Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And like Bishr, an apposition to al-Bakri *** and not a substitute for al-Marzi."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The second issue, he said:
"And like Bishr, an apposition to al-Bakri":
Like the saying of the poet, he is referring to the saying of the poet; it is not a simile, he is referring to the saying of the poet:
"I am the son of the one who left, al-Bakri, Bishr *** upon whom the birds wait for his fall":
We have now: "the one who left, al-Bakri": It was presented to us in the chapter of annexation that a name decorated with the definite article (al) is not annexed to anything, except if it resembles a name, or if it is a present participle. Yes, if it is a present participle, and it is annexed to something decorated with the definite article, or annexed to something annexed to something with the definite article. This was presented to us. Something with the definite article is not annexed, except if it is a description annexed to something with the definite article, or annexed to something annexed to something with the definite article. It appears that this is the case.
The student: Except if it is a collective noun.
The Shaykh : Yes, this is a stylistic variation according to some of them.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Good, now we have: "the one who left": a present participle decorated with the definite article, annexed to, annexed to "al-Bakri" which is decorated with the definite article. Is the annexation valid, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : "Bishr": this is a proper name. Is it valid to annex to it something with the definite article?
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : It is not valid to annex to it something with the definite article, because something with the definite article is not annexed except to something with the definite article. "the one who left, al-Bakri": "the one who left" is decorated with the definite article, annexed to something with the definite article, "al-Bakri".
"Bishr": this is something with the definite article. We parse it as an explanatory apposition. An explanatory apposition to what?
The student: To al-Bakri.
The Shaykh : To al-Bakri, an explanatory apposition to al-Bakri. "The one who left, al-Bakri, Bishr," so Bishr is an explanatory apposition to al-Bakri. It is not valid to make it a substitute. It is not valid to make it a substitute, because if we substituted it for al-Bakri, it would not be valid. If you wanted to say: "I am the son of the one who left, Bishr"?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, because it is not annexed except to something with the definite article. So here it is not valid to be a substitute, because if the modified word were removed and the modifier placed in its place, it would not be valid. Is that clear, brothers?
The student: It is clear.
The Shaykh : Good, so we say: it is an explanatory apposition, and not a substitute.
Then the author referred to refuting the opinion of some grammarians who permit annexing a present participle decorated with the definite article to a proper name, even if it does not contain the definite article. He said:
"And not a substitute for al-Marzi":
Meaning, it is not permissible to allow it to be a substitute for al-Marzi. The phrase does not give this meaning, but the apparent meaning of the phrase: "And not a substitute for al-Marzi": means, and not a substitute in the accepted opinion. But the phrase does not mean this. The meaning is: and not to be made a substitute in the accepted opinion, meaning: the acceptable one, meaning we do not accept that it is a substitute. This is a reference to the opinion of some grammarians who say: that Bishr is valid to be a substitute, as well as an explanatory apposition.
The summary of the two verses is: that every explanatory apposition is valid to be a substitute, except if this explanatory apposition is not valid to take the place of the modified word for any reason, whether it is the reason mentioned by the author, or another reason. The important thing is that if it is not valid to take its place, then it is an explanatory apposition and not a substitute. This is the apparent meaning.
"And like Bishr, an apposition to al-Bakri":
Like the saying of the poet, he is referring to the saying of the poet; it is not a simile, he is referring to the saying of the poet:
"I am the son of the one who left, al-Bakri, Bishr *** upon whom the birds wait for his fall":
We have now: "the one who left, al-Bakri": It was presented to us in the chapter of annexation that a name decorated with the definite article (al) is not annexed to anything, except if it resembles a name, or if it is a present participle. Yes, if it is a present participle, and it is annexed to something decorated with the definite article, or annexed to something annexed to something with the definite article. This was presented to us. Something with the definite article is not annexed, except if it is a description annexed to something with the definite article, or annexed to something annexed to something with the definite article. It appears that this is the case.
The student: Except if it is a collective noun.
The Shaykh : Yes, this is a stylistic variation according to some of them.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Good, now we have: "the one who left": a present participle decorated with the definite article, annexed to, annexed to "al-Bakri" which is decorated with the definite article. Is the annexation valid, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : "Bishr": this is a proper name. Is it valid to annex to it something with the definite article?
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : It is not valid to annex to it something with the definite article, because something with the definite article is not annexed except to something with the definite article. "the one who left, al-Bakri": "the one who left" is decorated with the definite article, annexed to something with the definite article, "al-Bakri".
"Bishr": this is something with the definite article. We parse it as an explanatory apposition. An explanatory apposition to what?
The student: To al-Bakri.
The Shaykh : To al-Bakri, an explanatory apposition to al-Bakri. "The one who left, al-Bakri, Bishr," so Bishr is an explanatory apposition to al-Bakri. It is not valid to make it a substitute. It is not valid to make it a substitute, because if we substituted it for al-Bakri, it would not be valid. If you wanted to say: "I am the son of the one who left, Bishr"?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, because it is not annexed except to something with the definite article. So here it is not valid to be a substitute, because if the modified word were removed and the modifier placed in its place, it would not be valid. Is that clear, brothers?
The student: It is clear.
The Shaykh : Good, so we say: it is an explanatory apposition, and not a substitute.
Then the author referred to refuting the opinion of some grammarians who permit annexing a present participle decorated with the definite article to a proper name, even if it does not contain the definite article. He said:
"And not a substitute for al-Marzi":
Meaning, it is not permissible to allow it to be a substitute for al-Marzi. The phrase does not give this meaning, but the apparent meaning of the phrase: "And not a substitute for al-Marzi": means, and not a substitute in the accepted opinion. But the phrase does not mean this. The meaning is: and not to be made a substitute in the accepted opinion, meaning: the acceptable one, meaning we do not accept that it is a substitute. This is a reference to the opinion of some grammarians who say: that Bishr is valid to be a substitute, as well as an explanatory apposition.
The summary of the two verses is: that every explanatory apposition is valid to be a substitute, except if this explanatory apposition is not valid to take the place of the modified word for any reason, whether it is the reason mentioned by the author, or another reason. The important thing is that if it is not valid to take its place, then it is an explanatory apposition and not a substitute. This is the apparent meaning.