Continuation of the explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "By what precedes the verb and its like *** this accusative, not by the waw, in the more correct opinion."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : It is not made accusative by the waw. "In the more correct opinion" The author has informed us that there are two opinions among the grammarians regarding this issue. Some say: "I walked and the road," where "I walked" is a verb and a subject, the waw is the waw of accompaniment, and "the road" is the object of accompaniment, made accusative by the waw, meaning the one making it accusative is the waw. The author says: What made it accusative?
The student: The action.
The Shaykh : The verb or its like, what preceded from the verb or its like. 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 the word does not function as a grammatical operator. In reality, if this reasoning were reversed, it would be more appropriate, because every letter that is specific and not like a part of the word is an operator. This is a known matter; it is not a consistent rule, but they say it is a majority rule: every specific letter is an operator if it is not part of the word's structure or something resembling the word's structure. This is grammatical philosophy! Now, does "in" function as an operator or not?
The student: It functions.
The Shaykh : What does it function as?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Because it is specific to the noun. Does it function or not?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : It does not function. Why?
The student: It is not specific.
The Shaykh : Because it is not specific. It enters the noun, and you say, "Is Muhammad in the house?" And it enters the verb, and you say, "Did Muhammad stand up?" So it does not function. Why?
The student: It functions.
The Shaykh :"lam" is specific to the verb, so it functions. It is specific to the verb, so it functions. The sin: Does it function or not?
The student: It functions.
The Shaykh : It is specific to the verb, and it does not function because it is like a part of it, like a part of it. For example: "al" the definite article, "the man," "the moon." It is specific to what?
The student: To the noun.
The Shaykh : But it does not function. Why? Because it is like a part of it. This is how the grammarians reasoned. In any case, my opinion on whether the particle functions or not goes back to what?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The language of the Arabs. To the language of the Arabs. They are the authority in this matter. Here, if a person says, "The object of accompaniment is made accusative by the waw" or "by what preceded the waw from the verb and its like," we say there are two opinions among the scholars. Some say it is made accusative by the waw, and some say it is made accusative by what preceded from the verb and its like. And I have told you before regarding grammar issues that we always choose what?
The student: The easier one.
The Shaykh : What is easier? And based on this, if someone parses it and says that the one making it accusative is what preceded from the verb and its like, we say to him, "Correct." And if he says it is the waw, we say, "Correct." The principle in this is that we do not render a text inoperative or abrogate it.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : This is what follows from it.
The student: The action.
The Shaykh : The verb or its like, what preceded from the verb or its like. 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 the word does not function as a grammatical operator. In reality, if this reasoning were reversed, it would be more appropriate, because every letter that is specific and not like a part of the word is an operator. This is a known matter; it is not a consistent rule, but they say it is a majority rule: every specific letter is an operator if it is not part of the word's structure or something resembling the word's structure. This is grammatical philosophy! Now, does "in" function as an operator or not?
The student: It functions.
The Shaykh : What does it function as?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Because it is specific to the noun. Does it function or not?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : It does not function. Why?
The student: It is not specific.
The Shaykh : Because it is not specific. It enters the noun, and you say, "Is Muhammad in the house?" And it enters the verb, and you say, "Did Muhammad stand up?" So it does not function. Why?
The student: It functions.
The Shaykh :"lam" is specific to the verb, so it functions. It is specific to the verb, so it functions. The sin:
The fools will say
سيقول السّفهاءThe student: It functions.
The Shaykh : It is specific to the verb, and it does not function because it is like a part of it, like a part of it. For example: "al" the definite article, "the man," "the moon." It is specific to what?
The student: To the noun.
The Shaykh : But it does not function. Why? Because it is like a part of it. This is how the grammarians reasoned. In any case, my opinion on whether the particle functions or not goes back to what?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The language of the Arabs. To the language of the Arabs. They are the authority in this matter. Here, if a person says, "The object of accompaniment is made accusative by the waw" or "by what preceded the waw from the verb and its like," we say there are two opinions among the scholars. Some say it is made accusative by the waw, and some say it is made accusative by what preceded from the verb and its like. And I have told you before regarding grammar issues that we always choose what?
The student: The easier one.
The Shaykh : What is easier? And based on this, if someone parses it and says that the one making it accusative is what preceded from the verb and its like, we say to him, "Correct." And if he says it is the waw, we say, "Correct." The principle in this is that we do not render a text inoperative or abrogate it.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : This is what follows from it.