Explanation of Ibn Malik’s (may Allah have mercy on him) statement: “And the past tense of verbs is distinguished by the ta, and the imperative is distinguished by the nun, if the command is understood.”
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then the author said: “And the past tense of verbs is distinguished by the ta” “And the past tense of verbs is distinguished by the ta”. What does “by the ta” mean? It means by a preposition and its object, and “miz” is an imperative verb meaning “distinguish.” So, distinguish the past tense of verbs by the ta. Based on this meaning, we say that the object of “miz” (distinguish), which is “the past tense of verbs by the ta,” is fronted. The ta that was mentioned to us, brothers, are two: the ta of the doer and the silent ta of femininity. Which of the two is intended? Both of them. The ta of the doer only enters the past tense, and the silent ta of femininity only enters the past tense. Therefore, we say that the alif in Ibn Malik’s phrase “by the ta” is the alif of known reference, meaning it refers to a ta that was previously mentioned, namely the ta in “fa’alta” (you did) and “atata” (it came). The past tense is distinguished from the present tense and the imperative by its acceptance of the ta, its acceptance of the ta. Then
He said: “And the imperative is distinguished by the nun, if the command is understood”. “Distinguished by the nun” means make the mark of the imperative the nun, and the mark is the sign. Make its sign, that is, its marker, the nun. But he qualified it, saying: “if the command is understood”. So, the imperative is distinguished from its two counterparts by its acceptance of the nun along with the understanding of the command. Pay attention to his statement: “by its acceptance of the nun”. What is meant by the nun? The previously mentioned nun, so the alif is the alif of known reference. The previously mentioned nun is the nun in “aqbalna,” that is, the nun of emphasis. So, the mark of the imperative is its acceptance of the nun of emphasis, but on the condition that the command is understood from it. The author said: “if the command is understood” to exclude the present tense, because the present tense accepts the nun of emphasis, but the command is not understood from it. So, the first condition: “distinguished by the nun” excludes the past tense, because the past tense does not accept the nun of emphasis. “And if the command is understood” excludes the present tense, because the command is not understood from the present tense. Pay attention, the verbs are now distinguished from one another.
How is the past tense distinguished from its two counterparts? By its acceptance of the ta, the ta of the doer and the ta of femininity. How is the present tense distinguished from its two counterparts? By its acceptance of lam. How is the imperative distinguished from its two counterparts? By its acceptance of the nun of emphasis along with its indication of the command, its indication of the command. Does the nun of emphasis enter the present tense? I said that it does enter. Among the evidence for this is the saying of Allah the Exalted:[At-Takathur 102:8]
Now, if someone asks: Does not the nun enter the present tense along with the indication of the command when it is accompanied by the lam of command? For example, if you say: “Let the student understand” (lit-fahhamanna). The answer is: Yes, but the understanding of the command is not from the verb, but from the lam. Ibn Malik’s intention in his statement: “if the command is understood” is that the command is understood from the word itself, not from an external factor. When the command is understood from the present tense in the statement “Let the student understand” (lit-fahhamanna), the indication here is by the lam, not by the form of the verb.
The three types are now distinguished from one another.
He said: “And the imperative is distinguished by the nun, if the command is understood”. “Distinguished by the nun” means make the mark of the imperative the nun, and the mark is the sign. Make its sign, that is, its marker, the nun. But he qualified it, saying: “if the command is understood”. So, the imperative is distinguished from its two counterparts by its acceptance of the nun along with the understanding of the command. Pay attention to his statement: “by its acceptance of the nun”. What is meant by the nun? The previously mentioned nun, so the alif is the alif of known reference. The previously mentioned nun is the nun in “aqbalna,” that is, the nun of emphasis. So, the mark of the imperative is its acceptance of the nun of emphasis, but on the condition that the command is understood from it. The author said: “if the command is understood” to exclude the present tense, because the present tense accepts the nun of emphasis, but the command is not understood from it. So, the first condition: “distinguished by the nun” excludes the past tense, because the past tense does not accept the nun of emphasis. “And if the command is understood” excludes the present tense, because the command is not understood from the present tense. Pay attention, the verbs are now distinguished from one another.
How is the past tense distinguished from its two counterparts? By its acceptance of the ta, the ta of the doer and the ta of femininity. How is the present tense distinguished from its two counterparts? By its acceptance of lam. How is the imperative distinguished from its two counterparts? By its acceptance of the nun of emphasis along with its indication of the command, its indication of the command. Does the nun of emphasis enter the present tense? I said that it does enter. Among the evidence for this is the saying of Allah the Exalted:
Then you will surely be asked that Day about pleasure.
ثُمَّ لَتُسْأَلُنَّ يَوْمَئِذٍ عَنِ النَّعِيمِNow, if someone asks: Does not the nun enter the present tense along with the indication of the command when it is accompanied by the lam of command? For example, if you say: “Let the student understand” (lit-fahhamanna). The answer is: Yes, but the understanding of the command is not from the verb, but from the lam. Ibn Malik’s intention in his statement: “if the command is understood” is that the command is understood from the word itself, not from an external factor. When the command is understood from the present tense in the statement “Let the student understand” (lit-fahhamanna), the indication here is by the lam, not by the form of the verb.
The three types are now distinguished from one another.