a" (No man climbing), we do not know what he is climbing. Is it a book? A car? A mountain? A staircase? So if you say "jablan" (a mountain), we know the meaning. In any case, I think the issue is very easy.
If the described noun is a compound, which is the meaning of his statement "for an indeclinable that follows," then three ways are permissible for the descriptor.
A compound... meaning indeclinable, three ways are permissible for the descriptor: indeclinability, accusative, and nominative, with three conditions. Listen to my words: with three conditions, with three conditions. Yes.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : We said if the described noun is a compound, meaning indeclinable, there is no need to say three conditions, because the first condition is the locus of the ruling. We did not say "if you describe a noun," we did not say "if it is a noun that is indeclinable." By Allah, I wish I had not entered into this detail. If it is a noun that is indeclinable, three ways are permissible for the descriptor: indeclinability on the fatḥah, indeclinability is better on the fatḥah, or on the yā', or on the kasrah. And the second.
The student: The accusative.
The Shaykh : The accusative. And the third.
The student: The nominative.
The Shaykh : The nominative. With one condition, or with two conditions?
The student: With two conditions.
The Shaykh : With two conditions only: that the descriptor be singular, or that no separator be placed between it and the described noun. Why did we say two conditions when we previously said three? Do not think that the issue has changed and that this is from the category of abrogation. There is no abrogation in grammar. But we were speaking and saying "if you describe a noun that is not indeclinable." But now we say "if you describe a compound." So the first condition dropped, because now the locus of the ruling is the indeclinable noun, so there is no need to say three conditions. And if one condition is lacking, what is permissible? Two ways: the accusative and the nominative. The accusative is because it is a descriptor for the place of the noun of "lā," and the nominative is for the place of "lā" and its noun, because the original state of "lā" and its noun is that they are in the place of the raised subject. Is this sufficient? It is sufficient. We do not add. And this, glory to Allah the Great, may Allah give you a response.