Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And if you emphasize the attached pronoun *** with nafs and 'ayn, then it is after the detached one."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : They say: Since ambiguity arises in this construction, the rest was attributed to it, so it was necessary for us to say: Hind went, she herself. Is there ambiguity here or not?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: No, no.
The Shaykh : There is no ambiguity. Hind went, she herself. Is there ambiguity?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : There is no ambiguity. That is why, when you emphasize the attached pronoun, it is necessary that you place between it and the emphasized word, if you emphasize it with nafs and 'ayn, what do you place between them? Hmm?
The student: The detached pronoun.
The Shaykh : The detached pronoun.
The student: Shaykh, the explanation of its grammatical parsing!
The Shaykh : The author says, hmm?
The student: The explanation of the grammatical parsing of the pronoun?
The Shaykh : Fine, let us say for example: You came, you yourselves, or You stood, you yourself. We say: "You stood" is a verb and a subject, and "you" is a pronoun emphasizing the pronoun, and "yourself" or "yourself" is also another emphasis for the first pronoun. So here, how many emphatic words are there? Two: a pronoun emphasized a pronoun, then nafs came and 'ayn came. Yes?
The student: We previously said: Hind went, she herself!
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: A hidden pronoun.
The Shaykh : The hidden pronoun is attached!
The student: Yes?
The Shaykh : Attached.
The student: Is it attached by origin?
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, yes.
The student: Even an example, O Shaykh, with the attached pronoun!
The Shaykh : And how? I mean, an explicit attached one, is that what you mean?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : An explicit attached one?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Actually, if you said: You stood, yourself, addressing a woman, it is not possible. But they brought this example and said that it suggests ambiguity in this order, so the rest was attributed to it. And the correct view is that if it were said that this was not heard from the Arabs, that would be better. This was not heard from the Arabs.
The student: O Shaykh, we do not answer!
The Shaykh : Now the rule with us is: "If the attached pronoun, including the hidden one, is emphasized with nafs or 'ayn, then it is obligatory to separate the emphatic word and the emphasized word with a detached pronoun". It is obligatory, if you emphasize with what? With nafs or 'ayn. "But if you emphasize with other than nafs and 'ayn, then it is not obligatory". So you say: You both stood, you both. You both stood: the emphasis is with what?
The student: With kull.
The Shaykh : With kull. And you say for example: You all stood, you all. It is not obligatory to say: You all stood, you all. This is specific to what?
The student: To nafs and 'ayn.
The Shaykh : To nafs and 'ayn.
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: No, no.
The Shaykh : There is no ambiguity. Hind went, she herself. Is there ambiguity?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : There is no ambiguity. That is why, when you emphasize the attached pronoun, it is necessary that you place between it and the emphasized word, if you emphasize it with nafs and 'ayn, what do you place between them? Hmm?
The student: The detached pronoun.
The Shaykh : The detached pronoun.
The student: Shaykh, the explanation of its grammatical parsing!
The Shaykh : The author says, hmm?
The student: The explanation of the grammatical parsing of the pronoun?
The Shaykh : Fine, let us say for example: You came, you yourselves, or You stood, you yourself. We say: "You stood" is a verb and a subject, and "you" is a pronoun emphasizing the pronoun, and "yourself" or "yourself" is also another emphasis for the first pronoun. So here, how many emphatic words are there? Two: a pronoun emphasized a pronoun, then nafs came and 'ayn came. Yes?
The student: We previously said: Hind went, she herself!
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: A hidden pronoun.
The Shaykh : The hidden pronoun is attached!
The student: Yes?
The Shaykh : Attached.
The student: Is it attached by origin?
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, yes.
The student: Even an example, O Shaykh, with the attached pronoun!
The Shaykh : And how? I mean, an explicit attached one, is that what you mean?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : An explicit attached one?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Actually, if you said: You stood, yourself, addressing a woman, it is not possible. But they brought this example and said that it suggests ambiguity in this order, so the rest was attributed to it. And the correct view is that if it were said that this was not heard from the Arabs, that would be better. This was not heard from the Arabs.
The student: O Shaykh, we do not answer!
The Shaykh : Now the rule with us is: "If the attached pronoun, including the hidden one, is emphasized with nafs or 'ayn, then it is obligatory to separate the emphatic word and the emphasized word with a detached pronoun". It is obligatory, if you emphasize with what? With nafs or 'ayn. "But if you emphasize with other than nafs and 'ayn, then it is not obligatory". So you say: You both stood, you both. You both stood: the emphasis is with what?
The student: With kull.
The Shaykh : With kull. And you say for example: You all stood, you all. It is not obligatory to say: You all stood, you all. This is specific to what?
The student: To nafs and 'ayn.
The Shaykh : To nafs and 'ayn.