Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And a transitive verb with a preposition *** And if it is omitted, the accusative is for the prepositional object."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The author, Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him), said: "And a transitive verb with a preposition" and so on, meaning that an intransitive verb does not make an object accusative by itself, but it is made transitive by a preposition, a suitable preposition. So if we find an intransitive verb, it is permissible to make it transitive with a preposition. You say: "Zayd was happy." Is "was happy" intransitive or transitive?
The student: Intransitive.
The Shaykh : Intransitive. You say: "He was happy with the success." Did you make it transitive now?
The student: With a preposition.
The Shaykh : With a preposition. This often requires giving examples. If the preposition is omitted, it says: "And if it is omitted, the accusative is for the prepositional object" and so on, meaning: if the preposition is omitted from the intransitive verb, then the prepositional object becomes accusative, accusative. But is this by analogy? Meaning: is it permissible for anyone to omit the preposition from the verb, to omit the preposition from what is attached to an intransitive verb?
The student: Intransitive.
The Shaykh : Intransitive. You say: "He was happy with the success." Did you make it transitive now?
The student: With a preposition.
The Shaykh : With a preposition. This often requires giving examples. If the preposition is omitted, it says: "And if it is omitted, the accusative is for the prepositional object" and so on, meaning: if the preposition is omitted from the intransitive verb, then the prepositional object becomes accusative, accusative. But is this by analogy? Meaning: is it permissible for anyone to omit the preposition from the verb, to omit the preposition from what is attached to an intransitive verb?