Explanation of the author's (may Allah have mercy on him) statement: "… And as for the alif, it is the marker of the nominative case specifically in the dual of nouns …"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The author (may Allah have mercy on him) said after this: "And as for the alif, it is the marker of the nominative case specifically in the dual of nouns". The alif, the alif is the marker of the nominative case in only one place, in the dual of nouns, meaning in the dual form of nouns. The author said "of nouns" to clarify the reality, because verbs are not dualized. As for the one who says "al-rijulaniyaquman" (the two men stand up), "yaquman" is a verb that does not have a nun, but a pronoun attached to it, what is it? The dual pronoun. Yes, that is correct.
In any case, the alif is the marker of the nominative case specifically in the dual of nouns. What is the dual of nouns specifically? Everything that indicates two by an addition that replaces two similar coordinated items. And this is long, oh. Everything that indicates two, meaning two or two females, by an addition that replaces what? Two similar coordinated items. It replaces two similar coordinated items. This is the dual, and what is annexed to the dual is like the dual, but this is the definition of the true dual, excluding what is annexed to it. "That indicates two or two females" excludes what indicates more and what indicates less. So what indicates less is what? The singular. And what indicates more is the plural. So by saying "that indicates two," what is excluded? The singular and the dual.
The student: Reconciliation
The Shaykh : The singular and the plural, because here he says: "That indicates what?" Two or two females. Do you understand or not? And our saying "by an addition," by an addition, means that there must be an addition to the singular for the dual to be realized. For example, if I say "Zayd," add an alif and a nun, you say "Zaydani." This addition is necessary to avoid what indicates two without an addition, like "ithnayn" (two). Like "ithnayn," "ithnayn." This has no addition because it does not have a singular noun. It does not have a singular noun. Yes. For this reason, we say that "ithnayn" and "ithnata" are annexed to the dual and are not true duals. And it is strange that "ithnayn" and "ithnata" are the origin of the dual and are not truly of the dual. For this reason, they can be an argument against us, or not? Yes.
The student: It is not possible.
The Shaykh : It is possible, and we are the origin of the dual… and you are annexed to the dual. The entire dual is derived from "ithnayn," and yet you say it is annexed to the dual. We say yes, because they established a rule, so what is excluded from it is not part of it. So an addition is necessary. Okay. "Replaces two similar coordinated items." Replaces two similar coordinated items, like "al-Zaydani" (the two Zayds). It replaces "Zayd and Zayd," so you say "Jaa'a al-Zaydani" (The two Zayds came) instead of saying "Jaa'a Zayd wa Zayd" (Zayd and Zayd came). Yes. And you say "Jaa'a al-Muhammadani" (The two Muhammads came) instead of "Muhammad and Muhammad." And you say "Jaa'a al-'Aliyani" (The two Alis came) instead of "Ali and Ali." Okay. "Jaa'a al-'Umarani" (The two Umars came). Is "al-'Umarani" the dual of "Umar"? No. Yes… If it is intended to mean "Umar and Umar," then it is a dual. But if it is intended to mean "Abu Bakr and Umar," then it is not a dual, but it is inflected like the dual because it is annexed to it. Because if you say "al-'Umarani" and you mean Abu Bakr and Umar, then "al-'Umarani" stands in for two non-similar items. It stands in for two non-similar items.
In any case, the alif is the marker of the nominative case specifically in the dual of nouns. What is the dual of nouns specifically? Everything that indicates two by an addition that replaces two similar coordinated items. And this is long, oh. Everything that indicates two, meaning two or two females, by an addition that replaces what? Two similar coordinated items. It replaces two similar coordinated items. This is the dual, and what is annexed to the dual is like the dual, but this is the definition of the true dual, excluding what is annexed to it. "That indicates two or two females" excludes what indicates more and what indicates less. So what indicates less is what? The singular. And what indicates more is the plural. So by saying "that indicates two," what is excluded? The singular and the dual.
The student: Reconciliation
The Shaykh : The singular and the plural, because here he says: "That indicates what?" Two or two females. Do you understand or not? And our saying "by an addition," by an addition, means that there must be an addition to the singular for the dual to be realized. For example, if I say "Zayd," add an alif and a nun, you say "Zaydani." This addition is necessary to avoid what indicates two without an addition, like "ithnayn" (two). Like "ithnayn," "ithnayn." This has no addition because it does not have a singular noun. It does not have a singular noun. Yes. For this reason, we say that "ithnayn" and "ithnata" are annexed to the dual and are not true duals. And it is strange that "ithnayn" and "ithnata" are the origin of the dual and are not truly of the dual. For this reason, they can be an argument against us, or not? Yes.
The student: It is not possible.
The Shaykh : It is possible, and we are the origin of the dual… and you are annexed to the dual. The entire dual is derived from "ithnayn," and yet you say it is annexed to the dual. We say yes, because they established a rule, so what is excluded from it is not part of it. So an addition is necessary. Okay. "Replaces two similar coordinated items." Replaces two similar coordinated items, like "al-Zaydani" (the two Zayds). It replaces "Zayd and Zayd," so you say "Jaa'a al-Zaydani" (The two Zayds came) instead of saying "Jaa'a Zayd wa Zayd" (Zayd and Zayd came). Yes. And you say "Jaa'a al-Muhammadani" (The two Muhammads came) instead of "Muhammad and Muhammad." And you say "Jaa'a al-'Aliyani" (The two Alis came) instead of "Ali and Ali." Okay. "Jaa'a al-'Umarani" (The two Umars came). Is "al-'Umarani" the dual of "Umar"? No. Yes… If it is intended to mean "Umar and Umar," then it is a dual. But if it is intended to mean "Abu Bakr and Umar," then it is not a dual, but it is inflected like the dual because it is annexed to it. Because if you say "al-'Umarani" and you mean Abu Bakr and Umar, then "al-'Umarani" stands in for two non-similar items. It stands in for two non-similar items.