Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And postpone the object if ambiguity is feared *** or if the subject is a pronoun not restricted."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said: "And postpone the object if ambiguity is feared" Postpone the object from what?
The student: From the subject.
The Shaykh : From the verb and the subject. "If ambiguity" means: confusion. "Is feared" means: is apprehended. If confusion is apprehended, then ordering is obligatory. Confusion occurs when the subject and the object are built forms, because built forms do not change, or when they are inflected with implied inflection. So if you say: "Musa struck Isa," here the subject is?
The student: Moses.
The Shaykh : Musa. So if you wanted to say: "Isa struck Musa," we would say it is not permissible. Why?
The student: It becomes ambiguous.
The Shaykh : Because it becomes ambiguous who is the subject and who is the object. But if there is no ambiguity, such as if you say: "Musa ate the pear," is it permissible or not permissible?
The student: Permissible.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: There is no ambiguity.
The Shaykh : There is no ambiguity because the pear cannot eat Musa. Rather, the one who eats it is?
The student: Moses.
The Shaykh : Musa. So if ambiguity is averted, there is no harm. But if ambiguity is feared, it is not permissible. If someone asks why it is not permissible, we say: because the intended meaning of words is the meaning, so if the words hinder the perception of the meaning, it is obligatory to order them in a way that has no ambiguity. And this is clear. Now, if I say: "I honored this one, that one"? Huh?
The student: If both are present.
The Shaykh : Meaning both are present. Is ordering obligatory?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So we parse "this one" as the subject and "that one" as the object. Now, if I say: "This one married this one"?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Is it permissible or not permissible?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Is it permissible?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Because if you say "This one married this one," it is known that the second "this one" is a fronted object, because if it were the subject, the verb would have to be feminized, and you would say: "This one married this one" (with the feminine suffix). The important point is that if ambiguity is feared, it is obligatory to return to the original order. If ambiguity is feared, it is obligatory to return to the original order. If ambiguity is not feared, fronting and postponing are permissible. Now, if someone says: "I want to front the object before the verb, so I say: 'Musa struck Isa,' so I say: 'Isa struck Musa,'" we say it is not permissible, because it is possible that "Isa" is a subject (mubtada') and not an object. If you say: "Isa, Musa struck him"?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct. And the object here is not Isa. The object is the pronoun in "struck." The pronoun in "struck." And this is from the chapter of what? From the chapter of engagement (ishtighal). And the chapter of engagement in the chapter of composition is that it is better to parse the first word as a subject, because there is no reason for the accusative case to prevail. He said:
"And postpone the object if ambiguity is feared *** or if the subject is a pronoun not restricted"
Meaning: It is obligatory to postpone the object in two cases. If ambiguity is feared, right?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And that is what we mentioned a moment ago. It is obligatory to order it and to postpone the object from the subject. This is one. The second: "Or if the subject is a pronoun not restricted" Likewise, if the subject is a pronoun that is not restricted, it is obligatory to postpone the object. For example, if you say: "I honored Zayd," "I honored Zayd." The taa: subject, and Zayd: object. Here it is not permissible to say: "Honored Zayd, you" for example, because the subject is now a pronoun. But if it is restricted, such as if you say: "No one honored Zayd except I," then there is no harm. For this reason, he said: "Or if the subject is a pronoun" meaning: it was a pronoun, "not restricted". So it is known from his saying "not restricted" that if it is a pronoun not restricted, there is no harm in fronting the object and postponing the subject.
The student: From the subject.
The Shaykh : From the verb and the subject. "If ambiguity" means: confusion. "Is feared" means: is apprehended. If confusion is apprehended, then ordering is obligatory. Confusion occurs when the subject and the object are built forms, because built forms do not change, or when they are inflected with implied inflection. So if you say: "Musa struck Isa," here the subject is?
The student: Moses.
The Shaykh : Musa. So if you wanted to say: "Isa struck Musa," we would say it is not permissible. Why?
The student: It becomes ambiguous.
The Shaykh : Because it becomes ambiguous who is the subject and who is the object. But if there is no ambiguity, such as if you say: "Musa ate the pear," is it permissible or not permissible?
The student: Permissible.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: There is no ambiguity.
The Shaykh : There is no ambiguity because the pear cannot eat Musa. Rather, the one who eats it is?
The student: Moses.
The Shaykh : Musa. So if ambiguity is averted, there is no harm. But if ambiguity is feared, it is not permissible. If someone asks why it is not permissible, we say: because the intended meaning of words is the meaning, so if the words hinder the perception of the meaning, it is obligatory to order them in a way that has no ambiguity. And this is clear. Now, if I say: "I honored this one, that one"? Huh?
The student: If both are present.
The Shaykh : Meaning both are present. Is ordering obligatory?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So we parse "this one" as the subject and "that one" as the object. Now, if I say: "This one married this one"?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Is it permissible or not permissible?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Is it permissible?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Because if you say "This one married this one," it is known that the second "this one" is a fronted object, because if it were the subject, the verb would have to be feminized, and you would say: "This one married this one" (with the feminine suffix). The important point is that if ambiguity is feared, it is obligatory to return to the original order. If ambiguity is feared, it is obligatory to return to the original order. If ambiguity is not feared, fronting and postponing are permissible. Now, if someone says: "I want to front the object before the verb, so I say: 'Musa struck Isa,' so I say: 'Isa struck Musa,'" we say it is not permissible, because it is possible that "Isa" is a subject (mubtada') and not an object. If you say: "Isa, Musa struck him"?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct. And the object here is not Isa. The object is the pronoun in "struck." The pronoun in "struck." And this is from the chapter of what? From the chapter of engagement (ishtighal). And the chapter of engagement in the chapter of composition is that it is better to parse the first word as a subject, because there is no reason for the accusative case to prevail. He said:
"And postpone the object if ambiguity is feared *** or if the subject is a pronoun not restricted"
Meaning: It is obligatory to postpone the object in two cases. If ambiguity is feared, right?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And that is what we mentioned a moment ago. It is obligatory to order it and to postpone the object from the subject. This is one. The second: "Or if the subject is a pronoun not restricted" Likewise, if the subject is a pronoun that is not restricted, it is obligatory to postpone the object. For example, if you say: "I honored Zayd," "I honored Zayd." The taa: subject, and Zayd: object. Here it is not permissible to say: "Honored Zayd, you" for example, because the subject is now a pronoun. But if it is restricted, such as if you say: "No one honored Zayd except I," then there is no harm. For this reason, he said: "Or if the subject is a pronoun" meaning: it was a pronoun, "not restricted". So it is known from his saying "not restricted" that if it is a pronoun not restricted, there is no harm in fronting the object and postponing the subject.