Explanation of the statement of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): The dispute over the object of the verb.

The Shaykh : It is not strange for a verb to govern two objects, it is not strange for a verb to govern two objects, is it not so? We have already passed through the chapter of *dhan* (to think) and its sisters, where a single verb governs what? It governs two objects. I thought the man to be standing, so you find that *dhan* here governs two objects: the man and standing. Likewise, the chapter of *kasa* (to clothe) and *ata* (to give). I gave the scholar a prize. *Ata* governs what? It governs two objects: the scholar and the prize. This is not strange. And a single verb may extend to three objects, to three governed items. But does a single object get governed by two verbs? This is what we are dealing with in this chapter, that two verbs compete for a single object. This is called the chapter of *al-tanazuz* (the dispute), the dispute over the object. It is as if these two verbs are disputing, each one saying, "The object is for me," each one saying, "The object is for me." So what is the ruling? Before we begin with the ruling, we bring the example: I honored and I admonished Zayd. Zayd here is the object of *akramtu* (I honored) and of what?
The student: Admonished.

The Shaykh : And admonished. Each of the two verbs seeks Zayd. So which one do we satisfy? Do we say: it is the object of *akramtu*? Or the object of *wa'adhtu*? Here the dispute has occurred. So which one do we make active? The author (may Allah have mercy on him), Ibn Malik, said: