Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "By what precedes the verb and its like *** this is the accusative, not by the waw, in the more correct opinion."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said:
"By what precedes the verb and its like *** this is the accusative, not by the waw, in the more correct opinion"
"By what precedes the verb"—is this complex, my brothers? "By what precedes the verb": the preposition and its object are connected to a deleted predicate that is placed before the subject. The subject to which this predicate belongs is the phrase: "this accusative", because "this" is a demonstrative noun, built on sukun, in the position of nominative, and "accusative" is a description. It is the subject, and its predicate is "by what precedes the verb." The implied meaning of the verse is: "This accusative is by what precedes from the verb and its like." And his saying "what" in "by what" is a relative pronoun, and its relative clause is his saying: "preceded". Its relative clause is his saying: "preceded". And "from the verb" is a preposition and object connected to "preceded." So there is a lot of fronting and reordering here. First: fronting the predicate. Second: fronting the connected phrase of the relative clause. Where is the connected phrase of the relative clause? "From the verb and its like," because it is connected to "preceded," since the implied meaning is: "This accusative is by what preceded from the verb and its like." It is as if a questioner asked Ibn Malik: "We made the noun accusative after the waw of accompaniment. We made the noun accusative, so what made it accusative?" He said: "What made it accusative is what preceded from the verb and its like." Okay, "from the verb": "I walked and the road." What preceded here?
The student: The action.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: The action.
The Shaykh : "I walked and the road." The preceding element is the verb. Where is the verb?
The student: "I walked."
The Shaykh : "I walked," because it is a verb and a subject. "I am a walker and the road." This is a verb-like element. This is a verb-like element, because it is a present participle. "I am being driven and the road"?
The student: The passive participle.
The Shaykh : This is also a verb-like element because it is a past participle. "My walking pleases me and the road." This is a verbal noun, and it is also a verb-like element. So, what makes the noun accusative that comes after the waw of accompaniment is what preceded it from where?
The student: The action.
The Shaykh : From the verb and its like. And it is understood from the author's saying "by what preceded" that it must precede the waw of accompaniment. So if I said: "And the road I walked," it would not be correct, because the author says: "By what precedes the verb and its like". So the operative cause must be preceding. Is that clear, everyone? So if I said: "And the road I walked," it would not be correct. Okay, "And the road Muhammad walked"?
The student: Likewise.
The Shaykh : "And the road Muhammad walked." Is it permissible or not permissible?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : ...
The student: It is permissible if we assume "Muhammad walked and the road."
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, because the verb must precede. And here he said: "And the road Muhammad walked." Okay, "Walked and the road Muhammad." Is it permissible?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, because the verb preceded. It is permissible because the verb preceded. Okay, and the author's saying: "not by the waw" means: the noun that comes after the waw, which is in the accusative case, is not made accusative by the waw. "in the more correct opinion". The author informed us that there are two opinions among the grammarians regarding this issue. Some say: "I walked and the road." "I walked" is a verb and a subject, the waw is the waw of accompaniment, and "the road" is a companion object made accusative by the waw. Meaning: the one making it accusative is the waw. And the author says: what made it accusative?
The student: The verb or its like.
The Shaykh : The verb or its like, the preceding element from a verb or its like. And others say: the one making it accusative is the waw. But he said: "in the more correct opinion", meaning: the most established and strongest. What is the reason? He said: Because the waw here is specific to this noun, and anything that is specific and not like a part of a word does not operate. And the truth is that this reasoning would be better if reversed, because every letter that is specific and not like a part of a word is an operative cause, and this is known. But it is not a consistent rule, but they say: it is a majority rule. Every specific letter is an operative cause if it is not from the structure of the word, or from what resembles the structure of the word. This is grammatical philosophy! Okay, does "in" operate or not?
The student: It operates.
The Shaykh : What does it do?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Because it is specific to the noun. Does it operate or not?
"By what precedes the verb and its like *** this is the accusative, not by the waw, in the more correct opinion"
"By what precedes the verb"—is this complex, my brothers? "By what precedes the verb": the preposition and its object are connected to a deleted predicate that is placed before the subject. The subject to which this predicate belongs is the phrase: "this accusative", because "this" is a demonstrative noun, built on sukun, in the position of nominative, and "accusative" is a description. It is the subject, and its predicate is "by what precedes the verb." The implied meaning of the verse is: "This accusative is by what precedes from the verb and its like." And his saying "what" in "by what" is a relative pronoun, and its relative clause is his saying: "preceded". Its relative clause is his saying: "preceded". And "from the verb" is a preposition and object connected to "preceded." So there is a lot of fronting and reordering here. First: fronting the predicate. Second: fronting the connected phrase of the relative clause. Where is the connected phrase of the relative clause? "From the verb and its like," because it is connected to "preceded," since the implied meaning is: "This accusative is by what preceded from the verb and its like." It is as if a questioner asked Ibn Malik: "We made the noun accusative after the waw of accompaniment. We made the noun accusative, so what made it accusative?" He said: "What made it accusative is what preceded from the verb and its like." Okay, "from the verb": "I walked and the road." What preceded here?
The student: The action.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: The action.
The Shaykh : "I walked and the road." The preceding element is the verb. Where is the verb?
The student: "I walked."
The Shaykh : "I walked," because it is a verb and a subject. "I am a walker and the road." This is a verb-like element. This is a verb-like element, because it is a present participle. "I am being driven and the road"?
The student: The passive participle.
The Shaykh : This is also a verb-like element because it is a past participle. "My walking pleases me and the road." This is a verbal noun, and it is also a verb-like element. So, what makes the noun accusative that comes after the waw of accompaniment is what preceded it from where?
The student: The action.
The Shaykh : From the verb and its like. And it is understood from the author's saying "by what preceded" that it must precede the waw of accompaniment. So if I said: "And the road I walked," it would not be correct, because the author says: "By what precedes the verb and its like". So the operative cause must be preceding. Is that clear, everyone? So if I said: "And the road I walked," it would not be correct. Okay, "And the road Muhammad walked"?
The student: Likewise.
The Shaykh : "And the road Muhammad walked." Is it permissible or not permissible?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : ...
The student: It is permissible if we assume "Muhammad walked and the road."
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, because the verb must precede. And here he said: "And the road Muhammad walked." Okay, "Walked and the road Muhammad." Is it permissible?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, because the verb preceded. It is permissible because the verb preceded. Okay, and the author's saying: "not by the waw" means: the noun that comes after the waw, which is in the accusative case, is not made accusative by the waw. "in the more correct opinion". The author informed us that there are two opinions among the grammarians regarding this issue. Some say: "I walked and the road." "I walked" is a verb and a subject, the waw is the waw of accompaniment, and "the road" is a companion object made accusative by the waw. Meaning: the one making it accusative is the waw. And the author says: what made it accusative?
The student: The verb or its like.
The Shaykh : The verb or its like, the preceding element from a verb or its like. And others say: the one making it accusative is the waw. But he said: "in the more correct opinion", meaning: the most established and strongest. What is the reason? He said: Because the waw here is specific to this noun, and anything that is specific and not like a part of a word does not operate. And the truth is that this reasoning would be better if reversed, because every letter that is specific and not like a part of a word is an operative cause, and this is known. But it is not a consistent rule, but they say: it is a majority rule. Every specific letter is an operative cause if it is not from the structure of the word, or from what resembles the structure of the word. This is grammatical philosophy! Okay, does "in" operate or not?
The student: It operates.
The Shaykh : What does it do?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Because it is specific to the noun. Does it operate or not?