Explanation of the author's (may Allah have mercy on him) statement: "… and the particle is that which does not accept the evidence of a noun or the evidence of a verb …"

The Shaykh : He said: "And the particle is that which does not accept the evidence of a noun or the evidence of a verb". Any word to which the evidence of a noun is applied and it does not accept it, and then the evidence of a verb is applied and it does not accept it, is a particle. So the particle is that which does not accept the evidence of a noun or the evidence of a verb. Al-Hariri says in *Milkat al-I'rab*:
"The particle is that which has no marker *** So compare it to my saying, and you will be a marker"
Zayn of this is the sweet one who becomes a marker; every one who circles becomes a marker.
"The particle is that which has no marker *** So compare it to my saying, and you will be a marker"
So if you find a word to which the markers of a noun are applied and it does not accept them, and the markers of a verb are applied and it does not accept them, then it is a particle.
So if someone says: How do you make the marker of the particle negative, when a marker is a sign that must be a positive thing?
The answer is: If the thing is limited, if the thing is limited, it is valid for the marker to be negative. Here, the marker of the noun is such-and-such, and the marker of the verb is such-and-such. What remains? That which does not fall under this marker or that marker. Is it known or not known? It becomes known. They said: And the parallel to that is the letters Jim, Ha, and Kha. Jim, Ha, Kha: three letters, their writing is one, and they do not differ? One distinguishes the Jim by the dot below, the Kha by the dot above, and the Ha has no marker, it has no dot. So if we find a form suitable for Kha, Jim, and Ha, but it does not have this marker or that marker, we know that it is a particle. We know that it is a Ha. We know that it is a Ha.
So every word that does not accept the markers of a noun or the markers of a verb is a particle. Good, let us give an example of what the author did not exemplify, because it is required of the teacher to exemplify. Did we exemplify with the verb or not? The verb that contains *qad*. What is the example? The one that contains *sa*. The one that contains *sawfa*. The one that contains the feminine *ta*. But the *ta* was broken (kasrah) due to the meeting of two static letters.
Good, the particle: does *qad*, *sa*, *sawfa*, and the static feminine *ta* count or not? All of the above, we take the close example. The letters of the genitive case are nine. The author counted nine. So if it is said, "Exemplify with a particle," we say, "In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Bestower of Mercy." And the letters of the genitive case are: *min* is a particle, *ila* is a particle. Good, the letters of the oath are *ba*, *ta*, and *waw*. Yes. So the examples, praise be to Allah, are available to us. Do not go far; take from the letters of the genitive case or from the letters of the oath. Good, it remains to be said: What do you say about *al* (the definite article), which is one of the markers of a noun? Does *al* fall under the author's statement here? Yes. The author said at the beginning: "A particle that came for a meaning". And *al* has no meaning. *Al* has no meaning. And some grammarians said: "But *al* has a meaning; it conveys generality, it conveys the reality of the thing". Yes. "It conveys definiteness". So it has a meaning. It has a meaning. And on this basis, *al* is considered a particle because it is a particle that came for a meaning. Good, what about the *ra* in *rubba*? What do you say? Is it a particle or not? No, it is not a particle by convention, because the author said: "A particle that came for a meaning". And *rubba* means diminution or augmentation. But it is composed of three letters. If you break it down and say the *ra*, it has no meaning, correct.
Is the *mim* in *min* a particle or not a particle?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Why?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : It has no meaning. The *nun* in *min* is not a particle. So the particle is that which does not accept the marker of a noun or the marker of a verb. But the particle as defined by grammarians is that which has a meaning: a particle that came for a meaning.
So the summary of this chapter, praise be to Allah, is that speech, according to grammarians, is a compound expression that conveys meaning by convention. This is one point.
Second: The divisions of speech are three: a noun, a verb, and a particle. A particle that came for a meaning. Good. The evidence for this division.
The student: Tracking and induction.

The Shaykh : Tracking and induction: The scholars of grammar tracked the speech of the Arabs and did not find it to go beyond these three. And note that if you went to read the biographies of the scholars of language and the hardship and fatigue they endured in tracking the nomads, perhaps they would find a single word from the Arabic words before the tongues of the people of the cities changed. Because the people of the cities mixed with the people whose lands were conquered, and the tongue changed, so the Arabic language is not found except in the bellies of the valleys and the places where trees grow. So the scholars of language went in every direction in the deserts seeking an Arab who would inform them of a single word in order to establish it. Yes. For this reason, we say: The scholars tracked and inducted, and they did not find the speech of the Arabs to go beyond these three divisions. Good: a noun, a verb, and a particle that came for a meaning.
Each of the three divisions, each of these three divisions, has markers. The markers of a noun are four: the genitive case, tanwin, the entry of *alif* and *lam*, and the letters of the genitive case. And if you wish, say the letters of the oath. But we say the letters of the oath are among the letters of the genitive case, but their meaning is the oath.
The markers of a verb are four: *sa*, *sawfa*, *qad*, and the static feminine *ta*. What is the marker of the particle? What do you say?
The student: ... .

The Shaykh : We are not from you. Do not speak. The author did not say.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Good, the particle: what is its marker? Its marker is negative: that which does not accept the evidence of a noun or the evidence of a verb. It is said: I tell you by tracking and induction that al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf al-Thaqafi, from Thaqif, from Ta'if, was a man keen on the Arabic language. He is the one who inflected the Qur'an. He wrote, meaning he spoke. A Bedouin spoke to him with the word *fu'lah*, *fu'lah*. So al-Hajjaj said to him: It is not found in the Arabic language. He said: It is found. He said: Search. Bring a witness from the pure Arabs, or I will cut off your neck. There was no al-Hajjaj. So the man went seeking in the deserts, seeking, delaying. He said: So when it was one day, and there was a poet reciting:
"Perhaps souls dislike of a matter a release *** Like the untying of a rope"
And there was another old man who came and said: Al-Hajjaj has died. He said: By Allah, we did not rejoice at his death more than I rejoiced at this verse. May Allah suffice him from the matter by the death of al-Hajjaj and the presence of the witness. My intention is that people were tracking the Arabs and seeking from every side, perhaps they would find an Arabic word that the tongues had not changed. As for the cities, they changed through the conquests. The Arabs mixed with the non-Arabs, and the tongue changed. Yes. Yes.