Explanation of the author's (may Allah have mercy on him) statement: " . . .
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The author (may Allah have mercy on him) says " The descriptor follows the described in its raising, accusative, and genitive cases " in its raising, accusative, and genitive cases, and he did not say "jussive" because verbs are not described. And if they are not described, then the jussive case occurs in verbs. So it is not possible for the descriptor to follow the described in the jussive case, because the jussive is a characteristic of verbs, and verbs are not described. Correct, they are described by it, but they are not described. They are described by it and not described. You say, "I passed by a man who honors the guest," but you do not say, for example, "honors the guest a man," making "man" a descriptor for "honors." The important point is that the author did not mention what? The jussive case, because verbs are what? Not described. Okay.
It follows him " in its raising " So if the described is in the nominative case, the descriptor becomes nominative. So you say
Zayd the excellent came, and nothing else. That is, it is not correct to say "Zayd the excellent came" with the descriptor in the accusative, or "Zayd the excellent came" with the descriptor in the genitive. You must say "Zayd the excellent came."
In its accusative case: if the described is in the accusative case, the descriptor becomes accusative. So you say
I saw Zayd the excellent, and nothing else. It is not permissible to say "I saw Zayd the excellent" with the descriptor in the nominative, nor "I saw Zayd the excellent" with the descriptor in the genitive. If someone read a book to you and said, "This is a beautiful book" with the descriptor in the accusative, what would you say to him? It is an error. What is the correct form? "This is a beautiful book" with the descriptor in the nominative. "I read a beautiful book" with the descriptor in the nominative is an error, and the correct form is "beautiful" in the accusative. "I looked at a beautiful book" with the descriptor in the nominative is an error, and the correct form is "beautiful" in the genitive. So you analogize. Thus, the descriptor follows the described in its raising if it is raised, in its accusative if it is accusative, and in its genitive if it is genitive. Likewise, the descriptor follows the described in " its definiteness and indefiniteness " That is, if the described is definite, the descriptor is definite, and if it is indefinite, the descriptor is indefinite. So you say, for example,
I passed by the man excellent. This is not correct, because "excellent" is indefinite and "the man" is definite. So what do I say? "The excellent." I passed by the man the excellent. Okay.
I passed by a man the excellent. This is an error, because "a man" is indefinite and "the excellent" is definite. Okay. And "the excellent" is definite because "a man" is indefinite and "the excellent" is definite. Okay.
I passed by a man excellent. This is correct, because "a man" is indefinite and "excellent" is indefinite. So the descriptor follows the described in definiteness and indefiniteness. That is, if the described is definite, the descriptor must also be definite, and if the described is indefinite, the descriptor must be what? Indefinite. Okay. In its definiteness and indefiniteness, you say
The author did not mention its masculinity and femininity, its masculinity and femininity. Does it follow it in masculinity and femininity? The answer is yes, it follows it, except if the description is for other than the described. If the description is for other than the described, it follows the one being described. If the description is, in meaning, for other than the described, it follows the one being described. Okay. Add to this now, and in its masculinity and femininity, and in its masculinity and femininity. So if the described is masculine, the descriptor is masculine, and if the described is feminine, it becomes what?
The student: Feminine.
The Shaykh : The descriptor becomes so, the descriptor becomes so. How many are the inflections? It is the genitive, nominative, and accusative cases. Definiteness and indefiniteness. Masculinity and femininity. Okay.
The fourth remains with us: singularity, dual, and plural. Is it following it or not? We say yes, it is following it in singularity, dual, and plural. And I think we will leave this out because it has details that I am afraid will confuse you. So there are three things in inflection: the nominative, accusative, and genitive cases. In definiteness and indefiniteness. In what?
The student: In masculinity and femininity.
The Shaykh : In masculinity and femininity, unless the descriptor is a description for other than the described. An example of that is you say, "I passed by a man standing." "I passed by a man standing" is correct.
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct. Here, "standing" is masculine and "man" is masculine. "I passed by a man standing" with "standing" in the feminine form.
The student: This is an error.
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: Error
The Shaykh : It is not correct. Okay. "I passed by a woman standing" is correct, because the descriptor is feminine and the described is feminine. "I passed by a woman standing" with "standing" in the masculine form is not correct, because "standing" is masculine and "woman" is feminine. I said, except if it is a description for other than the described, then it is according to the description. For example, if I say, "I passed by a woman standing her father," here it is correct. Or "I passed by a man standing her father," which one?
The student: Standing (masculine).
The Shaykh : "Standing her father." Why? Because the speech is not describing the woman now; it is describing whom? It is describing, in meaning, the father. He is the one standing, not the woman. So it follows what comes after it in masculinity and femininity. Okay. "I passed by a woman standing her mother."
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct, because "mother" is feminine. "I passed by a man standing her mother."
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Here it is correct. Why? Why did we feminize it, and the described "man" is masculine? Because the description is for other than the described. Okay. "I passed by a man standing his father" is correct.
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Because "standing" is masculine, because the father is masculine. So the descriptor follows the described in inflection. If the described is nominative, the descriptor is nominative. If it is accusative, the descriptor is accusative. If it is genitive, the descriptor is genitive. If it is jussive, the descriptor is
The student: Not jussive.
The Shaykh : No, because the jussive is a characteristic of verbs, and verbs are not described. Okay.
In definiteness and indefiniteness, does it follow it or not? Here, if the described is definite, the descriptor is definite. If the described is indefinite, the descriptor becomes indefinite. That is all, or not? Okay.
In masculinity and femininity, we say it follows it. If the described is masculine, the descriptor is masculine. If the described is feminine, the descriptor is feminine, except what? Except if the description is for other than the described, then it follows the one being described, not the described. An example:
"I passed by a man standing her mother," and do not say "standing her mother" with "standing" in the masculine. Do not make "standing" masculine. The descriptor follows the described because this description is for other than it.
"I passed by a woman standing her father," and not "standing her father" with "standing" in the feminine. "Standing her father." Why? Because "standing" is a description for what? For other than the woman. It is a description for other than the described in meaning. Okay.
The author (may Allah have mercy on him) says, like he said, " You say: Zayd the intelligent stood " Correct. " And I saw Zayd the intelligent " Correct. " And I passed by Zayd the intelligent " Correct. Okay. If someone said, "Zayd the intelligent stood" with the descriptor in the accusative,
The student: Error
The Shaykh : It is an error. "I saw Zayd the intelligent" with the descriptor in the nominative,
The student: Error
The Shaykh : "I passed by Zayd the intelligent" with the descriptor in the accusative is an error. Why? Because it follows the described in inflection, without detail, without detail. Okay.
The author limited himself to this example, although he did not mention the descriptor and the described if they are both definite. But how do we say if they are both indefinite? We replace Zayd with "a man" and say
"I passed by a man intelligent," "I saw a man intelligent," yes, and "A man intelligent came." "A man intelligent came."
And when the author indicated definiteness and masculinity, he clarified (may Allah have mercy on him) the definite and the indefinite.
It follows him " in its raising " So if the described is in the nominative case, the descriptor becomes nominative. So you say
Zayd the excellent came, and nothing else. That is, it is not correct to say "Zayd the excellent came" with the descriptor in the accusative, or "Zayd the excellent came" with the descriptor in the genitive. You must say "Zayd the excellent came."
In its accusative case: if the described is in the accusative case, the descriptor becomes accusative. So you say
I saw Zayd the excellent, and nothing else. It is not permissible to say "I saw Zayd the excellent" with the descriptor in the nominative, nor "I saw Zayd the excellent" with the descriptor in the genitive. If someone read a book to you and said, "This is a beautiful book" with the descriptor in the accusative, what would you say to him? It is an error. What is the correct form? "This is a beautiful book" with the descriptor in the nominative. "I read a beautiful book" with the descriptor in the nominative is an error, and the correct form is "beautiful" in the accusative. "I looked at a beautiful book" with the descriptor in the nominative is an error, and the correct form is "beautiful" in the genitive. So you analogize. Thus, the descriptor follows the described in its raising if it is raised, in its accusative if it is accusative, and in its genitive if it is genitive. Likewise, the descriptor follows the described in " its definiteness and indefiniteness " That is, if the described is definite, the descriptor is definite, and if it is indefinite, the descriptor is indefinite. So you say, for example,
I passed by the man excellent. This is not correct, because "excellent" is indefinite and "the man" is definite. So what do I say? "The excellent." I passed by the man the excellent. Okay.
I passed by a man the excellent. This is an error, because "a man" is indefinite and "the excellent" is definite. Okay. And "the excellent" is definite because "a man" is indefinite and "the excellent" is definite. Okay.
I passed by a man excellent. This is correct, because "a man" is indefinite and "excellent" is indefinite. So the descriptor follows the described in definiteness and indefiniteness. That is, if the described is definite, the descriptor must also be definite, and if the described is indefinite, the descriptor must be what? Indefinite. Okay. In its definiteness and indefiniteness, you say
The author did not mention its masculinity and femininity, its masculinity and femininity. Does it follow it in masculinity and femininity? The answer is yes, it follows it, except if the description is for other than the described. If the description is for other than the described, it follows the one being described. If the description is, in meaning, for other than the described, it follows the one being described. Okay. Add to this now, and in its masculinity and femininity, and in its masculinity and femininity. So if the described is masculine, the descriptor is masculine, and if the described is feminine, it becomes what?
The student: Feminine.
The Shaykh : The descriptor becomes so, the descriptor becomes so. How many are the inflections? It is the genitive, nominative, and accusative cases. Definiteness and indefiniteness. Masculinity and femininity. Okay.
The fourth remains with us: singularity, dual, and plural. Is it following it or not? We say yes, it is following it in singularity, dual, and plural. And I think we will leave this out because it has details that I am afraid will confuse you. So there are three things in inflection: the nominative, accusative, and genitive cases. In definiteness and indefiniteness. In what?
The student: In masculinity and femininity.
The Shaykh : In masculinity and femininity, unless the descriptor is a description for other than the described. An example of that is you say, "I passed by a man standing." "I passed by a man standing" is correct.
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct. Here, "standing" is masculine and "man" is masculine. "I passed by a man standing" with "standing" in the feminine form.
The student: This is an error.
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: Error
The Shaykh : It is not correct. Okay. "I passed by a woman standing" is correct, because the descriptor is feminine and the described is feminine. "I passed by a woman standing" with "standing" in the masculine form is not correct, because "standing" is masculine and "woman" is feminine. I said, except if it is a description for other than the described, then it is according to the description. For example, if I say, "I passed by a woman standing her father," here it is correct. Or "I passed by a man standing her father," which one?
The student: Standing (masculine).
The Shaykh : "Standing her father." Why? Because the speech is not describing the woman now; it is describing whom? It is describing, in meaning, the father. He is the one standing, not the woman. So it follows what comes after it in masculinity and femininity. Okay. "I passed by a woman standing her mother."
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct, because "mother" is feminine. "I passed by a man standing her mother."
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Here it is correct. Why? Why did we feminize it, and the described "man" is masculine? Because the description is for other than the described. Okay. "I passed by a man standing his father" is correct.
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Because "standing" is masculine, because the father is masculine. So the descriptor follows the described in inflection. If the described is nominative, the descriptor is nominative. If it is accusative, the descriptor is accusative. If it is genitive, the descriptor is genitive. If it is jussive, the descriptor is
The student: Not jussive.
The Shaykh : No, because the jussive is a characteristic of verbs, and verbs are not described. Okay.
In definiteness and indefiniteness, does it follow it or not? Here, if the described is definite, the descriptor is definite. If the described is indefinite, the descriptor becomes indefinite. That is all, or not? Okay.
In masculinity and femininity, we say it follows it. If the described is masculine, the descriptor is masculine. If the described is feminine, the descriptor is feminine, except what? Except if the description is for other than the described, then it follows the one being described, not the described. An example:
"I passed by a man standing her mother," and do not say "standing her mother" with "standing" in the masculine. Do not make "standing" masculine. The descriptor follows the described because this description is for other than it.
"I passed by a woman standing her father," and not "standing her father" with "standing" in the feminine. "Standing her father." Why? Because "standing" is a description for what? For other than the woman. It is a description for other than the described in meaning. Okay.
The author (may Allah have mercy on him) says, like he said, " You say: Zayd the intelligent stood " Correct. " And I saw Zayd the intelligent " Correct. " And I passed by Zayd the intelligent " Correct. Okay. If someone said, "Zayd the intelligent stood" with the descriptor in the accusative,
The student: Error
The Shaykh : It is an error. "I saw Zayd the intelligent" with the descriptor in the nominative,
The student: Error
The Shaykh : "I passed by Zayd the intelligent" with the descriptor in the accusative is an error. Why? Because it follows the described in inflection, without detail, without detail. Okay.
The author limited himself to this example, although he did not mention the descriptor and the described if they are both definite. But how do we say if they are both indefinite? We replace Zayd with "a man" and say
"I passed by a man intelligent," "I saw a man intelligent," yes, and "A man intelligent came." "A man intelligent came."
And when the author indicated definiteness and masculinity, he clarified (may Allah have mercy on him) the definite and the indefinite.