Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And the accusative is obligatory if conjunction is not permissible *** or if you assume a hidden verb, it becomes accusative."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said: "And the accusative is obligatory if conjunction is not permissible". This is also a rule. If conjunction is not permissible, then the accusative is obligatory. The accusative is obligatory on what? On accompaniment. The accusative is obligatory on accompaniment, or the accusative is obligatory on the assumption of a deleted verb, on the assumption of a verb. That is why he said: "or if you assume a hidden verb, it becomes accusative". The important point is that if conjunction is not permissible, the accusative is obligatory. But on what is it made accusative? Either on accompaniment or on the assumption of a verb. Where do we take this from the author's words? "If conjunction is not permissible, it is obligatory". On what is it obligatory? On accompaniment. The second case: "or if you assume a hidden verb, it becomes accusative". This means: it is not possible on accompaniment, but a suitable verb is assumed. A suitable verb is assumed. An example of the first is their saying: "The water and the log became level" ... "The water and the log became level"?
The student: And the wood.
The Shaykh : And the log?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, "The water and the log became level" is obligatory. It is not permissible to say "The water and the log became level" with the nominative, because the meaning differs. That is, what is the meaning of "The water became level and the log became level"? It has no meaning. But "The water became level with the log" means: it became alongside it, it became alongside it. So here we say: the waw is for accompaniment, and the accusative is obligatory on accompaniment. The accusative is obligatory on accompaniment. Yes, that is right. "The rich man and the poor man became level"?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ... The accusative is obligatory.
The Shaykh : The accusative is obligatory?
The student: Conjunction is obligatory.
The Shaykh : Conjunction is obligatory?
The student: Depending on ...
The Shaykh : These are two sides. Do not say that whenever two things are mentioned as being equal, the accusative is permissible. If the two things, the one before the waw and the one after it, are equal, then conjunction is more appropriate. Conjunction is more appropriate. So we say, for example: "The rich man and the poor man became level." We say here: the waw is a conjunction letter, and "the poor man" is in the nominative, conjoined to "the rich man." And it is permissible, but this is the weaker position, to say: "The rich man and the poor man became level" with the accusative. And this is the meaning of his saying: "And conjunction, if possible without weakness, is more deserving *** ..." Do you understand now? But "The water and the log became level," the log cannot become level with the water in the sense that it and the water are equal, like the equality of the rich man and the poor man. But "became level with the log" means: it was alongside it. Now: "or if you assume." If the accusative on being an object is not possible, assume a hidden verb. That is, the accusative is now necessary, but do we say it is on accompaniment or on the assumption of a verb? According to the meaning. If accompaniment is possible, then it is on accompaniment. If it is not possible, or if you assume, then the "or" here is not for choice, but for variety. That is, this is one type and this is another type. If accompaniment is possible, that is it. If it is not possible, he said: "or if you assume a hidden verb, it becomes accusative". The poet said: "I fed her hay and cold water". "I fed her hay". "Hay" is the second object of "I fed," the first object is here, and "cold water." The waw is a conjunction letter.
The student: No, it is not permissible.
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. The waw is a conjunction letter, and "water" is the object of a deleted verb. It is the conjunction of a sentence to a sentence. The conjunction of a sentence to a sentence, or not?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Yes, that is it.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The waw: a conjunction letter. Water: the object of a deleted verb, the assumption being: "and I gave her cold water to drink." This deleted verb is conjoined to ... this sentence is conjoined to the other sentence. Now, if we say: the waw is a conjunction letter, and "water" is conjoined to "hay," is it permissible or not?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, because hay is not fodder.
The student: Water.
The Shaykh : Because water is not fed, because water is not fed. Now, "I fed him bread and milk"?
The student: "I fed" is permissible.
The Shaykh : Is it permissible?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : On the basis that the waw is a conjunction letter, and "milk" is conjoined to "bread"?
The student: Yes, milk is food.
The Shaykh : Milk is food. Allah the Exalted said about water:[Al-Baqarah 2:249] And it is water. And the taste is also good. In this case, our saying "I fed him bread and milk" is not like the poet's saying: "I fed her hay and cold water", is it? Now, if I say: "I gave him milk and bread to drink"?
The student: ... It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : This is like "I fed her." It does not contradict. Conjunction in the sense of conjoining single words is not permissible, but in the sense of conjoining sentences?
The student: Permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible. "I gave him milk and bread to drink" is correct. The phrase? The structure is sound. But in the grammatical analysis, we say: "I gave him": verb, subject, and first object. "Milk"? Second object. And "bread": the waw is a conjunction letter. "Bread": the object of a deleted verb. What is the assumption? "And I fed him bread." "And I fed him bread." Is that clear? Now we have actually three rulings: ... the preference of conjunction, and the preference of ...
The student: The accusative case.
The Shaykh : The accusative. If you wish ... the weakness of conjunction and the weakness of the accusative. The categories?
The student: Four.
The Shaykh : Four, and the fifth is the necessity of the accusative. When does the necessity of the accusative occur? When conjunction is prohibited. When conjunction is prohibited, the accusative becomes necessary, either on accompaniment or on the assumption of a verb, according to the situation. So the rulings here are five. And we have also passed through a chapter of grammar in which these five rulings occur. What is it?
The student: Occupation.
The Shaykh : The chapter of engagement. In engagement, the five rulings occur. And here, with the object of accompaniment, the five rulings occur: the preference of the accusative and its weakness, the preference of conjunction and its weakness, and the necessity of the accusative. And Allah knows best.
The student: And the wood.
The Shaykh : And the log?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, "The water and the log became level" is obligatory. It is not permissible to say "The water and the log became level" with the nominative, because the meaning differs. That is, what is the meaning of "The water became level and the log became level"? It has no meaning. But "The water became level with the log" means: it became alongside it, it became alongside it. So here we say: the waw is for accompaniment, and the accusative is obligatory on accompaniment. The accusative is obligatory on accompaniment. Yes, that is right. "The rich man and the poor man became level"?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ... The accusative is obligatory.
The Shaykh : The accusative is obligatory?
The student: Conjunction is obligatory.
The Shaykh : Conjunction is obligatory?
The student: Depending on ...
The Shaykh : These are two sides. Do not say that whenever two things are mentioned as being equal, the accusative is permissible. If the two things, the one before the waw and the one after it, are equal, then conjunction is more appropriate. Conjunction is more appropriate. So we say, for example: "The rich man and the poor man became level." We say here: the waw is a conjunction letter, and "the poor man" is in the nominative, conjoined to "the rich man." And it is permissible, but this is the weaker position, to say: "The rich man and the poor man became level" with the accusative. And this is the meaning of his saying: "And conjunction, if possible without weakness, is more deserving *** ..." Do you understand now? But "The water and the log became level," the log cannot become level with the water in the sense that it and the water are equal, like the equality of the rich man and the poor man. But "became level with the log" means: it was alongside it. Now: "or if you assume." If the accusative on being an object is not possible, assume a hidden verb. That is, the accusative is now necessary, but do we say it is on accompaniment or on the assumption of a verb? According to the meaning. If accompaniment is possible, then it is on accompaniment. If it is not possible, or if you assume, then the "or" here is not for choice, but for variety. That is, this is one type and this is another type. If accompaniment is possible, that is it. If it is not possible, he said: "or if you assume a hidden verb, it becomes accusative". The poet said: "I fed her hay and cold water". "I fed her hay". "Hay" is the second object of "I fed," the first object is here, and "cold water." The waw is a conjunction letter.
The student: No, it is not permissible.
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. The waw is a conjunction letter, and "water" is the object of a deleted verb. It is the conjunction of a sentence to a sentence. The conjunction of a sentence to a sentence, or not?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Yes, that is it.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The waw: a conjunction letter. Water: the object of a deleted verb, the assumption being: "and I gave her cold water to drink." This deleted verb is conjoined to ... this sentence is conjoined to the other sentence. Now, if we say: the waw is a conjunction letter, and "water" is conjoined to "hay," is it permissible or not?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, because hay is not fodder.
The student: Water.
The Shaykh : Because water is not fed, because water is not fed. Now, "I fed him bread and milk"?
The student: "I fed" is permissible.
The Shaykh : Is it permissible?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : On the basis that the waw is a conjunction letter, and "milk" is conjoined to "bread"?
The student: Yes, milk is food.
The Shaykh : Milk is food. Allah the Exalted said about water:
and whoever does not taste it is indeed of me
ومن لم يطعمه فإنه منّيThe student: ... It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : This is like "I fed her." It does not contradict. Conjunction in the sense of conjoining single words is not permissible, but in the sense of conjoining sentences?
The student: Permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible. "I gave him milk and bread to drink" is correct. The phrase? The structure is sound. But in the grammatical analysis, we say: "I gave him": verb, subject, and first object. "Milk"? Second object. And "bread": the waw is a conjunction letter. "Bread": the object of a deleted verb. What is the assumption? "And I fed him bread." "And I fed him bread." Is that clear? Now we have actually three rulings: ... the preference of conjunction, and the preference of ...
The student: The accusative case.
The Shaykh : The accusative. If you wish ... the weakness of conjunction and the weakness of the accusative. The categories?
The student: Four.
The Shaykh : Four, and the fifth is the necessity of the accusative. When does the necessity of the accusative occur? When conjunction is prohibited. When conjunction is prohibited, the accusative becomes necessary, either on accompaniment or on the assumption of a verb, according to the situation. So the rulings here are five. And we have also passed through a chapter of grammar in which these five rulings occur. What is it?
The student: Occupation.
The Shaykh : The chapter of engagement. In engagement, the five rulings occur. And here, with the object of accompaniment, the five rulings occur: the preference of the accusative and its weakness, the preference of conjunction and its weakness, and the necessity of the accusative. And Allah knows best.