Continuation of the explanation of the statement of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): Our speech is a beneficial word, like "Be upright" *** and a noun, a verb, then a particle of speech.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : To himself, and to whoever is of the same type, the intended meaning is "our speech, we grammarians," to distinguish it from speech in the linguistic sense, because speech in the linguistic sense is broader than what he (may Allah have mercy on him) said. Speech in the linguistic sense is applied to everything; whatever a person speaks of, whether beneficial or not, is speech in the Arabic language. But among grammarians, speech is a beneficial word. A word is what is pronounced by the tongue, so this condition excludes writing, gestures, and signs that are made, such as knots in the fingers, which convey what speech conveys but are not speech.
A gesture is like when I say to a person "Ah," meaning "go." Writing: I write. So writing conveys what speech conveys, but it is not a word.
The knot: The knot in the hadith describing the prayer means that the Arabs make knots with their fingers indicating a specific number. This is also beneficial, without doubt, and takes the place of speech, but it is not a word, so it is not speech among grammarians.
The fourth: Signs. Signs are like road signs; for example, stones or erected wooden posts or other things are placed on the road without anything written on them. These are as if they are telling you: "The road is from here." They take the place of speech, but they are not a word, so they are not speech. So the word "word" excludes what? Four things.
And his saying: "beneficial". Beneficial: what is the meaning of benefit? They say: it is that the speech conveys a benefit such that it is appropriate to be silent upon it, from the speaker and from the listener. Meaning, the listener does not expect anything other than that; he benefits from it and does not expect or look for anything else. If you say: "The mu'adhdhin called," here, do you expect something else? No. "The mu'adhdhin called" completes the sentence, so you do not need anything. So it is a word; it is a beneficial word. If you say: "If the mu'adhdhin called," here it is not appropriate to be silent. Okay, "The mu'adhdhin called, and what do we do?" So the listener, if you say "If the mu'adhdhin called," expects, expects something to benefit from. Now you have not benefited him with anything; you suspended it, suspended it with this condition, and in his mind will be all possibilities: "If the mu'adhdhin called, the Hour will stand," "If the mu'adhdhin called, we will leave the mosque," "If the mu'adhdhin called, such and such will happen." He does not know; he estimates everything. So did you benefit him with this? The speech here, when you add... "The mu'adhdhin called" is complete. "If the mu'adhdhin called," you added "if," so it became deficient. Yes, and it is used in riddles. It is said: "What is the thing that if you add to it, it decreases?" We say: It is beneficial speech. If a conditional particle enters it, beneficial speech, if a conditional particle enters it, makes it non-beneficial, makes it deficient. Okay.
And the author's saying: "Our speech is a beneficial word". He did not mention that the benefit must be new or not new; he left it open. So if it is beneficial, whether the benefit is new or known beforehand, it is speech among grammarians. If you say: "The sky is above us," "The sky is above us," is this speech? Yes, because it conveys benefit. Some grammarians hold that if it does not bring a new benefit, it is not speech. But the correct view, without doubt, is that it is speech. It is true that the listener did not benefit from the required benefit, but it is speech. If you addressed someone who did not know it, he would benefit from a new benefit.
And his saying: "like 'Be upright'". The kaf here is for exemplification, meaning the example is "Be upright." "Be upright" is a beneficial word, is it not? Okay. How did it benefit, and it is from one word? We say: It is one word, but within it is another word, because your saying "Be upright" means "you." So in it is a hidden pronoun that is obligatory, so it is in the position of an explicit one. Therefore, it does not need the speech to be composed of two words or more in a tangible composition. Rather, if it is composed, even in an estimated composition, it is considered, considered speech.
So it is a condition for speech that it be a word, which excludes four things: gestures, writing, signs, and knots. Beneficial, which excludes what does not benefit, so it is not called speech. And the intended meaning of benefit is what it is appropriate to be silent upon, whether it is renewed or not renewed, as long as it is benefit, it is speech. Okay. If you say:
"Our Lord is Allah," is this speech or not speech? It is speech because it is beneficial.
"Our Prophet is Muhammad," it is speech because it is beneficial.
"The fire is hot," it is speech because it is beneficial, even if the benefit is known.
"Water is a flowing substance," it is beneficial, like this. Okay.
So when the speaker comes with speech that it is appropriate to be silent upon, it is speech among grammarians, whether the benefit is renewed or not. Okay. And if you say: "If Muhammad stood up."
The student: It is not beneficial.
The Shaykh : How is it not beneficial? Because the listener, what? He did not benefit; he expects. Okay. If Muhammad said, what would happen? Okay. He says: "and a noun, a verb, then a particle of speech".
Meaning that words and speech will come to us. "Al-kalim" is the plural of "kalimah," and the intended meaning is that people's speech is divided into three categories: a noun, a verb, and a particle. He started with the noun because it is the most noble of the three categories. Then he mentioned the verb with the waw, not "thumma," either due to the constraint of the meter and the necessity of poetry, or because the noun and the verb are not like the noun and the verb and the particle. He placed the particle last because of its deficiency and because it cannot have a meaning in itself. Correct.
The particle does not have a meaning in itself. From a preposition, if you bring it, what did you benefit from it? Nothing at all. The meaning of the particle is not known except by something else. The verb: its meaning is known by itself, even if it is not speech. If you say: "He stood up," you know what the meaning of standing is? The noun: for example, "the house," you know what the meaning of the house is. But "from" and all the particles, you do not know their meaning, so it is lower in rank.
If someone says: What is the evidence that speech is divided into three categories? We say: Tracking and induction. The scholars who concerned themselves with the Arabic language tracked the speech of the Arabs and found that it does not go beyond these three: the noun, the verb, and the particle.
Okay. If someone says: What do you say about the names of verbs? Like "Hush" and "Shh" and the like. Do you make them a fourth category, or do you make them part of the three categories?
We say they are from the three categories. For this reason, we say "name of a verb." For example, "Shh" means "be silent," just as you say "Muhammad," naming a person. So I named "be silent" with the word "Shh." For this reason, we say: name of a verb, meaning a name indicating the verb, just as a proper name indicates the person.
"and a noun, a verb, then a particle of speech".
A gesture is like when I say to a person "Ah," meaning "go." Writing: I write. So writing conveys what speech conveys, but it is not a word.
The knot: The knot in the hadith describing the prayer
He made three and fifty knots
عقد ثلاثا وخمسينThe fourth: Signs. Signs are like road signs; for example, stones or erected wooden posts or other things are placed on the road without anything written on them. These are as if they are telling you: "The road is from here." They take the place of speech, but they are not a word, so they are not speech. So the word "word" excludes what? Four things.
And his saying: "beneficial". Beneficial: what is the meaning of benefit? They say: it is that the speech conveys a benefit such that it is appropriate to be silent upon it, from the speaker and from the listener. Meaning, the listener does not expect anything other than that; he benefits from it and does not expect or look for anything else. If you say: "The mu'adhdhin called," here, do you expect something else? No. "The mu'adhdhin called" completes the sentence, so you do not need anything. So it is a word; it is a beneficial word. If you say: "If the mu'adhdhin called," here it is not appropriate to be silent. Okay, "The mu'adhdhin called, and what do we do?" So the listener, if you say "If the mu'adhdhin called," expects, expects something to benefit from. Now you have not benefited him with anything; you suspended it, suspended it with this condition, and in his mind will be all possibilities: "If the mu'adhdhin called, the Hour will stand," "If the mu'adhdhin called, we will leave the mosque," "If the mu'adhdhin called, such and such will happen." He does not know; he estimates everything. So did you benefit him with this? The speech here, when you add... "The mu'adhdhin called" is complete. "If the mu'adhdhin called," you added "if," so it became deficient. Yes, and it is used in riddles. It is said: "What is the thing that if you add to it, it decreases?" We say: It is beneficial speech. If a conditional particle enters it, beneficial speech, if a conditional particle enters it, makes it non-beneficial, makes it deficient. Okay.
And the author's saying: "Our speech is a beneficial word". He did not mention that the benefit must be new or not new; he left it open. So if it is beneficial, whether the benefit is new or known beforehand, it is speech among grammarians. If you say: "The sky is above us," "The sky is above us," is this speech? Yes, because it conveys benefit. Some grammarians hold that if it does not bring a new benefit, it is not speech. But the correct view, without doubt, is that it is speech. It is true that the listener did not benefit from the required benefit, but it is speech. If you addressed someone who did not know it, he would benefit from a new benefit.
And his saying: "like 'Be upright'". The kaf here is for exemplification, meaning the example is "Be upright." "Be upright" is a beneficial word, is it not? Okay. How did it benefit, and it is from one word? We say: It is one word, but within it is another word, because your saying "Be upright" means "you." So in it is a hidden pronoun that is obligatory, so it is in the position of an explicit one. Therefore, it does not need the speech to be composed of two words or more in a tangible composition. Rather, if it is composed, even in an estimated composition, it is considered, considered speech.
So it is a condition for speech that it be a word, which excludes four things: gestures, writing, signs, and knots. Beneficial, which excludes what does not benefit, so it is not called speech. And the intended meaning of benefit is what it is appropriate to be silent upon, whether it is renewed or not renewed, as long as it is benefit, it is speech. Okay. If you say:
"Our Lord is Allah," is this speech or not speech? It is speech because it is beneficial.
"Our Prophet is Muhammad," it is speech because it is beneficial.
"The fire is hot," it is speech because it is beneficial, even if the benefit is known.
"Water is a flowing substance," it is beneficial, like this. Okay.
So when the speaker comes with speech that it is appropriate to be silent upon, it is speech among grammarians, whether the benefit is renewed or not. Okay. And if you say: "If Muhammad stood up."
The student: It is not beneficial.
The Shaykh : How is it not beneficial? Because the listener, what? He did not benefit; he expects. Okay. If Muhammad said, what would happen? Okay. He says: "and a noun, a verb, then a particle of speech".
Meaning that words and speech will come to us. "Al-kalim" is the plural of "kalimah," and the intended meaning is that people's speech is divided into three categories: a noun, a verb, and a particle. He started with the noun because it is the most noble of the three categories. Then he mentioned the verb with the waw, not "thumma," either due to the constraint of the meter and the necessity of poetry, or because the noun and the verb are not like the noun and the verb and the particle. He placed the particle last because of its deficiency and because it cannot have a meaning in itself. Correct.
The particle does not have a meaning in itself. From a preposition, if you bring it, what did you benefit from it? Nothing at all. The meaning of the particle is not known except by something else. The verb: its meaning is known by itself, even if it is not speech. If you say: "He stood up," you know what the meaning of standing is? The noun: for example, "the house," you know what the meaning of the house is. But "from" and all the particles, you do not know their meaning, so it is lower in rank.
If someone says: What is the evidence that speech is divided into three categories? We say: Tracking and induction. The scholars who concerned themselves with the Arabic language tracked the speech of the Arabs and found that it does not go beyond these three: the noun, the verb, and the particle.
Okay. If someone says: What do you say about the names of verbs? Like "Hush" and "Shh" and the like. Do you make them a fourth category, or do you make them part of the three categories?
We say they are from the three categories. For this reason, we say "name of a verb." For example, "Shh" means "be silent," just as you say "Muhammad," naming a person. So I named "be silent" with the word "Shh." For this reason, we say: name of a verb, meaning a name indicating the verb, just as a proper name indicates the person.
"and a noun, a verb, then a particle of speech".