Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And if what follows the preceding word is one that is specific to the beginning, then the nominative case must be adhered to always."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said:
"And if what follows the preceding word is one that is specific to the beginning, then the nominative case must be adhered to always"
"In" is a conditional particle, and "tala" is a past tense verb, and "al-sabiq" is the subject, and "ma" is a relative pronoun built on sukun in the position of an object, and "al-ibtida'" is a preposition and its object, attached to "yakhtass," and "yakhtass" is a present tense verb and its subject is hidden, estimated to be "he," and the sentence is the relative clause of the relative pronoun, meaning "ma," and his saying "fa al-rafa'"—the word "al-rafa'" is the object of a deleted verb explained by what follows it, and it was necessary to connect it with the "fa" because the sentence is a request, and if the answer to the condition is a request, is it determined?
The student: Its connection with the "fa."
The Shaykh : Its connection with the "fa," and "talam" is an imperative verb, and the "ha" is the object, and "abdan" is an adverb of time for the future. The meaning is: If what follows the preceding word is what is the preceding word?
The student: The one about whom one is occupied.
The Shaykh : The name about which one is occupied, if what is specific to the beginning follows it, the nominative case is obligatory, so "al-rafa' talam" means? That it is obligatory, and on this basis, if what follows the preceding word is what is specific to the verb, is it here?
The student: The accusative case is obligatory.
The Shaykh : The accusative case is obligatory, and if what is specific to the name follows it, the nominative case is obligatory. If what is specific to the name follows it, then the nominative case is obligatory, because the estimation is according to what that operator requires. For example, he says: "Like the sudden 'idha'". The sudden "idha" is not followed by anything but a name. You say: "I went out, and suddenly Zayd is being struck by 'Umar." "I went out, and suddenly Zayd is being struck by 'Umar." "Idha" is sudden, meaning: So suddenly 'Umar struck Zayd. So you say: "And suddenly Zayd is being struck by 'Umar," and it is not permissible to say: "And suddenly Zayd is being struck by 'Umar," why? Because the sudden "idha" is specific to the name. Is that clear, everyone? How do you parse "Zayd" in your saying "and suddenly Zayd is being struck by 'Amr"? Parse it as a subject, and the sentence "is being struck" is the predicate of the subject. Okay, so these two are opposites. If what follows the name about which one is occupied is what is specific to the verb, the accusative case is obligatory, like the conditional particles. And if what follows is what is specific to the name, the nominative case is obligatory, like the sudden "idha." Is that so?
The student: Is this not from the chapter of occupation?
The Shaykh : How?
The student: Occupation.
The Shaykh : The question has not come to its time. Has the time for questions come?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : How?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Okay, if I say "I went out, and suddenly Zayd is being struck by 'Amr," is Zayd now being struck?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : What is the operator for it?
The student: "Is being struck."
The Shaykh : "Is being struck," this is the operator, and for this reason it has authority over its pronoun. Here, it is not possible for "is being struck" to have authority over "Zayd," because "Zayd" is followed by what is specific to the name, so it is obligatory that the sentence be a nominal sentence, not a verbal one. If we delete "idha" and say: "Zayd is being struck by 'Amr," "Zayd is being struck by 'Umar," it is permissible to put it in the accusative case. It is permissible to say: "Zayd is being struck by 'Amr," even though it is the weaker position. But when "idha" comes, the nominative case is determined, because the sudden "idha" does not enter except on nominal sentences, except on nominal sentences, so the nominative case is determined. Okay.
"And if what follows the preceding word is one that is specific to the beginning, then the nominative case must be adhered to always"
"In" is a conditional particle, and "tala" is a past tense verb, and "al-sabiq" is the subject, and "ma" is a relative pronoun built on sukun in the position of an object, and "al-ibtida'" is a preposition and its object, attached to "yakhtass," and "yakhtass" is a present tense verb and its subject is hidden, estimated to be "he," and the sentence is the relative clause of the relative pronoun, meaning "ma," and his saying "fa al-rafa'"—the word "al-rafa'" is the object of a deleted verb explained by what follows it, and it was necessary to connect it with the "fa" because the sentence is a request, and if the answer to the condition is a request, is it determined?
The student: Its connection with the "fa."
The Shaykh : Its connection with the "fa," and "talam" is an imperative verb, and the "ha" is the object, and "abdan" is an adverb of time for the future. The meaning is: If what follows the preceding word is what is the preceding word?
The student: The one about whom one is occupied.
The Shaykh : The name about which one is occupied, if what is specific to the beginning follows it, the nominative case is obligatory, so "al-rafa' talam" means? That it is obligatory, and on this basis, if what follows the preceding word is what is specific to the verb, is it here?
The student: The accusative case is obligatory.
The Shaykh : The accusative case is obligatory, and if what is specific to the name follows it, the nominative case is obligatory. If what is specific to the name follows it, then the nominative case is obligatory, because the estimation is according to what that operator requires. For example, he says: "Like the sudden 'idha'". The sudden "idha" is not followed by anything but a name. You say: "I went out, and suddenly Zayd is being struck by 'Umar." "I went out, and suddenly Zayd is being struck by 'Umar." "Idha" is sudden, meaning: So suddenly 'Umar struck Zayd. So you say: "And suddenly Zayd is being struck by 'Umar," and it is not permissible to say: "And suddenly Zayd is being struck by 'Umar," why? Because the sudden "idha" is specific to the name. Is that clear, everyone? How do you parse "Zayd" in your saying "and suddenly Zayd is being struck by 'Amr"? Parse it as a subject, and the sentence "is being struck" is the predicate of the subject. Okay, so these two are opposites. If what follows the name about which one is occupied is what is specific to the verb, the accusative case is obligatory, like the conditional particles. And if what follows is what is specific to the name, the nominative case is obligatory, like the sudden "idha." Is that so?
The student: Is this not from the chapter of occupation?
The Shaykh : How?
The student: Occupation.
The Shaykh : The question has not come to its time. Has the time for questions come?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : How?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Okay, if I say "I went out, and suddenly Zayd is being struck by 'Amr," is Zayd now being struck?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : What is the operator for it?
The student: "Is being struck."
The Shaykh : "Is being struck," this is the operator, and for this reason it has authority over its pronoun. Here, it is not possible for "is being struck" to have authority over "Zayd," because "Zayd" is followed by what is specific to the name, so it is obligatory that the sentence be a nominal sentence, not a verbal one. If we delete "idha" and say: "Zayd is being struck by 'Amr," "Zayd is being struck by 'Umar," it is permissible to put it in the accusative case. It is permissible to say: "Zayd is being struck by 'Amr," even though it is the weaker position. But when "idha" comes, the nominative case is determined, because the sudden "idha" does not enter except on nominal sentences, except on nominal sentences, so the nominative case is determined. Okay.