Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And as for what is other than this, raise it with *hab* or decline it with *fajur* *** with the *ba*, and below this, the joining of the *ha* was more."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said: "And as for what is other than this, raise it with *hab* or decline it with *fajur* *** with the *ba*":
"What is other than this": This means if the doer of *hab* is other than *dha*, what do you do with it when you want to praise? He says:
"Raise it or decline it with *fajur* *** with the *ba*": This means either you raise it, or you decline it with the *ba*, saying: *habba Zaydun*, or: *habba bi-Zayd*, intending to praise him. So the author's statement: "And as for what is other than this":
"This": And what does he mean by "this"? The *dha* in *hab dha*. "Raise it with *hab*": This means that if the doer of *hab* comes other than *dha*, yes, then raise it with *hab*, or decline it with the *ba*. And the author's statement: "Or decline it": Or, this is a conjunction.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Or is it not present?
The Shaykh :-How? Is it not present with you, and is it not possible to move to the next verse? - Or decline it with the *ba*: "Or" is a conjunction, and its meaning is choice, meaning that you have the choice between raising it with *hab* or declining it with the *ba*. And the *fa* in his statement: "fajur", or is it a conjunction and the *fa*?
The student: It is superfluous.
The Shaykh : The *fa*: It is superfluous, because conjunctions do not overlap. Conjunctions do not overlap. You do not say: Zayd came and then 'Amr came. This is not permissible.
"Or decline it": We cannot say that the *fa* is a conjunction, because a conjunction does not enter upon a conjunction. However, it is permissible for the *fa* to be a connector as the answer to a preceding condition, meaning: Or if you do not raise it, then decline it. And on this basis, is the *fa* here?
The student: A connector.
The Shaykh : A connector for the answer, its condition is omitted, meaning: "Or if you do not raise it, then decline it". And his statement: "Decline it with the *ba*", specifically, or... here?
The student: Specifically.
The Shaykh : Specifically with the *ba*, yes, with the *ba*.
"And below this, the joining of the *ha* was more":
"And below this, the joining of the *ha* was more": Its grammatical analysis: *Inidhamam* is the subject, and *inidhamam* is the possessed, and the *ha* is the possessor, and *kathur* is a past tense verb, and the sentence is the predicate of the subject *inidhamam*. And "below," yes, "below this" is connected to what? To *kathur*. That is: And the joining of the *ha* was more below this. What is "this"?
The *dha* in *hab dha*. This means that you say: *hab dha* with an *fathah*, and you say: *habba Zaydun*, and *hubba Zaydun*, or: *hubba bi-Zaydin*, *hub bi-Zaydin*, and *hab bi-Zayd*, here, did you not understand?! Well then, the author's statement now summarizes the matter: that *hab* is used to establish praise, just as *na'am* is used. But if its doer is *dha*, then it is with an *fathah* on the *ha*. And if its doer is other than *dha*, then it is mostly here? With a *dammah* on the *ha*, with a *dammah* on the *ha*. Then we say: If its doer is *dha*, then it is not declined with the *ba*. And if its doer is other than *dha*, here, it is permissible to decline it with the *ba*. And at that time, how do we analyze the *ba* if I say: *hub bi-Zayd*? Meaning you praise him, so we say: *habba*: a past tense verb built on *fathah*, and we analyze it as built for the object of *hab*?
The student: No, it is built for the doer.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Built for the doer.
The Shaykh : No, it is built for the doer.
The student: The intended meaning is its form.
The Shaykh : And that is because, no, the intended meaning is not its form. And that is because *hab* in this place became: "habba Zayd", yes, its original form is *habba Zayd*, *habuba Zayd*, did you understand?! But the *dammah* was moved to the *ha* contrary to the morphological rule. When you moved the *hamzah* from the *ba*, what did the *ba* become?
The student: It became *sakinah* (unvoweled).
The Shaykh : It became *sakinah* (unvoweled). Of course, if it took its movement, it became *sakinah*, or not? If I broke my legs, do I move or not?! I do not move. The *dammah* was taken from it, so it remained *sakinah*. A *sakinah* followed by a moving letter of the same type is assimilated into it, or in it. It is assimilated in it. And for this reason we said: "hubba", and its original form is: "habuba". Then the movement of the *ba* was moved to the *ha*. What is the *ba* called in morphological terminology? It is called the *'ayn*. So you moved the movement of the *'ayn* to the *fa*, or not?! From the *'ayn* to the *fa*. The *'ayn* closed when the movement was moved, here it was suppressed and became *sakinah*. So when it became *sakinah*, it was assimilated here into the *ba* that follows it, into the *lam*, so it became *hab*. Is it clear, everyone?!
And for this reason, if you say: *hubba bi-Zayd*: *hab* is a past tense verb built for the passive. We said: This is an error. But if you wanted to inform about Zayd that he is loved, and you said: *hub Zaydun*, here, how do you analyze *hab*?
The student: Built for the passive.
The Shaykh : A past tense verb built for the passive, or for the object, because you want to inform that he is loved, not to establish praise for him with love. And there is a difference between them. And this is one of the subtleties of the language. This is one of the subtleties of the language. Only a person who understands meanings understands it. But if you say: *hubba bi-Zayd* -and it is not permissible for Zayd to be the passive doer in any case- what is intended by it? Establishing praise. And that is because the *ba* prevented Zayd from being the passive doer. It prevented him from being the passive doer.
"What is other than this": This means if the doer of *hab* is other than *dha*, what do you do with it when you want to praise? He says:
"Raise it or decline it with *fajur* *** with the *ba*": This means either you raise it, or you decline it with the *ba*, saying: *habba Zaydun*, or: *habba bi-Zayd*, intending to praise him. So the author's statement: "And as for what is other than this":
"This": And what does he mean by "this"? The *dha* in *hab dha*. "Raise it with *hab*": This means that if the doer of *hab* comes other than *dha*, yes, then raise it with *hab*, or decline it with the *ba*. And the author's statement: "Or decline it": Or, this is a conjunction.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Or is it not present?
The Shaykh :-How? Is it not present with you, and is it not possible to move to the next verse? - Or decline it with the *ba*: "Or" is a conjunction, and its meaning is choice, meaning that you have the choice between raising it with *hab* or declining it with the *ba*. And the *fa* in his statement: "fajur", or is it a conjunction and the *fa*?
The student: It is superfluous.
The Shaykh : The *fa*: It is superfluous, because conjunctions do not overlap. Conjunctions do not overlap. You do not say: Zayd came and then 'Amr came. This is not permissible.
"Or decline it": We cannot say that the *fa* is a conjunction, because a conjunction does not enter upon a conjunction. However, it is permissible for the *fa* to be a connector as the answer to a preceding condition, meaning: Or if you do not raise it, then decline it. And on this basis, is the *fa* here?
The student: A connector.
The Shaykh : A connector for the answer, its condition is omitted, meaning: "Or if you do not raise it, then decline it". And his statement: "Decline it with the *ba*", specifically, or... here?
The student: Specifically.
The Shaykh : Specifically with the *ba*, yes, with the *ba*.
"And below this, the joining of the *ha* was more":
"And below this, the joining of the *ha* was more": Its grammatical analysis: *Inidhamam* is the subject, and *inidhamam* is the possessed, and the *ha* is the possessor, and *kathur* is a past tense verb, and the sentence is the predicate of the subject *inidhamam*. And "below," yes, "below this" is connected to what? To *kathur*. That is: And the joining of the *ha* was more below this. What is "this"?
The *dha* in *hab dha*. This means that you say: *hab dha* with an *fathah*, and you say: *habba Zaydun*, and *hubba Zaydun*, or: *hubba bi-Zaydin*, *hub bi-Zaydin*, and *hab bi-Zayd*, here, did you not understand?! Well then, the author's statement now summarizes the matter: that *hab* is used to establish praise, just as *na'am* is used. But if its doer is *dha*, then it is with an *fathah* on the *ha*. And if its doer is other than *dha*, then it is mostly here? With a *dammah* on the *ha*, with a *dammah* on the *ha*. Then we say: If its doer is *dha*, then it is not declined with the *ba*. And if its doer is other than *dha*, here, it is permissible to decline it with the *ba*. And at that time, how do we analyze the *ba* if I say: *hub bi-Zayd*? Meaning you praise him, so we say: *habba*: a past tense verb built on *fathah*, and we analyze it as built for the object of *hab*?
The student: No, it is built for the doer.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Built for the doer.
The Shaykh : No, it is built for the doer.
The student: The intended meaning is its form.
The Shaykh : And that is because, no, the intended meaning is not its form. And that is because *hab* in this place became: "habba Zayd", yes, its original form is *habba Zayd*, *habuba Zayd*, did you understand?! But the *dammah* was moved to the *ha* contrary to the morphological rule. When you moved the *hamzah* from the *ba*, what did the *ba* become?
The student: It became *sakinah* (unvoweled).
The Shaykh : It became *sakinah* (unvoweled). Of course, if it took its movement, it became *sakinah*, or not? If I broke my legs, do I move or not?! I do not move. The *dammah* was taken from it, so it remained *sakinah*. A *sakinah* followed by a moving letter of the same type is assimilated into it, or in it. It is assimilated in it. And for this reason we said: "hubba", and its original form is: "habuba". Then the movement of the *ba* was moved to the *ha*. What is the *ba* called in morphological terminology? It is called the *'ayn*. So you moved the movement of the *'ayn* to the *fa*, or not?! From the *'ayn* to the *fa*. The *'ayn* closed when the movement was moved, here it was suppressed and became *sakinah*. So when it became *sakinah*, it was assimilated here into the *ba* that follows it, into the *lam*, so it became *hab*. Is it clear, everyone?!
And for this reason, if you say: *hubba bi-Zayd*: *hab* is a past tense verb built for the passive. We said: This is an error. But if you wanted to inform about Zayd that he is loved, and you said: *hub Zaydun*, here, how do you analyze *hab*?
The student: Built for the passive.
The Shaykh : A past tense verb built for the passive, or for the object, because you want to inform that he is loved, not to establish praise for him with love. And there is a difference between them. And this is one of the subtleties of the language. This is one of the subtleties of the language. Only a person who understands meanings understands it. But if you say: *hubba bi-Zayd* -and it is not permissible for Zayd to be the passive doer in any case- what is intended by it? Establishing praise. And that is because the *ba* prevented Zayd from being the passive doer. It prevented him from being the passive doer.