Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And for other than, other than, and equal, make them the same *** on the most correct view, what is made for other than."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then he said: "And for other than, other than, and equal, make them the same *** ..."
"Make them the same" is with an alif, but the alif here is for generality. It is also permissible for it to be a transformation of the light nūn of emphasis, because the light nūn of emphasis is permitted to be transformed into an alif, just as you say in "qifna" (stand, we) "qifa" (stand). Ibn Malik says: just as you say in "qifna" "qifa." So here, it is permissible for us to make "make them the same" an imperative verb emphasized with the nūn transformed into an alif. It is also permissible to make it an imperative verb with the alif for generality. But the more preferable is to make it an imperative verb emphasized with the nūn, because if we make the alif for generality, this necessitates two things: changing the verb, and adding an alif. And if we make it a substitute for the nūn, the verb becomes built on fathah, because it is connected to the nūn of emphasis, and the alif becomes original from the nūn of emphasis. Yes, that is correct.
The student: The verb is stronger than what?
The Shaykh : The verb, it is stronger, that is what it is. The important thing is that these are three words, but they are one word in reality, but they have three forms: siwā, suwā, and sawā with elongation.
"Make them the same *** on the most correct view, what is made for other than"
It means: Make for them what you made for "other than." And "other than" always makes what follows it genitive. As for it, it is inflected like the exception with illā. So, add "other than" with its three forms to "other than," and the exception with "other than" is always genitive. As for it, it is according to the exception with illā, just like "other than" completely. So you say, for example: "The people stood, except Zayd," meaning: other than Zayd. Is that correct or not?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : "Sawā Zayd," and you say: "The people stood, siwā Zayd," and "The people stood, suwā Zayd." The inflection of suwā, siwā, and sawā with elongation is the same. And you say: "The people did not stand, sawā Zayd." Is this the weaker or the stronger position?
The student: The weaker position.
The Shaykh : The weaker position. "The people did not stand, sawā Zayd."
The student: The stronger position.
The Shaykh : The stronger position. "The people did not stand, sawā a donkey."
The student: The weaker position.
The Shaykh : This is prohibited.
The student: Prohibited, correct.
The Shaykh : Among the Hijazis, "The people did not stand, sawā a donkey," is prohibited among the Hijazis and permissible?
The student: Among Banu Tamim.
The Shaykh : Among Banu Tamim. Okay, "The people did not stand, sawā Zayd," is it sawā?
The student: It is obligatory.
The Shaykh : It is obligatory, and "I did not see sawā Zayd," the accusative is obligatory, and "I did not pass by sawā Zayd," the genitive is obligatory. Is that complete or not?
The student: Complete.
The Shaykh : Okay, and I chose the example with "sawā" because the vowel movements appear on it, otherwise suwā and siwā have the same meaning as sawā. And the author's saying:
"on the most correct view"
indicates that there is a weaker disagreement, which is the disagreement of Sibawayhi, who made siwā, suwā, and sawā always accusative as a circumstantial. Always accusative as a circumstantial, and what is reported contrary to that is interpreted. What is reported contrary to that is interpreted. And there is no doubt that this view has no merit in consideration, because the saying of Ibn Malik is more correct, since it is reported in the Arabic language that it is according to the grammatical factors, and it is accusative if the sentence is complete and affirmative, and it is substituted or accusative if it is complete and negative or similar to it. To say that if it is reported not accusative, it needs interpretation, this is contrary to the apparent meaning. So the correct is with Ibn Malik. And a group took a middle position and said: The most common is that it is accusative as a circumstantial, and that it is used sometimes for exception, so it is like "other than." But we saw the view of Ibn Malik, that its ruling is the ruling of "other than," and what is the ruling of "other than"? The ruling of the exception with illā, according to the previous details. Yes.
"Make them the same" is with an alif, but the alif here is for generality. It is also permissible for it to be a transformation of the light nūn of emphasis, because the light nūn of emphasis is permitted to be transformed into an alif, just as you say in "qifna" (stand, we) "qifa" (stand). Ibn Malik says: just as you say in "qifna" "qifa." So here, it is permissible for us to make "make them the same" an imperative verb emphasized with the nūn transformed into an alif. It is also permissible to make it an imperative verb with the alif for generality. But the more preferable is to make it an imperative verb emphasized with the nūn, because if we make the alif for generality, this necessitates two things: changing the verb, and adding an alif. And if we make it a substitute for the nūn, the verb becomes built on fathah, because it is connected to the nūn of emphasis, and the alif becomes original from the nūn of emphasis. Yes, that is correct.
The student: The verb is stronger than what?
The Shaykh : The verb, it is stronger, that is what it is. The important thing is that these are three words, but they are one word in reality, but they have three forms: siwā, suwā, and sawā with elongation.
"Make them the same *** on the most correct view, what is made for other than"
It means: Make for them what you made for "other than." And "other than" always makes what follows it genitive. As for it, it is inflected like the exception with illā. So, add "other than" with its three forms to "other than," and the exception with "other than" is always genitive. As for it, it is according to the exception with illā, just like "other than" completely. So you say, for example: "The people stood, except Zayd," meaning: other than Zayd. Is that correct or not?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : "Sawā Zayd," and you say: "The people stood, siwā Zayd," and "The people stood, suwā Zayd." The inflection of suwā, siwā, and sawā with elongation is the same. And you say: "The people did not stand, sawā Zayd." Is this the weaker or the stronger position?
The student: The weaker position.
The Shaykh : The weaker position. "The people did not stand, sawā Zayd."
The student: The stronger position.
The Shaykh : The stronger position. "The people did not stand, sawā a donkey."
The student: The weaker position.
The Shaykh : This is prohibited.
The student: Prohibited, correct.
The Shaykh : Among the Hijazis, "The people did not stand, sawā a donkey," is prohibited among the Hijazis and permissible?
The student: Among Banu Tamim.
The Shaykh : Among Banu Tamim. Okay, "The people did not stand, sawā Zayd," is it sawā?
The student: It is obligatory.
The Shaykh : It is obligatory, and "I did not see sawā Zayd," the accusative is obligatory, and "I did not pass by sawā Zayd," the genitive is obligatory. Is that complete or not?
The student: Complete.
The Shaykh : Okay, and I chose the example with "sawā" because the vowel movements appear on it, otherwise suwā and siwā have the same meaning as sawā. And the author's saying:
"on the most correct view"
indicates that there is a weaker disagreement, which is the disagreement of Sibawayhi, who made siwā, suwā, and sawā always accusative as a circumstantial. Always accusative as a circumstantial, and what is reported contrary to that is interpreted. What is reported contrary to that is interpreted. And there is no doubt that this view has no merit in consideration, because the saying of Ibn Malik is more correct, since it is reported in the Arabic language that it is according to the grammatical factors, and it is accusative if the sentence is complete and affirmative, and it is substituted or accusative if it is complete and negative or similar to it. To say that if it is reported not accusative, it needs interpretation, this is contrary to the apparent meaning. So the correct is with Ibn Malik. And a group took a middle position and said: The most common is that it is accusative as a circumstantial, and that it is used sometimes for exception, so it is like "other than." But we saw the view of Ibn Malik, that its ruling is the ruling of "other than," and what is the ruling of "other than"? The ruling of the exception with illā, according to the previous details. Yes.