Explanation of the statement of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "If two operators necessitate the operation of a noun *** before, then the operation belongs to one of them."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The author, Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him), said:
"If two operators necessitate the operation of a noun *** before, then the operation belongs to one of them"
First: The grammatical analysis of the verse: "If two operators necessitate the operation of a noun" The grammatical status of "two operators" according to the Kufi school is that it is the subject (mubtada'), and "necessitate" is its predicate (khabar), because the Kufis permit a noun to follow the conditional particle. The Kufis do not permit a noun to follow the conditional particle.
The student: The Basrans.
The Shaykh : The Basrans, yes, the Basrans say that it is not possible for a noun to follow the conditional particle. So what do we do in such a case? They say: "If two operators" is the subject of a deleted verb, which is explained by what follows. The implied meaning is: "If two operators necessitate the operation of a noun." His phrase "in a noun" is connected to "necessitate," and his phrase "operation" is the object of "necessitate," but it was not made accusative with the alif, meaning: it was not said "operation" (with the alif). What is the reason for this? We say this has two reasons. The first reason is that the author (may Allah have mercy on him) followed the language of Rabi'ah, because Rabi'ah stop on the accusative with sukun, so they say: "I honored Zayd" (with sukun) and do not say: "I honored Zayd" (with alif), unlike the rest of the Arabs. As for the second reason, it is said that the author did not stop on it with the alif for the sake of the rhyme, because poetry is a necessity where a person is compelled to do what he does not want. "If two operators necessitate the operation of a noun *** before" "Before" here is a description of the operators, meaning that they preceded it. "Then the operation belongs to one of them" Or to both?
The student: To both.
The Shaykh : No, to one, because it is not possible for two operators to apply to a single object. The operation belongs to only one, and it is not possible for two operators to apply to a single object. The apparent statement of the grammarians is that even if the two operators are synonymous, such as if you say: "Zayd stood and sat," you cannot say: "Zayd is the subject of...," no, "Zayd stood and stood." "Zayd stood and stood" — they say it is not possible to say "Zayd is the subject of stood and stood" because they are two operators, and it is not possible for them to have a single object. Rather, it is necessary to assign the operation to one of them. So the statement of the grammarians is that it is obligatory that the operation belongs to one of the operators, whether they agree in meaning or differ. Now, who is it assigned to? The preceding one or the following one? Each has a merit. The preceding one has the merit of precedence, and the following one has the merit of following, in that it comes immediately after the object. Therefore, the grammarians differed on this.
"If two operators necessitate the operation of a noun *** before, then the operation belongs to one of them"
First: The grammatical analysis of the verse: "If two operators necessitate the operation of a noun" The grammatical status of "two operators" according to the Kufi school is that it is the subject (mubtada'), and "necessitate" is its predicate (khabar), because the Kufis permit a noun to follow the conditional particle. The Kufis do not permit a noun to follow the conditional particle.
The student: The Basrans.
The Shaykh : The Basrans, yes, the Basrans say that it is not possible for a noun to follow the conditional particle. So what do we do in such a case? They say: "If two operators" is the subject of a deleted verb, which is explained by what follows. The implied meaning is: "If two operators necessitate the operation of a noun." His phrase "in a noun" is connected to "necessitate," and his phrase "operation" is the object of "necessitate," but it was not made accusative with the alif, meaning: it was not said "operation" (with the alif). What is the reason for this? We say this has two reasons. The first reason is that the author (may Allah have mercy on him) followed the language of Rabi'ah, because Rabi'ah stop on the accusative with sukun, so they say: "I honored Zayd" (with sukun) and do not say: "I honored Zayd" (with alif), unlike the rest of the Arabs. As for the second reason, it is said that the author did not stop on it with the alif for the sake of the rhyme, because poetry is a necessity where a person is compelled to do what he does not want. "If two operators necessitate the operation of a noun *** before" "Before" here is a description of the operators, meaning that they preceded it. "Then the operation belongs to one of them" Or to both?
The student: To both.
The Shaykh : No, to one, because it is not possible for two operators to apply to a single object. The operation belongs to only one, and it is not possible for two operators to apply to a single object. The apparent statement of the grammarians is that even if the two operators are synonymous, such as if you say: "Zayd stood and sat," you cannot say: "Zayd is the subject of...," no, "Zayd stood and stood." "Zayd stood and stood" — they say it is not possible to say "Zayd is the subject of stood and stood" because they are two operators, and it is not possible for them to have a single object. Rather, it is necessary to assign the operation to one of them. So the statement of the grammarians is that it is obligatory that the operation belongs to one of the operators, whether they agree in meaning or differ. Now, who is it assigned to? The preceding one or the following one? Each has a merit. The preceding one has the merit of precedence, and the following one has the merit of following, in that it comes immediately after the object. Therefore, the grammarians differed on this.