Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And they described an indefinite noun with a clause, *** so it was given what was given to the predicate."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And they described an indefinite noun with a clause":
You know that a clause is either nominal or verbal. Can it be used to describe a definite noun? No. If a clause comes after a definite noun—pay attention to this rule—: "If a clause comes after a definite noun, it is a circumstantial phrase (hal), but if it comes after an indefinite noun, it is an attribute (sifat)". This is why he said:
"And they described an indefinite noun with a clause":
This excludes the definite noun. So a clause after a definite noun is a circumstantial phrase, not an attribute. An example of that is: "I saw a student turning over his book." Where is the clause?
The student: Turning over.
The Shaykh : Turning over his book, and "student" is an indefinite noun. Is it permissible to describe an indefinite noun with a clause?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is permissible. So we say: "I saw" is a verb and a subject, and "man" is an object in the accusative case marked by the visible fathah. "Turning over" is a present tense verb in the nominative case marked by the visible dammah, and its subject is hidden by permission, estimated to be "he." "Book" is an object and it is a possessive noun, and the pronoun is the possessed. The clause "turning over his book" is in the position of the accusative as an attribute to "student." Yes. Now: "I passed by a man selling bread." Is this correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : What is "man" here?
The student: It is an indefinite noun.
The Shaykh : It is an indefinite noun. And "selling bread"?
The student: A sentence.
The Shaykh : It is a clause, so it becomes an attribute to "man." "And they described an indefinite noun with a clause":
"I passed by the student turning over his book." What is the clause now, after a definite noun?
The student: A *hal*.
The Shaykh : It is in the position of the accusative as a circumstantial phrase. Is that clear, everyone?
The student: It is clear.
"And they described with a clause":
Now, the nominal clause. For example, all these things: "he laughs and turns over" is a verbal clause. The nominal clause is: "I passed by a man whose father is noble." "I passed" is a verb and a subject, and "by" is a preposition, and "man" is a noun in the genitive case by "by." "Father" is a subject in the nominative case, and its sign of nominative is the waw in place of the dammah because it is one of the five or six nouns, according to the disagreement. "Father" is a possessive noun and the pronoun is the possessed. And "noble"?
The student: Subject.
The Shaykh : No.
The student: Predicate, predicate.
The Shaykh : "Noble" is the predicate of "father," and the clause consisting of the subject and predicate is in the position of the genitive as an attribute to "man." "A man whose father is noble." Is that clear?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, "I saw a writer whose handwriting is beautiful." Is that right? "Writer" is the object of "saw," and "handwriting" is a subject. "Handwriting" is a possessive noun and the pronoun is the possessed, and "beautiful" is the predicate of "handwriting." The clause is in the position of the accusative as an attribute to "writer." Is that clear, everyone?
The student: It is clear.
The Shaykh : Now, the author says:
"So it was given what was given to the predicate":
This means that if it is described with a clause, then it is established for it what is established for the verbal predicate clause. It was previously mentioned in the chapter of the subject: what is required when the clause is a predicate? One of the most important things is that it must contain a connector that links it to the subject. It is obligatory. So if I said: "I passed by a man, 'Amr is standing," is that permissible?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, it is not permissible, because "'Amr is standing": yes, it is a nominal clause, but it does not have a connector that links it to the described noun.
"I passed by a man whose son is big"?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Where is the connector?
The student: The pronoun.
The Shaykh : The pronoun in "his son." Yes. "I passed by a man, do you know the man?" Is that correct?
The student: It is correct.
Another student: Do you know the man?!
The Shaykh : Yes, "do you know the man." "The man" here refers back to the first one. Yes. Like:[Al-Haqqah 69:1-2]. So it is given the rulings given to the verbal predicate clause. And this reference by the author is to a rich person or a poor person?
The student: To a rich person.
The Shaykh : To a rich person. This means he is saying: Go back to the chapter of the subject and predicate, and look at what the conditions of the clause are when it is a predicate, and bring them here.
You know that a clause is either nominal or verbal. Can it be used to describe a definite noun? No. If a clause comes after a definite noun—pay attention to this rule—: "If a clause comes after a definite noun, it is a circumstantial phrase (hal), but if it comes after an indefinite noun, it is an attribute (sifat)". This is why he said:
"And they described an indefinite noun with a clause":
This excludes the definite noun. So a clause after a definite noun is a circumstantial phrase, not an attribute. An example of that is: "I saw a student turning over his book." Where is the clause?
The student: Turning over.
The Shaykh : Turning over his book, and "student" is an indefinite noun. Is it permissible to describe an indefinite noun with a clause?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is permissible. So we say: "I saw" is a verb and a subject, and "man" is an object in the accusative case marked by the visible fathah. "Turning over" is a present tense verb in the nominative case marked by the visible dammah, and its subject is hidden by permission, estimated to be "he." "Book" is an object and it is a possessive noun, and the pronoun is the possessed. The clause "turning over his book" is in the position of the accusative as an attribute to "student." Yes. Now: "I passed by a man selling bread." Is this correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : What is "man" here?
The student: It is an indefinite noun.
The Shaykh : It is an indefinite noun. And "selling bread"?
The student: A sentence.
The Shaykh : It is a clause, so it becomes an attribute to "man." "And they described an indefinite noun with a clause":
"I passed by the student turning over his book." What is the clause now, after a definite noun?
The student: A *hal*.
The Shaykh : It is in the position of the accusative as a circumstantial phrase. Is that clear, everyone?
The student: It is clear.
"And they described with a clause":
Now, the nominal clause. For example, all these things: "he laughs and turns over" is a verbal clause. The nominal clause is: "I passed by a man whose father is noble." "I passed" is a verb and a subject, and "by" is a preposition, and "man" is a noun in the genitive case by "by." "Father" is a subject in the nominative case, and its sign of nominative is the waw in place of the dammah because it is one of the five or six nouns, according to the disagreement. "Father" is a possessive noun and the pronoun is the possessed. And "noble"?
The student: Subject.
The Shaykh : No.
The student: Predicate, predicate.
The Shaykh : "Noble" is the predicate of "father," and the clause consisting of the subject and predicate is in the position of the genitive as an attribute to "man." "A man whose father is noble." Is that clear?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, "I saw a writer whose handwriting is beautiful." Is that right? "Writer" is the object of "saw," and "handwriting" is a subject. "Handwriting" is a possessive noun and the pronoun is the possessed, and "beautiful" is the predicate of "handwriting." The clause is in the position of the accusative as an attribute to "writer." Is that clear, everyone?
The student: It is clear.
The Shaykh : Now, the author says:
"So it was given what was given to the predicate":
This means that if it is described with a clause, then it is established for it what is established for the verbal predicate clause. It was previously mentioned in the chapter of the subject: what is required when the clause is a predicate? One of the most important things is that it must contain a connector that links it to the subject. It is obligatory. So if I said: "I passed by a man, 'Amr is standing," is that permissible?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, it is not permissible, because "'Amr is standing": yes, it is a nominal clause, but it does not have a connector that links it to the described noun.
"I passed by a man whose son is big"?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Where is the connector?
The student: The pronoun.
The Shaykh : The pronoun in "his son." Yes. "I passed by a man, do you know the man?" Is that correct?
The student: It is correct.
Another student: Do you know the man?!
The Shaykh : Yes, "do you know the man." "The man" here refers back to the first one. Yes. Like:
(1) The Inevitable Reality - (2) What is the Inevitable Reality?
الحاقة ما الحاقةThe student: To a rich person.
The Shaykh : To a rich person. This means he is saying: Go back to the chapter of the subject and predicate, and look at what the conditions of the clause are when it is a predicate, and bring them here.