Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And the accusative is a certainty if what follows the preceding word is what is specific to the verb, like *in* and *haythuma*."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said:
"And the accusative is a certainty if what follows the preceding word is what is specific to the verb, like *in* and *haythuma*"
"Al-nasb" is the subject, and "hatim" is its predicate. "In tala" is a conditional clause; the verb of the condition is "tala," and the answer to the condition is omitted, indicated by what came before it, according to the opinion of the majority. However, the correct view is that this construction does not require an answer because it is understood from the context. "If what follows the preceding word is what is specific" "Tala" is a past tense verb, meaning "I said." "Al-sabiq" is the subject. "Ma" is a relative pronoun acting as the object. "Yakhtas" is the relative clause. "Bi al-fi'l" is a preposition and its object, attached to "yakhtas." "Ka-in wa haythuma": the *kaf* is a preposition, "in" is a noun in the genitive case, and "haythuma" is conjoined to it. The meaning is that the accusative case is mandatory if what follows the preceding word—which is the noun preceding the verb—is what is specific to the verb, like *in* and *haythuma*, because conditional particles are specific to verbs. However, he used *in* as an example because it is a particle, and *haythuma* because it is a noun. For example, if you say: "If you met Zayd, then honor him," here the accusative case is mandatory. Why? Because Zayd followed what is specific to the verb, which is the conditional *in*. Now, if you said: "If Zayd, you met him, then honor him," we would say: this is an error and is not correct, because if a particle specific to verbs is followed, it is necessary to assume that verb, and the existing noun becomes the object. Now, "Haythuma Zayd, you met him, then honor him." So I say: "Haythuma Zayd, you met him, then honor him." The second one?
The student: An error.
The Shaykh : It is an error. The second one is an error, because *haythuma* is a conditional particle specific to verbs. So when is the accusative case mandatory?
The student: When it occurs after a particle specific to verbs.
The Shaykh : When the noun about which the verb is predicated occurs after a particle specific to verbs.
"And the accusative is a certainty if what follows the preceding word is what is specific to the verb, like *in* and *haythuma*"
"Al-nasb" is the subject, and "hatim" is its predicate. "In tala" is a conditional clause; the verb of the condition is "tala," and the answer to the condition is omitted, indicated by what came before it, according to the opinion of the majority. However, the correct view is that this construction does not require an answer because it is understood from the context. "If what follows the preceding word is what is specific" "Tala" is a past tense verb, meaning "I said." "Al-sabiq" is the subject. "Ma" is a relative pronoun acting as the object. "Yakhtas" is the relative clause. "Bi al-fi'l" is a preposition and its object, attached to "yakhtas." "Ka-in wa haythuma": the *kaf* is a preposition, "in" is a noun in the genitive case, and "haythuma" is conjoined to it. The meaning is that the accusative case is mandatory if what follows the preceding word—which is the noun preceding the verb—is what is specific to the verb, like *in* and *haythuma*, because conditional particles are specific to verbs. However, he used *in* as an example because it is a particle, and *haythuma* because it is a noun. For example, if you say: "If you met Zayd, then honor him," here the accusative case is mandatory. Why? Because Zayd followed what is specific to the verb, which is the conditional *in*. Now, if you said: "If Zayd, you met him, then honor him," we would say: this is an error and is not correct, because if a particle specific to verbs is followed, it is necessary to assume that verb, and the existing noun becomes the object. Now, "Haythuma Zayd, you met him, then honor him." So I say: "Haythuma Zayd, you met him, then honor him." The second one?
The student: An error.
The Shaykh : It is an error. The second one is an error, because *haythuma* is a conditional particle specific to verbs. So when is the accusative case mandatory?
The student: When it occurs after a particle specific to verbs.
The Shaykh : When the noun about which the verb is predicated occurs after a particle specific to verbs.