Continuation of the explanation of Ibn Malik’s (may Allah have mercy on him) saying: “And the noun is of two types: inflected and uninflected *** due to its resemblance to the particles of Madinah.”
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : But the reality is that some of it is inflected and some is uninflected. The parallel to this expression is the saying of Allah the Exalted: [Hud 11:105] [Hud 11:105] It is not correct to say that “Saeed” is conjoined to “unfortunate”; rather, you should say that “Saeed” is the subject and its predicate is omitted, meaning: “And among them, and among them is Saeed.” Here, some of it is inflected and some is uninflected. Good.
What is inflected? The inflected is that whose ending changes according to the grammatical factors. That whose ending changes according to the grammatical factors is inflected. For example, “Zayd.” If you introduce “qama” (stood) to it, you say: “Zaydun qama” (Zayd stood). If you introduce “darabtu” (I struck) to it, you say: “Darabtu Zaydan” (I struck Zayd). It changed. If you introduce a preposition, you say: “Salimtu ‘ala Zayd” (I greeted Zayd) or “Marrtu bi-Zayd” (I passed by Zayd). You will find that its ending changed according to the grammatical factors. This is inflected. It is called inflected because it clarifies the meaning, because when the vowel movements change, the meaning is understood. For this reason, it is called inflected.
The uninflected is that which is bound to a single state. If you wish, say: that whose ending does not change due to the difference in grammatical factors. That whose ending does not change due to the difference in grammatical factors means that it may change, but not due to the difference in grammatical factors. For example, “hithu” (where) has forms like “hithu,” “hitha,” “hithi,” “hutha,” or “hawtha.” But is this difference due to the difference in the grammatical factor? No, it is a difference in language.
So the definition of the uninflected is: “That whose ending does not change due to the difference in grammatical factors”; rather, it remains as it is.
But what is the cause of being uninflected? I say, and I am not a grammarian, that the cause of being uninflected is its transmission from the Arabs. The cause of being uninflected is its transmission from the Arabs, meaning that the Arabs made this word uninflected and did not change it according to the grammatical factors, while they made the other word inflected and change it according to the grammatical factors. So the criterion for words in terms of inflection and uninflection is what is heard from the Arabs; what is heard from the Arabs.
But despite that, the people of the discipline, the people of the discipline, meaning I mean the grammarians, sought causes. They sought causes for uninflection and they differed regarding these causes. Most of them are in agreement with what Ibn Malik said: “Due to its resemblance to the particles of Madinah”, meaning the cause of the uninflection of nouns is their closeness to the particles. Their closeness to the particles in terms of resemblance. And the particles are uninflected, or are they inflected? Uninflected. All particles are uninflected. So whatever noun resembles them in this regard is given their ruling. This is the view of the author (may Allah have mercy on him) and most of the grammarians. As for me, and I am not a grammarian, I say: some of it is uninflected, why? Because it was heard that way from the Arabs, and that is the end of it. The types of resemblance: he says: “Due to its resemblance to the particles of Madinah”, meaning close resemblance. As for distant resemblance, it has no consideration. But close resemblance makes the word uninflected.
And among them will be the wretched and the prosperous.
فمنهم شقي وسعيدAnd among them will be the wretched and the prosperous.
فمنهم شقي وسعيدWhat is inflected? The inflected is that whose ending changes according to the grammatical factors. That whose ending changes according to the grammatical factors is inflected. For example, “Zayd.” If you introduce “qama” (stood) to it, you say: “Zaydun qama” (Zayd stood). If you introduce “darabtu” (I struck) to it, you say: “Darabtu Zaydan” (I struck Zayd). It changed. If you introduce a preposition, you say: “Salimtu ‘ala Zayd” (I greeted Zayd) or “Marrtu bi-Zayd” (I passed by Zayd). You will find that its ending changed according to the grammatical factors. This is inflected. It is called inflected because it clarifies the meaning, because when the vowel movements change, the meaning is understood. For this reason, it is called inflected.
The uninflected is that which is bound to a single state. If you wish, say: that whose ending does not change due to the difference in grammatical factors. That whose ending does not change due to the difference in grammatical factors means that it may change, but not due to the difference in grammatical factors. For example, “hithu” (where) has forms like “hithu,” “hitha,” “hithi,” “hutha,” or “hawtha.” But is this difference due to the difference in the grammatical factor? No, it is a difference in language.
So the definition of the uninflected is: “That whose ending does not change due to the difference in grammatical factors”; rather, it remains as it is.
But what is the cause of being uninflected? I say, and I am not a grammarian, that the cause of being uninflected is its transmission from the Arabs. The cause of being uninflected is its transmission from the Arabs, meaning that the Arabs made this word uninflected and did not change it according to the grammatical factors, while they made the other word inflected and change it according to the grammatical factors. So the criterion for words in terms of inflection and uninflection is what is heard from the Arabs; what is heard from the Arabs.
But despite that, the people of the discipline, the people of the discipline, meaning I mean the grammarians, sought causes. They sought causes for uninflection and they differed regarding these causes. Most of them are in agreement with what Ibn Malik said: “Due to its resemblance to the particles of Madinah”, meaning the cause of the uninflection of nouns is their closeness to the particles. Their closeness to the particles in terms of resemblance. And the particles are uninflected, or are they inflected? Uninflected. All particles are uninflected. So whatever noun resembles them in this regard is given their ruling. This is the view of the author (may Allah have mercy on him) and most of the grammarians. As for me, and I am not a grammarian, I say: some of it is uninflected, why? Because it was heard that way from the Arabs, and that is the end of it. The types of resemblance: he says: “Due to its resemblance to the particles of Madinah”, meaning close resemblance. As for distant resemblance, it has no consideration. But close resemblance makes the word uninflected.