Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And the separated nominative pronoun *** is used to emphasize every attached pronoun."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said:
"And the separated nominative pronoun *** is used to emphasize every attached pronoun":
"Mudmar" (the hidden pronoun) here is the object placed before the word: "emphasize", right?
The student: Because it is a verb.
The Shaykh : A hidden pronoun?!
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: No, no, this is from the chapter of occupation (ishghal).
The Shaykh : Okay, this is from the chapter of occupation, from the chapter of occupation, because: "bihi" (with it) is its pronoun, so it is occupied with it, meaning: emphasize with the separated nominative pronoun every attached pronoun. What if it were a genitive pronoun? What if it were a genitive pronoun emphasized with a nominative pronoun? A genitive pronoun?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Except!! Ibn Malik says: "emphasize with it every pronoun": every attached pronoun. I think the nominative pronouns are known, but what is meant by the nominative pronouns?!
He says: "which has been separated": meaning the separated pronoun. The separated nominative pronoun is used to emphasize every attached pronoun. The separated nominative pronoun is used to emphasize every attached pronoun, right or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, let us start first with the nominative pronoun: you say: "Kunta anta" (You were you): the "ta" in "kunta" is a nominative pronoun emphasized by what?
By "anta" (you), and "anta" is a separated nominative pronoun.
Then the accusative pronoun: "Ra'aituka anta" (I saw you, you), "Ra'aituka anta", right? Is it permissible?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, because he says: "every attached pronoun", so you say: "Ra'aituka anta" (I saw you, you). "Ra'aitu" is a verb and a subject, and the "kaf" is an object built on fathah in the position of accusative, and "anta" is an emphatic pronoun for the "kaf" built on sukun in the position of accusative, and the "ta" is a letter of address. Okay, let us take the genitive pronoun, you say: "Marrtu bika anta" (I passed by you, you). "Marrtu" is a verb and a subject, and the "ba" is a preposition, and the "kaf" is a pronoun built on fathah in the position of genitive, and "anta": "an" is a separated pronoun built on sukun in the position of genitive to emphasize what?
The student: The "kaf".
The Shaykh : The "kaf", and the "ta" is a letter of address. And it is permissible in the accusative pronoun to emphasize it with a separated accusative pronoun. It is permissible in the accusative pronoun to emphasize it with a separated accusative pronoun, so you say: "Ra'aituka iyyaka" (I saw you, you). And this is the original rule. And emphasizing with the nominative pronoun is an extension. Emphasizing with the nominative pronoun is an extension, otherwise the original rule is to emphasize the accusative pronoun with what? With the accusative pronoun. To emphasize the accusative pronoun with an accusative pronoun. So the result for us now in this verse is: it is permissible to emphasize the attached pronoun with what?
The student: With the separated pronoun.
The Shaykh : It is not with the separated pronoun, but with the separated nominative pronoun. With the separated nominative pronoun, did you understand? It is permissible. What type of emphasis is this, is it semantic or verbal?
The student: Verbal.
The Shaykh : Verbal, because the pronoun is a synonym for the pronoun, and it does not matter that this one is attached and this one is separated, because this is only a verbal difference, and as for the meaning, it is one. And Allah knows best.
The student: Shaykh!
The Shaykh : Okay, is it permissible: "Marrtu bika iyyaka" (I passed by you, you)?!
The student: No.
Another student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, it is not permissible, because Ibn Malik says: "emphasize the separated nominative pronoun", and "iyyaka" is an accusative pronoun. Okay, is it permissible: "Akramtuka iyyaka" (I honored you, you)?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It is the original rule.
The Shaykh : Yes, because it is the original rule, to emphasize the accusative pronoun with an accusative pronoun. Okay, is it permissible: "Qumta iyyaka" (You stood, you)?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, yes, and Allah knows best.
The student: O Shaykh... is it parsed as a state (hal)?
The Shaykh : Yes, it appears to be a state, a state from the pronoun by "inna" (that), meaning a state of being like... yes?
The student: I say: in the recitation of the Qur'an and in the recitation of grammar.
The Shaykh : The one that comes!
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, but the recitation of the Qur'an takes three and the tafsir!
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : And tonight, what is it? Is tonight Saturday?
The student: Yes, it ended yesterday.
The Shaykh : Ah, meaning you mean the night of Tuesday this week, yes, what do you think?
The student: We will study the next explanation.
The Shaykh : Yes, I do.
The student: It will be in the tafsir for us.
The Shaykh : No, no, we will make the next lesson -if Allah wills- the recitation of the tafsir, because it is the previous one, and grammar is discussion. Grammar is discussion.
The student: O Shaykh, the conjunction!
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: The conjunction.
The Shaykh : No, the chapter of conjunction does not contradict.
The student:[An-Nisa 4:3-5].
"And the separated nominative pronoun *** is used to emphasize every attached pronoun":
"Mudmar" (the hidden pronoun) here is the object placed before the word: "emphasize", right?
The student: Because it is a verb.
The Shaykh : A hidden pronoun?!
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: No, no, this is from the chapter of occupation (ishghal).
The Shaykh : Okay, this is from the chapter of occupation, from the chapter of occupation, because: "bihi" (with it) is its pronoun, so it is occupied with it, meaning: emphasize with the separated nominative pronoun every attached pronoun. What if it were a genitive pronoun? What if it were a genitive pronoun emphasized with a nominative pronoun? A genitive pronoun?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Except!! Ibn Malik says: "emphasize with it every pronoun": every attached pronoun. I think the nominative pronouns are known, but what is meant by the nominative pronouns?!
He says: "which has been separated": meaning the separated pronoun. The separated nominative pronoun is used to emphasize every attached pronoun. The separated nominative pronoun is used to emphasize every attached pronoun, right or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, let us start first with the nominative pronoun: you say: "Kunta anta" (You were you): the "ta" in "kunta" is a nominative pronoun emphasized by what?
By "anta" (you), and "anta" is a separated nominative pronoun.
Then the accusative pronoun: "Ra'aituka anta" (I saw you, you), "Ra'aituka anta", right? Is it permissible?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, because he says: "every attached pronoun", so you say: "Ra'aituka anta" (I saw you, you). "Ra'aitu" is a verb and a subject, and the "kaf" is an object built on fathah in the position of accusative, and "anta" is an emphatic pronoun for the "kaf" built on sukun in the position of accusative, and the "ta" is a letter of address. Okay, let us take the genitive pronoun, you say: "Marrtu bika anta" (I passed by you, you). "Marrtu" is a verb and a subject, and the "ba" is a preposition, and the "kaf" is a pronoun built on fathah in the position of genitive, and "anta": "an" is a separated pronoun built on sukun in the position of genitive to emphasize what?
The student: The "kaf".
The Shaykh : The "kaf", and the "ta" is a letter of address. And it is permissible in the accusative pronoun to emphasize it with a separated accusative pronoun. It is permissible in the accusative pronoun to emphasize it with a separated accusative pronoun, so you say: "Ra'aituka iyyaka" (I saw you, you). And this is the original rule. And emphasizing with the nominative pronoun is an extension. Emphasizing with the nominative pronoun is an extension, otherwise the original rule is to emphasize the accusative pronoun with what? With the accusative pronoun. To emphasize the accusative pronoun with an accusative pronoun. So the result for us now in this verse is: it is permissible to emphasize the attached pronoun with what?
The student: With the separated pronoun.
The Shaykh : It is not with the separated pronoun, but with the separated nominative pronoun. With the separated nominative pronoun, did you understand? It is permissible. What type of emphasis is this, is it semantic or verbal?
The student: Verbal.
The Shaykh : Verbal, because the pronoun is a synonym for the pronoun, and it does not matter that this one is attached and this one is separated, because this is only a verbal difference, and as for the meaning, it is one. And Allah knows best.
The student: Shaykh!
The Shaykh : Okay, is it permissible: "Marrtu bika iyyaka" (I passed by you, you)?!
The student: No.
Another student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, it is not permissible, because Ibn Malik says: "emphasize the separated nominative pronoun", and "iyyaka" is an accusative pronoun. Okay, is it permissible: "Akramtuka iyyaka" (I honored you, you)?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It is the original rule.
The Shaykh : Yes, because it is the original rule, to emphasize the accusative pronoun with an accusative pronoun. Okay, is it permissible: "Qumta iyyaka" (You stood, you)?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, yes, and Allah knows best.
The student: O Shaykh... is it parsed as a state (hal)?
The Shaykh : Yes, it appears to be a state, a state from the pronoun by "inna" (that), meaning a state of being like... yes?
The student: I say: in the recitation of the Qur'an and in the recitation of grammar.
The Shaykh : The one that comes!
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, but the recitation of the Qur'an takes three and the tafsir!
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : And tonight, what is it? Is tonight Saturday?
The student: Yes, it ended yesterday.
The Shaykh : Ah, meaning you mean the night of Tuesday this week, yes, what do you think?
The student: We will study the next explanation.
The Shaykh : Yes, I do.
The student: It will be in the tafsir for us.
The Shaykh : No, no, we will make the next lesson -if Allah wills- the recitation of the tafsir, because it is the previous one, and grammar is discussion. Grammar is discussion.
The student: O Shaykh, the conjunction!
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: The conjunction.
The Shaykh : No, the chapter of conjunction does not contradict.
The student: