Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And other than the accusative of a preceding [exception] in negation may *** come, but choose its accusative if it occurs."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And other than the accusative of a preceding [exception] in negation may *** come, but choose its accusative if it occurs"
"Other than" is the subject, and the clause "may come" is its predicate. The clause "may come" is its predicate. So his saying:
"And other than the accusative of a preceding [exception] in negation may *** come" And what is other than the preceding negation?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : ... "Choose the following of what is connected" This means that the accusative is permissible. The author says:
"And other than the accusative of a preceding [exception] in negation may *** come, but choose its accusative if it occurs"
"But choose its accusative if it occurs" means: without following. And his saying: "And other than the accusative of a preceding [exception] in negation" is connected to "come." The meaning is: In negation, other than the accusative of the exception preceding the thing from which the exception is made may come. Yes, and this is complex, as Ghannam said. Let us take an example: "The people did not stand except Zayd (accusative)." And what is preferred?
The student: Except Zayd (nominative).
The Shaykh : Except Zayd (nominative), "Choose the following of what is connected" "The people did not stand except Zayd (nominative)." This is the preferred one. Now, is the exception preceding or is "except" delayed?
The student: Preceding.
The Shaykh : The exception?
The student: Delayed.
The Shaykh : "The people did not stand except Zayd (nominative)." Is the exception preceding or is "except" not?
The student: Delayed.
The Shaykh : Delayed. Well, if the exception is delayed in negation, the preferred option is following, as he said: "... *** And after negation or like negation, choose
the following of what is connected *** ..." If the exception precedes, then following is permissible, which is the meaning of his saying: "And other than the accusative of a preceding [exception] in negation may *** come" And what is other than the accusative?
The student: Following.
The Shaykh : Following, but the accusative is stronger. "But choose its accusative if it occurs" So the author is saying: After negation or like negation, choose the following of what is connected, unless the exception precedes the thing from which the exception is made. The example is: "Stood except Zayd (accusative) the people." Here Zayd is preceding. Other than the accusative may come. What is other than the accusative? Following, meaning: the nominative. The important thing... the example now: "Stood except Zayd (accusative) the people." The author says: Choose its accusative. Does other than the accusative come or does it not come? It comes. "Stood except Zayd (nominative) the people," "The people did not stand except Zayd (nominative)." Here it is permissible, but the accusative is better. We say: "The people did not stand except Zayd (accusative)." Clear? Clear. I will repeat it a second time so it becomes clearer. If negation is found and the sentence is complete, and the exception is delayed, then two options are permissible in it—in the exception: the accusative and following. Which is better?
The student: The accusative, following, the accusative.
The Shaykh : A complete sentence preceded by negation is found, and the exception is delayed relative to the thing from which the exception is made. Delayed means in terms of structure. Two options are permissible in the exception: the accusative and following. Which is stronger?
The student: Following.
The Shaykh : Following. "The people did not stand except Zayd (nominative)." And it is permissible to say "The people did not stand except Zayd (accusative)." It is permissible. If the exception precedes the thing from which the exception is made, then the accusative is stronger, the opposite of following being stronger than following. But following may come. "And other than the accusative of a preceding [exception] in negation may *** come" The meaning is: In negation, other than the accusative of the preceding exception may come, and what...?
The student: Relative to the thing from which the exception is made.
The Shaykh : Relative to the thing from which the exception is made. But the author says: "But choose its accusative" "Its accusative" is an object placed before "choose." "Choose its accusative if it occurs" So you say: "The people did not stand except Zayd (accusative)." Correct? "The people did not stand except Zayd (nominative)." Correct, but which is the first?
The student: Stronger.
The Shaykh : The first is stronger. "But choose its accusative if it occurs" Well, how do we parse "The people did not stand except Zayd"? We say: "Stood" is a past tense verb, and "except" is a tool of restriction, and "Zayd (nominative)" is the subject, and "the people" is a substitute. But some say: an inverted substitute. Its original form is "The people did not stand except Zayd (nominative)." And some say: a substitute of the whole for part. And a substitute of the whole for part is found in the Arabic language. From this is the saying of the poet:
"May Allah have mercy on the greatest [bones] they buried *** In Sijistan, Talha of the Talhas"
Which is more general?
The student: Sijistan.
The Shaykh : The greatest or the human being?
The student: The human being. The human being is bone, and flesh, and sinew, and skin. He says: "May Allah have mercy on the greatest [bones] they buried" This is, regarding Talha of the Talhas, a part of the whole. So it is a substitute of the whole for part. In any case, what concerns us is not whether it is a substitute of the whole for part or part for whole, or an inverted substitute. What concerns us is the parsing. What concerns us is the parsing. I will repeat it a second time for clarification. If the exception occurs in a complete sentence preceded by negation or its like, then two options are permissible in it: substitution and the accusative for exception, substitution and the accusative for exception, or following and the accusative for exception. Which is stronger?
The student: The accusative is stronger... if it precedes...
The Shaykh : What is it that precedes?
The student: Following.
The Shaykh : Following is better, unless the exception precedes the thing from which the exception is made, in which case the accusative is better. This is the summary of the author's words. ... It is clear now. Now it is clear. Well:
"And other than the accusative of a preceding [exception] in negation may *** come" This verse is actually like an exception to his saying:
"... *** And after negation or like negation, choose
the following of what is connected ***" As if he is saying: Unless what?
The student: It precedes.
The Shaykh : The exception precedes the thing from which the exception is made. If the exception precedes the thing from which the exception is made, then the stronger option is the accusative. For this reason he said: "May come" And "may" is for diminution. "But choose its accusative if it occurs".
"Other than" is the subject, and the clause "may come" is its predicate. The clause "may come" is its predicate. So his saying:
"And other than the accusative of a preceding [exception] in negation may *** come" And what is other than the preceding negation?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : ... "Choose the following of what is connected" This means that the accusative is permissible. The author says:
"And other than the accusative of a preceding [exception] in negation may *** come, but choose its accusative if it occurs"
"But choose its accusative if it occurs" means: without following. And his saying: "And other than the accusative of a preceding [exception] in negation" is connected to "come." The meaning is: In negation, other than the accusative of the exception preceding the thing from which the exception is made may come. Yes, and this is complex, as Ghannam said. Let us take an example: "The people did not stand except Zayd (accusative)." And what is preferred?
The student: Except Zayd (nominative).
The Shaykh : Except Zayd (nominative), "Choose the following of what is connected" "The people did not stand except Zayd (nominative)." This is the preferred one. Now, is the exception preceding or is "except" delayed?
The student: Preceding.
The Shaykh : The exception?
The student: Delayed.
The Shaykh : "The people did not stand except Zayd (nominative)." Is the exception preceding or is "except" not?
The student: Delayed.
The Shaykh : Delayed. Well, if the exception is delayed in negation, the preferred option is following, as he said: "... *** And after negation or like negation, choose
the following of what is connected *** ..." If the exception precedes, then following is permissible, which is the meaning of his saying: "And other than the accusative of a preceding [exception] in negation may *** come" And what is other than the accusative?
The student: Following.
The Shaykh : Following, but the accusative is stronger. "But choose its accusative if it occurs" So the author is saying: After negation or like negation, choose the following of what is connected, unless the exception precedes the thing from which the exception is made. The example is: "Stood except Zayd (accusative) the people." Here Zayd is preceding. Other than the accusative may come. What is other than the accusative? Following, meaning: the nominative. The important thing... the example now: "Stood except Zayd (accusative) the people." The author says: Choose its accusative. Does other than the accusative come or does it not come? It comes. "Stood except Zayd (nominative) the people," "The people did not stand except Zayd (nominative)." Here it is permissible, but the accusative is better. We say: "The people did not stand except Zayd (accusative)." Clear? Clear. I will repeat it a second time so it becomes clearer. If negation is found and the sentence is complete, and the exception is delayed, then two options are permissible in it—in the exception: the accusative and following. Which is better?
The student: The accusative, following, the accusative.
The Shaykh : A complete sentence preceded by negation is found, and the exception is delayed relative to the thing from which the exception is made. Delayed means in terms of structure. Two options are permissible in the exception: the accusative and following. Which is stronger?
The student: Following.
The Shaykh : Following. "The people did not stand except Zayd (nominative)." And it is permissible to say "The people did not stand except Zayd (accusative)." It is permissible. If the exception precedes the thing from which the exception is made, then the accusative is stronger, the opposite of following being stronger than following. But following may come. "And other than the accusative of a preceding [exception] in negation may *** come" The meaning is: In negation, other than the accusative of the preceding exception may come, and what...?
The student: Relative to the thing from which the exception is made.
The Shaykh : Relative to the thing from which the exception is made. But the author says: "But choose its accusative" "Its accusative" is an object placed before "choose." "Choose its accusative if it occurs" So you say: "The people did not stand except Zayd (accusative)." Correct? "The people did not stand except Zayd (nominative)." Correct, but which is the first?
The student: Stronger.
The Shaykh : The first is stronger. "But choose its accusative if it occurs" Well, how do we parse "The people did not stand except Zayd"? We say: "Stood" is a past tense verb, and "except" is a tool of restriction, and "Zayd (nominative)" is the subject, and "the people" is a substitute. But some say: an inverted substitute. Its original form is "The people did not stand except Zayd (nominative)." And some say: a substitute of the whole for part. And a substitute of the whole for part is found in the Arabic language. From this is the saying of the poet:
"May Allah have mercy on the greatest [bones] they buried *** In Sijistan, Talha of the Talhas"
Which is more general?
The student: Sijistan.
The Shaykh : The greatest or the human being?
The student: The human being. The human being is bone, and flesh, and sinew, and skin. He says: "May Allah have mercy on the greatest [bones] they buried" This is, regarding Talha of the Talhas, a part of the whole. So it is a substitute of the whole for part. In any case, what concerns us is not whether it is a substitute of the whole for part or part for whole, or an inverted substitute. What concerns us is the parsing. What concerns us is the parsing. I will repeat it a second time for clarification. If the exception occurs in a complete sentence preceded by negation or its like, then two options are permissible in it: substitution and the accusative for exception, substitution and the accusative for exception, or following and the accusative for exception. Which is stronger?
The student: The accusative is stronger... if it precedes...
The Shaykh : What is it that precedes?
The student: Following.
The Shaykh : Following is better, unless the exception precedes the thing from which the exception is made, in which case the accusative is better. This is the summary of the author's words. ... It is clear now. Now it is clear. Well:
"And other than the accusative of a preceding [exception] in negation may *** come" This verse is actually like an exception to his saying:
"... *** And after negation or like negation, choose
the following of what is connected ***" As if he is saying: Unless what?
The student: It precedes.
The Shaykh : The exception precedes the thing from which the exception is made. If the exception precedes the thing from which the exception is made, then the stronger option is the accusative. For this reason he said: "May come" And "may" is for diminution. "But choose its accusative if it occurs".