Continuation of the explanation of the previous verse: "Ku-wahid labyi wa-dwali sa'di *** wa-shadhdh i'lā' yadi li-l-bay."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : These are four words that are attached to what? To an explicit noun of the person being addressed, yes, and to a hidden pronoun of the person being addressed, yes. It is not permissible to attach them to an explicit noun, which is why he said:
"And it is anomalous to say 'i'lā' yadi li-l-bay'" Yes, it is anomalous to say "i'lā' yadi li-l-bay," meaning: it occurred in the speech of the Arabs, so [the poet] said, "So I responded, and my hand's response was my own," yes, so I responded, and my hand's response was my own, so I responded, and my hand's response was my own. He did not say, "So I responded to his response," he said, "So I responded, and my hand's response was my own." Ibn Malik refers to this verse and says: it is anomalous, and the aspect of its anomaly is that it was attached to an explicit noun, just as its attachment to the pronoun of absence is also anomalous in the poet's saying: "So I said, 'To his response, who is calling me?'" "So I said, 'To his response, who is calling me?'" It does not answer with the pronoun of absence, rather it must be with the pronoun of the person being addressed. These are four words by which the author informed us that if we use them without attachment, it is not valid, and if we use them attached to an explicit noun, it is not valid, and if we use them with a pronoun other than the person being addressed, it is not valid. So their usage is narrow in reality. Now we return to their meanings.
"Wahid" means alone, "laby" means a response after a response, from their saying: "alaba bi-l-makan" (he responded in the place), and their saying: "dawali" means an exchange after an exchange, "sa'di" means a bestowal of happiness after a bestowal of happiness. Then they are declined as an absolute object or as the source of a verb omitted from their own wording. Then they are declined as if attached to the dual, but is there a dual?
The student: Attached.
The Shaykh : Attached to the dual, because their form is the form of the dual, but the intended meaning is plurality. We have now spoken about their ruling regarding attachment, and about their meaning, and about their declension. Yes?
"And it is anomalous to say 'i'lā' yadi li-l-bay'" Yes, it is anomalous to say "i'lā' yadi li-l-bay," meaning: it occurred in the speech of the Arabs, so [the poet] said, "So I responded, and my hand's response was my own," yes, so I responded, and my hand's response was my own, so I responded, and my hand's response was my own. He did not say, "So I responded to his response," he said, "So I responded, and my hand's response was my own." Ibn Malik refers to this verse and says: it is anomalous, and the aspect of its anomaly is that it was attached to an explicit noun, just as its attachment to the pronoun of absence is also anomalous in the poet's saying: "So I said, 'To his response, who is calling me?'" "So I said, 'To his response, who is calling me?'" It does not answer with the pronoun of absence, rather it must be with the pronoun of the person being addressed. These are four words by which the author informed us that if we use them without attachment, it is not valid, and if we use them attached to an explicit noun, it is not valid, and if we use them with a pronoun other than the person being addressed, it is not valid. So their usage is narrow in reality. Now we return to their meanings.
"Wahid" means alone, "laby" means a response after a response, from their saying: "alaba bi-l-makan" (he responded in the place), and their saying: "dawali" means an exchange after an exchange, "sa'di" means a bestowal of happiness after a bestowal of happiness. Then they are declined as an absolute object or as the source of a verb omitted from their own wording. Then they are declined as if attached to the dual, but is there a dual?
The student: Attached.
The Shaykh : Attached to the dual, because their form is the form of the dual, but the intended meaning is plurality. We have now spoken about their ruling regarding attachment, and about their meaning, and about their declension. Yes?