Explanation of the author's (may Allah have mercy on him) statement: " . . .
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate. The author (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
"And as for *dhan* (to think) and its sister verbs, they put the subject and the predicate in the accusative case, treating them as its two objects". Glory be to Allah, *dhan* and its sister verbs put both the subject and the predicate in the accusative case. The evidence for this is tracking and induction, because the scholars tracked the speech of the Arabs and inducted from it, and it became clear that the Arabs put the subject and the predicate in the accusative case with *dhan* and its sister verbs. So when *dhan* and its sister verbs enter upon the subject and the predicate, they become accusative, treated as its two objects, treated as its two objects. And with this, the four states of the subject and predicate are complete.
They can be in the nominative case and the accusative case. The subject is in the nominative and the predicate in the accusative, or the subject in the accusative and the predicate in the nominative. There is no fifth state; there is no fifth state. Either they are both in the nominative, or both in the accusative, or the first is in the nominative and the second in the accusative, or the first is in the accusative and the second in the nominative. There is no other division in this exhaustive list.
They are in the nominative case if no *nasikh* (verb that changes the case) enters upon them. They are in the accusative case with *dhan* and its sister verbs. The first is in the nominative and the second in the accusative with *kana* (was) and its sister verbs. And the first is in the accusative and the second in the nominative with *inna* (indeed) and its sister verbs. Good.
*Dhan* and its sister verbs put the subject and the predicate in the accusative case. "Its sister verbs" means those that share its function, meaning the tools that perform the function of *dhan* are the sisters of *dhan*.
"And they are *dhanantu*". Is it obligatory? He says *dhanantu*, meaning if you remove the *ta* (first-person suffix), there is no harm. If he said *dhan* (to think), *hasib* (to estimate), *khal* (to suppose), *za'am* (to claim), *ra'a* (to see), *'alima* (to know), *wajada* (to find), *ittakhadha* (to take), *ja'ala* (to make), and *sami'a* (to hear), how many is that?
The student: Ten.
The Shaykh : Ten. Good.
He says "As for *dhan* and its sister verbs, they put the subject and the predicate in the accusative case, treating them as its two objects, and they are *dhanantu*". This *ta* must be with us, or not?
The student: intrinsic
The Shaykh : No, it is not obligatory. It is not part of the tool. If you said *dhan* Zayd 'Amr standing, it is correct. So it is not part of the tool, but the book is for beginners, and the author (may Allah have mercy on him) wanted to bring the shortest thing that brings the meaning closer to the beginner. *Dhan*, for example, you say:
*Dhanantu* Zayd standing. He says "Like *dhanantu* Zayd departing". *Dhanantu* Zayd departing. *Dhanantu*: verb and subject. *Dhan*: past tense verb, built on sukun (silence) because it is connected to the moving nominative pronoun. And the *ta*? It is the subject. It is a connected pronoun, built on damma (u-vowel) in the position of the nominative subject.
And 'Amr: its first object. Yes, before that, it puts two objects in the accusative. It puts two objects: the first is the subject and the second is the predicate.
Zayd: its first object, in the accusative case because of it, and the sign of its accusative is a visible fatha (a-vowel) at its end.
Departing: its second object, in the accusative case because of it, and the sign of its accusative is a visible fatha at its end. Repeat the second time.
*Dhanantu* Zayd departing. I say:
*Dhanantu*: verb and subject. This is what we call general parsing. We call it general parsing. Detail: *Dhan*: past tense verb, built on sukun because it is connected to the moving nominative pronoun, because the *ta* is a moving nominative pronoun. And it puts two objects in the accusative: the first is the subject and the second is the predicate.
Zayd: its first object, in the accusative case because of it, and the sign of its accusative is a visible fatha at its end.
Departing: its second object, in the accusative case because of it, and the sign of its accusative is a visible fatha at its end. Good. If I said *dhanantu* Zayd departing, is it wrong?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Wrong. *Dhanantu* Zayd departing.
The student: Error
The Shaykh : Good. *Dhanantu* Zayd departing.
The student: Error
The Shaykh : Wrong again.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And what remains? The correct one. Yes, what is the correct one?
The student: *Dhanantu* Zayd departing.
The Shaykh : What is the last one? *Dhanantu* Zayd departing. Perfect. Good. Let's look at the second one.
The author says "And *hasibtu*". *Hasib*, *hasib* also puts two objects in the accusative, so you say:
*Hasibtu* 'Amr truthful. *Hasibtu* 'Amr truthful, if he is a liar. Good.
*Hasibtu* 'Amr truthful. The parsing:
*Hasibtu*: verb and subject. *Hasib*: past tense verb, built on sukun here because it is connected to the moving nominative pronoun. And it puts two objects in the accusative: the first is the condition verb.
The student: The first is the subject.
The Shaykh : The first is the subject, the first is the subject and the second is the predicate. And the *ta* is a pronoun, the speaker's pronoun, built on damma in the position of the nominative subject. What did we say? 'Amr truthful.
'Amr: its first object, in the accusative case because of it, and the sign of its accusative is a visible fatha at its end.
And truthful: its second object, in the accusative case because of it, and the sign of its accusative is a visible fatha at its end. Good. The third is "Khalaltu". *Khalaltu*, *khalaltu*, what does it mean?
The student: It means *dhanantu* (I thought).
The Shaykh : It means *dhanantu*. *Khalaltu* means *dhanantu*. Good. The poet said:
"And whatever character a man has, *** Even if he supposes it is hidden from people, you know it"
*Khalaha* means he thought it. So *khal* means *dhanantu*. You say:
*Khalaltu* the student understanding. Here.
The student: "I thought."
The Shaykh : It means *dhanantu* the student understanding.
The parsing: *Khalaltu*: verb and subject. *Khal*: past tense verb, built on sukun because it is connected to the moving nominative pronoun. And it puts two objects in the accusative: the first is the subject and the second is the predicate. And the *ta* is the speaker's pronoun, built on damma in the position of the nominative subject. Or not? Yes. The subject of *khalaltu*.
The student: its first object, in the accusative case because of it, and the sign of its accusative is a visible fatha at its end. And understanding: its predicate, in the accusative case because of it.
The student: Its second object.
Another student: It is all one.
The Shaykh : May Allah bless you. No, it is not all one. *Understanding* is its second object, in the accusative case because of it, and the sign of its accusative is a visible fatha at its end. Good.
"Za'amtu". *Za'amt* has meanings, but what we want is *za'amt* which means *dhanantu*. *Za'amt* which means *dhanantu*. So you say:
*Za'amt* Zayd 'Amr. *Za'amt* Zayd 'Amr, meaning *dhanantu*.
*Za'amt*: verb and subject. *Za'am*: past tense verb, built on sukun because it is connected to the moving nominative pronoun. And the *ta*? It is a connected pronoun, built on damma in the position of the nominative subject.
Zayd: its first object, in the accusative case because of it, and the sign of its accusative is a visible fatha at its end.
'Amr: its second object, in the accusative case because of it, and the sign of its accusative is a visible fatha at its end. And the meaning of *za'amt* Zayd 'Amr is *dhanantu* that Zayd is 'Amr. Good.
"And as for *dhan* (to think) and its sister verbs, they put the subject and the predicate in the accusative case, treating them as its two objects". Glory be to Allah, *dhan* and its sister verbs put both the subject and the predicate in the accusative case. The evidence for this is tracking and induction, because the scholars tracked the speech of the Arabs and inducted from it, and it became clear that the Arabs put the subject and the predicate in the accusative case with *dhan* and its sister verbs. So when *dhan* and its sister verbs enter upon the subject and the predicate, they become accusative, treated as its two objects, treated as its two objects. And with this, the four states of the subject and predicate are complete.
They can be in the nominative case and the accusative case. The subject is in the nominative and the predicate in the accusative, or the subject in the accusative and the predicate in the nominative. There is no fifth state; there is no fifth state. Either they are both in the nominative, or both in the accusative, or the first is in the nominative and the second in the accusative, or the first is in the accusative and the second in the nominative. There is no other division in this exhaustive list.
They are in the nominative case if no *nasikh* (verb that changes the case) enters upon them. They are in the accusative case with *dhan* and its sister verbs. The first is in the nominative and the second in the accusative with *kana* (was) and its sister verbs. And the first is in the accusative and the second in the nominative with *inna* (indeed) and its sister verbs. Good.
*Dhan* and its sister verbs put the subject and the predicate in the accusative case. "Its sister verbs" means those that share its function, meaning the tools that perform the function of *dhan* are the sisters of *dhan*.
"And they are *dhanantu*". Is it obligatory? He says *dhanantu*, meaning if you remove the *ta* (first-person suffix), there is no harm. If he said *dhan* (to think), *hasib* (to estimate), *khal* (to suppose), *za'am* (to claim), *ra'a* (to see), *'alima* (to know), *wajada* (to find), *ittakhadha* (to take), *ja'ala* (to make), and *sami'a* (to hear), how many is that?
The student: Ten.
The Shaykh : Ten. Good.
He says "As for *dhan* and its sister verbs, they put the subject and the predicate in the accusative case, treating them as its two objects, and they are *dhanantu*". This *ta* must be with us, or not?
The student: intrinsic
The Shaykh : No, it is not obligatory. It is not part of the tool. If you said *dhan* Zayd 'Amr standing, it is correct. So it is not part of the tool, but the book is for beginners, and the author (may Allah have mercy on him) wanted to bring the shortest thing that brings the meaning closer to the beginner. *Dhan*, for example, you say:
*Dhanantu* Zayd standing. He says "Like *dhanantu* Zayd departing". *Dhanantu* Zayd departing. *Dhanantu*: verb and subject. *Dhan*: past tense verb, built on sukun (silence) because it is connected to the moving nominative pronoun. And the *ta*? It is the subject. It is a connected pronoun, built on damma (u-vowel) in the position of the nominative subject.
And 'Amr: its first object. Yes, before that, it puts two objects in the accusative. It puts two objects: the first is the subject and the second is the predicate.
Zayd: its first object, in the accusative case because of it, and the sign of its accusative is a visible fatha (a-vowel) at its end.
Departing: its second object, in the accusative case because of it, and the sign of its accusative is a visible fatha at its end. Repeat the second time.
*Dhanantu* Zayd departing. I say:
*Dhanantu*: verb and subject. This is what we call general parsing. We call it general parsing. Detail: *Dhan*: past tense verb, built on sukun because it is connected to the moving nominative pronoun, because the *ta* is a moving nominative pronoun. And it puts two objects in the accusative: the first is the subject and the second is the predicate.
Zayd: its first object, in the accusative case because of it, and the sign of its accusative is a visible fatha at its end.
Departing: its second object, in the accusative case because of it, and the sign of its accusative is a visible fatha at its end. Good. If I said *dhanantu* Zayd departing, is it wrong?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Wrong. *Dhanantu* Zayd departing.
The student: Error
The Shaykh : Good. *Dhanantu* Zayd departing.
The student: Error
The Shaykh : Wrong again.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And what remains? The correct one. Yes, what is the correct one?
The student: *Dhanantu* Zayd departing.
The Shaykh : What is the last one? *Dhanantu* Zayd departing. Perfect. Good. Let's look at the second one.
The author says "And *hasibtu*". *Hasib*, *hasib* also puts two objects in the accusative, so you say:
*Hasibtu* 'Amr truthful. *Hasibtu* 'Amr truthful, if he is a liar. Good.
*Hasibtu* 'Amr truthful. The parsing:
*Hasibtu*: verb and subject. *Hasib*: past tense verb, built on sukun here because it is connected to the moving nominative pronoun. And it puts two objects in the accusative: the first is the condition verb.
The student: The first is the subject.
The Shaykh : The first is the subject, the first is the subject and the second is the predicate. And the *ta* is a pronoun, the speaker's pronoun, built on damma in the position of the nominative subject. What did we say? 'Amr truthful.
'Amr: its first object, in the accusative case because of it, and the sign of its accusative is a visible fatha at its end.
And truthful: its second object, in the accusative case because of it, and the sign of its accusative is a visible fatha at its end. Good. The third is "Khalaltu". *Khalaltu*, *khalaltu*, what does it mean?
The student: It means *dhanantu* (I thought).
The Shaykh : It means *dhanantu*. *Khalaltu* means *dhanantu*. Good. The poet said:
"And whatever character a man has, *** Even if he supposes it is hidden from people, you know it"
*Khalaha* means he thought it. So *khal* means *dhanantu*. You say:
*Khalaltu* the student understanding. Here.
The student: "I thought."
The Shaykh : It means *dhanantu* the student understanding.
The parsing: *Khalaltu*: verb and subject. *Khal*: past tense verb, built on sukun because it is connected to the moving nominative pronoun. And it puts two objects in the accusative: the first is the subject and the second is the predicate. And the *ta* is the speaker's pronoun, built on damma in the position of the nominative subject. Or not? Yes. The subject of *khalaltu*.
The student: its first object, in the accusative case because of it, and the sign of its accusative is a visible fatha at its end. And understanding: its predicate, in the accusative case because of it.
The student: Its second object.
Another student: It is all one.
The Shaykh : May Allah bless you. No, it is not all one. *Understanding* is its second object, in the accusative case because of it, and the sign of its accusative is a visible fatha at its end. Good.
"Za'amtu". *Za'amt* has meanings, but what we want is *za'amt* which means *dhanantu*. *Za'amt* which means *dhanantu*. So you say:
*Za'amt* Zayd 'Amr. *Za'amt* Zayd 'Amr, meaning *dhanantu*.
*Za'amt*: verb and subject. *Za'am*: past tense verb, built on sukun because it is connected to the moving nominative pronoun. And the *ta*? It is a connected pronoun, built on damma in the position of the nominative subject.
Zayd: its first object, in the accusative case because of it, and the sign of its accusative is a visible fatha at its end.
'Amr: its second object, in the accusative case because of it, and the sign of its accusative is a visible fatha at its end. And the meaning of *za'amt* Zayd 'Amr is *dhanantu* that Zayd is 'Amr. Good.