Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And that which begins with a present tense verb that is affirmed *** contains a pronoun and is devoid of the waw."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And that which begins with a present tense verb that is affirmed *** contains a pronoun and is devoid of the waw"
We said a moment ago: Is the clause that functions as a circumstantial phrase (hal) nominal or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And an example of it is: "Zayd came and he was intending a journey." And it can be verbal. You know that the verbal clause can be past tense, present tense, or imperative. The imperative is not possible except by estimation, as will come later. The important point is: if it is with a present tense verb, when the clause functions as a circumstantial phrase and it is a present tense verb, it is either affirmed or negated. If it is affirmed, the author said:
"And that which begins with a present tense verb that is affirmed ***"
"Thabata" means: affirmed.
"*** contains a pronoun and is devoid of the waw"
"Contains a pronoun" — a pronoun that refers to whom? To the possessor of the circumstantial phrase. That is to say: it must contain a pronoun that refers to the possessor of the circumstantial phrase, and it must not be joined with the waw. For this reason, he said:
"*** contains a pronoun and is devoid of the waw"
The grammatical analysis of the verse. I think we stopped at Ghanim?
Connected.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Connected to "bid'a" (beginning). Okay, "thabata"?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, are you taking it? Yes, "thabata" is a past tense verb. Complete it. Built on what?
The student: Built on the fathah.
The Shaykh : How?
The student: Built on fathah.
The Shaykh : Yes, and it was made silent for the sake of the rhyme. Yes, and the subject?
The student: The subject?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: It is omitted.
The Shaykh : It is omitted. What does it become? What do you say, everyone?
The student: Hidden.
The Shaykh : Hidden by permission. Its estimation is?
The student: He.
The Shaykh : It, meaning: the present tense verb. Okay, where is the predicate of the subject "dhat" (that which)?
The student: The sentence.
The Shaykh : Which clause?
The student: Verb and subject.
The Shaykh : Which clause? We have clauses now. Which clause?
The student: Thabata.
The Shaykh : Thabata, meaning: the clause "thabata" is the predicate of the subject?
The student: Yes, indeed.
Another student: Hawat.
The Shaykh : Hawat is the predicate of the subject?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And the clause "thabata," what is its grammatical position?
"And that which begins with a present tense verb that is affirmed".
The student: Connected to the present tense verb.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It becomes an attribute for the present tense verb.
The Shaykh : It is a relative clause for the present tense verb. Yes, "thabata" is an attribute for the present tense verb. Did you understand, Ahmad? "Thabata" is an attribute for the present tense verb because the original state of "with a present tense verb" is affirmed, meaning: not negated. And the clause "contains a pronoun" is the predicate of the subject "dhat." Okay, complete it, you?
The student: Hawat, "hawa" is a past tense verb, built.
The Shaykh : And the taa?
The student: For femininity.
The Shaykh : Yes, and the subject?
The student: Hidden.
The Shaykh : Its estimation is?
The student: It (feminine).
The Shaykh : Yes, "pronoun"?
The student: Maf'ul (passive).
The Shaykh : For what?
The student: Hawa.
The Shaykh : And "devoid of the waw," Ya Saleh?
The student: The waw is a conjunction.
The Shaykh : A conjunction. Okay.
The student: Khala...
The Shaykh : No, the fathah. Where is the fathah?
The student: On the lam.
The Shaykh : Wrong. Where is the fathah?
The student: The fathah?
The Shaykh : Where is the fathah? The lam in "khala" is open (fathah), it was not deleted.
The student: On the yaa.
The Shaykh : Where is the yaa?
The student: Deleted.
The Shaykh : What is the estimation? The estimation of "khala"? Here, Muhammad?
The student: On the deleted alif.
The Shaykh : On the deleted alif due to the meeting of two silent letters. Yes, built on an estimated fathah on the deleted alif due to the meeting of two silent letters. Okay, where is the object of "from the waw"? "From the waw" is a preposition and its object, connected to what?
The student: To "khala."
The Shaykh : "Khala" is good. The author (may Allah have mercy on him) says: If the circumstantial clause is a present tense verb, an affirmed present tense verb, then two things are obligatory in it: that it contains a pronoun referring to the possessor of the circumstantial phrase, and secondly: that it is not joined with the waw. Did you understand? An example of that is: "The man came dragging his garment." — Respond with your hands. Here, "the man came" is a verb and a subject. "Yajurru" (dragging) is an affirmed present tense verb, not negated?
The student: Affirmed.
The Shaykh : Affirmed, and it is in the position of accusative as a circumstantial phrase, a circumstantial phrase for the man. Does it have a pronoun referring to the man or not? Here? It does, because "yajurru" means: he is dragging his garment. So it has a pronoun referring to the man. Okay, if I said: "The man came, Zayd is dragging his garment."
The student: It is not valid. It is not valid because there is no pronoun.
The Shaykh : It is not valid if the pronoun in "his garment" refers to Zayd. But if we say: "his garment" refers to the man, then it is valid. If the meaning of "The man came, Zayd is dragging his garment" is: the man's garment, then it has a pronoun referring to the man, so it is valid. But if we say: "The man came, Zayd is dragging his garment," meaning: his own garment, then this clause is not valid as a circumstantial phrase, because there is no pronoun in it referring to the possessor of the circumstantial phrase. Or did you not understand? Here?
The student: And it is not beneficial.
The Shaykh : It is beneficial, but it does not have a pronoun referring to the possessor of the circumstantial phrase. Clear? If I said: "The man came, Zayd is dragging his garment," each clause becomes separate from the other. "The man came" is separate, "Zayd is dragging his garment" is separate from it. So it is necessary that the clause functioning as a circumstantial phrase has a pronoun referring to the possessor of the circumstantial phrase. Or did you not understand?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, this is if it is an affirmed present tense verb. Then the author said.
We said a moment ago: Is the clause that functions as a circumstantial phrase (hal) nominal or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And an example of it is: "Zayd came and he was intending a journey." And it can be verbal. You know that the verbal clause can be past tense, present tense, or imperative. The imperative is not possible except by estimation, as will come later. The important point is: if it is with a present tense verb, when the clause functions as a circumstantial phrase and it is a present tense verb, it is either affirmed or negated. If it is affirmed, the author said:
"And that which begins with a present tense verb that is affirmed ***"
"Thabata" means: affirmed.
"*** contains a pronoun and is devoid of the waw"
"Contains a pronoun" — a pronoun that refers to whom? To the possessor of the circumstantial phrase. That is to say: it must contain a pronoun that refers to the possessor of the circumstantial phrase, and it must not be joined with the waw. For this reason, he said:
"*** contains a pronoun and is devoid of the waw"
The grammatical analysis of the verse. I think we stopped at Ghanim?
Connected.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Connected to "bid'a" (beginning). Okay, "thabata"?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, are you taking it? Yes, "thabata" is a past tense verb. Complete it. Built on what?
The student: Built on the fathah.
The Shaykh : How?
The student: Built on fathah.
The Shaykh : Yes, and it was made silent for the sake of the rhyme. Yes, and the subject?
The student: The subject?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: It is omitted.
The Shaykh : It is omitted. What does it become? What do you say, everyone?
The student: Hidden.
The Shaykh : Hidden by permission. Its estimation is?
The student: He.
The Shaykh : It, meaning: the present tense verb. Okay, where is the predicate of the subject "dhat" (that which)?
The student: The sentence.
The Shaykh : Which clause?
The student: Verb and subject.
The Shaykh : Which clause? We have clauses now. Which clause?
The student: Thabata.
The Shaykh : Thabata, meaning: the clause "thabata" is the predicate of the subject?
The student: Yes, indeed.
Another student: Hawat.
The Shaykh : Hawat is the predicate of the subject?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And the clause "thabata," what is its grammatical position?
"And that which begins with a present tense verb that is affirmed".
The student: Connected to the present tense verb.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It becomes an attribute for the present tense verb.
The Shaykh : It is a relative clause for the present tense verb. Yes, "thabata" is an attribute for the present tense verb. Did you understand, Ahmad? "Thabata" is an attribute for the present tense verb because the original state of "with a present tense verb" is affirmed, meaning: not negated. And the clause "contains a pronoun" is the predicate of the subject "dhat." Okay, complete it, you?
The student: Hawat, "hawa" is a past tense verb, built.
The Shaykh : And the taa?
The student: For femininity.
The Shaykh : Yes, and the subject?
The student: Hidden.
The Shaykh : Its estimation is?
The student: It (feminine).
The Shaykh : Yes, "pronoun"?
The student: Maf'ul (passive).
The Shaykh : For what?
The student: Hawa.
The Shaykh : And "devoid of the waw," Ya Saleh?
The student: The waw is a conjunction.
The Shaykh : A conjunction. Okay.
The student: Khala...
The Shaykh : No, the fathah. Where is the fathah?
The student: On the lam.
The Shaykh : Wrong. Where is the fathah?
The student: The fathah?
The Shaykh : Where is the fathah? The lam in "khala" is open (fathah), it was not deleted.
The student: On the yaa.
The Shaykh : Where is the yaa?
The student: Deleted.
The Shaykh : What is the estimation? The estimation of "khala"? Here, Muhammad?
The student: On the deleted alif.
The Shaykh : On the deleted alif due to the meeting of two silent letters. Yes, built on an estimated fathah on the deleted alif due to the meeting of two silent letters. Okay, where is the object of "from the waw"? "From the waw" is a preposition and its object, connected to what?
The student: To "khala."
The Shaykh : "Khala" is good. The author (may Allah have mercy on him) says: If the circumstantial clause is a present tense verb, an affirmed present tense verb, then two things are obligatory in it: that it contains a pronoun referring to the possessor of the circumstantial phrase, and secondly: that it is not joined with the waw. Did you understand? An example of that is: "The man came dragging his garment." — Respond with your hands. Here, "the man came" is a verb and a subject. "Yajurru" (dragging) is an affirmed present tense verb, not negated?
The student: Affirmed.
The Shaykh : Affirmed, and it is in the position of accusative as a circumstantial phrase, a circumstantial phrase for the man. Does it have a pronoun referring to the man or not? Here? It does, because "yajurru" means: he is dragging his garment. So it has a pronoun referring to the man. Okay, if I said: "The man came, Zayd is dragging his garment."
The student: It is not valid. It is not valid because there is no pronoun.
The Shaykh : It is not valid if the pronoun in "his garment" refers to Zayd. But if we say: "his garment" refers to the man, then it is valid. If the meaning of "The man came, Zayd is dragging his garment" is: the man's garment, then it has a pronoun referring to the man, so it is valid. But if we say: "The man came, Zayd is dragging his garment," meaning: his own garment, then this clause is not valid as a circumstantial phrase, because there is no pronoun in it referring to the possessor of the circumstantial phrase. Or did you not understand? Here?
The student: And it is not beneficial.
The Shaykh : It is beneficial, but it does not have a pronoun referring to the possessor of the circumstantial phrase. Clear? If I said: "The man came, Zayd is dragging his garment," each clause becomes separate from the other. "The man came" is separate, "Zayd is dragging his garment" is separate from it. So it is necessary that the clause functioning as a circumstantial phrase has a pronoun referring to the possessor of the circumstantial phrase. Or did you not understand?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, this is if it is an affirmed present tense verb. Then the author said.