Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And the declinable of nouns is that which has been free *** from the likeness of particles, like earth and sky."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then the author (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
"And the declinable of nouns is that which has been free *** from the likeness of particles"
It is permissible to say: "mu'rab" is a predicate that precedes its subject, and "ma" in the phrase "ma qad salama" is a subject that follows its predicate. It is also permissible to say: "mu'rab" is the subject, and "ma qad salama" is its predicate. This is because we look at whether you intend to inform about what "mu'rab" is, or whether you are informing about what was preserved from the similarity of the letter—whether it is "mu'rab" or not. If it is the latter, then "mu'rab" is the predicate; if it is the former, then "mu'rab" is the subject. The meaning does not differ; the meaning does not differ.
He says: "that which has been free" "that which has been free" with the alif. The alif here is not for dual number, but for generality, the generality of the hemistich, the hemistich of the verse. "from the likeness of particles, like earth and sky" And this is the opposite of his statement: "for the likeness" "and indeclinable for the likeness of particles, Madani"
If someone were to ask: Why did he say: "the declinable of nouns is that which has been free" when it is understood from his statement: "and indeclinable for the likeness of particles"? The answer to this is from two angles:
The first angle is that our knowing that the declinable of nouns is that which has been free from the likeness of particles from the previous sentence, we know it through the implication (mafhum). Here, we know it through what? The explicit statement (manut). The indication by the explicit statement is stronger than the indication by the implication. This is one.
The second angle is that he only mentioned the declinable here as a preparation and introduction to explain that the declinable is divided into sound and defective, into sound and defective. This appears by the example: "like earth and sky" So Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) sees that the declinable of nouns is that which does not resemble particles. And we say: the declinable of nouns is that whose end changes with the change of factors. Which is clearer? Ah, the second, or the first?
The student: The second.
The Shaykh : The second is clearer. Every word whose end changes with the change of factors is declinable. This is the criterion. Good.
And his statement: "like earth and sky" The first thing you read, you think the correct one is "wasama" (with fathah) because the sky always corresponds to the earth. But that is not the case. "Earth" ends with a sound letter, which is the dad. And "sūma" (with dammah) ends with an alif, which is one of the letters of weakness. So it is as if the author, by changing the example, indicates that the declinable noun has a sound type and a defective type, has a sound type and a defective type. So the sound is like "earth" and the defective is "sūma". If you said, what is the meaning of "sūma"? "Sūma" is a linguistic variant of "ism" (name). So you say: The name of my son so-and-so is Muhammad, and you say: Sūma of my son so-and-so is Muhammad. So "sūma" means name, and it is a linguistic variant of it. Good.
Is there an example of the sound type other than "earth"? Ah, there are many: Zayd, 'Amr, masjid. Yes, Bakr, Khalid, many. Is there a defective type other than "sūma"? Many: huda, rida, fity, many. And it will come to us, if Allah wills, that the defective is defective by waw, defective by alif, and defective by ya. It will come to us, if Allah wills, with clearer speech than this.
"And the declinable of nouns is that which has been free *** from the likeness of particles"
It is permissible to say: "mu'rab" is a predicate that precedes its subject, and "ma" in the phrase "ma qad salama" is a subject that follows its predicate. It is also permissible to say: "mu'rab" is the subject, and "ma qad salama" is its predicate. This is because we look at whether you intend to inform about what "mu'rab" is, or whether you are informing about what was preserved from the similarity of the letter—whether it is "mu'rab" or not. If it is the latter, then "mu'rab" is the predicate; if it is the former, then "mu'rab" is the subject. The meaning does not differ; the meaning does not differ.
He says: "that which has been free" "that which has been free" with the alif. The alif here is not for dual number, but for generality, the generality of the hemistich, the hemistich of the verse. "from the likeness of particles, like earth and sky" And this is the opposite of his statement: "for the likeness" "and indeclinable for the likeness of particles, Madani"
If someone were to ask: Why did he say: "the declinable of nouns is that which has been free" when it is understood from his statement: "and indeclinable for the likeness of particles"? The answer to this is from two angles:
The first angle is that our knowing that the declinable of nouns is that which has been free from the likeness of particles from the previous sentence, we know it through the implication (mafhum). Here, we know it through what? The explicit statement (manut). The indication by the explicit statement is stronger than the indication by the implication. This is one.
The second angle is that he only mentioned the declinable here as a preparation and introduction to explain that the declinable is divided into sound and defective, into sound and defective. This appears by the example: "like earth and sky" So Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) sees that the declinable of nouns is that which does not resemble particles. And we say: the declinable of nouns is that whose end changes with the change of factors. Which is clearer? Ah, the second, or the first?
The student: The second.
The Shaykh : The second is clearer. Every word whose end changes with the change of factors is declinable. This is the criterion. Good.
And his statement: "like earth and sky" The first thing you read, you think the correct one is "wasama" (with fathah) because the sky always corresponds to the earth. But that is not the case. "Earth" ends with a sound letter, which is the dad. And "sūma" (with dammah) ends with an alif, which is one of the letters of weakness. So it is as if the author, by changing the example, indicates that the declinable noun has a sound type and a defective type, has a sound type and a defective type. So the sound is like "earth" and the defective is "sūma". If you said, what is the meaning of "sūma"? "Sūma" is a linguistic variant of "ism" (name). So you say: The name of my son so-and-so is Muhammad, and you say: Sūma of my son so-and-so is Muhammad. So "sūma" means name, and it is a linguistic variant of it. Good.
Is there an example of the sound type other than "earth"? Ah, there are many: Zayd, 'Amr, masjid. Yes, Bakr, Khalid, many. Is there a defective type other than "sūma"? Many: huda, rida, fity, many. And it will come to us, if Allah wills, that the defective is defective by waw, defective by alif, and defective by ya. It will come to us, if Allah wills, with clearer speech than this.