Explanation of the author's (may Allah have mercy on him) statement: " . . .
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : It is of two types; the masdar (verbal noun) is of two types: “verbal and semantic. If its wording matches the wording of its verb, it is verbal, such as: I killed him a killing. And if it matches the meaning of its verb but not its wording, it is semantic, such as: I sat a sitting, and I stood a standing, and the like of that”. The masdar, he says, is divided into two types: verbal and semantic. So, what matches the verb in its root, in its root, is verbal, and what matches it in its meaning is semantic. But note also that it must match the verb in its root and its meaning, in its root and its meaning. If it matches the verb in its root and its meaning, they call it: verbal. And if it matches it in meaning but not in wording, it is: semantic. So, if I say: I struck a strike, what is the masdar here?
The student: Lexical.
The Shaykh : It is verbal, because it matches the verb in its root. Okay, and if I say: I ate an eating?
The student: Verbal.
The Shaykh : It is also verbal, because it matches the verb in its root. The root of “ate” is hamza, kaf, and lam. Okay, if I say: I sat a sitting?
The student: Spiritual.
The Shaykh : This is semantic. Why, Muhammad al-Salamah?
The student: Because it differs from it in wording.
The Shaykh : It differs from its verb in wording but not in meaning. Did you understand or not?
The student: We understood.
The Shaykh : Okay, if I say: I stood a standing.
The student: Spiritual.
The Shaykh : This is semantic, because it matches the verb in meaning only, as for the wording, no. The wording “I stood” is the verb, and “a standing” is the masdar. So it becomes clear that it is easy. But what takes the place of the masdar is what is added to the masdar, such as “all,” “some,” “the most,” “the strongest,” and the like of that. We say: this takes the place of the masdar. So you say: I struck him all the striking. I struck him all the striking. “All”: you cannot say that it is a masdar, because it does not match “strike” in meaning or in wording. You say: this is a substitute for the masdar. “All” is a noun in the genitive case (mudaf), and “the striking” is the noun it is added to (mudaf ilayh). And you say: I struck him the most of the striking. This also, “the most,” is a substitute for the masdar. It is not a masdar, because it does not match it in wording or in meaning. And you say: I gave him some of the giving. “Some of the giving” is also a substitute for the masdar, because “some” does not match “gave” in wording or in meaning. So, what takes the place of the masdar is what is added to the masdar, such as what?
The student: All and some.
The Shaykh : All, and some, and the most, and the greatest, and so on. So now we have a verbal masdar, a semantic masdar, and a substitute for the masdar. Three things. The verbal masdar: what matches its verb in wording and meaning. And the semantic: what matches its verb in meaning. And the substitute for the masdar: what is added to the masdar. What is added to the masdar is called a substitute?
The student: For the masdar.
The Shaykh : For the masdar. Okay, Ibn Malik’s statement: “Strive all the striving”? Strive all the striving!
The student: A substitute for the masdar.
The Shaykh : A substitute for the masdar. “And rejoice the joy”. Does “al-jadhal” mean joy?
The student: Spiritual.
The Shaykh : Huh? This is a semantic masdar, because it matches the verb in meaning but not in wording. Okay, if I say: I struck a strike?
The student: Incorrect.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: It is in the nominative case, and the masdar is in the accusative case.
The Shaykh : It is in the nominative case, and the masdar must be in the accusative case. Okay, I struck a strike (genitive)?
The student: Incorrect.
The Shaykh : That is also wrong, because the masdar must be in the accusative case. Okay, if I say: I ate some of the loaf, I ate some of the loaf?
The student: This is a direct object.
The Shaykh : Is this a substitute for the masdar?
The student: No, it is a direct object.
The Shaykh : Because it is not added to the masdar. It is not added to the masdar. “The loaf”: it is not the masdar of “ate” nor its meaning. So we say: it is a direct object. Okay, I ate all of the loaf?
The student: Likewise.
The Shaykh : Likewise, it is a direct object. Clear? I ate all of the eating?
The student: A substitute for the masdar.
The Shaykh : A substitute for the masdar, right? I ate all of the food?
The student: A direct object.
Another student: A substitute for the masdar.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: A substitute for the masdar.
The Shaykh : No, it is not added to the masdar. “Food” is not “eating.” Like: I ate all of the loaf. So we say: “Ate” is a past tense verb, and the “ta” is the subject, and “all” is the direct object.
The student: Is “food” not in the meaning of “eating”?
The Shaykh : No, it is not in the meaning of “eating.” So we say: the masdar is either matching its verb in wording and meaning, or matching its verb in meaning but not in wording, or added to the masdar. What is added to the masdar is called a substitute for the masdar. And what matches its verb in meaning is a semantic masdar, and what matches it in wording is a verbal masdar. Okay, that is it, there is no problem. We will finish the questions. Who is next for the parsing? The middle of the third row? Yes?
The student: Added to the meaning of the masdar.
The Shaykh : Yes, it becomes a substitute for the masdar.
The student: Lexical.
The Shaykh : It is verbal, because it matches the verb in its root. Okay, and if I say: I ate an eating?
The student: Verbal.
The Shaykh : It is also verbal, because it matches the verb in its root. The root of “ate” is hamza, kaf, and lam. Okay, if I say: I sat a sitting?
The student: Spiritual.
The Shaykh : This is semantic. Why, Muhammad al-Salamah?
The student: Because it differs from it in wording.
The Shaykh : It differs from its verb in wording but not in meaning. Did you understand or not?
The student: We understood.
The Shaykh : Okay, if I say: I stood a standing.
The student: Spiritual.
The Shaykh : This is semantic, because it matches the verb in meaning only, as for the wording, no. The wording “I stood” is the verb, and “a standing” is the masdar. So it becomes clear that it is easy. But what takes the place of the masdar is what is added to the masdar, such as “all,” “some,” “the most,” “the strongest,” and the like of that. We say: this takes the place of the masdar. So you say: I struck him all the striking. I struck him all the striking. “All”: you cannot say that it is a masdar, because it does not match “strike” in meaning or in wording. You say: this is a substitute for the masdar. “All” is a noun in the genitive case (mudaf), and “the striking” is the noun it is added to (mudaf ilayh). And you say: I struck him the most of the striking. This also, “the most,” is a substitute for the masdar. It is not a masdar, because it does not match it in wording or in meaning. And you say: I gave him some of the giving. “Some of the giving” is also a substitute for the masdar, because “some” does not match “gave” in wording or in meaning. So, what takes the place of the masdar is what is added to the masdar, such as what?
The student: All and some.
The Shaykh : All, and some, and the most, and the greatest, and so on. So now we have a verbal masdar, a semantic masdar, and a substitute for the masdar. Three things. The verbal masdar: what matches its verb in wording and meaning. And the semantic: what matches its verb in meaning. And the substitute for the masdar: what is added to the masdar. What is added to the masdar is called a substitute?
The student: For the masdar.
The Shaykh : For the masdar. Okay, Ibn Malik’s statement: “Strive all the striving”? Strive all the striving!
The student: A substitute for the masdar.
The Shaykh : A substitute for the masdar. “And rejoice the joy”. Does “al-jadhal” mean joy?
The student: Spiritual.
The Shaykh : Huh? This is a semantic masdar, because it matches the verb in meaning but not in wording. Okay, if I say: I struck a strike?
The student: Incorrect.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: It is in the nominative case, and the masdar is in the accusative case.
The Shaykh : It is in the nominative case, and the masdar must be in the accusative case. Okay, I struck a strike (genitive)?
The student: Incorrect.
The Shaykh : That is also wrong, because the masdar must be in the accusative case. Okay, if I say: I ate some of the loaf, I ate some of the loaf?
The student: This is a direct object.
The Shaykh : Is this a substitute for the masdar?
The student: No, it is a direct object.
The Shaykh : Because it is not added to the masdar. It is not added to the masdar. “The loaf”: it is not the masdar of “ate” nor its meaning. So we say: it is a direct object. Okay, I ate all of the loaf?
The student: Likewise.
The Shaykh : Likewise, it is a direct object. Clear? I ate all of the eating?
The student: A substitute for the masdar.
The Shaykh : A substitute for the masdar, right? I ate all of the food?
The student: A direct object.
Another student: A substitute for the masdar.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: A substitute for the masdar.
The Shaykh : No, it is not added to the masdar. “Food” is not “eating.” Like: I ate all of the loaf. So we say: “Ate” is a past tense verb, and the “ta” is the subject, and “all” is the direct object.
The student: Is “food” not in the meaning of “eating”?
The Shaykh : No, it is not in the meaning of “eating.” So we say: the masdar is either matching its verb in wording and meaning, or matching its verb in meaning but not in wording, or added to the masdar. What is added to the masdar is called a substitute for the masdar. And what matches its verb in meaning is a semantic masdar, and what matches it in wording is a verbal masdar. Okay, that is it, there is no problem. We will finish the questions. Who is next for the parsing? The middle of the third row? Yes?
The student: Added to the meaning of the masdar.
The Shaykh : Yes, it becomes a substitute for the masdar.