Explanation of the saying of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And the subject in meaning, make it accusative with the comparative *** preferring, as you say: 'You are higher in rank.'"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said:
"And the subject in meaning, make it accusative with the comparative *** preferring, as you say: 'You are higher in rank.'"
We have not mentioned the specification of the ratio; the specification of the ratio means that the specification is transformed from the subject or the object. An example from the subject: an example of its transformation from the subject is saying: "Zayd sweated profusely." Its original form is: "Zayd's sweat flowed." "Zayd's sweat" was transformed from the subject to the specification, so we said: "Zayd sweated profusely." Now, "The market filled with rain." Is this from the ratio or from the entities?
The student: From the entities.
The Shaykh : From the entities, from the entities, because... rain here? And also, it was not transformed from the subject, because the subject is the market, not the rain that filled it, right? Now, it is transformed from the object, like His saying, the Exalted:[Al-Qamar 54:12] A specification for what?
The student: For springs.
The Shaykh : Yes, a specification of the object, a specification of the object, a specification transformed from the object. So, in reality, it is a specification for the earth, a specification for the earth, because it is transformed from the object. And the original form is: "We caused the springs of the earth to gush forth." But "We caused the earth to gush forth springs" is more eloquent, because "We caused the springs of the earth to gush forth" means that only the springs gushed forth, but "We caused the earth to gush forth springs" means the entire earth gushed forth and became springs, so it is more eloquent. Now, he said:
"And the subject in meaning, make it accusative with the comparative *** preferring, as you say: 'You are higher in rank.'"
"And the subject in meaning, make it accusative." The subject in meaning, and what is the grammatical case of the subject?
The student: It is the object of the verb.
The Shaykh : It is the object of "make it accusative."
The student: It is fronted.
The Shaykh : It is fronted. And his saying: "the subject in meaning" means: the subject in meaning. "Make it accusative." Why is "make it accusative" built on the fathah?
The student : Because it is connected to the emphatic nun.
The Shaykh : Because it is connected to the light nūn of emphasis. That is to say: an imperative verb connected to the light nūn of emphasis is built on the fathah. And his saying: "make it accusative with the comparative preferring" means: intending the comparative, whether it is the preference of Zayd over Zayd, or the preference of one state over another, or the like. The important point is that if the specification occurs after the name of the comparative, and it is the subject in meaning, then make it accusative.
"You are higher in rank"
Its original form is: "You elevated your rank," right? "You elevated your rank." So you find now that "higher" takes the place of "elevated," and "in rank" takes the place of the subject. So is "rank" the subject in meaning or not?
The student: Active subject.
The Shaykh : It is the subject in meaning: "You are higher in rank." But "Zayd is better than 'Amr" does not have a subject in meaning. Or "Zayd is a better man." "A better man"—we do not say that "man" is made accusative as a specification, because it is not the subject in meaning. And the conclusion is that whatever occurs after the comparative "af'ala," every noun that occurs after the comparative "af'ala," if it is the subject in meaning, it is made accusative as a specification; otherwise, it must be made genitive by addition. This is the rule: every noun that occurs after the name of the comparative.
The student: It is not a verb.
The Shaykh : After the name of the comparative, if it is the subject in meaning, it must be made accusative as a specification; otherwise, it must be made genitive by what?
The student: By addition.
The Shaykh : By addition. You say, for example: "I have more money than you," meaning: my money is more than your money. "The noblest in number," my number is more noble than your number. Did you understand? You say: "So-and-so is the most generous man." Is this the subject in meaning? Is "man" the subject in meaning? Here?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : It does not work to say: "So-and-so was generous to a man." It does not work. So it must be made genitive by addition, so you say: "The most generous man." Now, "The afflicted are the longest of necks." What is the grammatical case of "of necks"?
The student: A specification (tamyiz).
The Shaykh : It is a specification, because its original form is?
The student: "They lengthened."
The Shaykh : "Their necks lengthened." So is it the subject in meaning or not? Now, you say, for example: "So-and-so is the most sincere in heart." Here? Is it a specification or not? Here? "So-and-so is the most sincere in heart" is a specification, because the meaning is "his heart is sincere." And you say: "So-and-so's heart is the most sincere heart." Does it work to say "So-and-so's heart is the most sincere heart"?
The student: It is not suitable.
The Shaykh : It does not work, because the heart is the heart. So it must be made genitive by addition. And the conclusion is that this verse is the rule we take from it: if a noun transformed from the subject in meaning occurs after the name of the comparative, then what is it?
The student: It must be made accusative.
The Shaykh : It must be made accusative as a specification. And if it is not the subject in meaning, it must be made genitive by addition. And Allah knows best.
The student: What is the difference now, if... if we say: "I bought a span of land"?
The Shaykh : That the specification comes.
"And the subject in meaning, make it accusative with the comparative *** preferring, as you say: 'You are higher in rank.'"
We have not mentioned the specification of the ratio; the specification of the ratio means that the specification is transformed from the subject or the object. An example from the subject: an example of its transformation from the subject is saying: "Zayd sweated profusely." Its original form is: "Zayd's sweat flowed." "Zayd's sweat" was transformed from the subject to the specification, so we said: "Zayd sweated profusely." Now, "The market filled with rain." Is this from the ratio or from the entities?
The student: From the entities.
The Shaykh : From the entities, from the entities, because... rain here? And also, it was not transformed from the subject, because the subject is the market, not the rain that filled it, right? Now, it is transformed from the object, like His saying, the Exalted:
And caused the earth to burst with springs
وفجرنا الأرض عيونًاThe student: For springs.
The Shaykh : Yes, a specification of the object, a specification of the object, a specification transformed from the object. So, in reality, it is a specification for the earth, a specification for the earth, because it is transformed from the object. And the original form is: "We caused the springs of the earth to gush forth." But "We caused the earth to gush forth springs" is more eloquent, because "We caused the springs of the earth to gush forth" means that only the springs gushed forth, but "We caused the earth to gush forth springs" means the entire earth gushed forth and became springs, so it is more eloquent. Now, he said:
"And the subject in meaning, make it accusative with the comparative *** preferring, as you say: 'You are higher in rank.'"
"And the subject in meaning, make it accusative." The subject in meaning, and what is the grammatical case of the subject?
The student: It is the object of the verb.
The Shaykh : It is the object of "make it accusative."
The student: It is fronted.
The Shaykh : It is fronted. And his saying: "the subject in meaning" means: the subject in meaning. "Make it accusative." Why is "make it accusative" built on the fathah?
The student : Because it is connected to the emphatic nun.
The Shaykh : Because it is connected to the light nūn of emphasis. That is to say: an imperative verb connected to the light nūn of emphasis is built on the fathah. And his saying: "make it accusative with the comparative preferring" means: intending the comparative, whether it is the preference of Zayd over Zayd, or the preference of one state over another, or the like. The important point is that if the specification occurs after the name of the comparative, and it is the subject in meaning, then make it accusative.
"You are higher in rank"
Its original form is: "You elevated your rank," right? "You elevated your rank." So you find now that "higher" takes the place of "elevated," and "in rank" takes the place of the subject. So is "rank" the subject in meaning or not?
The student: Active subject.
The Shaykh : It is the subject in meaning: "You are higher in rank." But "Zayd is better than 'Amr" does not have a subject in meaning. Or "Zayd is a better man." "A better man"—we do not say that "man" is made accusative as a specification, because it is not the subject in meaning. And the conclusion is that whatever occurs after the comparative "af'ala," every noun that occurs after the comparative "af'ala," if it is the subject in meaning, it is made accusative as a specification; otherwise, it must be made genitive by addition. This is the rule: every noun that occurs after the name of the comparative.
The student: It is not a verb.
The Shaykh : After the name of the comparative, if it is the subject in meaning, it must be made accusative as a specification; otherwise, it must be made genitive by what?
The student: By addition.
The Shaykh : By addition. You say, for example: "I have more money than you," meaning: my money is more than your money. "The noblest in number," my number is more noble than your number. Did you understand? You say: "So-and-so is the most generous man." Is this the subject in meaning? Is "man" the subject in meaning? Here?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : It does not work to say: "So-and-so was generous to a man." It does not work. So it must be made genitive by addition, so you say: "The most generous man." Now, "The afflicted are the longest of necks." What is the grammatical case of "of necks"?
The student: A specification (tamyiz).
The Shaykh : It is a specification, because its original form is?
The student: "They lengthened."
The Shaykh : "Their necks lengthened." So is it the subject in meaning or not? Now, you say, for example: "So-and-so is the most sincere in heart." Here? Is it a specification or not? Here? "So-and-so is the most sincere in heart" is a specification, because the meaning is "his heart is sincere." And you say: "So-and-so's heart is the most sincere heart." Does it work to say "So-and-so's heart is the most sincere heart"?
The student: It is not suitable.
The Shaykh : It does not work, because the heart is the heart. So it must be made genitive by addition. And the conclusion is that this verse is the rule we take from it: if a noun transformed from the subject in meaning occurs after the name of the comparative, then what is it?
The student: It must be made accusative.
The Shaykh : It must be made accusative as a specification. And if it is not the subject in meaning, it must be made genitive by addition. And Allah knows best.
The student: What is the difference now, if... if we say: "I bought a span of land"?
The Shaykh : That the specification comes.