Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And other than the one whose movement is bound *** to adverbiality or its likeness among words."

The Shaykh : The author said: "And other than the one whose movement is bound" "Other than" is the subject, and "the one" is its predicate. "Other than the one whose movement is bound" means: other than the one who does not move. "The one that is bound" And what is bound? Adverbiality or other than that among words, or its likeness. "Adverbiality or its likeness among words" This is the one who does not move; he is the one who does not come except as an adverb or restricted to a specific state, meaning: it does not come constantly except as an adverb in the accusative case, or restricted to a specific state, in the genitive case, for example, with "min" (from), for example: "ind" (at/near). "Ind" is an adverb. Is this?
The student: An adverb.

The Shaykh : An adverb. An adverb. Is it movable?
The student: It is not movable.

The Shaykh : This is not movable, because you do not see "ind" except in the accusative case as a verbal noun or in the genitive case with "min" (from). This genitive case with "min" is the meaning of the author's statement: "or its likeness" meaning: adverbiality is bound, or the likeness of adverbiality is bound, which is the genitive case with a specific preposition from the prepositions. Now, what is your opinion of the word "fawq" (above)? Is it movable or not?
The student: It is not movable.

The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Like it.

The Shaykh : I am asking: is it movable or not? I am not asking what is like it?
The student: It is not movable.

The Shaykh : It is not movable, because it does not come except as an adverb or its likeness, except as an adverb or its likeness. But it may depart from adverbiality, as it came in the hadith: It came in the hadith with a dammah on the qaf and here it is not an adverb. But notice that "fawq" in this hadith is not like "I sat above him"; it is not like that, because "fawq" here is as if he is saying that this very "fawq" is the Throne of the Most Merciful. Now, what about "taht" (under)?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : "Taht" is like "ind".
The student: ...

The Shaykh : No, ... "taht" is like "ind".
The student: It is not movable.

The Shaykh : It is not movable, because it is not used except in the accusative case as an adverb or in the genitive case with "min" (from). This is in the accusative case as an adverb. This is in the genitive case with "min". And among the errors is the saying of some people: "I looked at under his foot," "I looked at under his foot." This is not correct.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes? Linguistically, it is not correct, because "taht" is not put in the genitive case in the Arabic language except?
The student: With "min".

The Shaykh : With "min", not with "ila" (to). Yes, if he says: "I looked at a place under his foot," that is correct. But "I looked at under his foot," this did not come in the Arabic language. But this came in the Qur'an. And the summary of this discussion is that adverbs are divided into two categories: movable and not movable. So what is constantly accompanied by adverbiality or its likeness is not movable, and what is an adverb, a subject, an object, a doer, and in the genitive case with any preposition, what is that?
The student: Movable.

The Shaykh : Movable.