Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And after a conjunction without separation, upon *** the object of a verb that is established first."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The third location:
"And after a conjunction without separation, upon *** the object of a verb that is established first"
This means: If the name that is being discussed comes after a conjunction attached to the object of a verb that was established first. The grammatical analysis: The waw is a conjunction particle. "After" is an adverb of time, in the accusative case due to being an adverb, marked by the visible fathah. It is attached to "conjunction." "Without separation" is a preposition and a noun in the genitive case. But how do we analyze "without separation"? In detail, we say: The ba is a preposition, and "la" is a particle that cannot be assigned a grammatical case, so its case is transferred to what follows it. For this reason, we do not say that "la" is attached to "separation," but rather that the grammatical operation passed over it to what follows, because it is a particle that the operator does not control. Some grammarians said that "la" here means "other than." On this basis, the ba is a preposition, and "la" is a noun in the genitive case. Considering what?
The student: By its meaning.
The Shaykh : By its meaning, it is built on sukun in the position of the genitive case, and it is attached to "separation." This occurs frequently in speech. And his saying: "upon the object of a verb": "Upon" is a preposition, and "object" is a noun in the genitive case due to "upon," and it is connected to "conjunction." "Object" is attached, and "verb" is what it is attached to. "Established" is a description of "verb," and "first" is an adverb of place, though it is permissible for it to be an adverb of time. The meaning is: If the name being discussed comes after a conjunction attached to the object of a preceding verb, then the accusative case is preferred. An example of this is: "I hit Zayd and 'Amr, whom I honored." It is also permissible to say "and 'Amr, whom I honored," but which is preferred?
The student: The accusative case.
The Shaykh : "And 'Amr, whom I honored." Why? Because if you put it in the accusative case, you have made the clause verbal, and that is more appropriate for the clause that preceded it, because the clause that preceded it was verbal, or was it nominal?
The student: Verbal.
The Shaykh : Verbal. For this reason, we say that if you utter your statement: "Zayd came and 'Amr, whom I honored," this is permissible, but the better option is "and 'Amr, whom I honored." Why? Do we know? Because connecting a verbal clause to a verbal clause is better than connecting a nominal clause to a verbal clause, for the sake of correspondence. And his saying: "without separation" is a precaution against cases where there is separation, such as if you say: "Zayd arrived, and as for 'Amr, the enemy imprisoned him." "Zayd arrived, and as for 'Amr, the enemy imprisoned him." Here, 'Amr is not connected to what preceded it. Why?
The student: Because of the separation.
The Shaykh : Due to the presence of the separator "as for." Therefore, the clause is not valid as being connected to what preceded it due to the presence of the separator. This is the meaning of the author's (may Allah have mercy on him) saying: "without separation". Then he (may Allah have mercy on him) said.
"And after a conjunction without separation, upon *** the object of a verb that is established first"
This means: If the name that is being discussed comes after a conjunction attached to the object of a verb that was established first. The grammatical analysis: The waw is a conjunction particle. "After" is an adverb of time, in the accusative case due to being an adverb, marked by the visible fathah. It is attached to "conjunction." "Without separation" is a preposition and a noun in the genitive case. But how do we analyze "without separation"? In detail, we say: The ba is a preposition, and "la" is a particle that cannot be assigned a grammatical case, so its case is transferred to what follows it. For this reason, we do not say that "la" is attached to "separation," but rather that the grammatical operation passed over it to what follows, because it is a particle that the operator does not control. Some grammarians said that "la" here means "other than." On this basis, the ba is a preposition, and "la" is a noun in the genitive case. Considering what?
The student: By its meaning.
The Shaykh : By its meaning, it is built on sukun in the position of the genitive case, and it is attached to "separation." This occurs frequently in speech. And his saying: "upon the object of a verb": "Upon" is a preposition, and "object" is a noun in the genitive case due to "upon," and it is connected to "conjunction." "Object" is attached, and "verb" is what it is attached to. "Established" is a description of "verb," and "first" is an adverb of place, though it is permissible for it to be an adverb of time. The meaning is: If the name being discussed comes after a conjunction attached to the object of a preceding verb, then the accusative case is preferred. An example of this is: "I hit Zayd and 'Amr, whom I honored." It is also permissible to say "and 'Amr, whom I honored," but which is preferred?
The student: The accusative case.
The Shaykh : "And 'Amr, whom I honored." Why? Because if you put it in the accusative case, you have made the clause verbal, and that is more appropriate for the clause that preceded it, because the clause that preceded it was verbal, or was it nominal?
The student: Verbal.
The Shaykh : Verbal. For this reason, we say that if you utter your statement: "Zayd came and 'Amr, whom I honored," this is permissible, but the better option is "and 'Amr, whom I honored." Why? Do we know? Because connecting a verbal clause to a verbal clause is better than connecting a nominal clause to a verbal clause, for the sake of correspondence. And his saying: "without separation" is a precaution against cases where there is separation, such as if you say: "Zayd arrived, and as for 'Amr, the enemy imprisoned him." "Zayd arrived, and as for 'Amr, the enemy imprisoned him." Here, 'Amr is not connected to what preceded it. Why?
The student: Because of the separation.
The Shaykh : Due to the presence of the separator "as for." Therefore, the clause is not valid as being connected to what preceded it due to the presence of the separator. This is the meaning of the author's (may Allah have mercy on him) saying: "without separation". Then he (may Allah have mercy on him) said.