Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And that which is capable of standing in for an adverb of time or a verbal noun *** or a preposition, by a capable substitution."

The Shaykh : He said, may Allah have mercy on him:
"And that which is capable of standing in for an adverb of time or a verbal noun *** or a preposition, by a capable substitution"
"Capable" is the subject, and the description "capable of such-and-such" permits starting the sentence with it. "Of" is a preposition governing a genitive, or a conjunction. "Of a verbal noun" is conjoined to the adverb by repeating the governing word. "Or" is a preposition conjoined to the adverb. "By a capable substitution": "By a substitution" is a prepositional phrase attached to "capable," and "capable" is the predicate of the subject. Where is the subject?
The student: Capable.

The Shaykh : Capable, meaning: that which is capable of standing in for the adverb of time, the verbal noun, or the preposition is capable of substituting for what?
The student: From the subject.

The Shaykh : For the subject, just as the object substituted for the subject. So the author (may Allah have mercy on him) clarified in this verse that three things may substitute for the object: the first is the adverb of time, the second is the verbal noun, and the third is the prepositional phrase. However, he stipulated that it must be capable, meaning capable of substituting for the subject. That which is capable of substituting for the subject is that which is not restricted to a single form. If it is restricted to a single form, it cannot be a substitute for the subject, because if it substituted for the subject, it would shift from being restricted to being permissible. Therefore, it must be capable. For this reason, I say: "And it must also be specified by one of the specifiers". So it must be capable and free from specification. For example, we have the adverb of time; some adverbs of time cannot substitute for the subject because they do not shift away from being adverbs of time. And if they do not shift away from being adverbs of time, it is not valid for them to be a substitute for the subject. So let us give examples of what shifts away from being an adverb of time. Does the word "day" shift away from being an adverb of time?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : What is the evidence? The evidence is that it was used as the name of "inna" (that), as in the saying of Allah the Exalted: , and it was used as an object , and it was used in the genitive case, as in the saying of Allah the Exalted: . So it is valid for it to substitute for the subject. So one might say, for example, "It was fasted"?
The student: Day.

The Shaykh : "It was fasted a day," "It was fasted a day," and "day" here is a substitute?
The student: From the subject.

The Shaykh : For the subject. Now, is it valid for the word "place" to substitute for the subject?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Why?
The student: It is flexible.

The Shaykh : Because it is flexible away from being an adverb of time; it is used as an adverb of time and as something other than an adverb of time. So you say: "The man descended to the place of Zayd," which is an adverb of time. And you say: "Yes, I traveled to a distant place," as Allah the Exalted said: . So it has now shifted from being an adverb of time to a prepositional phrase. It is valid to say: "It was sat in," or to say: "A distant place was bought," "A distant place was bought," "A distant place was inhabited," as a substitute for the subject. Likewise, the verbal noun: if the verbal noun shifts away from being a verbal noun, it is permissible for it to substitute; and if it does not shift away, it is not permissible for it to substitute. So the word "Subhan" (Glory be to Him), they say, is restricted to the accusative case as a verbal noun or as an absolute object, so it cannot substitute for the subject.