Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "So the preceding, make it accusative with a verb they concealed *** necessarily, in agreement with what they have made explicit."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"So the preceding, make it accusative" The preceding, the preceding: is the object of a deleted verb, which is explained by what follows it. We do not say that it is the object of what follows it, why? Because what follows it is occupied, preoccupied with its pronoun. Therefore, the preceding: is the object of a deleted verb, which is explained by what follows it. Make it accusative: is a verb of command, and the haa: is the object, and with a verb: is attached to "make it accusative," and concealed: is a present tense verb.
The student: A past tense verb.
The Shaykh : A past tense verb, built for what its subject was not named, a description of the verb. Necessarily, necessarily: this is attached to "concealed," meaning: necessarily, meaning: obligatorily, so it is a noun in the position of a state, meaning: necessitated. In agreement: a description of the verb. For what they have made explicit, meaning: for the explicit verb. So in your saying: Is it Zayd or Zayd?
The student: Zayd.
The Shaykh : Zayd, I hit him. We say: Zayd is the object of a deleted verb, what is its estimation?
The student: I hit.
The Shaykh : I hit. And it is not correct to say: the object of a deleted verb, its estimation is: I humiliated. Because Ibn Malik says "in agreement with what has been made explicit." So if the existing verb is "hit," what is the estimated verb?
The student: Hit.
The Shaykh : Similarly, hit. Your food, I ate it?
The student: I ate your food.
The Shaykh : The estimation is: I ate your food. And it is not correct to say: I wasted your food. Because the concealed verb must be matching or in agreement, as he said, with what has been made explicit. Now, the example is as if it is before us on the board. Zayd, I honored him. Zayd, I honored him. We find that the verb is now occupied from making Zayd, which preceded it, accusative with what? With its pronoun. And were it not for this pronoun, it would be obligatory for you to say: Zayd, I honored. Zayd, I honored. Because it is a preceding object. But when the verb became occupied, the ruling changed. So is it better to raise Zayd or to make it accusative? We say: there is a detail in that which the author (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned, and it is one of the rulings that resemble in fiqh the application of the five rulings, meaning: sometimes the raising is preferred, sometimes the accusative is preferred, sometimes the raising is obligatory, sometimes the accusative is obligatory, and sometimes both options are permissible equally. Now, but in my saying: Zayd, I hit him, what is the stronger position?
The student: The raising.
The Shaykh : The raising, because there is no cause for preferring the accusative. So the grammatical analysis is: Zayd: is a subject, raised by the subject marker with the visible dammah. And I hit him: is a verb, a subject, and an object. And the sentence?
The student: It is a predicate (khabar).
The Shaykh : Is in the position of raising as the predicate of the subject. Now, he said:
"So the preceding, make it accusative with a verb they concealed *** necessarily, in agreement with what they have made explicit"
His saying here "make it accusative" is permissibility or obligation? Permissibility. Then he returned and clarified the ruling of this accusative.
The student: A past tense verb.
The Shaykh : A past tense verb, built for what its subject was not named, a description of the verb. Necessarily, necessarily: this is attached to "concealed," meaning: necessarily, meaning: obligatorily, so it is a noun in the position of a state, meaning: necessitated. In agreement: a description of the verb. For what they have made explicit, meaning: for the explicit verb. So in your saying: Is it Zayd or Zayd?
The student: Zayd.
The Shaykh : Zayd, I hit him. We say: Zayd is the object of a deleted verb, what is its estimation?
The student: I hit.
The Shaykh : I hit. And it is not correct to say: the object of a deleted verb, its estimation is: I humiliated. Because Ibn Malik says "in agreement with what has been made explicit." So if the existing verb is "hit," what is the estimated verb?
The student: Hit.
The Shaykh : Similarly, hit. Your food, I ate it?
The student: I ate your food.
The Shaykh : The estimation is: I ate your food. And it is not correct to say: I wasted your food. Because the concealed verb must be matching or in agreement, as he said, with what has been made explicit. Now, the example is as if it is before us on the board. Zayd, I honored him. Zayd, I honored him. We find that the verb is now occupied from making Zayd, which preceded it, accusative with what? With its pronoun. And were it not for this pronoun, it would be obligatory for you to say: Zayd, I honored. Zayd, I honored. Because it is a preceding object. But when the verb became occupied, the ruling changed. So is it better to raise Zayd or to make it accusative? We say: there is a detail in that which the author (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned, and it is one of the rulings that resemble in fiqh the application of the five rulings, meaning: sometimes the raising is preferred, sometimes the accusative is preferred, sometimes the raising is obligatory, sometimes the accusative is obligatory, and sometimes both options are permissible equally. Now, but in my saying: Zayd, I hit him, what is the stronger position?
The student: The raising.
The Shaykh : The raising, because there is no cause for preferring the accusative. So the grammatical analysis is: Zayd: is a subject, raised by the subject marker with the visible dammah. And I hit him: is a verb, a subject, and an object. And the sentence?
The student: It is a predicate (khabar).
The Shaykh : Is in the position of raising as the predicate of the subject. Now, he said:
"So the preceding, make it accusative with a verb they concealed *** necessarily, in agreement with what they have made explicit"
His saying here "make it accusative" is permissibility or obligation? Permissibility. Then he returned and clarified the ruling of this accusative.