A reading from Ibn 'Aqil's commentary (may Allah have mercy on him): from his statement, with the Shaykh's commentary on it: " .
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The reader: " And the specific object of blame is mentioned after it, just as it is mentioned after 'baysa' (how bad), and its grammatical analysis is as previously mentioned. By his statement: 'and make it fa'ula,' he indicated that every triliteral verb can be constructed into a verb on the pattern fa'ula for the purpose of praise or blame, and it is treated like 'na'ma' (how good) and 'baysa' in all the rulings previously mentioned for them. So you say: 'Sharufa al-rajulu Zaydun' (How noble is the man, Zayd), and 'La'uma al-rajulu Bakrun' (How base is the man, Bakr), and 'Sharufa ghulamu al-rajuli Zaydun' (How noble is the man's slave, Zayd), and 'Sharufa rajulan Zaydun' (How noble is a man, Zayd).
The implication of this generalization is that it is permissible in 'alima' (to know) to say: 'Aluma al-rajulu Zaydun' (How knowledgeable is the man, Zayd) with a damma on the 'ayn of the word. He and his son gave this as an example, and others explicitly stated that it is not permissible to convert 'alima' (to know), 'jahl' (to be ignorant), and 'sami'a' (to hear) to the pattern fa'ula with a damma on the 'ayn, because when the Arabs used them in this usage, they kept the kasra on their 'ayn and did not convert it to a damma. So it is not permissible for us to convert them, but we keep them in their state as they kept them. So you say: 'Alima al-rajulu Zaydun' (The man, Zayd, knows), and 'Jahila al-rajulu 'Amrun' (The man, 'Amr, is ignorant), and 'Sami'a al-rajulu Bakrun' (The man, Bakr, hears) ".
The Shaykh : But the apparent wording of Ibn Malik is more appropriate. The issue is trivial, yes?
The reader: With this kasra, do they intend praise and blame?
The Shaykh : Yes, yes.
The reader: " And like 'na'ma' is 'habbatha al-fa'ilu dha' (How good is the doer, this one) *** And if you want to express blame, say 'la habbatha' (Not how good):
It is said in praise: 'Habbatha Zaydun' (How good is Zayd), and in blame: 'La habbatha Zaydun' (Not how good is Zayd), like his saying:
'Ala habbatha ahl al-mala ghayra annahu *** idha dhukirat Mayyun fa la habbatha hiya.' (Oh, how good are the people of the gathering, except that *** if Mayy is mentioned, then not how good is she.)
And there is disagreement regarding its grammatical analysis ".
The Shaykh : Does this person love her and not hate her?
The reader: He hates her.
The Shaykh : He hates her?
The reader: Yes.
The Shaykh : And Mayy!
The reader: A name, a proper noun for the annexed word.
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, for the annexed word, yes.
The reader: " And there is disagreement regarding its grammatical analysis. Abu 'Ali al-Farisi in al-Baghdadiyyat, Ibn Burhan, and Ibn Khuruf held, and claimed that it is the view of Sibawayhi, and that whoever transmitted from him otherwise has erred regarding him, and the author chose this, that 'habba' is a past tense verb and 'dha': its subject. As for the specific object, it is permissible that it be a subject, and the preceding sentence be its predicate, and it is permissible that it be a predicate for a deleted subject, with the meaning: 'It is Zayd,' i.e., the one praised or blamed is Zayd, and the author chose this. Al-Mubarrad in al-Muqtadab, Ibn al-Sarraj in al-Usul, and Ibn Hisham al-Lakhmi held, and Ibn 'Asfura chose this: that 'habbatha' is a noun and it is a subject, and the specific object is its predicate, or a preceding predicate and the specific object is a delayed subject, so 'habba' was combined with 'dha' and they were made one noun ".
The Shaykh : One noun and not one verb?
The student: One noun, 'habbatha': a subject.
The Shaykh : Ah.
The reader: " And a group, among them Ibn Durastawayh ".
The Shaykh : Durastawayh.
The student: It is pronounced with a damma on the dal.
The Shaykh : Durastawayh.
The student: Durastawayh.
The reader: " And a group, among them Ibn Durastawayh, held that 'habbatha' is a past tense verb and 'Zayd' is its subject, so 'habba' was combined with 'dha' and they were made a verb, and this is the weakest of the views ".
The Shaykh : But what the author held is the best of the opinions.
The student: But according to the rule of the easier?
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: According to our easier rule.
The Shaykh : The easier is to say about it: a verb and not a noun? But this is far-fetched. 'Habba' is a known past tense verb, 'habba' is a verb.
The implication of this generalization is that it is permissible in 'alima' (to know) to say: 'Aluma al-rajulu Zaydun' (How knowledgeable is the man, Zayd) with a damma on the 'ayn of the word. He and his son gave this as an example, and others explicitly stated that it is not permissible to convert 'alima' (to know), 'jahl' (to be ignorant), and 'sami'a' (to hear) to the pattern fa'ula with a damma on the 'ayn, because when the Arabs used them in this usage, they kept the kasra on their 'ayn and did not convert it to a damma. So it is not permissible for us to convert them, but we keep them in their state as they kept them. So you say: 'Alima al-rajulu Zaydun' (The man, Zayd, knows), and 'Jahila al-rajulu 'Amrun' (The man, 'Amr, is ignorant), and 'Sami'a al-rajulu Bakrun' (The man, Bakr, hears) ".
The Shaykh : But the apparent wording of Ibn Malik is more appropriate. The issue is trivial, yes?
The reader: With this kasra, do they intend praise and blame?
The Shaykh : Yes, yes.
The reader: " And like 'na'ma' is 'habbatha al-fa'ilu dha' (How good is the doer, this one) *** And if you want to express blame, say 'la habbatha' (Not how good):
It is said in praise: 'Habbatha Zaydun' (How good is Zayd), and in blame: 'La habbatha Zaydun' (Not how good is Zayd), like his saying:
'Ala habbatha ahl al-mala ghayra annahu *** idha dhukirat Mayyun fa la habbatha hiya.' (Oh, how good are the people of the gathering, except that *** if Mayy is mentioned, then not how good is she.)
And there is disagreement regarding its grammatical analysis ".
The Shaykh : Does this person love her and not hate her?
The reader: He hates her.
The Shaykh : He hates her?
The reader: Yes.
The Shaykh : And Mayy!
The reader: A name, a proper noun for the annexed word.
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, for the annexed word, yes.
The reader: " And there is disagreement regarding its grammatical analysis. Abu 'Ali al-Farisi in al-Baghdadiyyat, Ibn Burhan, and Ibn Khuruf held, and claimed that it is the view of Sibawayhi, and that whoever transmitted from him otherwise has erred regarding him, and the author chose this, that 'habba' is a past tense verb and 'dha': its subject. As for the specific object, it is permissible that it be a subject, and the preceding sentence be its predicate, and it is permissible that it be a predicate for a deleted subject, with the meaning: 'It is Zayd,' i.e., the one praised or blamed is Zayd, and the author chose this. Al-Mubarrad in al-Muqtadab, Ibn al-Sarraj in al-Usul, and Ibn Hisham al-Lakhmi held, and Ibn 'Asfura chose this: that 'habbatha' is a noun and it is a subject, and the specific object is its predicate, or a preceding predicate and the specific object is a delayed subject, so 'habba' was combined with 'dha' and they were made one noun ".
The Shaykh : One noun and not one verb?
The student: One noun, 'habbatha': a subject.
The Shaykh : Ah.
The reader: " And a group, among them Ibn Durastawayh ".
The Shaykh : Durastawayh.
The student: It is pronounced with a damma on the dal.
The Shaykh : Durastawayh.
The student: Durastawayh.
The reader: " And a group, among them Ibn Durastawayh, held that 'habbatha' is a past tense verb and 'Zayd' is its subject, so 'habba' was combined with 'dha' and they were made a verb, and this is the weakest of the views ".
The Shaykh : But what the author held is the best of the opinions.
The student: But according to the rule of the easier?
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: According to our easier rule.
The Shaykh : The easier is to say about it: a verb and not a noun? But this is far-fetched. 'Habba' is a known past tense verb, 'habba' is a verb.