Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): . . . And the lam is for this: for what is other than those two, and specify first *** or give it definiteness by what followed it.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And the lam is for this: for what is other than those two"
This is a reference to the fact that the restricted noun is not the definite one, because of what was restricted from it. He said: "The lam is for this: for what is other than those two". Thus, on this view, the assumed lam in the construct state is more common, and that is indeed the case. If you look at the construct state, you will find that the majority assume the lam in the construct state. "The book of Zayd" is for Zayd, "the saddle of the horse" is for the horse, "the door of the house" is for the house, and so on. And for this reason he said:
"The lam is for this: for what is in other than those two"
So the construct state is on the assumption of "from," on the assumption of "in," and on the assumption of the lam. The most common is the assumption of "from," then "in." He said: "For what is other than those two". "Those two" is unusual. "Those two" is Arabic, yes, no... "Those two" for what is other than those two. Ah, this is a dual demonstrative pronoun referring to two things, and it is in the accusative case or built, according to a view. It was mentioned to us earlier that the dual demonstrative pronoun and the dual relative pronoun, are they inflected or built? Only according to our view that it is inflected, "other than" is a construct noun and "those two" is the construct noun to which it is attached, in the genitive case due to the construct state, and the sign of its genitive is the yaa in place of the kasrah because it is dual. Or we say: "other than" is a construct noun and "those" is the construct noun to which it is attached, built on the kasrah, built on the yaa, in the position of the genitive.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, that is right.
"For what is other than those two, and specify first *** or give it definiteness by what followed it"
This is from the perspective of the conceptual ruling. What does the construct state benefit? It benefits either definiteness or specification.
"And specify first". First, and what is the first? The construct noun or the construct noun to which it is attached? The construct noun. "Or give it definiteness by what followed it". It becomes definite. So the construct noun acquires from the construct noun to which it is attached either specification or definiteness. When is it specification? If the construct noun to which it is attached is indefinite, it acquires specification. And if it is definite, it acquires definiteness. The definite nouns were mentioned to us earlier as being five. And if it is attached to a definite noun, it becomes definite. And if it is attached to an indefinite noun, it is indefinite, but it is specified by the construct state. Okay, you say: "I bought a garment," which is indefinite.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : What kind of garment? A man's garment, a woman's garment, a boy's garment, an adult's garment. We don't know. "I bought a man's garment." "I bought a man's garment." Did it benefit from definiteness or not?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : What is the reason? Because "man" is indefinite, it is not definite. But it benefited from specification. The construct state here benefited from specification, that it is a man's garment, not a woman's garment, not a child's garment. It is not a woman's garment, not a child's garment. Understood, everyone? Okay, "I bought a garment." Is this indefinite or specified? "I bought Zayd's garment." Ah, the first one is now definite because it was attached to a definite noun. It was attached to a definite noun. And the result now is that the construct noun acquires from the construct noun to which it is attached either specification, if the construct noun to which it is attached is indefinite, or definiteness, if the construct noun to which it is attached is definite. And for this reason he said:
"And specify first". And it is the construct noun first. That means the construct noun. The construct noun is the construct noun and the construct noun to which it is attached. Specify first, or give it definiteness by what followed it.
Or make it definite for the reason that followed it. If what followed it is indefinite, it benefits from specification. And if what followed it is definite, it benefits from definiteness. And Allah knows best.
This is a reference to the fact that the restricted noun is not the definite one, because of what was restricted from it. He said: "The lam is for this: for what is other than those two". Thus, on this view, the assumed lam in the construct state is more common, and that is indeed the case. If you look at the construct state, you will find that the majority assume the lam in the construct state. "The book of Zayd" is for Zayd, "the saddle of the horse" is for the horse, "the door of the house" is for the house, and so on. And for this reason he said:
"The lam is for this: for what is in other than those two"
So the construct state is on the assumption of "from," on the assumption of "in," and on the assumption of the lam. The most common is the assumption of "from," then "in." He said: "For what is other than those two". "Those two" is unusual. "Those two" is Arabic, yes, no... "Those two" for what is other than those two. Ah, this is a dual demonstrative pronoun referring to two things, and it is in the accusative case or built, according to a view. It was mentioned to us earlier that the dual demonstrative pronoun and the dual relative pronoun, are they inflected or built? Only according to our view that it is inflected, "other than" is a construct noun and "those two" is the construct noun to which it is attached, in the genitive case due to the construct state, and the sign of its genitive is the yaa in place of the kasrah because it is dual. Or we say: "other than" is a construct noun and "those" is the construct noun to which it is attached, built on the kasrah, built on the yaa, in the position of the genitive.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, that is right.
"For what is other than those two, and specify first *** or give it definiteness by what followed it"
This is from the perspective of the conceptual ruling. What does the construct state benefit? It benefits either definiteness or specification.
"And specify first". First, and what is the first? The construct noun or the construct noun to which it is attached? The construct noun. "Or give it definiteness by what followed it". It becomes definite. So the construct noun acquires from the construct noun to which it is attached either specification or definiteness. When is it specification? If the construct noun to which it is attached is indefinite, it acquires specification. And if it is definite, it acquires definiteness. The definite nouns were mentioned to us earlier as being five. And if it is attached to a definite noun, it becomes definite. And if it is attached to an indefinite noun, it is indefinite, but it is specified by the construct state. Okay, you say: "I bought a garment," which is indefinite.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : What kind of garment? A man's garment, a woman's garment, a boy's garment, an adult's garment. We don't know. "I bought a man's garment." "I bought a man's garment." Did it benefit from definiteness or not?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : What is the reason? Because "man" is indefinite, it is not definite. But it benefited from specification. The construct state here benefited from specification, that it is a man's garment, not a woman's garment, not a child's garment. It is not a woman's garment, not a child's garment. Understood, everyone? Okay, "I bought a garment." Is this indefinite or specified? "I bought Zayd's garment." Ah, the first one is now definite because it was attached to a definite noun. It was attached to a definite noun. And the result now is that the construct noun acquires from the construct noun to which it is attached either specification, if the construct noun to which it is attached is indefinite, or definiteness, if the construct noun to which it is attached is definite. And for this reason he said:
"And specify first". And it is the construct noun first. That means the construct noun. The construct noun is the construct noun and the construct noun to which it is attached. Specify first, or give it definiteness by what followed it.
Or make it definite for the reason that followed it. If what followed it is indefinite, it benefits from specification. And if what followed it is definite, it benefits from definiteness. And Allah knows best.