Continuation of the explanation of the author’s (may Allah have mercy on him) statement: “... so the *nāṣibāt* (letters that cause the accusative case) are ten, and they are: *an* and *lan* ...”

The Shaykh : A fourth answer: He said, “I will visit you tomorrow.” I said, “Then May Allah keep you safe and grant you honor”
The student: Error

The Shaykh : Incorrect. Why? Because of the intervening word. So what do I say in “grant you honor”? I say, “May Allah keep you safe and grant you honor” because of the separation.
Now, the fifth answer: he said, "I will visit you tomorrow", so I said, "Then, by Allah, I will honor you".
The student: Correct.

The Shaykh : Correct.
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because of the separation.

The Shaykh : Because the separation is for the sake of the oath. The separation here is by the oath. And if the separation is by the oath, it does not prevent the accusative case. Okay.
He said, “So it is a condition for its accusative case that the verb be a present-tense verb, that it be implied, that the verb following it be future, and that no intervening word enter between it and the verb except an oath.”
Now, if someone says to you, "I miss you and I would like to visit you", and you say, "Then, I will honor you now", "Then, I will honor you now".
The student: Error

The Shaykh : Incorrect. Why?
The student: The verb is future.

The Shaykh : The verb is now future. So if you say “Then now, say ‘I grant you honor’” — “I grant you honor” — because the verb is now not future, and it does not cause the accusative case unless the verb is future. Okay, we have finished with its conditions, and now the examples of that.
How do you parse it if you say “Then I grant you honor”? We say: “Then” is a letter of response and accusative case. It is a letter of response and accusative case because it indicates a response. “Then” and accusative case because it causes the present-tense verb to be in the accusative case. So we say: It is “Then,” a letter of response and accusative case. There is no need to mention ... the present-tense verb, because it does not cause anything to be in the accusative case except the present-tense verb. Okay.
And the *lam* of *kay* is the *lam* of *kay*, here.
The student: Without the *lam*.

The Shaykh : And "kay" also governs the present tense verb. So if you say to a person, "Why did you come?" and he says, "To read", "To read", and we say that "kay" is a particle of governance that governs the present tense verb, and "to read" is a present tense verb governed by "kay." Do you understand? Good.
This is what the author held, and it is the correct view: that *kay* causes the accusative case by itself. As for the Basrans, they say that *kay* does not cause the accusative case by itself because it is a preposition. So we say of *kay* that it is a letter of causation, and the verb following it is in the accusative case by *an* — by *an*, meaning *kay an*. But the correct view is what the author held.
Now, the third one: he says "lam kay." "Lam kay" is the one that usually indicates the reason. For example, if someone says to you, "Why did you come?", you say, "I came to read". This is called the "lam of reason," and the author calls it "lam kay." Why? Because it takes the place of "kay." If you delete the "lam" and say, "To read", that is correct. And in this case, we say, as we said before, that the "lam" is the governing particle according to the author's opinion. The Basrans say the "lam" is a preposition and the governing particle is "an," with the implied meaning being "because I read."
But our rule in the chapter of grammar, which we should follow, is that when grammarians differ on an issue, we take the easier of the two opinions. Because if we take the dispensations in the chapter of inflection, that is permissible. This is permissible. This is a guidance from Allah: it is permissible to take the dispensations in the chapter of inflection. Yes, this is not from the matters of obligation where it is not permissible to follow dispensations. So the rule for me is: "That in any two opinions in grammar on any issue, we take the easier of them". We take the easier of them. And here, which is easier: to say it is governed by an implied "an" after "lam kay," or governed by the "lam" of "lam kay"? "Lam kay" is easier. "Lam kay" is easier. Good. Yes.
The student: We made the verse a rule.

The Shaykh : What?
The student: We made the verse a rule.

The Shaykh : A verse on this. What is it?
The student: "And if there is a difference, take the easier *** In grammar, not in others, in the best".

The Shaykh : Yes, and if there is a difference.
The student: If there is.

The Shaykh :"If there is a difference, take the easier in grammar, not in others, in the best".
Yes, okay. This is a verse that should be memorized. Yes, here. He says:
"And if there is a difference, take the easier *** In grammar, not in others, in the best".
I don’t know. This is “in the best,” meaning in the best view. And we do not say “not in others.” So understand it so that it does not become confusing.
The student: It is from the prepositions.

The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: It seems to you that it is from the prepositions.

The Shaykh : Yes, it is a letter of accusative case according to the author’s view.
The student: It is from the prepositions. It is not from the prepositions. The prepositions are counted. It seems to you that it is from the prepositions.

The Shaykh : Yes, but there is a view that says it is from the prepositions and that the accusative case is by an implied *an* after it. But...
The student: There is no disagreement, O Shaykh, in *kay*. The disagreement is in the *lam* of *kay*.

The Shaykh : And the *lam* of *kay* also has disagreement. The disagreement is in the *lam* of *kay*. Yes.
He says, "And lam kay", and "lam jhud" (the lam of denial). "Jhud" means denial, meaning the "lam" that comes with what comes after "ma" which indicates denial. But in "kana" and its derivatives, meaning it comes after the denied state of being. How is the denied state of being? It means it comes after "ma kana" or "lam yakun" or "not existing" or something similar. This is called "lam jhud," meaning the "lam" of denial, because it is compared to it. And we, as beginners, say it came after "lam yakun" or "ma kana." The example is the saying of Allah the Exalted: . The "lam" here, you cannot say it is "lam kay." So what do we call it? "Lam jhud," because it is the one that comes after the denial, after "lam yakun" or "ma kana." Good. And "hatta" (until) is also a particle of governance. How?
The student: The *lam* of denial...

The Shaykh : The *lam* of denial comes after *ma kana* or *lam yakun*, and that one comes in a place other than this.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : The *lam* is the *lam* of *kay*. As for this one, it is called the *lam* of denial, like...
The student: I say the *lam* of denial.

The Shaykh : Yes, yes. *Ma* is a negative particle, and *kana* is a past-tense verb that puts its subject in the accusative case and its predicate in the nominative case. The Name of Allah is its subject, and the *lam*, according to the author’s statement, is the *lam* of denial, and it causes the present-tense verb to be in the accusative case.
The student: To punish them.

The Shaykh : “To punish them”: “punish” is a present-tense verb in the accusative case by the *lam* of denial, and the sign of its accusative case is the visible fathah at its end. Okay.
*Hatta* causes the present-tense verb to be in the accusative case. From this is the saying of Allah the Exalted: “until he returns.” “Returns” here is in the accusative case by *hatta*. And this is what the author held, and it is the correct view because it is easier. And what do the Basrans say? They say it is in the accusative case by *an* after *hatta*, because they say *hatta* is a preposition. *Hatta* is a preposition. And on this basis, we say in the saying of Allah the Exalted:
*Hatta*: A letter of limit and accusative case that causes the present-tense verb to be in the accusative case.
“Returns”: A present-tense verb in the accusative case by *hatta*, and the sign of its accusative case is a visible fathah at its end.
As for the response of *fa* and *waw*, we will postpone speaking about it because it requires elaboration. But we will bring up *aw* (or).
Or it governs the present tense verb. It comes with the meaning of "except" and with the meaning of "until." If it is a limit for what comes before it, it means "until," like: "I will surely compel you, or you will pay my debt", "I will surely compel you, or you will pay my debt". This is on the assumption of "until you pay my debt."
Its example with the meaning of "except" is: "I will surely kill the disbeliever, or he will submit". Meaning, "I will surely kill the disbeliever, or he will submit." Here, we cannot make "aw" (or) mean "until." Why? Because killing does not extend until he submits. But we make "aw" mean "except that he submits."
And in any case, *aw* causes the present-tense verb to be in the accusative case, and it comes in two ways.
The first is that it means “until.”
And the second is that it means “except.” If what comes after it is a limit for what comes before it, it means “until.” Otherwise, it means “except.” Yes, the time has ended, I think.
The student: Four minutes left.

The Shaykh : The one who rang this first. Okay.