Explanation of the saying of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "A noun with the meaning of 'from' that clarifies an indefinite noun *** is made accusative as a specification, as has been explained"

The Shaykh : As for its definition according to the grammarians: it is a noun, meaning: it does not function as a verb and does not function as a sentence. It was previously mentioned that the *hal* (circumstantial phrase) can be a sentence, and the position of the *hal* is where a sentence comes. Second: it has the meaning of *min* (from), meaning: it contains the meaning of *min*. It was previously mentioned that the *hal* contains the meaning of *fi* (in), understood as *fi*. Yes, this has the meaning of *min*. Also, it clarifies the entity or the relationship. The *hal* clarifies the state. For example, "The man came riding." "Riding" clarifies the state of the man, how he came. As for this, it clarifies the relationship or clarifies the entity. Did you understand? For example: "I have twenty men." This clarifies the entity, because "twenty" is indefinite, and "men" clarifies this indefinite thing, specifying that they are men. And for example: "Zayd sweated." "Sweat" is a specification clarifying the relationship, meaning: the relationship of sweating to sweat. The original form of "Zayd sweated" is: "Zayd's sweat flowed." And similarly, "We opened up the earth with springs." "Springs" is a specification, and its original form is: "We opened up the springs of the earth." So, it clarifies what?
The student: The entity and the relationship.

The Shaykh : The entity and the relationship. Sometimes it clarifies the entity and sometimes it clarifies the relationship. Indefinite means: not definite. So, the specification cannot be definite; rather, it must be indefinite. So, it clarifies the entities or the relationship. The *hal* clarifies that the *hal* can be a noun and a sentence, and this can only be a noun. The *hal* has the meaning of *fi* (in), and this has the meaning of *min* (from). A noun with the meaning of *min*. He said:
"is made accusative as a specification"
"Is made accusative" is the predicate of the noun. The noun is mentioned, then its attributes are mentioned. He said:
"is made accusative" Yes, and "with the meaning of *min*" is an attribute of the noun. "Clarifying" is the second attribute. "Indefinite" yes, is the third attribute. "Is made accusative" is the predicate of the sentence. "is made accusative as a specification" "As a specification" — what is its grammatical case?
The student: A state (hal).

The Shaykh : A *hal* (circumstantial phrase). "Is made accusative" is a *hal* in the state of being a specification.
"by what has explained it" Meaning: its operator is the very explainer, the one that explained this specification. For example: "I have twenty men." And what makes "men" accusative?
The student: The specification.

The Shaykh : "Twenty." "Twenty" makes it accusative. Yes. "I have a *sa'* of wheat." And what makes "wheat" accusative?
The student: A *sa'*.

The Shaykh : A *sa'*. "I have a kilo of land." Huh?
The student: A kilo of land?!

The Shaykh : Yes, a kilo of land is not valid? I didn't say a *sa'* of land, a kilo of land.
The student: A kilometer of distance.

The Shaykh : There remain a hundred kilometers. A kilo of land.
The student: A kilo of weight.

The Shaykh : No.
The student: Add a square.

The Shaykh : Okay, is a kilo of land valid or not? Okay, how far is it from Riyadh to Unaizah? 400 square kilometers or not square?
The student: Square.

The Shaykh : No, not square. If it were square to Quba. The point is, a kilo of land. And what makes "land" accusative?
The student: A kilo.

The Shaykh : A kilo. So, for this reason, he said:
"is made accusative as a specification by what has explained it"
Then he gave examples for it.