Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And suitable for substitution it is seen *** in other than the case of 'O boy, Ya'mar.'"

The Shaykh : He said: "And suitable for substitution it is seen":
"And suitable for substitution it is seen": "Everything that is permissible to be an explanatory apposition is permissible to be a substitute". This is the rule: everything that is permissible to be an explanatory apposition is valid to be a substitute, and the reverse is the reverse, and the reverse is the reverse, except in some types of substitution, as will come to us—Allah willing—such as the substitute of error, which is not possible; the substitute of part, which is not possible; and the substitute of inclusion, which is not possible. However, in any case, it is the substitute of the whole from the whole. For this reason, he said: "Suitable for substitution": not in an absolute sense.
"For substitution": meaning substitution of the whole from the whole. Yes, it must be qualified by this. It is suitable for substitution. What is the grammatical analysis of "suitable"?
The student: The grammatical analysis of "suitable" is that it is the object of the verb "seen."

The Shaykh : It is a fronted object for "seen," meaning that it—namely, the explanatory apposition—is suitable to be a substitute. Which types of substitution?
The student: The whole for the whole.

The Shaykh : The substitute of the whole from the whole, except in certain issues. He said:
"In other than the case of 'O boy, Ya'mar'":
"O boy, Ya'mar": You may think that "boy" is attached to "Ya'mar," right? But that is not the case. If it were attached, it would not be an explanatory apposition for us. But "boy" is alone, and "Ya'mar" is alone, because "Ya'mar" is a proper name, a name derived from the present tense verb, like "Yazid" and "Yashkar." Do we have a noun "Yazid"?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : And "Yashkar." Yes, "Ya'mar" is a proper name, and "boy" is an intended indefinite noun. Look, "boy" is now prefixed with the particle of calling: "O boy". It is built on what?
The student: On the damma.

The Shaykh : On the dammah. "Ya'mar": is it an explanatory apposition for "boy," is it in the accusative case or built on the dammah?
The student: It is in the accusative case.

The Shaykh : "Ya'mar" is in the accusative case, with the visible fathah. It is in the accusative case with the visible fathah. Yes, here "Ya'mar" is not suitable to be left as a substitute for "boy," because the substitute is that which is valid to take the place of the substituted-from. Here, it is not valid for "Ya'mar" to take the place of "boy," is it?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : It is not valid. Why? Because it is in the accusative case. So if I said: "O Ya'mar, O Ya'mar," it would not be correct; this is a grammatical error. If I put "Ya'mar" in the place of "man," I would say: "O Ya'mar," because if the one being called is a proper name, it must be built on the dammah. I hope you pay attention, my brothers? Right?
Good?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, here "Ya'mar" is in the accusative case. If you remove "boy" and put it in its place with its accusative case, is it valid or not valid?
The student: It is not appropriate.

The Shaykh : It is not valid, because if it is the one being called, it must be built on the dammah, and here it is in the accusative case, so it is not valid. Okay, if the phrase were: "O boy, Ya'mar"?
The student: It is correct.

The Shaykh : It is valid to be a substitute, just as it is valid to be an explanatory apposition, because in that case it takes the place of the substituted-from.
The student: Is it permissible to raise it, meaning "Ya'mar"?

The Shaykh : It is permissible.
The student: Is it prevented from declension?

The Shaykh : Yes, it is prevented from declension, but it is not marked with tanwin and is not in the genitive case except with the fathah, and it is not in the nominative case.
The student: Shaykh: Its case is accusative, and its predicate comes as a sentence!

The Shaykh : Okay, now, there is no contradiction. Do you understand now, everyone?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : So, if a one being called is found that is built on the dammah, and after it there is an explanatory apposition in the accusative case, then it is not valid to be analyzed as a substitute. This is the rule: a one being called built on the dammah, and after it?
The student: An explanatory apposition built on the nominative case.

The Shaykh : And after it?
The student: A proper name.

The Shaykh : A proper name.
The student: Accusative.

The Shaykh : No, or an explanatory apposition in the accusative case, generally, an explanatory apposition in the accusative case, then it is not valid to be a substitute. The cause: because if it took its place, it would not be in the accusative case, and the substitute, by definition, takes the place of the substituted-from. So if we said: "O boy, Ya'mar," we would say: "Ya'mar" is not valid to be an explanatory apposition, and it is not valid to be a substitute.
And if we said: "O boy, Ya'mar," it is valid to be a substitute, just as it is also an explanatory apposition. Okay, if it is asked: what is the reason for its accusative case if it is an explanatory apposition?
We say: because it is like an adjective in grammatical analysis, and the adjective of the one being called is permissible to describe its place, not its form. And the place of the one being called is what?
The student: The accusative case.

The Shaykh : The accusative case. So we say: "Ya'mar" is a substitute for "boy." Is it following its form or its place?
The student: Its place.

The Shaykh : Following its place, following its place. This is the reason why the accusative case is permissible for it.