Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "Naqlan wa fi anna wa anna yattard... ma'a amni labas ka-'ajibt anna yadaw."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The author's statement: "Naqlan" means: that it was heard from the speech of the Arabs, and it was transmitted from their speech that they drop the preposition from the object of an intransitive verb and put it in the accusative case. Among this is the saying of the poet:
"You pass by the houses and you do not turn aside *** Your speech is forbidden to me, then"
He said: "You pass by the houses," and the original is: "You pass by the houses" (with the preposition), but he dropped the preposition and put it in the accusative. How do we parse it? We say: "Tamirrun" (You pass) is a present tense verb, in the nominative case due to the presence of the nun, and the waw is the subject. "Al-diyaar" (the houses) is in the accusative case due to the removal of the preposition. We do not say that "al-diyaar" is the object, because this verb is intransitive and does not take an object. Therefore, "al-diyaar" here is in the accusative case due to the removal of the preposition, and the original is: "You pass by the houses." The sign of its accusative case is an open fathah at the end. "Wa lam ta'awjaw" (and you do not turn aside) does not need parsing because the evidence is established without it. Now, if I say: "I passed by Zayd" instead of "I passed by Zayd" (with the preposition), is it correct or not?
The student: It is not valid.
The Shaykh : It is not correct. I say: by analogy to what was transmitted. The Arabs said: "You pass by the houses." We say: the anomalous is preserved and not used for analogy. But our customary language refuses to do anything but analogize, so they say what? "I passed by Zayd," "I passed by the house," and the like. So we say: the customary language does not judge the Arabic language. He said: "Wa fi anna wa anna yattard".
The student: Parsing the verse.
The Shaykh : How?
The student: Parsing the verse.
The Shaykh : Yes, parsing the first verse: "Wa 'add laaziman" (And count it as intransitive): The waw is a conjunction. "Add" (Count) is a command verb, and the subject is hidden and obligatory, estimated as "you." "Laaziman" (intransitive) is the object of "add." "Bi-harf" (with a letter) is a preposition and a noun in the genitive case, related to "add," and it is added to "jarr" (genitive). "Wa in hadhif" (And if dropped): The waw is a conjunction. "In" (If) is a conditional particle. "Hadhf" (dropped) is a past tense verb, passive, or built for the unknown agent, and it is the verb of the condition. The agent in it is a hidden pronoun estimated as "he." "Fa al-nasb" (So the accusative): The fa is the connector of the answer. "Al-nasb" (the accusative) is the subject. "Li-l-majroor" (for the genitive): The preposition and the genitive noun are the predicate of the subject. The declarative sentence is in the position of the jussive answer to the condition. And his saying: "Naqlan" (by transmission): It is a state (haal), and the owner of the state is the hidden pronoun in the object of the preposition and genitive. So the accusative is for the genitive by transmission. "Wa fi anna wa anna yattard": "Fi" (in) is a preposition. "Anna" (that) is in the genitive case due to "fi" by virtue of the word. "Anna" (that) is conjoined to it. The preposition and genitive are related to "yattard" (is consistent). "Ma'a amni labas" (with safety from ambiguity): "Ma'a" (with) is an adverb of place, and here it is built on sukun for the sake of the rhyme. "Ma'a" is added to "amni" (safety), and "amni" is added to "labas" (ambiguity). "Ka-'ajibt anna yadaw" (like I was surprised that they give): The kaf is a preposition. "Ajibt anna yadaw" (I was surprised that they give) is all in the genitive case due to the preposition with the kaf. The sign of its genitive case is a kasrah estimated on the last letter, prevented from appearing by the recitation. Now, the author (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "Wa fi anna wa anna yattard" What is consistent?
The student: Omission.
The Shaykh : The dropping, the dropping of the preposition. "Fi anna wa anna yattard" And the meaning of his saying "yattard" (is consistent): that it was heard by transmission and its use is permissible. Its example, yes, "Ma'a amni labas" means: it is a condition for the permissibility of dropping the preposition with "anna" and "anna" that there be no ambiguity. If there is ambiguity, the dropping of the preposition is prohibited so that the addressee does not fall into ambiguity. Its example: "Ajibt anna yadaw" "Yadaw" means: they give the blood money. That is: I was surprised that they give. How is it parsed? "Ajibt" (I was surprised) is a verb and a subject. "Anna" (that) is a particle of nominalization that puts the present tense verb in the accusative. "Yadaw" (they give) is a present tense verb in the accusative case due to "anna," and the sign of its accusative case is the dropping of the nun. The waw is the subject. "Anna" and what it entered are in the position of a nominalized source in the accusative case due to the removal of the preposition. And the preposition here is dropped by consistency or by hearing?
The student: By consistency.
The Shaykh : By consistency. And the author's saying: "Ma'a amni labas" this is a restriction. If ambiguity is feared, it is not permissible to drop the preposition. For example: "I desired that I sit with Zayd." Does the word "I desired that I sit with Zayd" mean I desired to sit with him or I desired not to sit with him?
The student: It is ambiguous.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It is ambiguous.
The Shaykh : It is ambiguous. So if you address someone and say: "I desired that I sit with Zayd," he does not know if you desire to sit with him or desire what?
The student: Not sitting with him.
The Shaykh : Not sitting with him. He does not know. So if you say "I desired that I sit with Zayd" because he amuses me?
The student: The ambiguity is gone.
The Shaykh : Is it permissible for me to drop the preposition?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: The ambiguity is gone.
The Shaykh : Because the ambiguity is gone. The ambiguity is gone by this explanation, because he amuses me. So the result now is that the intransitive verb, that the intransitive verb is made transitive to the object by a preposition. If the preposition is dropped, this is the second issue: if the preposition is dropped, it is obligatory to put the genitive noun in the accusative case, and it is said that it is in the accusative case due to the removal of the preposition. The third issue: is this consistent? I mean: the dropping of the preposition and putting the genitive noun in the accusative case? The answer is that it is consistent with "anna" and "anna," and in everything else it is not consistent but restricted to hearing.
"You pass by the houses and you do not turn aside *** Your speech is forbidden to me, then"
He said: "You pass by the houses," and the original is: "You pass by the houses" (with the preposition), but he dropped the preposition and put it in the accusative. How do we parse it? We say: "Tamirrun" (You pass) is a present tense verb, in the nominative case due to the presence of the nun, and the waw is the subject. "Al-diyaar" (the houses) is in the accusative case due to the removal of the preposition. We do not say that "al-diyaar" is the object, because this verb is intransitive and does not take an object. Therefore, "al-diyaar" here is in the accusative case due to the removal of the preposition, and the original is: "You pass by the houses." The sign of its accusative case is an open fathah at the end. "Wa lam ta'awjaw" (and you do not turn aside) does not need parsing because the evidence is established without it. Now, if I say: "I passed by Zayd" instead of "I passed by Zayd" (with the preposition), is it correct or not?
The student: It is not valid.
The Shaykh : It is not correct. I say: by analogy to what was transmitted. The Arabs said: "You pass by the houses." We say: the anomalous is preserved and not used for analogy. But our customary language refuses to do anything but analogize, so they say what? "I passed by Zayd," "I passed by the house," and the like. So we say: the customary language does not judge the Arabic language. He said: "Wa fi anna wa anna yattard".
The student: Parsing the verse.
The Shaykh : How?
The student: Parsing the verse.
The Shaykh : Yes, parsing the first verse: "Wa 'add laaziman" (And count it as intransitive): The waw is a conjunction. "Add" (Count) is a command verb, and the subject is hidden and obligatory, estimated as "you." "Laaziman" (intransitive) is the object of "add." "Bi-harf" (with a letter) is a preposition and a noun in the genitive case, related to "add," and it is added to "jarr" (genitive). "Wa in hadhif" (And if dropped): The waw is a conjunction. "In" (If) is a conditional particle. "Hadhf" (dropped) is a past tense verb, passive, or built for the unknown agent, and it is the verb of the condition. The agent in it is a hidden pronoun estimated as "he." "Fa al-nasb" (So the accusative): The fa is the connector of the answer. "Al-nasb" (the accusative) is the subject. "Li-l-majroor" (for the genitive): The preposition and the genitive noun are the predicate of the subject. The declarative sentence is in the position of the jussive answer to the condition. And his saying: "Naqlan" (by transmission): It is a state (haal), and the owner of the state is the hidden pronoun in the object of the preposition and genitive. So the accusative is for the genitive by transmission. "Wa fi anna wa anna yattard": "Fi" (in) is a preposition. "Anna" (that) is in the genitive case due to "fi" by virtue of the word. "Anna" (that) is conjoined to it. The preposition and genitive are related to "yattard" (is consistent). "Ma'a amni labas" (with safety from ambiguity): "Ma'a" (with) is an adverb of place, and here it is built on sukun for the sake of the rhyme. "Ma'a" is added to "amni" (safety), and "amni" is added to "labas" (ambiguity). "Ka-'ajibt anna yadaw" (like I was surprised that they give): The kaf is a preposition. "Ajibt anna yadaw" (I was surprised that they give) is all in the genitive case due to the preposition with the kaf. The sign of its genitive case is a kasrah estimated on the last letter, prevented from appearing by the recitation. Now, the author (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "Wa fi anna wa anna yattard" What is consistent?
The student: Omission.
The Shaykh : The dropping, the dropping of the preposition. "Fi anna wa anna yattard" And the meaning of his saying "yattard" (is consistent): that it was heard by transmission and its use is permissible. Its example, yes, "Ma'a amni labas" means: it is a condition for the permissibility of dropping the preposition with "anna" and "anna" that there be no ambiguity. If there is ambiguity, the dropping of the preposition is prohibited so that the addressee does not fall into ambiguity. Its example: "Ajibt anna yadaw" "Yadaw" means: they give the blood money. That is: I was surprised that they give. How is it parsed? "Ajibt" (I was surprised) is a verb and a subject. "Anna" (that) is a particle of nominalization that puts the present tense verb in the accusative. "Yadaw" (they give) is a present tense verb in the accusative case due to "anna," and the sign of its accusative case is the dropping of the nun. The waw is the subject. "Anna" and what it entered are in the position of a nominalized source in the accusative case due to the removal of the preposition. And the preposition here is dropped by consistency or by hearing?
The student: By consistency.
The Shaykh : By consistency. And the author's saying: "Ma'a amni labas" this is a restriction. If ambiguity is feared, it is not permissible to drop the preposition. For example: "I desired that I sit with Zayd." Does the word "I desired that I sit with Zayd" mean I desired to sit with him or I desired not to sit with him?
The student: It is ambiguous.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It is ambiguous.
The Shaykh : It is ambiguous. So if you address someone and say: "I desired that I sit with Zayd," he does not know if you desire to sit with him or desire what?
The student: Not sitting with him.
The Shaykh : Not sitting with him. He does not know. So if you say "I desired that I sit with Zayd" because he amuses me?
The student: The ambiguity is gone.
The Shaykh : Is it permissible for me to drop the preposition?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: The ambiguity is gone.
The Shaykh : Because the ambiguity is gone. The ambiguity is gone by this explanation, because he amuses me. So the result now is that the intransitive verb, that the intransitive verb is made transitive to the object by a preposition. If the preposition is dropped, this is the second issue: if the preposition is dropped, it is obligatory to put the genitive noun in the accusative case, and it is said that it is in the accusative case due to the removal of the preposition. The third issue: is this consistent? I mean: the dropping of the preposition and putting the genitive noun in the accusative case? The answer is that it is consistent with "anna" and "anna," and in everything else it is not consistent but restricted to hearing.