Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And coordination is more fitting if it can be done without weakness *** And the accusative is preferred when the coordination is weak."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Did we take up the object of accompaniment and discuss it?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So:
"And coordination is more fitting if it can be done without weakness *** And the accusative is preferred when the coordination is weak"
We have two things, one of which is stronger than the other in a given position, and that is whether it is better to make the waw one of accompaniment when it comes between two things, in which case what follows it is in the accusative, or whether it is better to make it a coordinating conjunction, in which case what follows it is dependent on what precedes it? Which is better? The author says: If there is no weakness in the coordination, it is more fitting; coordination is more fitting if there is no weakness in it. The author says: It is permissible for it to be one of accompaniment, but coordination is better. An example of that is: Zayd stood up and 'Amr—stay with me!—Here, the waw is between Zayd and 'Amr. So do we make it a coordinating conjunction? Or do you say: Zayd stood up and 'Amr (accusative), making the waw one of accompaniment?
The student: Coordination is better.
The Shaykh : Coordination is better, coordination is better, because it is the original rule. So as long as there is nothing that weakens it, it is better to stick with the original rule and say: Zayd and 'Amr stood up is better. And we may say: Zayd stood up and 'Amr (accusative). So we say: stood up: past tense verb, Zayd: subject, and the waw: for accompaniment, and 'Amr (accusative): in the accusative case due to accompaniment. Good. And if someone said: Zayd (accusative) stood up and 'Amr?
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : It is not correct?
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : This is not correct, this is not correct, because the subject is in the nominative case. The subject must be in the nominative case. So we say: Zayd stood up. As for 'Amr, two options are permissible for it, but coordination is better for 'Amr. The second issue is preferring the accusative: "And the accusative is preferred when the coordination is weak". The coordination (nasq) is the synonym for coordination (i'tif). So it means: when the coordination is weak, we prefer the accusative. An example of that is: if you coordinate with a connected pronoun, then the accusative is better. You say: I came and Zayd (accusative). I came: verb and subject, the waw: for accompaniment, and Zayd (accusative): in the accusative case due to accompaniment, in the accusative case due to accompaniment. And it is permissible but weak: I came and Zayd (nominative), but it is weak. In fact, some scholars prohibited it. Some grammarians prohibited this, and among them is Ibn Malik, due to his saying:
"And if you coordinate with a connected pronoun in the nominative *** Separate it with the separated pronoun"
Or separate it with something. And likewise, if I say: I passed by you and Zayd (genitive) or and Zayd (accusative)? I passed by you and Zayd (genitive). And it is permissible: I passed by you?
The student: And Zayd (accusative).
The Shaykh : And Zayd (accusative). And which is more eloquent?
The student: The latter.
The Shaykh : The latter is more eloquent, because coordinating with a connected pronoun is weak or prohibited according to some scholars. Good. If I say: I, myself, and Zayd came, which is better?
The student: Coordination is better.
The Shaykh : Coordination is better. I, myself, and Zayd (nominative) came is better than saying: I, myself, and Zayd (accusative) came, because here the coordination can be done without weakness. The rule from this now is: if the waw comes between two things, coordination is better than accompaniment if it is not weak. And if it comes between two things and the coordination is weak, then the accusative is better. The accusative due to accompaniment is better. Yes. And the examples: Zayd and 'Amr came, right?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Zayd came and 'Amr (accusative)?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : It is correct but weak. This is weak. I came and Zayd (accusative)?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : It is correct, and it is the stronger position. I came and Zayd (nominative) is weak. This is weak, because you must bring something to separate the connected pronoun from the coordination. So these are two rulings: preferring coordination, preferring the accusative.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So:
"And coordination is more fitting if it can be done without weakness *** And the accusative is preferred when the coordination is weak"
We have two things, one of which is stronger than the other in a given position, and that is whether it is better to make the waw one of accompaniment when it comes between two things, in which case what follows it is in the accusative, or whether it is better to make it a coordinating conjunction, in which case what follows it is dependent on what precedes it? Which is better? The author says: If there is no weakness in the coordination, it is more fitting; coordination is more fitting if there is no weakness in it. The author says: It is permissible for it to be one of accompaniment, but coordination is better. An example of that is: Zayd stood up and 'Amr—stay with me!—Here, the waw is between Zayd and 'Amr. So do we make it a coordinating conjunction? Or do you say: Zayd stood up and 'Amr (accusative), making the waw one of accompaniment?
The student: Coordination is better.
The Shaykh : Coordination is better, coordination is better, because it is the original rule. So as long as there is nothing that weakens it, it is better to stick with the original rule and say: Zayd and 'Amr stood up is better. And we may say: Zayd stood up and 'Amr (accusative). So we say: stood up: past tense verb, Zayd: subject, and the waw: for accompaniment, and 'Amr (accusative): in the accusative case due to accompaniment. Good. And if someone said: Zayd (accusative) stood up and 'Amr?
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : It is not correct?
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : This is not correct, this is not correct, because the subject is in the nominative case. The subject must be in the nominative case. So we say: Zayd stood up. As for 'Amr, two options are permissible for it, but coordination is better for 'Amr. The second issue is preferring the accusative: "And the accusative is preferred when the coordination is weak". The coordination (nasq) is the synonym for coordination (i'tif). So it means: when the coordination is weak, we prefer the accusative. An example of that is: if you coordinate with a connected pronoun, then the accusative is better. You say: I came and Zayd (accusative). I came: verb and subject, the waw: for accompaniment, and Zayd (accusative): in the accusative case due to accompaniment, in the accusative case due to accompaniment. And it is permissible but weak: I came and Zayd (nominative), but it is weak. In fact, some scholars prohibited it. Some grammarians prohibited this, and among them is Ibn Malik, due to his saying:
"And if you coordinate with a connected pronoun in the nominative *** Separate it with the separated pronoun"
Or separate it with something. And likewise, if I say: I passed by you and Zayd (genitive) or and Zayd (accusative)? I passed by you and Zayd (genitive). And it is permissible: I passed by you?
The student: And Zayd (accusative).
The Shaykh : And Zayd (accusative). And which is more eloquent?
The student: The latter.
The Shaykh : The latter is more eloquent, because coordinating with a connected pronoun is weak or prohibited according to some scholars. Good. If I say: I, myself, and Zayd came, which is better?
The student: Coordination is better.
The Shaykh : Coordination is better. I, myself, and Zayd (nominative) came is better than saying: I, myself, and Zayd (accusative) came, because here the coordination can be done without weakness. The rule from this now is: if the waw comes between two things, coordination is better than accompaniment if it is not weak. And if it comes between two things and the coordination is weak, then the accusative is better. The accusative due to accompaniment is better. Yes. And the examples: Zayd and 'Amr came, right?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Zayd came and 'Amr (accusative)?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : It is correct but weak. This is weak. I came and Zayd (accusative)?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : It is correct, and it is the stronger position. I came and Zayd (nominative) is weak. This is weak, because you must bring something to separate the connected pronoun from the coordination. So these are two rulings: preferring coordination, preferring the accusative.