Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And the condition for this inflection is that it be attached, not to the yaa *** like 'kha' and 'akhu' and 'abuka' and 'dha' and 'i'tala'."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then he said: "And the condition for this inflection is that it be attached". "The condition for this" is a demonstrative noun referring to the aforementioned inflection, which is raising with the waw, accusative with the alif, and genitive with the yaa. Its condition is that it be attached, not to the yaa. If it is not attached, it is inflected with visible vowel marks. Allah the Exalted said: [Yusuf 12:78]. How is "ab" (father) in the accusative? With the fathah. And you say: "This is a noble father." How is "ab" in the nominative? With the dammah. And you say: "I passed by a merciful father." You make it genitive with the kasrah. You make it genitive with the kasrah. So, if it is not attached, it is obligatory to inflect them with visible vowel marks: raising with the dammah in the state of the dammah, a dammah in the state of the nominative, and a fathah in the state of the accusative, and a kasrah in the state of the genitive. Good.
If it is attached to the yaa, it is also inflected with vowel marks, but they are vowel marks assumed on the letter before the yaa. So you say: "This is my father," "I saw my father," and "I passed by my father."
This is my father.
"This": A demonstrative noun, the subject (mubtada').
And "my father": The predicate (khabar) of the subject, in the nominative case with a dammah assumed on the letter before the yaa of the speaker. Its appearance is prevented by the occupation of the position with the vowel of agreement.
And you say: "I honored my father."
"My father": The object (maf'ul bihi), in the accusative case with a fathah assumed on the letter before the yaa of the speaker. Its appearance is prevented by the occupation of the position with the vowel of agreement.
And you say: "I looked at my father," so you say:
"My father": A noun in the genitive case with "ila" (to), and its sign of the genitive is a kasrah assumed on the letter before the yaa of the speaker. Its appearance is prevented by the occupation of the position with the vowel of agreement.
So if someone says: "My father is in the genitive case," we say: This kasrah is not for inflection, but for the agreement with the yaa. So, these nouns, if they are not attached, are inflected with assumed vowel marks. Pay attention: if they are not attached, they are inflected with assumed vowel marks.
The student: Visible.
The Shaykh : Well done. They are inflected with visible vowel marks, like this. If they are not attached, they are inflected with visible vowel marks. You say: "This is a father," "I saw a father," and "I passed by a father." If they are attached to the yaa of the speaker, they are inflected with assumed vowel marks on the letter before the yaa of the speaker. If they are attached to something other than the yaa of the speaker, they are inflected as the author mentioned, with the letter: waw for the nominative, alif for the accusative, and yaa for the genitive. Complete. Good.
There is a dialect in which they are inflected with the waw for the nominative, even if attached to the yaa of the speaker. A dialect of whom? The common people. What do they say? They say: "My father came." But they do not say: "I saw my father" as "I saw my father" (with alif). No, nor do they say "I passed by my father" as "I passed by my father" (with alif). With what? With "my father" (with yaa). But they say "I passed by my father" (with waw). So it is, therefore, bound to the waw, bound to the waw. Good.
It is also a condition, and we now understand, that it be attached to something other than the yaa of the speaker. The remaining conditions are:
That it be singular. That it be singular. If it is dual, it is inflected as a dual. And if it is plural, it is inflected as a plural, meaning with visible vowel marks. Allah the Exalted said in:[Ar-Ra'd 13:23] . And He said: [Az-Zukhruf 43:22]. And He said: [Ash-Shu'ara 26:76]. So how is it inflected? With visible vowel marks. If it is dual, it is inflected as a dual with the alif for the nominative, and the yaa for the genitive and accusative. And if it is plural, it is inflected with visible vowel marks. And you have heard the examples from the Qur'an.
It is also a condition: that it be in the standard form. The standard form is the opposite of the diminutive. If it is a diminutive, it is inflected with visible vowel marks. You say: "This is your little father," "I saw your little father," and "I passed by your little father." And you say: "This is your little brother," "I saw your little brother," and "I passed by your little brother."
How many conditions are there now? Four. Good. Where did we take the third and fourth conditions from? We took them from the fact that the author did not mention them except in the singular form and in the standard form. Standard form. Good.
It is also a condition that it be "fu" (father). That it be "fu" free from the mim. Did the author mention it or not? He mentioned it.
And that it be "dhu" meaning "owner." And he mentioned it. And with this, the conditions for the inflection of the six nouns with the waw for the nominative, the alif for the accusative, and the yaa for the genitive are complete. And they were taken from the words of the author, either through example or through explicit statement. Yes.
The student: If I saw your father, that "your father" is in the accusative case, an object in the accusative case with a fathah, with a fathah assumed on the letter before the alif.
The Shaykh : On what?
The student: A fathah assumed on the letter before the alif, or a fathah.
The Shaykh : What?
The student: A fathah assumed on the letter before the alif.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: So that it is consistent in the language.
The Shaykh : No, it does not become so, because the alif here, according to the opinion of those who consider it short (maqsur), is bound. I think the time is up.
"This inflection" means "this," meaning the condition for this inflection. And the inflection: it was previously mentioned that "ab" (father), "akh" (brother), and "ham" (uncle) are used in three ways, but he does not want but one way. Ibn Malik does not want but one way, which is completion (ittimam). So the reference in his saying: "this inflection" is to the inflection of completion. "That it be attached" is one. "Not to the yaa" is two. Meaning that it be attached, and that its attachment be to something other than the yaa. Which yaa? Meaning the yaa of the speaker.
So the author (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned two conditions, and two conditions remained for him: that it be singular and that it be in the standard form. So the conditions are four: that it be singular, that it be in the standard form, that it be attached, and that its attachment be to something other than the yaa of the speaker. If these four conditions are met, it is inflected with the waw for the nominative, the alif for the accusative, and the yaa for the genitive. Did you understand? Good.
If the first condition is lacking. Yes. If someone says: Did the author mention the conditions of singularity and the standard form? We say: Yes. It can be taken from his example, because he mentioned them as singular and in the standard form. He mentioned them as singular and in the standard form. But in reality, he did not make the condition explicit. He did not make the condition explicit. He said: If it is not singular, then either it is plural or dual.
If it is dual, it is inflected as a dual, and this will come, if Allah wills. And if it is plural, it is inflected with vowel marks, meaning it is raised with the dammah, made accusative with the fathah, and made genitive with the kasrah.
If it is not attached, likewise, it is inflected with vowel marks. It is raised with the dammah, made accusative with the fathah, and made genitive with the kasrah.
If it is attached to the yaa of the speaker, likewise, it is inflected with vowel marks. It is raised with the dammah, made accusative with the fathah, and made genitive with the kasrah. Except that, I mean, the vowel marks, in what is attached to the yaa of the speaker, are assumed on the letter before the yaa of the speaker. Their appearance is prevented by the occupation of the position with the vowel of agreement. Clear, brothers?
So, for example, if I say: "My father came," we say:
"Came": A past tense verb. And "father" is the subject (fa'il), in the nominative case with a dammah assumed on the letter before the yaa of the speaker. Its appearance is prevented by the occupation of the position with the vowel of agreement.
"Father": Attached (mudaf).
And the yaa: The attached-to (mudaf ilayhi), built on sukun in the position of the genitive. And so with "my brother," and so with "my uncle." Good. If it is plural, it is inflected likewise with visible vowel marks. So you say:
"These are your fathers," "I saw your fathers," and "I passed by your fathers." Allah the Exalted said:[Ash-Shu'ara 26:26]. Good. So, if the first condition, which is that it be singular, is lacking, then it is either dual, in which case it is inflected as a dual, or plural, in which case it is inflected with visible vowel marks. If the second condition, which is that it be in the standard form, is lacking, then it is inflected with visible vowel marks. So you say: "This is your little father." Yes.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : What?
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : I say: If the first and second conditions, which are that it be in the standard form, are lacking, then it is inflected with vowel marks, with visible vowel marks. So you say: "This is your little father," "I saw your little father," and "I passed by your little father." You inflect it with visible vowel marks: raising with the dammah in the state of the nominative, a fathah in the state of the accusative, and a kasrah in the state of the genitive.
And if it is not attached, likewise, it is inflected with visible vowel marks. So you say: "This is a father," "I saw a father," and "I passed by a father." If it is attached to the yaa of the speaker, likewise, it is inflected with assumed vowel marks on the letter before the yaa of the speaker. He said: "Like 'kha' and 'akhu' and 'abuka' and 'dha' and 'i'tala'".
indeed he has a father [who is] an old man
إن له أبا شيخا كبيراIf it is attached to the yaa, it is also inflected with vowel marks, but they are vowel marks assumed on the letter before the yaa. So you say: "This is my father," "I saw my father," and "I passed by my father."
This is my father.
"This": A demonstrative noun, the subject (mubtada').
And "my father": The predicate (khabar) of the subject, in the nominative case with a dammah assumed on the letter before the yaa of the speaker. Its appearance is prevented by the occupation of the position with the vowel of agreement.
And you say: "I honored my father."
"My father": The object (maf'ul bihi), in the accusative case with a fathah assumed on the letter before the yaa of the speaker. Its appearance is prevented by the occupation of the position with the vowel of agreement.
And you say: "I looked at my father," so you say:
"My father": A noun in the genitive case with "ila" (to), and its sign of the genitive is a kasrah assumed on the letter before the yaa of the speaker. Its appearance is prevented by the occupation of the position with the vowel of agreement.
So if someone says: "My father is in the genitive case," we say: This kasrah is not for inflection, but for the agreement with the yaa. So, these nouns, if they are not attached, are inflected with assumed vowel marks. Pay attention: if they are not attached, they are inflected with assumed vowel marks.
The student: Visible.
The Shaykh : Well done. They are inflected with visible vowel marks, like this. If they are not attached, they are inflected with visible vowel marks. You say: "This is a father," "I saw a father," and "I passed by a father." If they are attached to the yaa of the speaker, they are inflected with assumed vowel marks on the letter before the yaa of the speaker. If they are attached to something other than the yaa of the speaker, they are inflected as the author mentioned, with the letter: waw for the nominative, alif for the accusative, and yaa for the genitive. Complete. Good.
There is a dialect in which they are inflected with the waw for the nominative, even if attached to the yaa of the speaker. A dialect of whom? The common people. What do they say? They say: "My father came." But they do not say: "I saw my father" as "I saw my father" (with alif). No, nor do they say "I passed by my father" as "I passed by my father" (with alif). With what? With "my father" (with yaa). But they say "I passed by my father" (with waw). So it is, therefore, bound to the waw, bound to the waw. Good.
It is also a condition, and we now understand, that it be attached to something other than the yaa of the speaker. The remaining conditions are:
That it be singular. That it be singular. If it is dual, it is inflected as a dual. And if it is plural, it is inflected as a plural, meaning with visible vowel marks. Allah the Exalted said in:
with whoever were righteous among their fathers
ومن صلح من آبائهمFrom their fathers.
من آبائهمIndeed, we found our fathers
إنا وجدنا آباءناYou and your ancient forefathers?
أنتم وآباؤكم الأقدمونIt is also a condition: that it be in the standard form. The standard form is the opposite of the diminutive. If it is a diminutive, it is inflected with visible vowel marks. You say: "This is your little father," "I saw your little father," and "I passed by your little father." And you say: "This is your little brother," "I saw your little brother," and "I passed by your little brother."
How many conditions are there now? Four. Good. Where did we take the third and fourth conditions from? We took them from the fact that the author did not mention them except in the singular form and in the standard form. Standard form. Good.
It is also a condition that it be "fu" (father). That it be "fu" free from the mim. Did the author mention it or not? He mentioned it.
And that it be "dhu" meaning "owner." And he mentioned it. And with this, the conditions for the inflection of the six nouns with the waw for the nominative, the alif for the accusative, and the yaa for the genitive are complete. And they were taken from the words of the author, either through example or through explicit statement. Yes.
The student: If I saw your father, that "your father" is in the accusative case, an object in the accusative case with a fathah, with a fathah assumed on the letter before the alif.
The Shaykh : On what?
The student: A fathah assumed on the letter before the alif, or a fathah.
The Shaykh : What?
The student: A fathah assumed on the letter before the alif.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: So that it is consistent in the language.
The Shaykh : No, it does not become so, because the alif here, according to the opinion of those who consider it short (maqsur), is bound. I think the time is up.
"This inflection" means "this," meaning the condition for this inflection. And the inflection: it was previously mentioned that "ab" (father), "akh" (brother), and "ham" (uncle) are used in three ways, but he does not want but one way. Ibn Malik does not want but one way, which is completion (ittimam). So the reference in his saying: "this inflection" is to the inflection of completion. "That it be attached" is one. "Not to the yaa" is two. Meaning that it be attached, and that its attachment be to something other than the yaa. Which yaa? Meaning the yaa of the speaker.
So the author (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned two conditions, and two conditions remained for him: that it be singular and that it be in the standard form. So the conditions are four: that it be singular, that it be in the standard form, that it be attached, and that its attachment be to something other than the yaa of the speaker. If these four conditions are met, it is inflected with the waw for the nominative, the alif for the accusative, and the yaa for the genitive. Did you understand? Good.
If the first condition is lacking. Yes. If someone says: Did the author mention the conditions of singularity and the standard form? We say: Yes. It can be taken from his example, because he mentioned them as singular and in the standard form. He mentioned them as singular and in the standard form. But in reality, he did not make the condition explicit. He did not make the condition explicit. He said: If it is not singular, then either it is plural or dual.
If it is dual, it is inflected as a dual, and this will come, if Allah wills. And if it is plural, it is inflected with vowel marks, meaning it is raised with the dammah, made accusative with the fathah, and made genitive with the kasrah.
If it is not attached, likewise, it is inflected with vowel marks. It is raised with the dammah, made accusative with the fathah, and made genitive with the kasrah.
If it is attached to the yaa of the speaker, likewise, it is inflected with vowel marks. It is raised with the dammah, made accusative with the fathah, and made genitive with the kasrah. Except that, I mean, the vowel marks, in what is attached to the yaa of the speaker, are assumed on the letter before the yaa of the speaker. Their appearance is prevented by the occupation of the position with the vowel of agreement. Clear, brothers?
So, for example, if I say: "My father came," we say:
"Came": A past tense verb. And "father" is the subject (fa'il), in the nominative case with a dammah assumed on the letter before the yaa of the speaker. Its appearance is prevented by the occupation of the position with the vowel of agreement.
"Father": Attached (mudaf).
And the yaa: The attached-to (mudaf ilayhi), built on sukun in the position of the genitive. And so with "my brother," and so with "my uncle." Good. If it is plural, it is inflected likewise with visible vowel marks. So you say:
"These are your fathers," "I saw your fathers," and "I passed by your fathers." Allah the Exalted said:
Your Lord and the Lord of your first forefathers."
ربكم ورب آبائكم الأولينThe student: ... .
The Shaykh : What?
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : I say: If the first and second conditions, which are that it be in the standard form, are lacking, then it is inflected with vowel marks, with visible vowel marks. So you say: "This is your little father," "I saw your little father," and "I passed by your little father." You inflect it with visible vowel marks: raising with the dammah in the state of the nominative, a fathah in the state of the accusative, and a kasrah in the state of the genitive.
And if it is not attached, likewise, it is inflected with visible vowel marks. So you say: "This is a father," "I saw a father," and "I passed by a father." If it is attached to the yaa of the speaker, likewise, it is inflected with assumed vowel marks on the letter before the yaa of the speaker. He said: "Like 'kha' and 'akhu' and 'abuka' and 'dha' and 'i'tala'".