Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "The verbal noun is linked to its verb in governance *** whether it is attached, bare, or with the article."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : And for this reason he said:
"The verbal noun is linked to its verb in governance"
"The verbal noun is linked to its verb in governance"—why did he not say "by its verb, the verbal noun" and make it an attribute of the verb?
The student: Because it is connected to "linked."
The Shaykh : Because it is a fronted object for his saying: "linked", and "by its verb" is a preposition and its object, connected to "linked," meaning: link the verbal noun to its verb in governance. Pay attention: link the verbal noun to its verb, meaning: the verb of that verbal noun governs. If the verb is intransitive, the verbal noun becomes intransitive. If it is transitive with one object, it becomes transitive with one object. If it is transitive with two objects, the original of which is the subject and the predicate, it becomes transitive with two objects, the original of which is the subject and the predicate. If it is transitive with two objects, the original of which is not the subject and the predicate, likewise. If it is transitive with three, likewise. The important point is that it is linked to its verb according to its verb. So you say: "I am pleased with your hitting Zayd." Does "hitting" here govern one object or two?
The student: To one.
The Shaykh : One. We now have the "ka" in "your hitting," and we have "Zayd." "Your hitting Zayd," and this "ka" is in the position of the doer because you are the one hitting, and "Zayd" is the one hit, so it is the object. Now, Allah the Exalted said:[Al-Balad 90:14-15] [Al-Balad 90:14-15] Here, "orphan"—what is raising it?
The student: Feeding.
The Shaykh : Feeding. "Feeding" is a verbal noun, just as if I said: "I fed an orphan on a day of hardship." Clear? Now, the one that governs one object is this example from the verse, and the example from before. The one that governs two objects, the original of which is not the subject and the predicate, its example is: "I am pleased with your dressing Zayd in a robe." But... what shall we put instead of "robe"?
The student: A shirt.
The Shaykh : A shirt. Nylon, not nylon wool, plastic, I mean. Okay, let's make it a shirt. Let's make it a shirt. "I am pleased with your dressing Zayd in a shirt." Now, you have raised two objects, which are "Zayd" and "shirt," and their original is not the subject and the predicate. So you say: "Dressing" is attached, and the "ka" is what it is attached to. Here, it is attached to its doer. "Zayd" is the first object, and "shirt" is the second object. Now, you say: "I was surprised by your eating the food." Is this from the second example or the first?
The student: The first, transitive with one object.
The Shaykh : Transitive with one object. Okay, transitive with two objects, the original of which is the subject and the predicate, you say: "I am certain that Isa is sleeping." It does not contradict, yes. "Certain," you see... "I was surprised by your thinking that Isa is sleeping," because "certain" is a present participle. "I was surprised by your thinking that Isa is sleeping," and he is a man who does not sleep if he is in class, he does not sleep, yes. Okay, you say: "From your thinking." "Thinking" is attached, and the "ka" is what it is attached to, from the chapter of attaching the verbal noun to its doer. "Isa" is the first object, accusative with a hidden fatha on the alif, prevented from appearing by difficulty. Look, "Isa" is not hidden from anyone, not even the fatha, which is the lightest thing, does not appear on it, yes. And "sleeping."
The student: Second object.
The Shaykh : Second object, yes, accusative with a visible fatha. This is the accusative of two objects, the original of which is the subject and the predicate. Okay, even if it raises three objects, the original verb raises three objects, the verbal noun raises three objects. "I was surprised by your informing Zayd that 'Umar is standing." "I was surprised by your informing Zayd that 'Umar is standing." What is the meaning of the phrase? It means: that you are informing Zayd that 'Umar is standing, so I was surprised by that. I was surprised by your informing, and "Zayd" and "'Umar" and "standing." We say: "Informing" is attached, and the "ka" is what it is attached to, and it is from the chapter of attaching the verbal noun to its doer. "Zayd" is the first object, "'Umar" is the second object, and "standing" is the third object. And for this reason he said:
"The verbal noun is linked to its verb in governance *** whether it is attached or bare"
Meaning, from the attachment "or with the article". These are three cases for the verbal noun: it governs when attached, and it governs when bare. From what? From the attachment. And we can say from the article as well, and for this reason he said: "or with the article". Three cases, and in all of them it governs like its verb. Its example when attached is here.
The student:[Al-Baqarah 2:251].
The Shaykh :[Al-Baqarah 2:251] This is attached. [Al-Baqarah 2:251] "Repelling" is attached, and the noble name is what it is attached to, and "people" is the object of "repelling." This is attached. Bare: [Al-Balad 90:14-15] "Feeding" is bare, not attached, and not with the article, and yet it governs. But note that if it is not attached and not with the article, it must be tanweened. It must have tanween. Okay, "or with the article". What is its example? "I was surprised by the hitting of 'Umar," or "I was surprised by the eating of food," meaning: from your eating at all, from your eating the food, or from your hitting Zayd. But it is connected with the article. Yes, it is not pleasing, not pleasing. No, no, do you not have an example in the explanation?
The student: "For you and the breaking of the bond, after *** he called you and our hands to it are open".
The Shaykh : I was surprised by the hitting of Zayd.
The student: "For you and the breaking of the bond".
The Shaykh : In any case, it is not pleasing. Ah, "I was surprised by the hitting of Zayd," "I was surprised by the eating of food," and so on. But Rashad, considering that he is a doctor, says this is not fitting, so it is actually a little speech, but it is correct, yes?
The student: ... .
"The verbal noun is linked to its verb in governance"
"The verbal noun is linked to its verb in governance"—why did he not say "by its verb, the verbal noun" and make it an attribute of the verb?
The student: Because it is connected to "linked."
The Shaykh : Because it is a fronted object for his saying: "linked", and "by its verb" is a preposition and its object, connected to "linked," meaning: link the verbal noun to its verb in governance. Pay attention: link the verbal noun to its verb, meaning: the verb of that verbal noun governs. If the verb is intransitive, the verbal noun becomes intransitive. If it is transitive with one object, it becomes transitive with one object. If it is transitive with two objects, the original of which is the subject and the predicate, it becomes transitive with two objects, the original of which is the subject and the predicate. If it is transitive with two objects, the original of which is not the subject and the predicate, likewise. If it is transitive with three, likewise. The important point is that it is linked to its verb according to its verb. So you say: "I am pleased with your hitting Zayd." Does "hitting" here govern one object or two?
The student: To one.
The Shaykh : One. We now have the "ka" in "your hitting," and we have "Zayd." "Your hitting Zayd," and this "ka" is in the position of the doer because you are the one hitting, and "Zayd" is the one hit, so it is the object. Now, Allah the Exalted said:
(14) Or feeding on a day of severe hunger (15) An orphan
أَوْ إِطْعَامٌ فِي يَوْمٍ ذِي مَسْغَبَةٍ * يَتِيمًا(14) Or feeding on a day of severe hunger (15) An orphan
أَوْ إِطْعَامٌ فِي يَوْمٍ ذِي مَسْغَبَةٍ * يَتِيمًاThe student: Feeding.
The Shaykh : Feeding. "Feeding" is a verbal noun, just as if I said: "I fed an orphan on a day of hardship." Clear? Now, the one that governs one object is this example from the verse, and the example from before. The one that governs two objects, the original of which is not the subject and the predicate, its example is: "I am pleased with your dressing Zayd in a robe." But... what shall we put instead of "robe"?
The student: A shirt.
The Shaykh : A shirt. Nylon, not nylon wool, plastic, I mean. Okay, let's make it a shirt. Let's make it a shirt. "I am pleased with your dressing Zayd in a shirt." Now, you have raised two objects, which are "Zayd" and "shirt," and their original is not the subject and the predicate. So you say: "Dressing" is attached, and the "ka" is what it is attached to. Here, it is attached to its doer. "Zayd" is the first object, and "shirt" is the second object. Now, you say: "I was surprised by your eating the food." Is this from the second example or the first?
The student: The first, transitive with one object.
The Shaykh : Transitive with one object. Okay, transitive with two objects, the original of which is the subject and the predicate, you say: "I am certain that Isa is sleeping." It does not contradict, yes. "Certain," you see... "I was surprised by your thinking that Isa is sleeping," because "certain" is a present participle. "I was surprised by your thinking that Isa is sleeping," and he is a man who does not sleep if he is in class, he does not sleep, yes. Okay, you say: "From your thinking." "Thinking" is attached, and the "ka" is what it is attached to, from the chapter of attaching the verbal noun to its doer. "Isa" is the first object, accusative with a hidden fatha on the alif, prevented from appearing by difficulty. Look, "Isa" is not hidden from anyone, not even the fatha, which is the lightest thing, does not appear on it, yes. And "sleeping."
The student: Second object.
The Shaykh : Second object, yes, accusative with a visible fatha. This is the accusative of two objects, the original of which is the subject and the predicate. Okay, even if it raises three objects, the original verb raises three objects, the verbal noun raises three objects. "I was surprised by your informing Zayd that 'Umar is standing." "I was surprised by your informing Zayd that 'Umar is standing." What is the meaning of the phrase? It means: that you are informing Zayd that 'Umar is standing, so I was surprised by that. I was surprised by your informing, and "Zayd" and "'Umar" and "standing." We say: "Informing" is attached, and the "ka" is what it is attached to, and it is from the chapter of attaching the verbal noun to its doer. "Zayd" is the first object, "'Umar" is the second object, and "standing" is the third object. And for this reason he said:
"The verbal noun is linked to its verb in governance *** whether it is attached or bare"
Meaning, from the attachment "or with the article". These are three cases for the verbal noun: it governs when attached, and it governs when bare. From what? From the attachment. And we can say from the article as well, and for this reason he said: "or with the article". Three cases, and in all of them it governs like its verb. Its example when attached is here.
The student:
if it were not for Allah checking
وَلَوْلا دَفْعُ اللَّهِ النَّاسَThe Shaykh :
if it were not for Allah checking
وَلَوْلا دَفْعُ اللَّهِ النَّاسَif it were not for Allah checking
وَلَوْلا دَفْعُ اللَّهِ النَّاسَ(14) Or feeding on a day of severe hunger (15) An orphan
أَوْ إِطْعَامٌ فِي يَوْمٍ ذِي مَسْغَبَةٍ * يَتِيمًاThe student: "For you and the breaking of the bond, after *** he called you and our hands to it are open".
The Shaykh : I was surprised by the hitting of Zayd.
The student: "For you and the breaking of the bond".
The Shaykh : In any case, it is not pleasing. Ah, "I was surprised by the hitting of Zayd," "I was surprised by the eating of food," and so on. But Rashad, considering that he is a doctor, says this is not fitting, so it is actually a little speech, but it is correct, yes?
The student: ... .