Continuation of the explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): The ḥāl is a descriptive extra, its case is accusative *** It implies the state of being, like "alone" in "I left."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : An extra, and it must be?
The student: Accusative.
The Shaykh : Accusative, so it is a descriptive extra in the accusative case. Now, also "It implies the state of being, it implies the state of being like 'alone' in 'I left'" means: its meaning is that this estimation is understood from it, which is: in the state of, to distinguish it from the tamyīz (object of specification), because the tamyīz may be an extra in the accusative case but does not imply the state of being, such as their saying: "Glory to God for him, a horseman." Here, "a horseman" is not a ḥāl, though it is a tamyīz, and although it is an extra in the accusative case, it does not imply the state of being, because you are marveling at his horsemanship, and you do not intend to restrict it to him being in the state of being a horseman. The point is: "implies the state of being" means that the estimation of the ḥāl is "in the state of." Zayd came riding; the estimation is: in the state of his being a rider. Yes, the rain fell heavily; in the state of its being heavy, and so on. The important thing is that you estimate "in the state of." Zayd came and the sun was rising, meaning: in the state of the sun rising. And so on, and so forth. Yes.
"In the state of being alone, I left"
"Alone": a descriptive extra?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Accusative, implying the state of being?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Because you say "I left in the state of being alone." This is the ḥāl. Now.
The student: Accusative.
The Shaykh : Accusative, so it is a descriptive extra in the accusative case. Now, also "It implies the state of being, it implies the state of being like 'alone' in 'I left'" means: its meaning is that this estimation is understood from it, which is: in the state of, to distinguish it from the tamyīz (object of specification), because the tamyīz may be an extra in the accusative case but does not imply the state of being, such as their saying: "Glory to God for him, a horseman." Here, "a horseman" is not a ḥāl, though it is a tamyīz, and although it is an extra in the accusative case, it does not imply the state of being, because you are marveling at his horsemanship, and you do not intend to restrict it to him being in the state of being a horseman. The point is: "implies the state of being" means that the estimation of the ḥāl is "in the state of." Zayd came riding; the estimation is: in the state of his being a rider. Yes, the rain fell heavily; in the state of its being heavy, and so on. The important thing is that you estimate "in the state of." Zayd came and the sun was rising, meaning: in the state of the sun rising. And so on, and so forth. Yes.
"In the state of being alone, I left"
"Alone": a descriptive extra?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Accusative, implying the state of being?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Because you say "I left in the state of being alone." This is the ḥāl. Now.