Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And a singular attribute following a built word *** so open it, or decline it, or raise it, and you will be correct."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then the author (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "A subject, or speaking about another matter besides conjunction, with repetition, he said:"
"And a singular attribute following a built word *** so open it, or decline it, or raise it, and you will be correct"
His saying "singular": this is a fronted object for his saying "so open it," and his saying "attribute" is a description of "singular."
And his saying "following a built word" is a preposition and its object, connected to "follows."
And his saying: "so open it": this "so" is extra for the sake of improving the phrasing. The original of the speech, without this, would have been: "And a singular attribute following a built word follows, open it." Such a thing is called extra for the sake of improving the phrasing.
"Open it": a verb of command. "Or decline it": "open it" is a verb of command, meaning its meaning is "build it on the fathah." It has been mentioned to us previously that the first option is to say: "build it on what it is declined with, like the accusative."
"Or decline it": this "or" is for choice, and "decline it" is conjoined to "open it."
"Or" is also for choice, and it is conjoined to "open it."
"You will be correct": this is in the jussive mood, as it is the answer to the verb of command, which is his saying: "open it" and what is conjoined to it.
The grammarians differed regarding such a construction: whether this is in the jussive mood as the answer to the command, or in the jussive mood as the answer to a deleted condition, with the implied meaning "if you do it, you will be correct." We have an important rule, which is that if the speech revolves around deletion or non-deletion, the original is non-deletion. Therefore, the best grammatical analysis is to say that it is the answer to the command in his saying "open it" and what is conjoined to it.
And the meaning of the verse is: he says: if a singular attribute follows a built word, if a singular attribute follows a built word, it is permissible for you in it three ways: the fathah, the accusative, and the nominative. Its example is: "There is no clever man in the house," "There is no clever man in the house," "There is no clever man in the house." "Man" is built, do you agree?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Built, okay, singular.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, "clever" is a singular attribute, or is it not singular?
The student: Singular.
The Shaykh : Singular, and the attribute follows, or is there a separator between them? I mean, the attribute follows the described word, or is there a separator between them?
The student: The attribute follows the described word.
The Shaykh : The attribute follows the described word, so it applies to the author's statement: the attribute is singular, the described word is built, and there is no separator between the attribute and the described word. And in that case, it is permissible for you in the attribute three ways, so you say: "There is no clever man in the house," "There is no clever man in the house," and "There is no clever man in the house." Complete? Okay, what is the basis for these ways?
We say: as for "There is no clever man in the house," its basis is that it is compounded with the noun of "la" (negation), just as its noun is compounded with it.
And as for the basis of the accusative, "There is no clever man in the house," it is because it is a description of the position of the noun of "la" (negation), because we say in the grammatical analysis of "clever" (in the accusative): it is built on the fathah in the position of the accusative, so it is an attribute that follows the noun of "la" (negation) in its position.
And as for the nominative, it is an attribute that considers the position of "la" (negation) and its noun, because their position is...
The student: The nominative.
The Shaykh : The nominative, ... okay, and now when we speak about these ways in this issue and in what came before it, we follow the grammarians in that. The evidence for these details is few in the Arabic language, but they say: if the text is difficult, then analogy and independent legal reasoning are permissible. Otherwise, if you reflect on the speech of the Arabs, you will find the evidence for this to be very few, but they use analogy based on the rules they established. Okay.
The summary now: if an attribute describes the noun of "la" (negation) and it is built, what is permissible? In the attribute, three ways are permissible, on the condition that the attribute is of the type that is built, and that there is no clear separator between it and the described word? Okay.
"And a singular attribute following a built word *** so open it, or decline it, or raise it, and you will be correct"
His saying "singular": this is a fronted object for his saying "so open it," and his saying "attribute" is a description of "singular."
And his saying "following a built word" is a preposition and its object, connected to "follows."
And his saying: "so open it": this "so" is extra for the sake of improving the phrasing. The original of the speech, without this, would have been: "And a singular attribute following a built word follows, open it." Such a thing is called extra for the sake of improving the phrasing.
"Open it": a verb of command. "Or decline it": "open it" is a verb of command, meaning its meaning is "build it on the fathah." It has been mentioned to us previously that the first option is to say: "build it on what it is declined with, like the accusative."
"Or decline it": this "or" is for choice, and "decline it" is conjoined to "open it."
"Or" is also for choice, and it is conjoined to "open it."
"You will be correct": this is in the jussive mood, as it is the answer to the verb of command, which is his saying: "open it" and what is conjoined to it.
The grammarians differed regarding such a construction: whether this is in the jussive mood as the answer to the command, or in the jussive mood as the answer to a deleted condition, with the implied meaning "if you do it, you will be correct." We have an important rule, which is that if the speech revolves around deletion or non-deletion, the original is non-deletion. Therefore, the best grammatical analysis is to say that it is the answer to the command in his saying "open it" and what is conjoined to it.
And the meaning of the verse is: he says: if a singular attribute follows a built word, if a singular attribute follows a built word, it is permissible for you in it three ways: the fathah, the accusative, and the nominative. Its example is: "There is no clever man in the house," "There is no clever man in the house," "There is no clever man in the house." "Man" is built, do you agree?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Built, okay, singular.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, "clever" is a singular attribute, or is it not singular?
The student: Singular.
The Shaykh : Singular, and the attribute follows, or is there a separator between them? I mean, the attribute follows the described word, or is there a separator between them?
The student: The attribute follows the described word.
The Shaykh : The attribute follows the described word, so it applies to the author's statement: the attribute is singular, the described word is built, and there is no separator between the attribute and the described word. And in that case, it is permissible for you in the attribute three ways, so you say: "There is no clever man in the house," "There is no clever man in the house," and "There is no clever man in the house." Complete? Okay, what is the basis for these ways?
We say: as for "There is no clever man in the house," its basis is that it is compounded with the noun of "la" (negation), just as its noun is compounded with it.
And as for the basis of the accusative, "There is no clever man in the house," it is because it is a description of the position of the noun of "la" (negation), because we say in the grammatical analysis of "clever" (in the accusative): it is built on the fathah in the position of the accusative, so it is an attribute that follows the noun of "la" (negation) in its position.
And as for the nominative, it is an attribute that considers the position of "la" (negation) and its noun, because their position is...
The student: The nominative.
The Shaykh : The nominative, ... okay, and now when we speak about these ways in this issue and in what came before it, we follow the grammarians in that. The evidence for these details is few in the Arabic language, but they say: if the text is difficult, then analogy and independent legal reasoning are permissible. Otherwise, if you reflect on the speech of the Arabs, you will find the evidence for this to be very few, but they use analogy based on the rules they established. Okay.
The summary now: if an attribute describes the noun of "la" (negation) and it is built, what is permissible? In the attribute, three ways are permissible, on the condition that the attribute is of the type that is built, and that there is no clear separator between it and the described word? Okay.