Explanation of the author's (may Allah have mercy on him) statement: " . . .
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : All right, the author (may Allah have mercy on him) said "If you connect with it to a nominative, it becomes nominative". The author did not address the meanings of these letters, because the most important thing for the grammarian is what? It is the inflection (i'rab). As for the meanings, they are with the people of meanings in rhetoric; they are known in rhetoric. The grammarian addresses them sometimes as a matter of extra merit, not as a necessity, because the grammarian's function is to establish the letters or to establish the words according to the rules of the Arabic language. Therefore, the author did not address the meaning at all.
He said "If you connect with it to a nominative, it becomes nominative, or to an accusative, it becomes accusative, or to a genitive, it becomes genitive, or to a jussive, it becomes jussive". All right, here he said "to a jussive." In the chapter on the adjective (na't), the jussive was not mentioned.
The student: Because the letters of conjunction are in the chapter of nouns and verbs.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: As for the adjective, it is in the chapter of nouns only.
The Shaykh : The complete conjunction occurs in verbs and nouns, and the adjective occurs in nouns only. Therefore, the jussive did not come in the chapter on the adjective, and the jussive came in the chapter on conjunction. All right.
The author gave examples and said "You say: Zayd stood up and 'Umar". This is connected to a nominative. "And I saw Zayd and 'Umar"
The student: Accusative.
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: Accusative.
The Shaykh : To an accusative. "And I passed by Zayd and 'Umar" To a genitive. "And Zayd did not stand up and did not sit down". "Did not stand up and did not sit down" is on a jussive, but the example is not correct. The example is not correct because he repeated the operator. He repeated the operator. And if the operator is repeated, it becomes the conjunction of a sentence to a sentence, not the conjunction of a jussive to a jussive. Yes.
And the correct example is to say: Zayd did not eat and drink. "Did not eat and drink" means "did not eat and did not drink." This means the operator was omitted, because if you bring the operator, it becomes the conjunction of a sentence to a sentence.
If I said "Zayd came and 'Umar," it becomes the conjunction of a singular to a singular. But if I said "Zayd came and 'Umar came," here it becomes the conjunction of a sentence to a sentence. So the correct example is to say:
Zayd did not eat and drink, or did not stand up and sit down. "Did not stand up and sit down." All right, if it is "did not stand up and sit down," what is it?
The student: It means he sat down.
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: He sat down.
Another student: He is standing.
The Shaykh : No, he did not stand up and did not sit down.
The student: He is in his state.
Another student: He is sleeping.
The Shaykh : Sleeping. Here, "did not stand up and did not sit down" means he did not stand up and did not sit down.
The student: He did not stand.
The Shaykh : Standing, upright, sitting, not upright. Here.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, sleeping. It means he was not standing nor sitting, but he was sleeping. This is because there was no reason for the negation of standing alone and sitting alone. That is, he did not stand up when the people stood up, and he did not sit down when the people sat down, for example.
The summary of this chapter is that among the followers (tabi'at), the conjoined word (ma'tuf) is a follower of the word it is conjoined to (ma'tuf 'alayh) by means of a letter of conjunction. By means of a letter of conjunction. And how many letters of conjunction are there?
The student: Ten.
The Shaykh : Ten, and you have known them. And all of them fulfill the condition of following, meaning that what comes after them is a follower of what comes before them in inflection. All of them. As for the meaning, they differ. For example, "la" negates what was affirmed before it. You say:
Zayd stood up, not 'Umar. Its meaning is negation. The standing is negated for the conjoined word, and the standing is affirmed for the word it is conjoined to. Likewise in the chapter of ildarab (contrast).
Zayd did not stand up, but 'Umar. It is different. But as I told you, the author did not address the meanings at all. The author, what is it?
The student: The inflection.
The Shaykh : The inflection. So all these ten letters share in that what comes after them is a follower of what comes before them in inflection. If what comes before them is nominative, then what comes after them is nominative. And if it is accusative, then what comes after them is accusative. And if it is genitive, then what comes after them is genitive. And if it is jussive, then what comes after them is jussive.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : how
The student: We preferred …
The Shaykh : Yes, but according to the author's statement.
The student: Or when it is connected?
The Shaykh : Or did we say if it is connected, it means "or"[Al-Anbya 21:109] meaning "or far away." All right, the second row, I think.
The student: The first one.
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: The first one here.
The Shaykh : Meaning the first one is remaining.
The student: Yes, that is right.
The Shaykh : All right, who is remaining?
He said "If you connect with it to a nominative, it becomes nominative, or to an accusative, it becomes accusative, or to a genitive, it becomes genitive, or to a jussive, it becomes jussive". All right, here he said "to a jussive." In the chapter on the adjective (na't), the jussive was not mentioned.
The student: Because the letters of conjunction are in the chapter of nouns and verbs.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: As for the adjective, it is in the chapter of nouns only.
The Shaykh : The complete conjunction occurs in verbs and nouns, and the adjective occurs in nouns only. Therefore, the jussive did not come in the chapter on the adjective, and the jussive came in the chapter on conjunction. All right.
The author gave examples and said "You say: Zayd stood up and 'Umar". This is connected to a nominative. "And I saw Zayd and 'Umar"
The student: Accusative.
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: Accusative.
The Shaykh : To an accusative. "And I passed by Zayd and 'Umar" To a genitive. "And Zayd did not stand up and did not sit down". "Did not stand up and did not sit down" is on a jussive, but the example is not correct. The example is not correct because he repeated the operator. He repeated the operator. And if the operator is repeated, it becomes the conjunction of a sentence to a sentence, not the conjunction of a jussive to a jussive. Yes.
And the correct example is to say: Zayd did not eat and drink. "Did not eat and drink" means "did not eat and did not drink." This means the operator was omitted, because if you bring the operator, it becomes the conjunction of a sentence to a sentence.
If I said "Zayd came and 'Umar," it becomes the conjunction of a singular to a singular. But if I said "Zayd came and 'Umar came," here it becomes the conjunction of a sentence to a sentence. So the correct example is to say:
Zayd did not eat and drink, or did not stand up and sit down. "Did not stand up and sit down." All right, if it is "did not stand up and sit down," what is it?
The student: It means he sat down.
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: He sat down.
Another student: He is standing.
The Shaykh : No, he did not stand up and did not sit down.
The student: He is in his state.
Another student: He is sleeping.
The Shaykh : Sleeping. Here, "did not stand up and did not sit down" means he did not stand up and did not sit down.
The student: He did not stand.
The Shaykh : Standing, upright, sitting, not upright. Here.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, sleeping. It means he was not standing nor sitting, but he was sleeping. This is because there was no reason for the negation of standing alone and sitting alone. That is, he did not stand up when the people stood up, and he did not sit down when the people sat down, for example.
The summary of this chapter is that among the followers (tabi'at), the conjoined word (ma'tuf) is a follower of the word it is conjoined to (ma'tuf 'alayh) by means of a letter of conjunction. By means of a letter of conjunction. And how many letters of conjunction are there?
The student: Ten.
The Shaykh : Ten, and you have known them. And all of them fulfill the condition of following, meaning that what comes after them is a follower of what comes before them in inflection. All of them. As for the meaning, they differ. For example, "la" negates what was affirmed before it. You say:
Zayd stood up, not 'Umar. Its meaning is negation. The standing is negated for the conjoined word, and the standing is affirmed for the word it is conjoined to. Likewise in the chapter of ildarab (contrast).
Zayd did not stand up, but 'Umar. It is different. But as I told you, the author did not address the meanings at all. The author, what is it?
The student: The inflection.
The Shaykh : The inflection. So all these ten letters share in that what comes after them is a follower of what comes before them in inflection. If what comes before them is nominative, then what comes after them is nominative. And if it is accusative, then what comes after them is accusative. And if it is genitive, then what comes after them is genitive. And if it is jussive, then what comes after them is jussive.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : how
The student: We preferred …
The Shaykh : Yes, but according to the author's statement.
The student: Or when it is connected?
The Shaykh : Or did we say if it is connected, it means "or"
And I know not whether near or far is that which you are promised.
وإن أدري أقريب أم بعيد ما توعدونThe student: The first one.
The Shaykh : Ah?
The student: The first one here.
The Shaykh : Meaning the first one is remaining.
The student: Yes, that is right.
The Shaykh : All right, who is remaining?