Review from the beginning of the chapter on the Circumstantial Phrase.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and may peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and all his Companions.
We have previously established that the Circumstantial Phrase is a description, and a description is what indicates an event and its doer, such as "standing" or "struck," and the like. That is to say: is it the active participle and the passive participle, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : It was previously mentioned that it may depart from being a description to become a static word, but it is interpreted as a description. Then the author also said: The verbal noun is excluded from this. The verbal noun is not a description, nor is it a derived word; rather, the verbal noun is the source from which derivation occurs. The verbal noun is the source from which derivation occurs. From what are "struck" and "struck" derived? From "striking." "Ate" is from "eating," and "slept" is from "sleeping." So the verbal noun is the source from which derivation occurs, and it is not itself a derived word. Therefore, it is not a description. Is it permissible for it to function as a Circumstantial Phrase? No, it is not permissible, because the rule is that it must be a derived word, specifically a descriptive one. It must be a description, and the verbal noun is not a description. Now, the author says.
We have previously established that the Circumstantial Phrase is a description, and a description is what indicates an event and its doer, such as "standing" or "struck," and the like. That is to say: is it the active participle and the passive participle, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : It was previously mentioned that it may depart from being a description to become a static word, but it is interpreted as a description. Then the author also said: The verbal noun is excluded from this. The verbal noun is not a description, nor is it a derived word; rather, the verbal noun is the source from which derivation occurs. The verbal noun is the source from which derivation occurs. From what are "struck" and "struck" derived? From "striking." "Ate" is from "eating," and "slept" is from "sleeping." So the verbal noun is the source from which derivation occurs, and it is not itself a derived word. Therefore, it is not a description. Is it permissible for it to function as a Circumstantial Phrase? No, it is not permissible, because the rule is that it must be a derived word, specifically a descriptive one. It must be a description, and the verbal noun is not a description. Now, the author says.