Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And it followed in form only, indeed, and not *** but a man begins to say 'but' to the gazelle."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And it followed in form only":
"It followed in form only" means without meaning. "It followed in form": this is what is avoided in his previous statement: "so conjunction is absolute".
"It followed in form":
And his saying "only": this is built on the dammah. And his saying: "only": the fa' is said to be extra for the sake of improving the wording. Its original form is: "I followed in form only," but they use it to improve the wording.
"Bal": seven, "wa-la": eight, "lakin": nine. Did Ibn Jarum have more than Ibn Malik?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : He added one. The letters of conjunction are ten with him. What did he add?
The student: Inna.
The Shaykh : Inna. He added Inna. And Ibn Malik says: it is not among the letters of conjunction. Yes, Ibn Malik does not consider it among the letters of conjunction, and al-Ajrumi (may Allah have mercy on him) considers it among the letters of conjunction. Yes, so according to the opinion of Ibn Malik, the letters of conjunction are? Nine. Six follow the conjoined word in form and meaning, and three follow them in form only, not meaning. Bal and lakin: Bal: is it the subject of "it followed," or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : It is the subject of "it followed," and the waw is a letter of conjunction with "la," conjoined to Bal. Lakin is conjoined to Bal, but with the omission of the letter of conjunction. Its original form is: "And it followed in form only, Bal and wa-la and lakin." But: it omitted the letter of conjunction. This follows in form, not meaning. You say: "The man stood, Bal the boy." "The man stood," we leave it. "The man slept: the boy slept." Did this follow in form?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And in meaning?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Who slept now?
The student: The boy.
The Shaykh : The boy. Or do you say: "The man did not sleep, Bal the boy." "The man did not sleep" is negation, and "Bal the boy"? It is following. Likewise: "Zayd did not come, la 'Amr." Did it follow in form only, or in form and meaning?
The student: In form.
The Shaykh : In form only, in form only, because 'Amr did not come. But: "Zayd did not come, lakin 'Amr." Huh?
The student: The same thing.
The Shaykh : The same thing. It followed in form without meaning. Memorize these three that follow in form, not meaning: "Zayd did not stand, Bal 'Amr," "Zayd stood, la 'Amr," "Zayd did not come, lakin 'Amr." Its example is:
"So no man appeared, lakin the gazelle":
Lam is a letter of negation, jussive, and inversion. "Yabdu" is a present tense verb in the jussive case, marked by the deletion of the letter of weakness. The sign of its jussive case is the deletion of the waw, and the dammah before it is evidence for it. Is "amru" here "amru"?
The student: The subject.
The Shaykh : It is the subject of "yabdu," raised by the visible dammah, or not?
The student: Nominative with the visible dammah.
The Shaykh : Okay. "Lakin" is a letter of conjunction. "Tala" is a past tense verb. "Tala" is a past tense verb built on the estimated fathah on its end, with no place in the grammar. And this is the conjunction of a sentence to?
The student: A sentence.
The Shaykh : To a single word? Like this?
The student: To a sentence.
The Shaykh : To a sentence, yes. But you all made a mistake. "Tala": this is a noun. "Tala" is a noun, not a verb. And "tala" is said to be the gazelle. So what is the meaning of "lakin tala"? It means "but the gazelle appeared," yes.
So we say: "Lakin" is a letter of conjunction, and "tala" is conjoined to "amru." And the conjoined word to the raised word is raised, and its sign of raising is an estimated dammah on the alif, prevented from appearing by impossibility, unless it is hamzated. What does the explanation say?
The student: It says: "Tala is conjoined to amru, and tala with a fathah on the ta' and a kasrah is a phrase: the offspring of the female gazelle: what is first born. And it was said that tala is the calf of the cow".
The Shaykh : Yes, so "tala":
The student: "And it was said the offspring of the gazelle absolutely, and it is built on".
The Shaykh : So the meaning is: "Tala" is defective with the alif, defective with the alif, so we say: "Tala" is conjoined to "amru," and the conjoined word to the raised word is raised, and its sign of raising is an estimated dammah on the alif, prevented from appearing by impossibility. Did the man appear, or not?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No. And the gazelle?
The student: No.
The Shaykh :"No man appeared, lakin the gazelle".
"It followed in form only" means without meaning. "It followed in form": this is what is avoided in his previous statement: "so conjunction is absolute".
"It followed in form":
And his saying "only": this is built on the dammah. And his saying: "only": the fa' is said to be extra for the sake of improving the wording. Its original form is: "I followed in form only," but they use it to improve the wording.
"Bal": seven, "wa-la": eight, "lakin": nine. Did Ibn Jarum have more than Ibn Malik?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : He added one. The letters of conjunction are ten with him. What did he add?
The student: Inna.
The Shaykh : Inna. He added Inna. And Ibn Malik says: it is not among the letters of conjunction. Yes, Ibn Malik does not consider it among the letters of conjunction, and al-Ajrumi (may Allah have mercy on him) considers it among the letters of conjunction. Yes, so according to the opinion of Ibn Malik, the letters of conjunction are? Nine. Six follow the conjoined word in form and meaning, and three follow them in form only, not meaning. Bal and lakin: Bal: is it the subject of "it followed," or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : It is the subject of "it followed," and the waw is a letter of conjunction with "la," conjoined to Bal. Lakin is conjoined to Bal, but with the omission of the letter of conjunction. Its original form is: "And it followed in form only, Bal and wa-la and lakin." But: it omitted the letter of conjunction. This follows in form, not meaning. You say: "The man stood, Bal the boy." "The man stood," we leave it. "The man slept: the boy slept." Did this follow in form?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And in meaning?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Who slept now?
The student: The boy.
The Shaykh : The boy. Or do you say: "The man did not sleep, Bal the boy." "The man did not sleep" is negation, and "Bal the boy"? It is following. Likewise: "Zayd did not come, la 'Amr." Did it follow in form only, or in form and meaning?
The student: In form.
The Shaykh : In form only, in form only, because 'Amr did not come. But: "Zayd did not come, lakin 'Amr." Huh?
The student: The same thing.
The Shaykh : The same thing. It followed in form without meaning. Memorize these three that follow in form, not meaning: "Zayd did not stand, Bal 'Amr," "Zayd stood, la 'Amr," "Zayd did not come, lakin 'Amr." Its example is:
"So no man appeared, lakin the gazelle":
Lam is a letter of negation, jussive, and inversion. "Yabdu" is a present tense verb in the jussive case, marked by the deletion of the letter of weakness. The sign of its jussive case is the deletion of the waw, and the dammah before it is evidence for it. Is "amru" here "amru"?
The student: The subject.
The Shaykh : It is the subject of "yabdu," raised by the visible dammah, or not?
The student: Nominative with the visible dammah.
The Shaykh : Okay. "Lakin" is a letter of conjunction. "Tala" is a past tense verb. "Tala" is a past tense verb built on the estimated fathah on its end, with no place in the grammar. And this is the conjunction of a sentence to?
The student: A sentence.
The Shaykh : To a single word? Like this?
The student: To a sentence.
The Shaykh : To a sentence, yes. But you all made a mistake. "Tala": this is a noun. "Tala" is a noun, not a verb. And "tala" is said to be the gazelle. So what is the meaning of "lakin tala"? It means "but the gazelle appeared," yes.
So we say: "Lakin" is a letter of conjunction, and "tala" is conjoined to "amru." And the conjoined word to the raised word is raised, and its sign of raising is an estimated dammah on the alif, prevented from appearing by impossibility, unless it is hamzated. What does the explanation say?
The student: It says: "Tala is conjoined to amru, and tala with a fathah on the ta' and a kasrah is a phrase: the offspring of the female gazelle: what is first born. And it was said that tala is the calf of the cow".
The Shaykh : Yes, so "tala":
The student: "And it was said the offspring of the gazelle absolutely, and it is built on".
The Shaykh : So the meaning is: "Tala" is defective with the alif, defective with the alif, so we say: "Tala" is conjoined to "amru," and the conjoined word to the raised word is raised, and its sign of raising is an estimated dammah on the alif, prevented from appearing by impossibility. Did the man appear, or not?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No. And the gazelle?
The student: No.
The Shaykh :"No man appeared, lakin the gazelle".