Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "With the genitive, tanwin, vocative, and al, *** and what is predicated of a noun, distinction is achieved."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The author (may Allah have mercy on him) says:
"With the genitive, tanwin, vocative, and al, *** and what is predicated of a noun"
And "what is predicated of a noun" "With the genitive, tanwin, vocative, and al, *** and what is predicated of a noun, distinction is achieved"
This means that a noun achieves distinction through these five things. Distinction from what? Distinction from the verb and the particle. That is, something that distinguishes it from the verb and the particle, and it is one of these five: the genitive, tanwin, vocative, al, and predication. The meaning of the author's statement is that every word in the genitive case is a noun. This is the meaning. It is not the meaning that every word that you put in the genitive is a noun, because if you said, "Every word that you put in the genitive is a noun," a person might say, "I put 'strike' in the genitive and say 'strike' (in the genitive)." Yes, but the meaning is that every word in the genitive case is a noun. It is a sign that clarifies the known, just as if I said, "The Arabs' sign is wearing the turban," because its meaning is that they are distinguished from others by it. So whenever we find a person wearing a turban, he is an Arab. Likewise, whenever we find a word in the genitive case, it is a noun. And the author's statement: "With the genitive" includes the genitive by particle, the genitive by addition, and the genitive by dependency. All three are gathered in the Basmala: "In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Bestower of Mercy." So the word "name" is in the genitive by the particle "ba," the Divine Name is in the genitive by addition, and the word "Most Merciful" is in the genitive by dependency. In the genitive by dependency.
So the genitive is one of the signs of a noun. Every word in the genitive case is a noun, whether it is in the genitive by particle, by addition, or by dependency.
"And tanwin" The meaning is that every word with tanwin is a noun. So whenever you find a word with tanwin, judge it to be a noun. Tanwin is a quiescent nun that attaches to the ends of words in pronunciation, not in writing. A quiescent nun that attaches to the ends of words in pronunciation, not in writing. "Zayd" has a quiescent nun in it. Is it written? No.
And our teachers said, when we were at the beginning of our studies, that tanwin is two dammas, or two fathas, or two kasras. What do you say about this explanation? Is it correct? It is correct and clear, because if you say "a quiescent nun," one wants to ask, "Where is it?" If you say "two dammas, or two fathas, or two kasras," it is clearer. But when we delve deeper, we say: the two dammas, the two fathas, and the two kasras are a sign of tanwin, not tanwin itself. So every word with tanwin has what? A noun. So it is a noun. Some excluded the tanwin of melodic intonation and excessive tanwin, but there is no need... He says: The intended meaning is the tanwin that involves declension. This is what serves as a sign for a noun.
"And the vocative" "And the vocative" is also one of the signs of a noun. The vocative. So every word that is called out to is a noun. And we can say that the vocative is a sign, whether it is present in the structure or implied. So every word that it is correct to call out to is a noun, and every word preceded by the vocative particle "ya" is a noun. Do you understand? "O man," the word "man" is a noun. Why? Ah, it is preceded by the vocative particle "ya." Likewise, if I said, "O strike," "O strike," "strike" would be a noun because we called out to it. We called out to it. And this means that we have a "man," or that we have a man whose name is "Strike." Correct. There is the noun "Zayd," and its original form is a present tense verb. And there is "Shammar," "Shammar," which is a verb. It is a verb. It is a past tense verb, is it not? So every word that it is correct to call out to is a noun. Every word preceded by the vocative is a noun.
"And al" Al is also one of the signs of nouns. So every word with al is a noun. "The mosques" is a noun. Ah. "The houses" is a noun. "The camels" is a noun. "The mountains," "the sun," "the moon." Every word with al is a noun. Good. Perhaps, if Allah wills, in the chapter on relative pronouns, it will come to us that among the relative pronouns is al, and that its relative clause might be a verb, as the poet said:
"You are not the judge whose judgment you approve of, *** nor the evening, nor the one with opinion and debate"
"You are not the judge whose judgment you approve of" The al here is a relative pronoun. So the intended meaning in the author's statement: "And al" is other than what? The relative al. Because the relative al can connect to a verb. Yes. Good.
"And what is predicated" That is, and predication. And "what is predicated."
"With the genitive, tanwin, vocative, and al, *** and what is predicated of a noun"
And "what is predicated of a noun" "With the genitive, tanwin, vocative, and al, *** and what is predicated of a noun, distinction is achieved"
This means that a noun achieves distinction through these five things. Distinction from what? Distinction from the verb and the particle. That is, something that distinguishes it from the verb and the particle, and it is one of these five: the genitive, tanwin, vocative, al, and predication. The meaning of the author's statement is that every word in the genitive case is a noun. This is the meaning. It is not the meaning that every word that you put in the genitive is a noun, because if you said, "Every word that you put in the genitive is a noun," a person might say, "I put 'strike' in the genitive and say 'strike' (in the genitive)." Yes, but the meaning is that every word in the genitive case is a noun. It is a sign that clarifies the known, just as if I said, "The Arabs' sign is wearing the turban," because its meaning is that they are distinguished from others by it. So whenever we find a person wearing a turban, he is an Arab. Likewise, whenever we find a word in the genitive case, it is a noun. And the author's statement: "With the genitive" includes the genitive by particle, the genitive by addition, and the genitive by dependency. All three are gathered in the Basmala: "In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Bestower of Mercy." So the word "name" is in the genitive by the particle "ba," the Divine Name is in the genitive by addition, and the word "Most Merciful" is in the genitive by dependency. In the genitive by dependency.
So the genitive is one of the signs of a noun. Every word in the genitive case is a noun, whether it is in the genitive by particle, by addition, or by dependency.
"And tanwin" The meaning is that every word with tanwin is a noun. So whenever you find a word with tanwin, judge it to be a noun. Tanwin is a quiescent nun that attaches to the ends of words in pronunciation, not in writing. A quiescent nun that attaches to the ends of words in pronunciation, not in writing. "Zayd" has a quiescent nun in it. Is it written? No.
And our teachers said, when we were at the beginning of our studies, that tanwin is two dammas, or two fathas, or two kasras. What do you say about this explanation? Is it correct? It is correct and clear, because if you say "a quiescent nun," one wants to ask, "Where is it?" If you say "two dammas, or two fathas, or two kasras," it is clearer. But when we delve deeper, we say: the two dammas, the two fathas, and the two kasras are a sign of tanwin, not tanwin itself. So every word with tanwin has what? A noun. So it is a noun. Some excluded the tanwin of melodic intonation and excessive tanwin, but there is no need... He says: The intended meaning is the tanwin that involves declension. This is what serves as a sign for a noun.
"And the vocative" "And the vocative" is also one of the signs of a noun. The vocative. So every word that is called out to is a noun. And we can say that the vocative is a sign, whether it is present in the structure or implied. So every word that it is correct to call out to is a noun, and every word preceded by the vocative particle "ya" is a noun. Do you understand? "O man," the word "man" is a noun. Why? Ah, it is preceded by the vocative particle "ya." Likewise, if I said, "O strike," "O strike," "strike" would be a noun because we called out to it. We called out to it. And this means that we have a "man," or that we have a man whose name is "Strike." Correct. There is the noun "Zayd," and its original form is a present tense verb. And there is "Shammar," "Shammar," which is a verb. It is a verb. It is a past tense verb, is it not? So every word that it is correct to call out to is a noun. Every word preceded by the vocative is a noun.
"And al" Al is also one of the signs of nouns. So every word with al is a noun. "The mosques" is a noun. Ah. "The houses" is a noun. "The camels" is a noun. "The mountains," "the sun," "the moon." Every word with al is a noun. Good. Perhaps, if Allah wills, in the chapter on relative pronouns, it will come to us that among the relative pronouns is al, and that its relative clause might be a verb, as the poet said:
"You are not the judge whose judgment you approve of, *** nor the evening, nor the one with opinion and debate"
"You are not the judge whose judgment you approve of" The al here is a relative pronoun. So the intended meaning in the author's statement: "And al" is other than what? The relative al. Because the relative al can connect to a verb. Yes. Good.
"And what is predicated" That is, and predication. And "what is predicated."