Explanation of the statement of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And the omission of the operator of the emphatic is prohibited *** And in its case, there is room for a proof."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And the omission of the operator of the emphatic is prohibited *** And in its case, there is room for a proof"
"Omission" is the subject, and its predicate is the word "prohibited." And his statement: "And in its case, there is room for a proof" — "in its case" is a prepositional phrase serving as a fronted predicate, and "room" is a delayed subject. "Room" means: spaciousness. The meaning is: The author says that it is not permissible to omit the operator of the emphatic verbal noun, because we call it an emphatic verbal noun. How can there be an emphatic without an emphasized? Because there is no emphasis unless both the emphasized and the emphatic are present — hold on, everyone. The one intended for emphasis cannot have its operator omitted. Why? Because the purpose of emphasis is to strengthen the operator. If the operator is not present, where is the emphasis? It is not possible for a structure of emphasis to exist unless both the emphasized and the emphatic are present. Otherwise, what is the benefit of the emphasis? So if you say, for example: "I struck Zayd a strike," if you were to say, for example: "Zayd a strike," it is not valid. It is not permissible. Why? Because as long as you intend to emphasize the operator, the operator must be present so that the emphasis is achieved. What comes after?
The student: And the emphasized.
The Shaykh : And the emphasized, otherwise there would be a contradiction, since the omitted thing does not exist to be called emphasized. So the verbal noun intended for emphasis, it is not permissible to omit its operator. This is the rule. The rule: The verbal noun intended for emphasis, it is not permissible to omit its operator. What is an example? "I struck him a strike." So it is not permissible to say: "Zayd a strike." It is not permissible.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, "Strike Zayd a strike"?
The student: Likewise.
The Shaykh : Likewise, because it is an emphatic, and it is not permissible to omit the operator of the emphatic. As for what is other than that, it is permissible to omit its operator. And what is other than that?
The student: The one specifying the type.
The Shaykh : The one specifying the type, and the one specifying the number. The one specifying the type: if a questioner asked you: "How did you walk?" and you said: "A slow walk," is it permissible or not?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, because the purpose is to specify the type. And whether you mention the operator or omit it, because its omission here is for a proof, or not?
The student: For a clear proof.
The Shaykh : For a proof. "How did you walk?" You say: "A slow walk." This is fine. Likewise: "How was your walk?" For example, "A walk of one with sense" or "A walk of a reckless person?" You say: "A walk of one with sense," meaning: "I walked a walk of one with sense." How many times did you strike your boy?
The student: Two strikes.
The Shaykh : Two strikes. Did we omit the operator or not?
The student: We omitted it.
The Shaykh : We omitted it. Its original form is: "I struck him two strikes." So here it is permissible to omit the operator, and the omission of what is here... is for a proof, for a clear proof, and there is no need to mention it, because the purpose of the verbal noun is not...
The student: Emphasis.
The Shaykh : Emphasis. Rather, the purpose is to specify the number. So if the purpose is to specify the type, or if the purpose is to specify the number, then it is permissible to omit the operator, but for a proof. For this reason, the author qualified it. He said: "And in its case, there is room for a proof", "And in its case, there is room for a proof". But if there is no proof indicating it, then it is not permissible to omit it. Good. So the rule in the last verse: It is permissible to omit the operator of the verbal noun intended to specify the type or the number, for a proof. Then, after this verse which contains spaciousness and ease, the author mentioned five verses, six verses, all of which contain the obligation of omitting the operator, the obligation of omitting the operator. We said: When is it obligatory to mention the operator?
The student: If it is.
The Shaykh : If the purpose of the verbal noun is emphasis. The ones after it, the six verses, require the omission of the operator.
"Omission" is the subject, and its predicate is the word "prohibited." And his statement: "And in its case, there is room for a proof" — "in its case" is a prepositional phrase serving as a fronted predicate, and "room" is a delayed subject. "Room" means: spaciousness. The meaning is: The author says that it is not permissible to omit the operator of the emphatic verbal noun, because we call it an emphatic verbal noun. How can there be an emphatic without an emphasized? Because there is no emphasis unless both the emphasized and the emphatic are present — hold on, everyone. The one intended for emphasis cannot have its operator omitted. Why? Because the purpose of emphasis is to strengthen the operator. If the operator is not present, where is the emphasis? It is not possible for a structure of emphasis to exist unless both the emphasized and the emphatic are present. Otherwise, what is the benefit of the emphasis? So if you say, for example: "I struck Zayd a strike," if you were to say, for example: "Zayd a strike," it is not valid. It is not permissible. Why? Because as long as you intend to emphasize the operator, the operator must be present so that the emphasis is achieved. What comes after?
The student: And the emphasized.
The Shaykh : And the emphasized, otherwise there would be a contradiction, since the omitted thing does not exist to be called emphasized. So the verbal noun intended for emphasis, it is not permissible to omit its operator. This is the rule. The rule: The verbal noun intended for emphasis, it is not permissible to omit its operator. What is an example? "I struck him a strike." So it is not permissible to say: "Zayd a strike." It is not permissible.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, "Strike Zayd a strike"?
The student: Likewise.
The Shaykh : Likewise, because it is an emphatic, and it is not permissible to omit the operator of the emphatic. As for what is other than that, it is permissible to omit its operator. And what is other than that?
The student: The one specifying the type.
The Shaykh : The one specifying the type, and the one specifying the number. The one specifying the type: if a questioner asked you: "How did you walk?" and you said: "A slow walk," is it permissible or not?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, because the purpose is to specify the type. And whether you mention the operator or omit it, because its omission here is for a proof, or not?
The student: For a clear proof.
The Shaykh : For a proof. "How did you walk?" You say: "A slow walk." This is fine. Likewise: "How was your walk?" For example, "A walk of one with sense" or "A walk of a reckless person?" You say: "A walk of one with sense," meaning: "I walked a walk of one with sense." How many times did you strike your boy?
The student: Two strikes.
The Shaykh : Two strikes. Did we omit the operator or not?
The student: We omitted it.
The Shaykh : We omitted it. Its original form is: "I struck him two strikes." So here it is permissible to omit the operator, and the omission of what is here... is for a proof, for a clear proof, and there is no need to mention it, because the purpose of the verbal noun is not...
The student: Emphasis.
The Shaykh : Emphasis. Rather, the purpose is to specify the number. So if the purpose is to specify the type, or if the purpose is to specify the number, then it is permissible to omit the operator, but for a proof. For this reason, the author qualified it. He said: "And in its case, there is room for a proof", "And in its case, there is room for a proof". But if there is no proof indicating it, then it is not permissible to omit it. Good. So the rule in the last verse: It is permissible to omit the operator of the verbal noun intended to specify the type or the number, for a proof. Then, after this verse which contains spaciousness and ease, the author mentioned five verses, six verses, all of which contain the obligation of omitting the operator, the obligation of omitting the operator. We said: When is it obligatory to mention the operator?
The student: If it is.
The Shaykh : If the purpose of the verbal noun is emphasis. The ones after it, the six verses, require the omission of the operator.