Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "But you must omit it if it is not the predicate *** And postpone it if it is the predicate."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said: "But you must omit it if it is not the predicate". "But you must omit it" means: you must omit the pronoun, which is not in the nominative case. When? When we make the second verb active, we omit it from the first, and it is not correct to include it because it is superfluous. "And postpone it if it is the predicate". "Postpone it" means: postpone the object if it is the predicate. Postpone the object that the first verb requires when you make the second verb active. The example in your book says: "I thought me and I thought Zayd to be a scholar him". "Thought" requires two objects, and what are both of them? Essential, because the original of the two objects in "thought" and its sisters is a subject and a predicate, and the subject and predicate are essential, so it is necessary to include both of them. Because if you gave the second verb the two objects and left the first, you would have omitted two objects from them that are essential, and this is not permissible. And if you made it a pronoun, it is also not permissible, because the pronoun cannot come in the first when the second is made active. So what remains for us is to postpone it and not make it a connected pronoun. The example in my book says: "I thought me and I thought Zayd to be a scholar him". Pay attention to this example, and it appears that the Arabs, from beginning to end, have not pronounced such an example. Yes, but the grammarians (may Allah have mercy on them) posit hypothetical issues, just as the jurists posit hypothetical issues. "I thought me and I thought Zayd to be a scholar". If I spoke with this word, "I thought me and I thought Zayd to be a scholar", what do you understand from "I thought Zayd"? Do you understand that I thought Zayd was ignorant or a scholar?
The student: A scholar.
The Shaykh :"I thought me and I thought Zayd to be a scholar". There is no doubt that "I thought me to be a scholar" is a verb that has completed its two objects. "I thought me to be a scholar," I mean "I thought," there is no doubt that it is a verb that has completed its two objects: "I thought Zayd to be a scholar." It is clear: verb, subject, first object, and second object. What remains for us is "I thought me," which also requires two objects, because "thought" requires two objects, which are the subject and the predicate. The first object is the yaa in "I thought me," and the second object is "him," which must come after it. For this reason, he said: "And postpone it if it is the predicate". And "him" in "I thought me him" is originally the predicate, and the yaa in "I thought me" is the subject. The yaa in "I thought me" is the subject, and "him" is the predicate. For this reason, he said: "And postpone it if it is the predicate". So you say: "I thought me and I thought Zayd to be a scholar him." The grammatical analysis: "Thought" is a past tense verb, the noon is for protection, the yaa is the first object, the waw is a conjunction, "I thought" is a verb and subject, "Zayd" is the first object, and "scholar" is the second object for the first "thought" or the second "thought"?
The student: The second.
The Shaykh : The second, because we made it active. And "him" is the second object for the first "thought." Is that clear? So the pronoun is brought. Okay, what is "him"? "I thought me him" means: I thought me to be that scholar. So the meaning of the sentence is: that I thought Zayd to be a scholar, and I thought Zayd to be a scholar. So "him" means: that scholar, and not what preceded as the referent of the pronoun, but it was taken from the meaning. So if we are asked what is the meaning of the speaker's saying: "I thought me and I thought Zayd to be a scholar him," we say: its meaning is that he thought me to be a scholar and I thought him to be a scholar. This is the meaning of the sentence. But if I asked what do you understand from my saying: "I thought me and I thought Zayd to be a scholar" and I do not say "him"?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : What do we understand?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : It appears that we understand that he thought me to be a scholar.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Just as I thought him to be a scholar. This is the apparent meaning. Okay, "I thought me and I thought Zayd to be standing"?
The student: Likewise.
The Shaykh : Likewise. "I thought me to be standing and I thought that he was standing." This is what is immediately understood, but we say it is necessary. This is a subject and a predicate, so the subject and predicate must come because they are essential. Okay, and what is new? They said: If I said: "I thought me and I thought Zayd to be a scholar a scholar," yes, the speech would be awkward. "I thought me and I thought Zayd to be a scholar a scholar," the speech would be awkward from one aspect, and from another aspect, it is thought that the second "scholar" is an emphasis of the first, a verbal emphasis. But if I said: "I thought me and I thought Zayd to be a scholar him," the problem is gone. But it remains: how did "I thought me him"? Did he think of himself? This is what is immediately understood from the pronoun. "I thought me him" means: I thought of himself. So the issue of what comes? Sophistry. The one who says, every one of the sophists says, "I am you, and you are I!" And we mentioned their story to you, and that when they wanted to sleep, each of them tied a rope to his leg, opposite the rope of his companion's leg, so that he would not make a mistake when he woke up! Okay, in any case, they say: the meaning of "him" is: that scholar, not "him" is me. The meaning is: that scholar. And in summary: if we make the second verb active, we do not omit in the first except the nominative pronoun, which is the subject and the substitute for the subject, or a pronoun that is essential, and we bring the predicate after the second sentence, and after it has completed its two objects, so we say: "I thought me and I thought Zayd to be a scholar him," and it is not correct to say: "I thought me him and I thought Zayd to be a scholar." For this reason, the author said:
"But you must omit it if it is not the predicate *** And postpone it if it is the predicate"
Okay, if I said: "I hit him and I honored Zayd," is it correct?
The student: It is not valid.
The Shaykh : "I hit him and I honored Zayd"?
The student: It is not valid.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Superfluous.
The Shaykh : Because the pronoun here is superfluous, so it must be omitted. So what do I say?
The student: I hit and I honored.
The Shaykh : "I hit and I honored Zayd." Okay, "I hit and I honored him Zayd"? Is it correct or not correct?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Because if the pronoun... if we make the first verb active, we permit making the second verb active with the pronoun. Is that clear? Okay.
The student: A scholar.
The Shaykh :"I thought me and I thought Zayd to be a scholar". There is no doubt that "I thought me to be a scholar" is a verb that has completed its two objects. "I thought me to be a scholar," I mean "I thought," there is no doubt that it is a verb that has completed its two objects: "I thought Zayd to be a scholar." It is clear: verb, subject, first object, and second object. What remains for us is "I thought me," which also requires two objects, because "thought" requires two objects, which are the subject and the predicate. The first object is the yaa in "I thought me," and the second object is "him," which must come after it. For this reason, he said: "And postpone it if it is the predicate". And "him" in "I thought me him" is originally the predicate, and the yaa in "I thought me" is the subject. The yaa in "I thought me" is the subject, and "him" is the predicate. For this reason, he said: "And postpone it if it is the predicate". So you say: "I thought me and I thought Zayd to be a scholar him." The grammatical analysis: "Thought" is a past tense verb, the noon is for protection, the yaa is the first object, the waw is a conjunction, "I thought" is a verb and subject, "Zayd" is the first object, and "scholar" is the second object for the first "thought" or the second "thought"?
The student: The second.
The Shaykh : The second, because we made it active. And "him" is the second object for the first "thought." Is that clear? So the pronoun is brought. Okay, what is "him"? "I thought me him" means: I thought me to be that scholar. So the meaning of the sentence is: that I thought Zayd to be a scholar, and I thought Zayd to be a scholar. So "him" means: that scholar, and not what preceded as the referent of the pronoun, but it was taken from the meaning. So if we are asked what is the meaning of the speaker's saying: "I thought me and I thought Zayd to be a scholar him," we say: its meaning is that he thought me to be a scholar and I thought him to be a scholar. This is the meaning of the sentence. But if I asked what do you understand from my saying: "I thought me and I thought Zayd to be a scholar" and I do not say "him"?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : What do we understand?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : It appears that we understand that he thought me to be a scholar.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Just as I thought him to be a scholar. This is the apparent meaning. Okay, "I thought me and I thought Zayd to be standing"?
The student: Likewise.
The Shaykh : Likewise. "I thought me to be standing and I thought that he was standing." This is what is immediately understood, but we say it is necessary. This is a subject and a predicate, so the subject and predicate must come because they are essential. Okay, and what is new? They said: If I said: "I thought me and I thought Zayd to be a scholar a scholar," yes, the speech would be awkward. "I thought me and I thought Zayd to be a scholar a scholar," the speech would be awkward from one aspect, and from another aspect, it is thought that the second "scholar" is an emphasis of the first, a verbal emphasis. But if I said: "I thought me and I thought Zayd to be a scholar him," the problem is gone. But it remains: how did "I thought me him"? Did he think of himself? This is what is immediately understood from the pronoun. "I thought me him" means: I thought of himself. So the issue of what comes? Sophistry. The one who says, every one of the sophists says, "I am you, and you are I!" And we mentioned their story to you, and that when they wanted to sleep, each of them tied a rope to his leg, opposite the rope of his companion's leg, so that he would not make a mistake when he woke up! Okay, in any case, they say: the meaning of "him" is: that scholar, not "him" is me. The meaning is: that scholar. And in summary: if we make the second verb active, we do not omit in the first except the nominative pronoun, which is the subject and the substitute for the subject, or a pronoun that is essential, and we bring the predicate after the second sentence, and after it has completed its two objects, so we say: "I thought me and I thought Zayd to be a scholar him," and it is not correct to say: "I thought me him and I thought Zayd to be a scholar." For this reason, the author said:
"But you must omit it if it is not the predicate *** And postpone it if it is the predicate"
Okay, if I said: "I hit him and I honored Zayd," is it correct?
The student: It is not valid.
The Shaykh : "I hit him and I honored Zayd"?
The student: It is not valid.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Superfluous.
The Shaykh : Because the pronoun here is superfluous, so it must be omitted. So what do I say?
The student: I hit and I honored.
The Shaykh : "I hit and I honored Zayd." Okay, "I hit and I honored him Zayd"? Is it correct or not correct?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Because if the pronoun... if we make the first verb active, we permit making the second verb active with the pronoun. Is that clear? Okay.