Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And make the juss with sukun, and what is not mentioned *** serves as a substitute, like 'came the brother of Banu Numayr.'"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Finally, he said: "And make the juss with sukun." He brought the letter with the preposition at the beginning of the phrase and at the end, and omitted it in the middle. It is as if he is saying that the middle is omitted, and the preposition is clear in it because it was mentioned at the beginning, in the first position, and at the end, and the middle is a follower. We have finished, and I think, if Allah wills, this parsing is sufficient for us. Ah, yes, good.
Then he said: "And what is not mentioned serves as a substitute". What is not mentioned? The dammah, the fathah, the kasrah, and the juss. So when he says: "What is not mentioned", he means by his saying: "What is mentioned" the dammah, the fathah, the kasrah, and the sukun. That is, other than these four, these serve as substitutes. So if a nominative noun comes but there is no dammah, we say: what is present is a substitute for the dammah. An accusative noun but there is no fathah, we say: a substitute for the fathah. A genitive noun but there is no kasrah, a substitute for the kasrah. A juss verb but there is no sukun, it becomes a substitute for the sukun. So the four signs, which are: the dammah, the fathah, the kasrah, and the sukun, these signs have substitutes if they are absent. Ah, they substitute for them if they are absent. For example: "Like 'came the brother of Banu Numayr'". "Came the brother of Banu Numayr." I think Ibn Malik is from Numayr; they did not mention that he is from Numayr. Ah, ah.
The student: From Tayy.
The Shaykh : From Tayy? They did not mention it. Good. "Came the brother of Banu Numayr." The example now: a past tense verb came, "the brother" is the subject, and the subject, what is it? Nominative. With what? With the dammah. But we do not have a dammah now. What we have is "the brother." "The brother" is nominative by the waw. The waw is a substitute for the dammah. "Banu" is attached to "the brother," and "Banu" is the attached-to noun, and the attached-to noun is genitive, and the sign of the kasrah, yes, it is genitive. I meant the attached-to noun is genitive, and the sign of its genitive is the kasrah. But here we do not have a kasrah; we have a ya. So the ya is a substitute for the kasrah. Thus, for "the brother," the waw substituted for the dammah, and for "Banu," the ya substituted for the kasrah. Clear. "Banu Numayr," and "Banu" is attached, and "Numayr" is the attached-to noun.
Then he said: "And what is not mentioned serves as a substitute". What is not mentioned? The dammah, the fathah, the kasrah, and the juss. So when he says: "What is not mentioned", he means by his saying: "What is mentioned" the dammah, the fathah, the kasrah, and the sukun. That is, other than these four, these serve as substitutes. So if a nominative noun comes but there is no dammah, we say: what is present is a substitute for the dammah. An accusative noun but there is no fathah, we say: a substitute for the fathah. A genitive noun but there is no kasrah, a substitute for the kasrah. A juss verb but there is no sukun, it becomes a substitute for the sukun. So the four signs, which are: the dammah, the fathah, the kasrah, and the sukun, these signs have substitutes if they are absent. Ah, they substitute for them if they are absent. For example: "Like 'came the brother of Banu Numayr'". "Came the brother of Banu Numayr." I think Ibn Malik is from Numayr; they did not mention that he is from Numayr. Ah, ah.
The student: From Tayy.
The Shaykh : From Tayy? They did not mention it. Good. "Came the brother of Banu Numayr." The example now: a past tense verb came, "the brother" is the subject, and the subject, what is it? Nominative. With what? With the dammah. But we do not have a dammah now. What we have is "the brother." "The brother" is nominative by the waw. The waw is a substitute for the dammah. "Banu" is attached to "the brother," and "Banu" is the attached-to noun, and the attached-to noun is genitive, and the sign of the kasrah, yes, it is genitive. I meant the attached-to noun is genitive, and the sign of its genitive is the kasrah. But here we do not have a kasrah; we have a ya. So the ya is a substitute for the kasrah. Thus, for "the brother," the waw substituted for the dammah, and for "Banu," the ya substituted for the kasrah. Clear. "Banu Numayr," and "Banu" is attached, and "Numayr" is the attached-to noun.