Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And the intransitive is that which is not transitive, and it is necessary *** for the verbs of dispositions to be intransitive, like *nahima*."

The Shaykh : Then he said: "And the intransitive is that which is not transitive". "Intransitive" is a fronted predicate, and "not transitive" is a delayed subject. That is to say, the intransitive is that which is not transitive. This is one grammatical analysis. A second analysis is to say: "Intransitive" is the subject, and "not transitive" is the predicate of the subject, because are you trying to inform about the transitive verb, about the ruling of the transitive verb? If so, the word "intransitive" becomes a fronted predicate. Or are you trying to inform about what the intransitive is, and defining the intransitive? In that case, "not transitive" is in the predicate. An objection to this interpretation is that "intransitive" is an indefinite noun, and beginning a sentence with an indefinite noun is prohibited. However, the answer to this is that the context is one of detail and classification, so it is permissible to begin with an indefinite noun, on the level of the poet's saying:
"A day is against us and a day is for us *** A day we are humiliated and a day we are honored"
Now, his saying: "And it is necessary". The *waw* is a conjunction, and the verb is passive, built for the unknown agent, i.e., built for what the agent is not named. "Intransitive" is the substitute for the agent, and it is attached to "verbs," and "verbs" is attached to "dispositions." And "like *nahima*" is a preposition and its object. He (may Allah have mercy on him) says that the intransitive among verbs is that which is not transitive, meaning that it does not take a direct object. This is the intransitive; what does not take a direct object is the intransitive. Then he (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned the criteria and said: "And it is necessary for the verbs of dispositions to be intransitive". "Dispositions" is the plural of *sajiyah*, which is nature. That is to say, verbs indicating nature, reaction, and the like. It is necessary for these to be intransitive, because the nature of the person, or the nature of the one to whom the verb is attached, is intransitive, so the verb should also be intransitive. For example: *nahima*. *Nahim* means the one who is not satisfied. This *nahim* means one who is intensely eager for food and eats with his five fingers and is not satisfied, and continues quickly. We say, what is this? This is *nahim*. And when hands are extended to the food, he is the most impatient of the people. *Nahm* is a natural trait in humans. Some people are *nahim*, and some people are not *nahim*. This is a criterion. Therefore, all verbs of nature or natures are considered intransitive, like *nahima*. As for *fahima*, it is not among the verbs of nature, and therefore it is transitive to the object, and it is said: *fahima al-dars* (he understood the lesson). Now, if I say: So-and-so is noble by nature, meaning noble in disposition, is it intransitive or not intransitive?
The student: Intransitive.

The Shaykh : Intransitive, because you made nobility his nature. And similar to it are *karam* (generous), *bukhl* (stingy), *zaraf* (witty), many things. The second criterion: "Like *af'alal*". *Af'alal*, meaning: every verb on the pattern *af'alal* is intransitive; it cannot be transitive to the object. What is an example? *Iqsharara*. Measure *iqsharara*?
The student: *Af'alal*.

The Shaykh : *Af'alal*, and *itma'anna*, yes?
The student: Likewise.

The Shaykh : Likewise, *itma'anna* is on the pattern *af'alal*, so it is intransitive. And *ikfahara* is likewise intransitive. So the important thing is that everything that is ...