Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "Like: 'I owe him a thousand by acknowledgment' *** and the second is like: 'You are my son, truly, purely.'"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"Like: 'I owe him a thousand by acknowledgment'" What is "by acknowledgment" (urfan), Ghannam?
The student: Acknowledgment.
The Shaykh : The acknowledgment of people? No, "urfan" here is a verbal noun meaning: an admission, meaning: an admission. It is not "urf" as in custom, I mean no. "Urfan" means: an admission. Look, "I owe him a thousand," is this an admission or not?
The student: An admission.
The Shaykh : Huh? An admission that admits of no other meaning, a clear and explicit admission. For this reason, he is obligated to pay the thousand. The one who admits is obligated to pay the thousand. "I owe him a thousand," he says: "by acknowledgment". He says: This is a verbal noun that confirms itself, because it confirms a sentence with its meaning, which admits of no other meaning. Where is the verb?
The student: It is omitted.
The Shaykh : I admit. The verb is omitted. I admit to it by admission. We omitted the verb because the sentence is with its meaning, because "I owe him a thousand" means: I admit. For this reason, we omitted it. Why should we answer it when it is present? So we say: Here we omit the operator that puts the verbal noun in the accusative case, because the sentence is complete with its meaning, so there is no need for... I will parse it for you. "I owe him a thousand": "Lahu" (to him) is the subject.
The student: No, it is a preposition and its object.
The Shaykh : "Lahu" is a preposition and its object, a fronted predicate. "Alayya" (on me): a preposition and its object, a fronted predicate.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: "Lahu"?
The Shaykh : "Lahu" is a preposition and its object, a fronted predicate, and "alayya" is a preposition and its object, a fronted predicate.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : A second predicate. Is "alayya" the predicate?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Owed to him?
The student: "Lahu" is a preposition and its object, attached to "I admitted."
The Shaykh : Attached to "I acknowledged."
The student: No, attached to "I admitted," a delayed subject.
The Shaykh : Okay, there is no objection to the multiplication of the predicate, but here it is not correct to have two predicates. "Lahu": a preposition and its object, a fronted predicate. And "alayya": a preposition and its object, in the position of the accusative as a state (hal) from "thousand," because "thousand" is an indefinite noun. If "alayya" were delayed after "thousand," would it become? A description (na't) for it. "I owe him a thousand," but if the description precedes the indefinite noun, it is made?
The student: A state (hal).
The Shaykh : A state (hal). And "thousand": a delayed subject, raised by the visible dammah. "Urfan": a verbal noun, yes? Or an absolute object if you wish, because in reality the verbal noun does not come in letters. It is in the accusative case as an absolute object, and the sign of its accusative is the fathah on its end. And it confirms the previous sentence. So its operator?
The student: It is omitted.
The Shaykh : Omitted by necessity. Then the author says: "And the second is like: 'You are my son'" "You are my son," huh? "You are my son," correct? Meaning, it is possible that he is his son in reality, and it is possible that he is his son in non-reality?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : From the chapter of respect, for example, ... O my son, do such and such, or not? So "You are my son" is certainly reality ...? Huh?
The student: Possible.
The Shaykh : It is possible, not definite. Yes, it is reality that the subject says that he is his son truly. Meaning, the meaning admits that he is his son out of respect, tenderness, and affection, and the like. So if you say "truly," you have now confirmed that he is his son in reality, that he is his son truly. But is the sentence before it with its meaning?
The student: No, it is not with its meaning.
The Shaykh : It is not with its meaning, because it admits that he is his son truly, or that he is his son figuratively, is that not so? For this reason, they call this verbal noun a confirmer of other than itself, a confirmer of other than itself. The estimated speech is: "It is true, truly." "It is true, truly." And "truly": a verbal noun whose operator is omitted by necessity, estimated as "I make true," meaning: I establish that with establishment, meaning: I establish that with establishment. Understood?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, "You are my son," parse it: "Ibni" (my son): subject.
The student: It is a predicate (khabar).
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Fronted predicate.
The Shaykh : Fronted predicate?! No, subject.
The student: Fronted predicate.
The Shaykh : Okay, "My uncle is you" passed through us in the rules of the subject and predicate. "My uncle is you."
The student: Now "you" is the subject because it has the lam of beginning.
The Shaykh : Yes, the lam is for beginning. It may be moved from its place, because the alif in "an" is not considered, and it is better to say that "Ibni" is a fronted predicate, meaning: You are my son. "Ibni" you, you are my son. So we say "Ibni": fronted predicate, and "you" is a delayed subject. Yes, if the speech were for a person asking: Who is your son? Am I your son? You say: "Ibni anta" (You are my son). So the result is "Ibni" is the subject, and "anta" is the predicate. We do not want now the specification, specifying who the son is, but we want to inform about this addressed man that he is your son. And on this basis, the predicate is "Ibni" fronted, and "anta": delayed subject. "Anta" or "an" delayed subject?
The student: "Anta."
The Shaykh : "An" is a delayed subject and the taa is a letter of address. There are two opinions, and this is the opinion of the majority that the taa is a letter of address. Some of them say "anta" entirely, and some of them say "an" and the taa is a letter of address. And his saying "truly": a verbal noun whose operator is omitted by necessity, in the accusative case as a verbal noun, and the sign of its accusative is a visible fathah on its end. And his saying: "purely" this is another confirmation. And "pure" (sarf) that is not mixed with anything, not mixed with anything. So its meaning is that you are my son truly and purely. And Ibn Malik added to the example. The example is complete without it. "Purely" the example is complete without it, but the author added it to complete the verse. Yes "And the second is like: 'You are my son, truly, purely'".
The student: Acknowledgment.
The Shaykh : The acknowledgment of people? No, "urfan" here is a verbal noun meaning: an admission, meaning: an admission. It is not "urf" as in custom, I mean no. "Urfan" means: an admission. Look, "I owe him a thousand," is this an admission or not?
The student: An admission.
The Shaykh : Huh? An admission that admits of no other meaning, a clear and explicit admission. For this reason, he is obligated to pay the thousand. The one who admits is obligated to pay the thousand. "I owe him a thousand," he says: "by acknowledgment". He says: This is a verbal noun that confirms itself, because it confirms a sentence with its meaning, which admits of no other meaning. Where is the verb?
The student: It is omitted.
The Shaykh : I admit. The verb is omitted. I admit to it by admission. We omitted the verb because the sentence is with its meaning, because "I owe him a thousand" means: I admit. For this reason, we omitted it. Why should we answer it when it is present? So we say: Here we omit the operator that puts the verbal noun in the accusative case, because the sentence is complete with its meaning, so there is no need for... I will parse it for you. "I owe him a thousand": "Lahu" (to him) is the subject.
The student: No, it is a preposition and its object.
The Shaykh : "Lahu" is a preposition and its object, a fronted predicate. "Alayya" (on me): a preposition and its object, a fronted predicate.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: "Lahu"?
The Shaykh : "Lahu" is a preposition and its object, a fronted predicate, and "alayya" is a preposition and its object, a fronted predicate.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : A second predicate. Is "alayya" the predicate?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Owed to him?
The student: "Lahu" is a preposition and its object, attached to "I admitted."
The Shaykh : Attached to "I acknowledged."
The student: No, attached to "I admitted," a delayed subject.
The Shaykh : Okay, there is no objection to the multiplication of the predicate, but here it is not correct to have two predicates. "Lahu": a preposition and its object, a fronted predicate. And "alayya": a preposition and its object, in the position of the accusative as a state (hal) from "thousand," because "thousand" is an indefinite noun. If "alayya" were delayed after "thousand," would it become? A description (na't) for it. "I owe him a thousand," but if the description precedes the indefinite noun, it is made?
The student: A state (hal).
The Shaykh : A state (hal). And "thousand": a delayed subject, raised by the visible dammah. "Urfan": a verbal noun, yes? Or an absolute object if you wish, because in reality the verbal noun does not come in letters. It is in the accusative case as an absolute object, and the sign of its accusative is the fathah on its end. And it confirms the previous sentence. So its operator?
The student: It is omitted.
The Shaykh : Omitted by necessity. Then the author says: "And the second is like: 'You are my son'" "You are my son," huh? "You are my son," correct? Meaning, it is possible that he is his son in reality, and it is possible that he is his son in non-reality?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : From the chapter of respect, for example, ... O my son, do such and such, or not? So "You are my son" is certainly reality ...? Huh?
The student: Possible.
The Shaykh : It is possible, not definite. Yes, it is reality that the subject says that he is his son truly. Meaning, the meaning admits that he is his son out of respect, tenderness, and affection, and the like. So if you say "truly," you have now confirmed that he is his son in reality, that he is his son truly. But is the sentence before it with its meaning?
The student: No, it is not with its meaning.
The Shaykh : It is not with its meaning, because it admits that he is his son truly, or that he is his son figuratively, is that not so? For this reason, they call this verbal noun a confirmer of other than itself, a confirmer of other than itself. The estimated speech is: "It is true, truly." "It is true, truly." And "truly": a verbal noun whose operator is omitted by necessity, estimated as "I make true," meaning: I establish that with establishment, meaning: I establish that with establishment. Understood?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, "You are my son," parse it: "Ibni" (my son): subject.
The student: It is a predicate (khabar).
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Fronted predicate.
The Shaykh : Fronted predicate?! No, subject.
The student: Fronted predicate.
The Shaykh : Okay, "My uncle is you" passed through us in the rules of the subject and predicate. "My uncle is you."
The student: Now "you" is the subject because it has the lam of beginning.
The Shaykh : Yes, the lam is for beginning. It may be moved from its place, because the alif in "an" is not considered, and it is better to say that "Ibni" is a fronted predicate, meaning: You are my son. "Ibni" you, you are my son. So we say "Ibni": fronted predicate, and "you" is a delayed subject. Yes, if the speech were for a person asking: Who is your son? Am I your son? You say: "Ibni anta" (You are my son). So the result is "Ibni" is the subject, and "anta" is the predicate. We do not want now the specification, specifying who the son is, but we want to inform about this addressed man that he is your son. And on this basis, the predicate is "Ibni" fronted, and "anta": delayed subject. "Anta" or "an" delayed subject?
The student: "Anta."
The Shaykh : "An" is a delayed subject and the taa is a letter of address. There are two opinions, and this is the opinion of the majority that the taa is a letter of address. Some of them say "anta" entirely, and some of them say "an" and the taa is a letter of address. And his saying "truly": a verbal noun whose operator is omitted by necessity, in the accusative case as a verbal noun, and the sign of its accusative is a visible fathah on its end. And his saying: "purely" this is another confirmation. And "pure" (sarf) that is not mixed with anything, not mixed with anything. So its meaning is that you are my son truly and purely. And Ibn Malik added to the example. The example is complete without it. "Purely" the example is complete without it, but the author added it to complete the verse. Yes "And the second is like: 'You are my son, truly, purely'".