Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And after the interrogative *ma* or *kayfa*, it is made accusative *** by a hidden verb of existence, according to some of the Arabs."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Based on this, the author says:
"And after the interrogative *ma* or *kayfa*, it is made accusative *** by a hidden verb of existence, according to some of the Arabs"
It is as if it was said to the author: You say that it is necessary for a verb or its equivalent to precede, and that it is the one that makes the noun accusative. And we found that the Arabs say: "How are you and a bowl of bread?" "How are you and a bowl of bread?" So, what is the answer?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Did you eat it, or did it eat you? If it was hot and you were unable to eat it, then it ate you. If it was not hot, then you ate it. All right, the Arabs say it this way, and they say: *Ma anta wa Zaydan*, meaning: What are you with Zayd? Is there a verb? There is no verb. Is there an equivalent?
The student: Likewise, there is none.
The Shaykh : No, so the one making it accusative is the *waw* (conjunction), the one making it accusative is the *waw*. He said: All right, we grammarians have a trick, like the *yara'ib* (a type of bird); when you close the door, we go out through the window. He said: It is made accusative by a hidden verb of existence, by a hidden verb of existence. Yes, meaning: that we estimate a verb of existence. *Kawn* (existence) is the verbal noun of what verb? *Kana* (was) or *takuun* (you are) or something similar. How are you and a bowl of bread? The estimation is: How are you (takuun) and a bowl of bread? Yes. How are you and Zayd? You are not (takuun) with Zayd. They estimate: *kana* (was). And some say: *tasa'n* (do you do). *Ma tasa'u wa Zaydan*? Meaning: What are you with Zayd? Because Zayd is stronger and more active than you, and what brought you to him? So he says: What do you do with Zayd? You do nothing. Yes, in any case, the author (may Allah have mercy on him) says in the answer to what is reported from the Arabs regarding making the noun after the *waw* of accompaniment accusative without a preceding verb or its equivalent, he says: It is necessary that we estimate a verb. This verb is derived from *kawn* (existence), meaning: it is *yakuun* (is), or *takuun* (you are), or *kunta* (you were), or *tasa'u* (you do), or *taf'al* (you do), or something similar. The important thing is that we estimate a suitable verb. Why? So that the rule is sound and the one making it accusative is?
The student: The action.
The Shaykh : Or its equivalent. All right, the author's saying: "And after the interrogative *ma*". After, what is it?
The student: An adverb.
The Shaykh : A circumstantial phrase? Place or time?
The student: Place.
The Shaykh : After, place?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : After, place?
The student: Time.
The Shaykh : Time, there is no problem. And what is the place that is "after"? After time, and after.
The student: I sat after Zayd?
The Shaykh : Yes, time.
The student: After Zayd?
The Shaykh : It is possible, meaning: my house is after so-and-so's house. So this is yes, a circumstantial phrase of place. All right, "After the interrogative *ma*". "After" is a circumstantial phrase made accusative for being a circumstantial phrase. What is the operator in it? Where is the operator in it?
The student: *Nasab* (accusative).
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: *Nasab* (accusative).
The Shaykh : *Nasab* (accusative), meaning: the first word in the verse, the operator in it is the last word in the verse, which is the word *nasab* (accusative). All right, and his saying: "The interrogative *ma*". *Ma* is the head of the idafa (genitive construction) and *istifham* (interrogative) is the dependent. And he only said: "And after the interrogative *ma*" for specification, because *ma* can be an interrogative *ma*, and it can be a conditional *ma*, and it can be a universal *ma*, and it can be what?
The student: Ten meanings.
The Shaykh : Ten? Yes, all right, there is a famous verse, and it is: "Command and invite" ...
The student: ... You will understand.
The Shaykh :"You will understand the condition of connection, so marvel at its negation *** With the hand of negation, Zayd, exalting the source"
... You say:
"The meanings of *ma* are ten, if you wish to count them *** So keep to a sound verse of poetry
You will understand the condition of connection, so be amazed at our negating it *** with a hand and the negation of Zayd, exalting the source "
These are the meanings of *ma*. And for this reason, we need to say: "After the interrogative *ma*". He said: "Or *kayfa*". And he did not say "interrogative *kayfa*," why?
The student: Because it is known.
The Shaykh : Because it is not used except as an interrogative. "Or *kayfa* is made accusative". *Nasaba* (he made accusative), is this the end of the hemistich?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : We said before, it is the end of the verse, which is the end of the hemistich. Made accusative by a verb of existence, by a hidden verb of existence, meaning: omitted. Some of the Arabs, some, what is its grammatical analysis?
The student: Active subject.
The Shaykh : The subject of *nasab* (accusative), meaning: that some of the Arabs made the object of accompaniment accusative after the *waw* that was not preceded by a verb or its equivalent, but it is after *ma* and *kayfa*, and a suitable verb is estimated for it. And the author says: A verb derived from *kawn* (existence), which is *yakuun* (is), or *takuun* (you are), or *kun* (be). But the most correct, as the people of the marginal notes said, is that we estimate the suitable verb. It is possible that we make *kawn* in the author's speech not the one from which *kana* is derived, or not derived from *kana*, but rather the intended meaning of *kawn* is the event, by a verb of *kawn* meaning: by a verb of event. It is estimated with what? With what is suitable for the context. Now, the rule that we have, rules from these verses, the summary: The object of accompaniment is a noun made accusative, following a *waw* meaning "with," preceded by a verb or its equivalent, this is one. The second rule: Is the one making this noun accusative the *waw* or the verb or its equivalent that preceded it? There are two opinions of the scholars on this, and which one does Ibn Malik prefer?
The student: The action.
The Shaykh : That it is made accusative by the preceding verb or its equivalent. The third rule: It is permissible to make accusative after the *waw* of accompanism if it is preceded by the interrogative *ma* or *kayfa*, as that was reported from some of the Arabs. And based on this, it is necessary that we maintain this rule by estimating?
The student: A verb.
The Shaykh : A suitable verb for the context. All right, and an example of that, I told you their saying: "How are you and a bowl of bread?" And likewise: "What are you with Zayd?"
"And after the interrogative *ma* or *kayfa*, it is made accusative *** by a hidden verb of existence, according to some of the Arabs"
It is as if it was said to the author: You say that it is necessary for a verb or its equivalent to precede, and that it is the one that makes the noun accusative. And we found that the Arabs say: "How are you and a bowl of bread?" "How are you and a bowl of bread?" So, what is the answer?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Did you eat it, or did it eat you? If it was hot and you were unable to eat it, then it ate you. If it was not hot, then you ate it. All right, the Arabs say it this way, and they say: *Ma anta wa Zaydan*, meaning: What are you with Zayd? Is there a verb? There is no verb. Is there an equivalent?
The student: Likewise, there is none.
The Shaykh : No, so the one making it accusative is the *waw* (conjunction), the one making it accusative is the *waw*. He said: All right, we grammarians have a trick, like the *yara'ib* (a type of bird); when you close the door, we go out through the window. He said: It is made accusative by a hidden verb of existence, by a hidden verb of existence. Yes, meaning: that we estimate a verb of existence. *Kawn* (existence) is the verbal noun of what verb? *Kana* (was) or *takuun* (you are) or something similar. How are you and a bowl of bread? The estimation is: How are you (takuun) and a bowl of bread? Yes. How are you and Zayd? You are not (takuun) with Zayd. They estimate: *kana* (was). And some say: *tasa'n* (do you do). *Ma tasa'u wa Zaydan*? Meaning: What are you with Zayd? Because Zayd is stronger and more active than you, and what brought you to him? So he says: What do you do with Zayd? You do nothing. Yes, in any case, the author (may Allah have mercy on him) says in the answer to what is reported from the Arabs regarding making the noun after the *waw* of accompaniment accusative without a preceding verb or its equivalent, he says: It is necessary that we estimate a verb. This verb is derived from *kawn* (existence), meaning: it is *yakuun* (is), or *takuun* (you are), or *kunta* (you were), or *tasa'u* (you do), or *taf'al* (you do), or something similar. The important thing is that we estimate a suitable verb. Why? So that the rule is sound and the one making it accusative is?
The student: The action.
The Shaykh : Or its equivalent. All right, the author's saying: "And after the interrogative *ma*". After, what is it?
The student: An adverb.
The Shaykh : A circumstantial phrase? Place or time?
The student: Place.
The Shaykh : After, place?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : After, place?
The student: Time.
The Shaykh : Time, there is no problem. And what is the place that is "after"? After time, and after.
The student: I sat after Zayd?
The Shaykh : Yes, time.
The student: After Zayd?
The Shaykh : It is possible, meaning: my house is after so-and-so's house. So this is yes, a circumstantial phrase of place. All right, "After the interrogative *ma*". "After" is a circumstantial phrase made accusative for being a circumstantial phrase. What is the operator in it? Where is the operator in it?
The student: *Nasab* (accusative).
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: *Nasab* (accusative).
The Shaykh : *Nasab* (accusative), meaning: the first word in the verse, the operator in it is the last word in the verse, which is the word *nasab* (accusative). All right, and his saying: "The interrogative *ma*". *Ma* is the head of the idafa (genitive construction) and *istifham* (interrogative) is the dependent. And he only said: "And after the interrogative *ma*" for specification, because *ma* can be an interrogative *ma*, and it can be a conditional *ma*, and it can be a universal *ma*, and it can be what?
The student: Ten meanings.
The Shaykh : Ten? Yes, all right, there is a famous verse, and it is: "Command and invite" ...
The student: ... You will understand.
The Shaykh :"You will understand the condition of connection, so marvel at its negation *** With the hand of negation, Zayd, exalting the source"
... You say:
"The meanings of *ma* are ten, if you wish to count them *** So keep to a sound verse of poetry
You will understand the condition of connection, so be amazed at our negating it *** with a hand and the negation of Zayd, exalting the source "
These are the meanings of *ma*. And for this reason, we need to say: "After the interrogative *ma*". He said: "Or *kayfa*". And he did not say "interrogative *kayfa*," why?
The student: Because it is known.
The Shaykh : Because it is not used except as an interrogative. "Or *kayfa* is made accusative". *Nasaba* (he made accusative), is this the end of the hemistich?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : We said before, it is the end of the verse, which is the end of the hemistich. Made accusative by a verb of existence, by a hidden verb of existence, meaning: omitted. Some of the Arabs, some, what is its grammatical analysis?
The student: Active subject.
The Shaykh : The subject of *nasab* (accusative), meaning: that some of the Arabs made the object of accompaniment accusative after the *waw* that was not preceded by a verb or its equivalent, but it is after *ma* and *kayfa*, and a suitable verb is estimated for it. And the author says: A verb derived from *kawn* (existence), which is *yakuun* (is), or *takuun* (you are), or *kun* (be). But the most correct, as the people of the marginal notes said, is that we estimate the suitable verb. It is possible that we make *kawn* in the author's speech not the one from which *kana* is derived, or not derived from *kana*, but rather the intended meaning of *kawn* is the event, by a verb of *kawn* meaning: by a verb of event. It is estimated with what? With what is suitable for the context. Now, the rule that we have, rules from these verses, the summary: The object of accompaniment is a noun made accusative, following a *waw* meaning "with," preceded by a verb or its equivalent, this is one. The second rule: Is the one making this noun accusative the *waw* or the verb or its equivalent that preceded it? There are two opinions of the scholars on this, and which one does Ibn Malik prefer?
The student: The action.
The Shaykh : That it is made accusative by the preceding verb or its equivalent. The third rule: It is permissible to make accusative after the *waw* of accompanism if it is preceded by the interrogative *ma* or *kayfa*, as that was reported from some of the Arabs. And based on this, it is necessary that we maintain this rule by estimating?
The student: A verb.
The Shaykh : A suitable verb for the context. All right, and an example of that, I told you their saying: "How are you and a bowl of bread?" And likewise: "What are you with Zayd?"