Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And it was preferred to put in the accusative case before a verb of seeking *** and after what its following a verb is predominant"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said: "And it was preferred to put in the accusative case before a verb of seeking". "It was preferred" is built for the unknown, or, more correctly, built for what its doer was not named. So who preferred it? The grammarians or the Arabs?
The student: The Arabs.
The Shaykh : The Arabs, because those who formulate speech in the Arabic manner are?
The student: The Arabs.
The Shaykh : The Arabs. So when the Arabs place the object before a verb of seeking, they say it in two ways: with the nominative case and with the accusative case, but they prefer the accusative case. For example: "Zayd, strike him," "Your guest, honor him," "Your guest, honor him." It is permissible to say, what? "Your guest, honor him" (nominative), and "Zayd, strike him" (nominative). And his saying: "of seeking" includes what occurs with the word of command or the word of prohibition. "The talebearer, do not obey him." Is this correct or not?
The student: It is valid.
The Shaykh : It is correct, and it is permissible to say "The talebearer, do not obey him" (nominative), but the preferred one is?
The student: The accusative case.
The Shaykh : The accusative case. So if someone asks: Why do you prefer the accusative case? We say: Because of the strength of the seeking, because of the strength of the seeking. The verb that follows seeks it, and because of the strength of the seeking, the preferred one is what?
The student: The accusative case.
The Shaykh : The accusative case, unlike "Zayd, I struck him," for this is a statement (khabar), and there is no strength in the verb that would prefer the object to be in the accusative case. Now, the second one, the second place: "and after what its following a verb is predominant". Perhaps we should parse it to make it clear. "It was preferred": a past tense verb built for what?
The student: For what its doer was not named.
The Shaykh : For what its doer was not named. And "accusative": the substitute for the doer. And "before": an adverb of time connected to "it was preferred," and it is added to "verb." "And of seeking". "Of": a description for "verb," but why was it with the yaa? Why was "of" with the yaa? Because it is?
The student: From the five names.
The Shaykh : From the five names. And "of": added, and "seeking": the thing to which it is added. And "after": this is connected to "it was preferred," meaning: and it was preferred to put in the accusative case after what its following a verb is predominant, i.e., after that which its following a verb is predominant. We see that "what": is a relative pronoun, and it is in the position of the genitive case because it is added to. And "following": is a subject (mubtada') and it is added to the pronoun. And "predominant": is a past tense verb, and its doer is a hidden pronoun referring back to "following." And "the verb": is the object in the accusative case. And what put it in the accusative case?
The student: Predominant.
Another student: Following.
The Shaykh : Following, or is it predominant?
The student: Following.
The Shaykh : Following. The one that put it in the accusative case is "following," because the estimation is: and after what its following the verb is predominant. So the verb, in this case, is in the accusative case by "following." Yes, this is the second place. If it occurs after what its following a verb is predominant, then the accusative case is preferred. Meaning: if the object occurs after a tool or operator where it is predominant that a verb follows it, and they gave as an example for this the hamza of interrogation, like saying: "Did you meet Zayd?" (accusative) and it is permissible to say "Did you meet Zayd?" (nominative), but the preferred one is what?
The student: The accusative case.
The Shaykh : The accusative case, and the reason for the preference is that this tool is not followed by anything but a verb, so estimating the verb after it to exert its effect on the object is more appropriate than it being in the nominative case by being a subject. So the second place where the accusative case is preferred is: if the object occurs after a tool where it is predominant that what?
The student : An action.
The Shaykh : A verb follows it, like the hamza of interrogation.
The student: The Arabs.
The Shaykh : The Arabs, because those who formulate speech in the Arabic manner are?
The student: The Arabs.
The Shaykh : The Arabs. So when the Arabs place the object before a verb of seeking, they say it in two ways: with the nominative case and with the accusative case, but they prefer the accusative case. For example: "Zayd, strike him," "Your guest, honor him," "Your guest, honor him." It is permissible to say, what? "Your guest, honor him" (nominative), and "Zayd, strike him" (nominative). And his saying: "of seeking" includes what occurs with the word of command or the word of prohibition. "The talebearer, do not obey him." Is this correct or not?
The student: It is valid.
The Shaykh : It is correct, and it is permissible to say "The talebearer, do not obey him" (nominative), but the preferred one is?
The student: The accusative case.
The Shaykh : The accusative case. So if someone asks: Why do you prefer the accusative case? We say: Because of the strength of the seeking, because of the strength of the seeking. The verb that follows seeks it, and because of the strength of the seeking, the preferred one is what?
The student: The accusative case.
The Shaykh : The accusative case, unlike "Zayd, I struck him," for this is a statement (khabar), and there is no strength in the verb that would prefer the object to be in the accusative case. Now, the second one, the second place: "and after what its following a verb is predominant". Perhaps we should parse it to make it clear. "It was preferred": a past tense verb built for what?
The student: For what its doer was not named.
The Shaykh : For what its doer was not named. And "accusative": the substitute for the doer. And "before": an adverb of time connected to "it was preferred," and it is added to "verb." "And of seeking". "Of": a description for "verb," but why was it with the yaa? Why was "of" with the yaa? Because it is?
The student: From the five names.
The Shaykh : From the five names. And "of": added, and "seeking": the thing to which it is added. And "after": this is connected to "it was preferred," meaning: and it was preferred to put in the accusative case after what its following a verb is predominant, i.e., after that which its following a verb is predominant. We see that "what": is a relative pronoun, and it is in the position of the genitive case because it is added to. And "following": is a subject (mubtada') and it is added to the pronoun. And "predominant": is a past tense verb, and its doer is a hidden pronoun referring back to "following." And "the verb": is the object in the accusative case. And what put it in the accusative case?
The student: Predominant.
Another student: Following.
The Shaykh : Following, or is it predominant?
The student: Following.
The Shaykh : Following. The one that put it in the accusative case is "following," because the estimation is: and after what its following the verb is predominant. So the verb, in this case, is in the accusative case by "following." Yes, this is the second place. If it occurs after what its following a verb is predominant, then the accusative case is preferred. Meaning: if the object occurs after a tool or operator where it is predominant that a verb follows it, and they gave as an example for this the hamza of interrogation, like saying: "Did you meet Zayd?" (accusative) and it is permissible to say "Did you meet Zayd?" (nominative), but the preferred one is what?
The student: The accusative case.
The Shaykh : The accusative case, and the reason for the preference is that this tool is not followed by anything but a verb, so estimating the verb after it to exert its effect on the object is more appropriate than it being in the nominative case by being a subject. So the second place where the accusative case is preferred is: if the object occurs after a tool where it is predominant that what?
The student : An action.
The Shaykh : A verb follows it, like the hamza of interrogation.