Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "Like the structural resemblance in the two words of 'jii'tuna' (you came to us) *** and the semantic resemblance in 'mata' (when) and 'huna' (here)."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said: "Like the structural resemblance in the two words of 'jii'tuna' (you came to us)". Structural resemblance means that it was established for a letter or two letters. This is a structural resemblance because the original form of particles is either one letter or two letters. They can be three, like *ila* (to), and they can be four, like *kalla* (nay) and *halla* (except). However, the most common and predominant original form is that particles are composed of two letters. Therefore, any noun that resembles them in this regard is built based on structural resemblance, derived from the original establishment.
And his saying: "in the two words of 'jii'tuna' (you came to us)". Where are the two words of 'jii'tuna'? The *ta* and the *na*. The *ta* is the subject and the *na* is the object. The *ta* is on one letter and the *na* is on two letters. From this example, we derive that all pronouns in the position of nominative, accusative, and genitive—yes, all pronouns are built. This is a rule: all pronouns are built. From where did we derive that the nominative pronouns are built? From the *ta*, because the *ta* is the subject.
And from where did we derive that the accusative and genitive pronouns are built? From the *na*, because the *na* is suitable for both accusative and genitive. Therefore, all pronouns are built: the nominative pronouns, the accusative pronouns, and the genitive pronouns, both attached and detached. Although the author (may Allah have mercy on him) did not mention the detached ones, the scholars of grammar mentioned them. They say: All pronouns, the attached and the detached, those for nominative, those for accusative, and those for genitive, are all built. So there is ease for the person, or not? Yes, whenever you find a pronoun, it is built. Good.
What is the reason for the building of pronouns? Yes, the structural and semantic resemblance in *mata* (when) and *huna* (here). "The semantic resemblance in *mata* (when) and *huna* (here)". Let us look at how *mata* resembles a particle in meaning, not in structure. Because how many letters does *mata* have? Three. But it resembles a particle in meaning, because *mata* can serve as a conditional and it can serve as an interrogative. A particle has been established for the conditional to indicate it, and a particle has been established for the interrogative to indicate it. Therefore, it resembles a particle. *Mata* resembles a particle. If we make it conditional, what does it resemble? It resembles *in* (if) in meaning. And if we make it interrogative, it resembles the *hamza* (interrogative particle) in meaning. And if you wish, say it resembles *hal* (is it?), and it is closer to *hal* than to the *hamza*, because *hal* is established on what? On three letters, and *mata* is on three letters. So *hal* is closer to it than the *hamza* is. But they made it resemble the *hamza* in meaning because the original form of interrogatives, or the original form of interrogative tools, is the *hamza*. Good.
"And in *huna* (here)". What does *huna* mean? It is an indication of place. Where is the particle that resembles the demonstrative noun in meaning? The grammarians said: There is none, there is none. But on the assumption that the Arabs established a particle for indication, we say the demonstrative noun resembles this particle which is assumed that the Arabs—yes—established it.
So these causes became—yes—deficient, meaning when you did not find what you said, you said it is assumed that the Arabs establish a particle for indication, but they did not establish one. So it means the Arabs are sinful because they left the obligatory, or negligent because they did not find, they did not find a particle. But some grammarians said: No, the Arabs established a particle for indication: the *al* of masculine known reference is in the position of the demonstrative noun.[Al-Muzzammil 73:15-16] As if he said: "So Pharaoh disobeyed this." The *al* of masculine known reference points to the mentioned thing, and it is a particle, or a noun? Yes, a particle. But if I swear that this did not occur to the Arabs, I would not have broken my oath. Meaning, the Arabs thought and did not find a particle to be established for indication except the *al* of masculine known reference. We only say: The reference for building and inflection is what? To hearing. And we are at ease. We say: What was heard from the Arabs as built is built, and what was heard as inflected is inflected. Good.
So the semantic resemblance in *mata* (when) is what? What is it, O brothers? Yes, what is it, what is it? The interrogative and the conditional. So the interrogative has the *hamza* established for it, and it is the mother of the chapter, and the conditional has *in* established for it, and it is the mother of the chapter. As for *huna* (here), there is no particle established for indication, except that they said it was assumed that the Arabs should establish one, but they did not establish it. Good.
And his saying: "in the two words of 'jii'tuna' (you came to us)". Where are the two words of 'jii'tuna'? The *ta* and the *na*. The *ta* is the subject and the *na* is the object. The *ta* is on one letter and the *na* is on two letters. From this example, we derive that all pronouns in the position of nominative, accusative, and genitive—yes, all pronouns are built. This is a rule: all pronouns are built. From where did we derive that the nominative pronouns are built? From the *ta*, because the *ta* is the subject.
And from where did we derive that the accusative and genitive pronouns are built? From the *na*, because the *na* is suitable for both accusative and genitive. Therefore, all pronouns are built: the nominative pronouns, the accusative pronouns, and the genitive pronouns, both attached and detached. Although the author (may Allah have mercy on him) did not mention the detached ones, the scholars of grammar mentioned them. They say: All pronouns, the attached and the detached, those for nominative, those for accusative, and those for genitive, are all built. So there is ease for the person, or not? Yes, whenever you find a pronoun, it is built. Good.
What is the reason for the building of pronouns? Yes, the structural and semantic resemblance in *mata* (when) and *huna* (here). "The semantic resemblance in *mata* (when) and *huna* (here)". Let us look at how *mata* resembles a particle in meaning, not in structure. Because how many letters does *mata* have? Three. But it resembles a particle in meaning, because *mata* can serve as a conditional and it can serve as an interrogative. A particle has been established for the conditional to indicate it, and a particle has been established for the interrogative to indicate it. Therefore, it resembles a particle. *Mata* resembles a particle. If we make it conditional, what does it resemble? It resembles *in* (if) in meaning. And if we make it interrogative, it resembles the *hamza* (interrogative particle) in meaning. And if you wish, say it resembles *hal* (is it?), and it is closer to *hal* than to the *hamza*, because *hal* is established on what? On three letters, and *mata* is on three letters. So *hal* is closer to it than the *hamza* is. But they made it resemble the *hamza* in meaning because the original form of interrogatives, or the original form of interrogative tools, is the *hamza*. Good.
"And in *huna* (here)". What does *huna* mean? It is an indication of place. Where is the particle that resembles the demonstrative noun in meaning? The grammarians said: There is none, there is none. But on the assumption that the Arabs established a particle for indication, we say the demonstrative noun resembles this particle which is assumed that the Arabs—yes—established it.
So these causes became—yes—deficient, meaning when you did not find what you said, you said it is assumed that the Arabs establish a particle for indication, but they did not establish one. So it means the Arabs are sinful because they left the obligatory, or negligent because they did not find, they did not find a particle. But some grammarians said: No, the Arabs established a particle for indication: the *al* of masculine known reference is in the position of the demonstrative noun.
just as We sent to Pharaoh a messenger. (16) But Pharaoh disobeyed the messenger
كما أرسلنا إلى فرعون رسولا فعصى فرعون الرسولSo the semantic resemblance in *mata* (when) is what? What is it, O brothers? Yes, what is it, what is it? The interrogative and the conditional. So the interrogative has the *hamza* established for it, and it is the mother of the chapter, and the conditional has *in* established for it, and it is the mother of the chapter. As for *huna* (here), there is no particle established for indication, except that they said it was assumed that the Arabs should establish one, but they did not establish it. Good.