Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And the sentence of the ḥāl, other than what was mentioned before, *** is with a wāw, or with a hidden pronoun, or with both."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And the sentence of the ḥāl, other than what was mentioned before"
The sentence of the ḥāl, meaning: the ḥāl that occurs as a sentence, other than what was mentioned before. What is it that was mentioned before? What is it, my brothers? It is the affirmed present tense verb. This includes the past tense, it includes the negated present tense, it includes the nominal sentence, yes, and it includes the imperative verb, but its wording is estimated for the ḥāl. This sentence is other than what was mentioned before.
"With a wāw, or with a hidden pronoun, or with both"
Meaning: it can be with the wāw, it can be with the pronoun alone, and it can be with both together. Did you understand?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : If the ḥāl occurs as a sentence other than an affirmed present tense verb, it is permissible for it to be accompanied by the wāw without the pronoun, by the pronoun without the wāw, or by both the pronoun and the wāw together. So, what is the sentence other than the affirmed present tense? First: the negated present tense, second: the past tense, the nominal sentence, the imperative sentence. Yes, but for the imperative, what is valid to complete the speech is estimated for it. Now, let us begin with examples. Negated present tense: "He came in fleeing, not caring about anyone." And it is permissible to say: "and not caring about anyone," right? Yes, it is permissible to say "and not caring about anyone." This is the negated present tense. Past tense: "The man came in, right? His father laughed?"
The student: No, that is not valid.
The Shaykh : His father laughed!
The student: Yes, it is valid, it has a pronoun.
The Shaykh : It has a pronoun that refers back, yes, it has a pronoun, but in the past tense it is accompanied by qad.
The student: Qad?
The Shaykh : With qad, you say: "qad laughed." "The man came in, qad he laughed," meaning: he. "The man came in, qad he rode." Now, the nominal sentence: "He visited me, and the sun is rising," right? Where is it?
The student: And the sun is rising.
The Shaykh : And the sun is rising. This is a nominal sentence accompanied by the wāw. With the pronoun: "He visited me, the sun has eaten it," or is that not valid? But this is a past tense verb, this is a past tense verb. You say, for example: "The man came in, he is my friend," meaning: the ḥāl is that he is my friend. As for with both, you say: "The man came in, and he is my friend," so it is with the pronoun and the wāw. Do you not have examples of this in the explanation?
The student: Zayd came in, his hand on his head.
The Shaykh : This is without the wāw, this is a pronoun.
The student: We give it a wāw.
The Shaykh : And what?
The student: Zayd came in, and his hand on his head.
The Shaykh : This is with the wāw and the pronoun.
The student: Zayd and 'Amir came in standing.
The Shaykh : This is with the wāw without the pronoun.
The student: And the negated one: Zayd came in, he did not laugh.
The Shaykh : "Zayd came"?
The student: Zayd came in, he did not laugh.
The Shaykh : Zayd came in, he did not laugh.
The student: And Zayd came in, and he did not laugh.
The Shaykh : With the wāw. And Zayd came in, and he, or did he not say?
The student: He did not say.
The Shaykh : Well, it does not contradict, because there is no need, because the pronoun is attached to it. The important thing now, the most important thing for us, is that the ḥāl comes as a nominal sentence, a past tense verb, a present tense verb, an imperative verb. The present tense is affirmed and negated. The affirmed one is? Right?
The student: Devoid of the wāw, containing the pronoun.
The Shaykh : Devoid of the wāw, containing the pronoun. If there comes from the speech of the Arabs something with the wāw and the pronoun, then a subject is estimated after the wāw, in order for the sentence to be nominal. If the sentence is nominal, or a present tense verb that is negated, or past tense, or imperative, meaning: a request, then it comes with the wāw, and the pronoun is estimated for it. Yes, you say: "The man came in, strike him," meaning: it is said of him, "strike him," for example. Now, it can be with the wāw alone, or with the pronoun alone, or with both together.
The student: And it does not lack both.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: Is it possible for it to lack the wāw and the pronoun?
The Shaykh : Is it possible, what?
The sentence of the ḥāl, meaning: the ḥāl that occurs as a sentence, other than what was mentioned before. What is it that was mentioned before? What is it, my brothers? It is the affirmed present tense verb. This includes the past tense, it includes the negated present tense, it includes the nominal sentence, yes, and it includes the imperative verb, but its wording is estimated for the ḥāl. This sentence is other than what was mentioned before.
"With a wāw, or with a hidden pronoun, or with both"
Meaning: it can be with the wāw, it can be with the pronoun alone, and it can be with both together. Did you understand?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : If the ḥāl occurs as a sentence other than an affirmed present tense verb, it is permissible for it to be accompanied by the wāw without the pronoun, by the pronoun without the wāw, or by both the pronoun and the wāw together. So, what is the sentence other than the affirmed present tense? First: the negated present tense, second: the past tense, the nominal sentence, the imperative sentence. Yes, but for the imperative, what is valid to complete the speech is estimated for it. Now, let us begin with examples. Negated present tense: "He came in fleeing, not caring about anyone." And it is permissible to say: "and not caring about anyone," right? Yes, it is permissible to say "and not caring about anyone." This is the negated present tense. Past tense: "The man came in, right? His father laughed?"
The student: No, that is not valid.
The Shaykh : His father laughed!
The student: Yes, it is valid, it has a pronoun.
The Shaykh : It has a pronoun that refers back, yes, it has a pronoun, but in the past tense it is accompanied by qad.
The student: Qad?
The Shaykh : With qad, you say: "qad laughed." "The man came in, qad he laughed," meaning: he. "The man came in, qad he rode." Now, the nominal sentence: "He visited me, and the sun is rising," right? Where is it?
The student: And the sun is rising.
The Shaykh : And the sun is rising. This is a nominal sentence accompanied by the wāw. With the pronoun: "He visited me, the sun has eaten it," or is that not valid? But this is a past tense verb, this is a past tense verb. You say, for example: "The man came in, he is my friend," meaning: the ḥāl is that he is my friend. As for with both, you say: "The man came in, and he is my friend," so it is with the pronoun and the wāw. Do you not have examples of this in the explanation?
The student: Zayd came in, his hand on his head.
The Shaykh : This is without the wāw, this is a pronoun.
The student: We give it a wāw.
The Shaykh : And what?
The student: Zayd came in, and his hand on his head.
The Shaykh : This is with the wāw and the pronoun.
The student: Zayd and 'Amir came in standing.
The Shaykh : This is with the wāw without the pronoun.
The student: And the negated one: Zayd came in, he did not laugh.
The Shaykh : "Zayd came"?
The student: Zayd came in, he did not laugh.
The Shaykh : Zayd came in, he did not laugh.
The student: And Zayd came in, and he did not laugh.
The Shaykh : With the wāw. And Zayd came in, and he, or did he not say?
The student: He did not say.
The Shaykh : Well, it does not contradict, because there is no need, because the pronoun is attached to it. The important thing now, the most important thing for us, is that the ḥāl comes as a nominal sentence, a past tense verb, a present tense verb, an imperative verb. The present tense is affirmed and negated. The affirmed one is? Right?
The student: Devoid of the wāw, containing the pronoun.
The Shaykh : Devoid of the wāw, containing the pronoun. If there comes from the speech of the Arabs something with the wāw and the pronoun, then a subject is estimated after the wāw, in order for the sentence to be nominal. If the sentence is nominal, or a present tense verb that is negated, or past tense, or imperative, meaning: a request, then it comes with the wāw, and the pronoun is estimated for it. Yes, you say: "The man came in, strike him," meaning: it is said of him, "strike him," for example. Now, it can be with the wāw alone, or with the pronoun alone, or with both together.
The student: And it does not lack both.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: Is it possible for it to lack the wāw and the pronoun?
The Shaykh : Is it possible, what?