Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "So the description is a follower, completing what preceded *** by its mark or the mark of what it is attached to."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : What is the description (na't)?
We said: The description (na't) in the Arabic language means the attribute (wasf), and in technical terminology: "follower":
Follower: This excludes the original (asli). If you say: "Zayd stood up," then Zayd cannot be a description, it is not possible for it to be a description, because it is not a follower. And it includes all followers. If we said: "The description is a follower" and stopped there, it would include all followers; it would include emphasis (ta'kid) and conjunction (atf) and substitution (badal). The rest of the followers are excluded by his saying:
"completing what preceded *** by its mark":
Completing what preceded: meaning what preceded it, and what is that? It is the described (man'ut). By what does it complete it?
"by its mark":
The mark (wasam) means the sign (sima), meaning the marker, and what is intended by it is the attribute (sifa), what is intended by it is the attribute, meaning by its attribute.
"or the mark of what it is attached to":
Meaning, or the attribute of what has a connection to it, what has a connection to it by a pronoun or otherwise. So it is a follower, and by this the original is excluded:
"completing what preceded *** by its mark or the mark of what is attached": By this the rest of the followers are excluded, and the meaning of "by its mark" is: by its preceding description.
Or the description of what it is attached to: meaning what has a connection to it. An example of the one by its mark: if you say: "I passed by a noble man," the word "man" is absolute, it is not described by anything. So if you say: "noble," you have completed this man, and what is it?
The student: By describing him as noble.
The Shaykh : By describing him with nobility, by describing him with nobility. "Noble" is this mark.
"or the mark of what it is attached to":
Meaning what has a connection to it, such as if you say: "I passed by a noble man, his father," "noble, his father." So now the word "noble" is a follower of "man," but does the description it contains return to "man" or to something that has a connection to it?
The student: It has a connection to it.
The Shaykh : Who is the noble one in this example? The father, not the man. "Noble, his father." So it is as if the description is now describing what has a connection to it, which is his father. Yes, good. And what is the connection here between the described and the followed?
The student: The pronoun.
The Shaykh : The pronoun. For this reason, if you say: "I passed by a noble man, Zayd," it does not stand, it is not correct. There must be a connection. Connection: "noble, his father." Yes, "noble, his father's father," "noble, his father's father's father," and so on. The important thing is that there must be a pronoun connecting this and that. And the description is now either a description of the followed, like what?
The student: I passed by a generous man.
The Shaykh : I passed by a noble man. "Noble" or "generous" does not contradict, or what? Or a description of what has a connection to it: like "I passed by a noble man, his father." So here "noble" is an attribute of "man," but is it an attribute in grammar or in meaning?
The student: In grammar.
The Shaykh : In grammar. An attribute of "man," and the attribute of the genitive is genitive, or a description of "man," and the description of the genitive is genitive, and its sign of genitive is a visible kasrah at its end. "His father" is the subject of "noble," because the active participle governs, so "his father" is the subject of "noble" and is nominative, and its sign of nominative is a dammah estimated on the waw, prevented from appearing by heaviness!!
The student: No, no.
The Shaykh : Is this acceptable?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : This is the school of Sibawayhi, which Ibn Aqil said:
"If Hudham speaks, believe them".
Or do we say, according to the famous view: and its sign of nominative is the waw in place of the dammah, because it is one of the names.
The student: The five.
The Shaykh : As for Ibn Jurum, he says five, Ghanim and his companions. And as for Ibn Malik, he says: six, but then he says: "and the omission in this last one is better", and the omission in this last one is better. Yes, good. So: "or the mark of what it is attached to", what does it mean?
Huh? Or the description of what has a connection to it, and you have known the example by both ways.
We said: The description (na't) in the Arabic language means the attribute (wasf), and in technical terminology: "follower":
Follower: This excludes the original (asli). If you say: "Zayd stood up," then Zayd cannot be a description, it is not possible for it to be a description, because it is not a follower. And it includes all followers. If we said: "The description is a follower" and stopped there, it would include all followers; it would include emphasis (ta'kid) and conjunction (atf) and substitution (badal). The rest of the followers are excluded by his saying:
"completing what preceded *** by its mark":
Completing what preceded: meaning what preceded it, and what is that? It is the described (man'ut). By what does it complete it?
"by its mark":
The mark (wasam) means the sign (sima), meaning the marker, and what is intended by it is the attribute (sifa), what is intended by it is the attribute, meaning by its attribute.
"or the mark of what it is attached to":
Meaning, or the attribute of what has a connection to it, what has a connection to it by a pronoun or otherwise. So it is a follower, and by this the original is excluded:
"completing what preceded *** by its mark or the mark of what is attached": By this the rest of the followers are excluded, and the meaning of "by its mark" is: by its preceding description.
Or the description of what it is attached to: meaning what has a connection to it. An example of the one by its mark: if you say: "I passed by a noble man," the word "man" is absolute, it is not described by anything. So if you say: "noble," you have completed this man, and what is it?
The student: By describing him as noble.
The Shaykh : By describing him with nobility, by describing him with nobility. "Noble" is this mark.
"or the mark of what it is attached to":
Meaning what has a connection to it, such as if you say: "I passed by a noble man, his father," "noble, his father." So now the word "noble" is a follower of "man," but does the description it contains return to "man" or to something that has a connection to it?
The student: It has a connection to it.
The Shaykh : Who is the noble one in this example? The father, not the man. "Noble, his father." So it is as if the description is now describing what has a connection to it, which is his father. Yes, good. And what is the connection here between the described and the followed?
The student: The pronoun.
The Shaykh : The pronoun. For this reason, if you say: "I passed by a noble man, Zayd," it does not stand, it is not correct. There must be a connection. Connection: "noble, his father." Yes, "noble, his father's father," "noble, his father's father's father," and so on. The important thing is that there must be a pronoun connecting this and that. And the description is now either a description of the followed, like what?
The student: I passed by a generous man.
The Shaykh : I passed by a noble man. "Noble" or "generous" does not contradict, or what? Or a description of what has a connection to it: like "I passed by a noble man, his father." So here "noble" is an attribute of "man," but is it an attribute in grammar or in meaning?
The student: In grammar.
The Shaykh : In grammar. An attribute of "man," and the attribute of the genitive is genitive, or a description of "man," and the description of the genitive is genitive, and its sign of genitive is a visible kasrah at its end. "His father" is the subject of "noble," because the active participle governs, so "his father" is the subject of "noble" and is nominative, and its sign of nominative is a dammah estimated on the waw, prevented from appearing by heaviness!!
The student: No, no.
The Shaykh : Is this acceptable?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : This is the school of Sibawayhi, which Ibn Aqil said:
"If Hudham speaks, believe them".
Or do we say, according to the famous view: and its sign of nominative is the waw in place of the dammah, because it is one of the names.
The student: The five.
The Shaykh : As for Ibn Jurum, he says five, Ghanim and his companions. And as for Ibn Malik, he says: six, but then he says: "and the omission in this last one is better", and the omission in this last one is better. Yes, good. So: "or the mark of what it is attached to", what does it mean?
Huh? Or the description of what has a connection to it, and you have known the example by both ways.