Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "With the alif, raise the dual and kula *** if it is connected to a hidden pronoun as a possessive."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The author said:
"With the alif, raise the dual and kula *** if it is connected to a hidden pronoun" to the end of it.
"With the alif, raise the dual." This ruling states that the dual is raised with the alif. So what is the dual? He says in its definition: "Every word that indicates two by an addition that suffices for two coordinated words that agree in form and meaning". This definition: every word that indicates two by an addition that suffices for two coordinated words that agree in form and meaning. Perfect. Good.
"Every word that indicates two" excludes what indicates one and what indicates a group, so it is not a dual.
"By an addition" excludes what indicates two without an addition, such as a pair (zawj). A pair indicates two, but it does so without an addition.
"That suffices for two coordinated words that agree in form and meaning." Coordinated words that agree, not differ. So this excludes cases where it suffices for two coordinated words that differ, such as al-'Amrayn (the two 'Amirs). Al-'Amrayn are not agreed in form because they are used for Abu Bakr and 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both), and they are not agreed in form.
And "meaning" is a precaution against when you say: "I honored the two who stood." You mean by one the one who stood up, and by the other the one whose house stood. These two are agreed in form, but they differ in meaning. So it is annexed to the dual when you say "I honored the two who stood" intending this meaning. It is annexed to the dual, not a true dual. Clear, everyone? Good. This is the dual in their terminology: every word that indicates two by an addition that suffices for two coordinated words in form and meaning. Yes. How?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, it suffices for two coordinated words that agree in form and meaning. This is the dual, because when you say "al-Muhammadan came," the word al-Muhammadan sufficed for Muhammad and Muhammad, is that not so? Yes. The author says: "With the alif, raise the dual". So the dual is raised with the alif. As for the genitive...
He said: "And the yaa replaces the alif in all of them *** in the genitive and accusative, after an opening that has been accustomed"
So the dual is put in the accusative with the genitive. The dual is put in the accusative and the genitive with the yaa. And for this reason he said: "And the yaa replaces the alif in all of them". The yaa is the subject of "replaces," and the alif is the object, meaning that the yaa becomes a substitute for the alif in the genitive and accusative, meaning in the state of the genitive and in the state of the accusative. And from here we know the ruling of the dual: it is raised with the alif in the state of the nominative, raised with the alif, and put in the accusative and genitive with the yaa. Ah.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : ... the dual is raised with the alif and put in the accusative.
The student: With a yaa.
The Shaykh : And put in the genitive with the yaa. Where did we know the second part? That it is put in the accusative and genitive with the yaa, from his saying:
"And the yaa replaces the alif in all of them *** in the genitive and accusative, after an opening that has been accustomed"
So you say: "The two men stood," "I saw the two men," and "I passed by the two men."
It does not differ in the state of the accusative and the state of the genitive. It does not differ in the state of the accusative and the genitive.
And his saying: "After an opening that has been accustomed" means that it has become a linguistic custom among the Arabs not to put a kasrah before the yaa in the dual, but rather to open it. So they say "I passed by the two men" and "I honored the two men."
Then the author mentioned what is annexed to the dual, and he said:
"And kula *** if it is connected to a hidden pronoun as a possessive"
Meaning, and raise kula if it is connected to a hidden pronoun as a possessive. The estimation is: if it is connected to a hidden pronoun in the state of being a possessive. And his saying: "Connected": the alif is for generality, not for duality. The pronoun in his saying: "connected" refers to kula. Meaning that kula is inflected like the dual on the condition that it is added to what? To a pronoun. If it is added to something other than a pronoun, it is not annexed to the dual; it is inflected with movements estimated on the alif.
You say, for example: "Both of them came to me," "I saw both of them," and "I passed by both of them." If it is added to something other than a hidden pronoun, it is inflected with movements estimated on the alif. So you say:
"Both of the two men came," "I saw both of the two men," and "I passed by both of the two men."
Allah the Exalted said:[Al-Kahf 18:33]. Here, , what do we say? It is raised with the alif. We say it is raised with a dammah estimated on the alif, prevented from appearing by the impossibility. Good.
"With the alif, raise the dual and kula *** if it is connected to a hidden pronoun" to the end of it.
"With the alif, raise the dual." This ruling states that the dual is raised with the alif. So what is the dual? He says in its definition: "Every word that indicates two by an addition that suffices for two coordinated words that agree in form and meaning". This definition: every word that indicates two by an addition that suffices for two coordinated words that agree in form and meaning. Perfect. Good.
"Every word that indicates two" excludes what indicates one and what indicates a group, so it is not a dual.
"By an addition" excludes what indicates two without an addition, such as a pair (zawj). A pair indicates two, but it does so without an addition.
"That suffices for two coordinated words that agree in form and meaning." Coordinated words that agree, not differ. So this excludes cases where it suffices for two coordinated words that differ, such as al-'Amrayn (the two 'Amirs). Al-'Amrayn are not agreed in form because they are used for Abu Bakr and 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both), and they are not agreed in form.
And "meaning" is a precaution against when you say: "I honored the two who stood." You mean by one the one who stood up, and by the other the one whose house stood. These two are agreed in form, but they differ in meaning. So it is annexed to the dual when you say "I honored the two who stood" intending this meaning. It is annexed to the dual, not a true dual. Clear, everyone? Good. This is the dual in their terminology: every word that indicates two by an addition that suffices for two coordinated words in form and meaning. Yes. How?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, it suffices for two coordinated words that agree in form and meaning. This is the dual, because when you say "al-Muhammadan came," the word al-Muhammadan sufficed for Muhammad and Muhammad, is that not so? Yes. The author says: "With the alif, raise the dual". So the dual is raised with the alif. As for the genitive...
He said: "And the yaa replaces the alif in all of them *** in the genitive and accusative, after an opening that has been accustomed"
So the dual is put in the accusative with the genitive. The dual is put in the accusative and the genitive with the yaa. And for this reason he said: "And the yaa replaces the alif in all of them". The yaa is the subject of "replaces," and the alif is the object, meaning that the yaa becomes a substitute for the alif in the genitive and accusative, meaning in the state of the genitive and in the state of the accusative. And from here we know the ruling of the dual: it is raised with the alif in the state of the nominative, raised with the alif, and put in the accusative and genitive with the yaa. Ah.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : ... the dual is raised with the alif and put in the accusative.
The student: With a yaa.
The Shaykh : And put in the genitive with the yaa. Where did we know the second part? That it is put in the accusative and genitive with the yaa, from his saying:
"And the yaa replaces the alif in all of them *** in the genitive and accusative, after an opening that has been accustomed"
So you say: "The two men stood," "I saw the two men," and "I passed by the two men."
It does not differ in the state of the accusative and the state of the genitive. It does not differ in the state of the accusative and the genitive.
And his saying: "After an opening that has been accustomed" means that it has become a linguistic custom among the Arabs not to put a kasrah before the yaa in the dual, but rather to open it. So they say "I passed by the two men" and "I honored the two men."
Then the author mentioned what is annexed to the dual, and he said:
"And kula *** if it is connected to a hidden pronoun as a possessive"
Meaning, and raise kula if it is connected to a hidden pronoun as a possessive. The estimation is: if it is connected to a hidden pronoun in the state of being a possessive. And his saying: "Connected": the alif is for generality, not for duality. The pronoun in his saying: "connected" refers to kula. Meaning that kula is inflected like the dual on the condition that it is added to what? To a pronoun. If it is added to something other than a pronoun, it is not annexed to the dual; it is inflected with movements estimated on the alif.
You say, for example: "Both of them came to me," "I saw both of them," and "I passed by both of them." If it is added to something other than a hidden pronoun, it is inflected with movements estimated on the alif. So you say:
"Both of the two men came," "I saw both of the two men," and "I passed by both of the two men."
Allah the Exalted said: