Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And the feminine ta follows the past tense if *** it is for a female, as Hind did the harm."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then he said (may Allah have mercy on him):
"And the feminine ta follows the past tense if *** it is for a female, as Hind did the harm"
The feminine ta: this is the subject (mubtada'), and "follows" is the predicate (khabar) clause. The doer (fa'il) is hidden, estimated to be "it." The past tense is the object of "follows." "If it is," meaning: if the verb is for a female, as in "Hind did." And if the verb is past tense? Then the feminine ta does not follow it, but rather precedes it. You say: "Hind strikes the people," "Hind honors the people"?
The student: If it is present tense.
The Shaykh : If it is present tense, did I say past tense?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : If it is present tense, then the ta does not follow it, but rather precedes it, so you say: "Hind strikes." As for the past tense, the ta follows the past tense, so you say: "Hind struck," or "Hind stood up." He says: "If *** it is for a female, as Hind did the harm". Ta: this is the subject, and "the clause follows" is the predicate of the subject. "If it is for a female" is a condition, but it is not a jussive (jāzim). "As Hind did the harm": the entire example is in the genitive case (majrur) by the letter kaf, meaning: like this example. The author (may Allah have mercy on him) moved on to whether the operator (amil) is feminized, meaning: the operator of the doer, or not? If the doer is masculine, then the verb is what? It is not feminized. And if it is feminine? Then the verb is feminized, as the author said: "Hind did the harm". "Zayd did the harm," and not "Zayd did"?
The student: Zayd did.
The Shaykh : Zayd did. If it is masculine, it is obligatory that it be free from the feminine ta. And if it is feminine, it is obligatory that it contain the feminine ta. The details regarding the aspects will come later. "As Hind did the harm". Is Hind declined (mudaf) or not?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Both aspects are permissible. It is permissible to decline it, because it is a trilateral word with a quiescent middle letter. And it is permissible not to decline it. But Ibn Malik says:
"Two aspects in the one lacking masculine *** and foreignness like"
The student: And the foreigner.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: And the foreigner.
The Shaykh : No, no. "Two aspects in the one lacking masculine *** and foreignness". I forgot the verse. In any case, for Hind, two aspects are permissible: declension and its absence, and preventing declension is more correct.
The student: Two aspects.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: "Two aspects in the one lacking masculine".
The Shaykh :"Lacking masculine *** and foreignness"
The student: "And foreignness like Hind, and prevention is more correct"
The Shaykh :"Like Hind, and prevention is more correct" Yes.
"And the feminine ta follows the past tense if *** it is for a female, as Hind did the harm"
The feminine ta: this is the subject (mubtada'), and "follows" is the predicate (khabar) clause. The doer (fa'il) is hidden, estimated to be "it." The past tense is the object of "follows." "If it is," meaning: if the verb is for a female, as in "Hind did." And if the verb is past tense? Then the feminine ta does not follow it, but rather precedes it. You say: "Hind strikes the people," "Hind honors the people"?
The student: If it is present tense.
The Shaykh : If it is present tense, did I say past tense?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : If it is present tense, then the ta does not follow it, but rather precedes it, so you say: "Hind strikes." As for the past tense, the ta follows the past tense, so you say: "Hind struck," or "Hind stood up." He says: "If *** it is for a female, as Hind did the harm". Ta: this is the subject, and "the clause follows" is the predicate of the subject. "If it is for a female" is a condition, but it is not a jussive (jāzim). "As Hind did the harm": the entire example is in the genitive case (majrur) by the letter kaf, meaning: like this example. The author (may Allah have mercy on him) moved on to whether the operator (amil) is feminized, meaning: the operator of the doer, or not? If the doer is masculine, then the verb is what? It is not feminized. And if it is feminine? Then the verb is feminized, as the author said: "Hind did the harm". "Zayd did the harm," and not "Zayd did"?
The student: Zayd did.
The Shaykh : Zayd did. If it is masculine, it is obligatory that it be free from the feminine ta. And if it is feminine, it is obligatory that it contain the feminine ta. The details regarding the aspects will come later. "As Hind did the harm". Is Hind declined (mudaf) or not?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Both aspects are permissible. It is permissible to decline it, because it is a trilateral word with a quiescent middle letter. And it is permissible not to decline it. But Ibn Malik says:
"Two aspects in the one lacking masculine *** and foreignness like"
The student: And the foreigner.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: And the foreigner.
The Shaykh : No, no. "Two aspects in the one lacking masculine *** and foreignness". I forgot the verse. In any case, for Hind, two aspects are permissible: declension and its absence, and preventing declension is more correct.
The student: Two aspects.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: "Two aspects in the one lacking masculine".
The Shaykh :"Lacking masculine *** and foreignness"
The student: "And foreignness like Hind, and prevention is more correct"
The Shaykh :"Like Hind, and prevention is more correct" Yes.