Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And join the construction of *ghayra* if you omit *** what *** to which it is added, intending *** what *** was omitted."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :" *Ghayra*, if you omit *** what *** to which it is added, intending *** what *** was omitted "
"And join the construction" means: and join the joining of the construction, for *bina'* here is an absolute object because it is on the assumption of the addition of the verb
"Join the joining of the construction" because the joining may be a joining of inflection, or it may be a joining of construction. If you say: "The man came," the joining here is a joining of inflection. And if you say: "Sit where Zayd sat," in "where he sat," the joining here is a joining of construction. The word *ghayr* — "pray two rak'ahs" — the word *ghayr* is constructed on the damma, but when?
"If you omit *** what *** to which it is added" "If you omit *** what *** to which it is added, intending *** what *** was omitted"
It means: if you delete the added-to and intend its meaning, then you construct it on the damma. For example, you say: "I took from you two dirhams, *ghayru* (nothing else)," not *ghayran*. Here, *la* is a negator of the genus, and *ghayr* is its noun, constructed on the damma in the position of the accusative. Take it with the damma, why? Because we deleted the added-to and intended its meaning. Its original form is "not *ghayruhu* (not his other)," "not *ghayrumahuma* (not their other)," "two dirhams, not *ghayrumahuma*." This is the original form, so we deleted the added-to and intended its meaning, and it became constructed on the damma, constructed on the damma. *La* is a negator of the genus. Yes, *la* is a negator of the genus, meaning "not *ghayrumahuma* I took." If we brought the added-to, it would be in the accusative with the fatha. But when we deleted the added-to, it became constructed on the damma in the position of the accusative. We understood from the author's saying: "If you omit *** what *** to which it is added, intending *** what *** was omitted" Yes, that it does not escape from four cases: either the added-to is mentioned, or it is deleted and its meaning is intended, or it is deleted and its word is intended, or it is deleted and neither its word nor its meaning is intended. So the cases are four. If you delete it and intend its meaning, it is constructed on the damma. The cause of the construction on the damma has been presented to us: the correct view is that the cause in constructed words is hearing. But the grammarians refuse to do anything but provide a cause, saying: the cause is that when you delete the added-to and intend its meaning, it resembles the particle in its dependence, in its dependence on this added-to, so it became constructed on the damma. Okay, so.
"And join the construction" means: and join the joining of the construction, for *bina'* here is an absolute object because it is on the assumption of the addition of the verb
"Join the joining of the construction" because the joining may be a joining of inflection, or it may be a joining of construction. If you say: "The man came," the joining here is a joining of inflection. And if you say: "Sit where Zayd sat," in "where he sat," the joining here is a joining of construction. The word *ghayr* — "pray two rak'ahs" — the word *ghayr* is constructed on the damma, but when?
"If you omit *** what *** to which it is added" "If you omit *** what *** to which it is added, intending *** what *** was omitted"
It means: if you delete the added-to and intend its meaning, then you construct it on the damma. For example, you say: "I took from you two dirhams, *ghayru* (nothing else)," not *ghayran*. Here, *la* is a negator of the genus, and *ghayr* is its noun, constructed on the damma in the position of the accusative. Take it with the damma, why? Because we deleted the added-to and intended its meaning. Its original form is "not *ghayruhu* (not his other)," "not *ghayrumahuma* (not their other)," "two dirhams, not *ghayrumahuma*." This is the original form, so we deleted the added-to and intended its meaning, and it became constructed on the damma, constructed on the damma. *La* is a negator of the genus. Yes, *la* is a negator of the genus, meaning "not *ghayrumahuma* I took." If we brought the added-to, it would be in the accusative with the fatha. But when we deleted the added-to, it became constructed on the damma in the position of the accusative. We understood from the author's saying: "If you omit *** what *** to which it is added, intending *** what *** was omitted" Yes, that it does not escape from four cases: either the added-to is mentioned, or it is deleted and its meaning is intended, or it is deleted and its word is intended, or it is deleted and neither its word nor its meaning is intended. So the cases are four. If you delete it and intend its meaning, it is constructed on the damma. The cause of the construction on the damma has been presented to us: the correct view is that the cause in constructed words is hearing. But the grammarians refuse to do anything but provide a cause, saying: the cause is that when you delete the added-to and intend its meaning, it resembles the particle in its dependence, in its dependence on this added-to, so it became constructed on the damma. Okay, so.