Explaining that a particle has no sign, and clarifying that some are specific and some are general.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, the example is correct. Now, what is the sign of a particle? Its sign is the absence of a sign. This is similar to what we sometimes say: the evidence is the absence of evidence.
And the author’s statement: "ka, hal, wa, fi, wa, lam" is like three particles, some of which are specific and some are general. Is "hal" general? It enters nouns and verbs. "Fi" enters nouns only because it is a preposition. "Lam" enters verbs, specifically the present tense verb. So the author (may Allah have mercy on him) categorized the examples to indicate that a particle can be specific or shared. The general rule is that shared particles do not govern, while specific particles do govern. This is the general rule: specific particles govern in what they are specific to. What is specific to a noun governs the noun, and what is specific to a verb governs the verb. As for general, shared particles, they do not govern.
Therefore, you will find that the word "hal" does not govern, does it? It does not govern. You say: "Do you know that so-and-so has started studying Ibn Malik’s Alfiah?" Does "hal" affect the verb? No. It is specific to the noun, so it governs it. What does it govern it with? The genitive case.
"Lam" is specific to the verb and makes it jussive. Good.
Is the negating "la" shared or specific? The negating "la," my brothers, is shared. You say: "There is no man in the house, and no woman." And you say: "So-and-so does not do such and such." Therefore, the negating "la" does not govern.
And the prohibitive "la" is specific to what? To the present tense verb. And for this reason, it governs it with the jussive case. Good. And this rule—that the specific governs and the shared does not govern—is a majority rule, not an absolute one. There may be specific things that do not govern and general things that do govern. Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, the example is correct. Now, what is the sign of a particle? Its sign is the absence of a sign. This is similar to what we sometimes say: the evidence is the absence of evidence.
And the author’s statement: "ka, hal, wa, fi, wa, lam" is like three particles, some of which are specific and some are general. Is "hal" general? It enters nouns and verbs. "Fi" enters nouns only because it is a preposition. "Lam" enters verbs, specifically the present tense verb. So the author (may Allah have mercy on him) categorized the examples to indicate that a particle can be specific or shared. The general rule is that shared particles do not govern, while specific particles do govern. This is the general rule: specific particles govern in what they are specific to. What is specific to a noun governs the noun, and what is specific to a verb governs the verb. As for general, shared particles, they do not govern.
Therefore, you will find that the word "hal" does not govern, does it? It does not govern. You say: "Do you know that so-and-so has started studying Ibn Malik’s Alfiah?" Does "hal" affect the verb? No. It is specific to the noun, so it governs it. What does it govern it with? The genitive case.
"Lam" is specific to the verb and makes it jussive. Good.
Is the negating "la" shared or specific? The negating "la," my brothers, is shared. You say: "There is no man in the house, and no woman." And you say: "So-and-so does not do such and such." Therefore, the negating "la" does not govern.
And the prohibitive "la" is specific to what? To the present tense verb. And for this reason, it governs it with the jussive case. Good. And this rule—that the specific governs and the shared does not govern—is a majority rule, not an absolute one. There may be specific things that do not govern and general things that do govern. Yes.