Reading from Ibn Aqil’s commentary (may Allah have mercy on him), with the Shaykh’s annotations: " .
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The reader: “And the sin and the ta of *mustadi'*: 'Azel *** For if the plural construction kept them, it would be corrupted
And the mim is more deserving of remaining than the others ***”
The Shaykh : More deserving.
The reader: “And the mim is more deserving of remaining than the others *** And the hamza and the ya are like it if they precede:
If the name contains an extra letter that, if kept,”
The Shaykh : If it were kept.
The reader: “If it were kept, it would corrupt the plural construction, which is the ultimate form that plurals reach, namely *fa'alal* and *fa'ailil*. The extra letter is deleted. If it is possible to form the plural in one of these two patterns by deleting part of the extra letters and keeping the rest, there are two cases: The first is that one part has a merit over the other, and the second is that it does not. The first is what is intended here, and the second will come in the verse at the end of the chapter. An example of the first is *mustadi'*”.
The Shaykh : *Mustadi'*.
The reader: “*Mustadi'*, so you say in its plural *mudai'*, you delete the sin and the ta and keep the mim because it is an initial letter and a pure letter indicating a meaning. And you say for *al-nadd* and *yil-nadd*: *al-add*”.
The Shaykh : *Al-add*
The reader: “*Al-add*”.
The Shaykh : Yes, and *yil-add*.
The reader: “And *yil-add*, you delete the nun and keep the hamza of *al-nadd* and the ya of *yil-nadd* because they are initial letters, and because they are in a position where they indicate a meaning, like: *aqum* and *yaqum*”
The Shaykh : *Aqum*.
The reader: “*Aqum* and *yaqum*, unlike the nun, for it is in a position where it does not indicate any meaning at all. And *al-nadd* and *yil-nadd* mean the adversary; one says a man is”.
The Shaykh : The adversary, the adversary.
The reader: “The adversary; one says: a man is *al-nadd* or *yil-nadd*, meaning an adversary like *al-add*.
And the ya, not the waw, delete if you pluralize what *** like *hayzubun*, that is a definite rule:
If the name contains two extra letters and deleting one allows the plural form to be formed, while deleting the other does not allow that”.
The Shaykh : The other, deleting the other.
The reader: “And deleting the other does not allow that. Delete the one with which the plural form cannot be formed and keep the other. So you say for *hayzubun*: *hazabin*; you delete the ya and keep the waw, which becomes a ya due to its sukun and the kasrah of the letter before it. And the waw was preferred to remain because if it were deleted, its deletion would not suffice to delete the ya, because the remaining ya would prevent the ultimate plural form. And *hayzubun* is the old man”.
The Shaykh : Strange.
The student: We have *hayzubun* meaning good!!
The Shaykh : *Hayzubun* meaning good?!
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : That is a difference!
The student: The skilled one.
The Shaykh : *Hayzubun*?!
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : No, an old man, because... hehehe
And the mim is more deserving of remaining than the others ***”
The Shaykh : More deserving.
The reader: “And the mim is more deserving of remaining than the others *** And the hamza and the ya are like it if they precede:
If the name contains an extra letter that, if kept,”
The Shaykh : If it were kept.
The reader: “If it were kept, it would corrupt the plural construction, which is the ultimate form that plurals reach, namely *fa'alal* and *fa'ailil*. The extra letter is deleted. If it is possible to form the plural in one of these two patterns by deleting part of the extra letters and keeping the rest, there are two cases: The first is that one part has a merit over the other, and the second is that it does not. The first is what is intended here, and the second will come in the verse at the end of the chapter. An example of the first is *mustadi'*”.
The Shaykh : *Mustadi'*.
The reader: “*Mustadi'*, so you say in its plural *mudai'*, you delete the sin and the ta and keep the mim because it is an initial letter and a pure letter indicating a meaning. And you say for *al-nadd* and *yil-nadd*: *al-add*”.
The Shaykh : *Al-add*
The reader: “*Al-add*”.
The Shaykh : Yes, and *yil-add*.
The reader: “And *yil-add*, you delete the nun and keep the hamza of *al-nadd* and the ya of *yil-nadd* because they are initial letters, and because they are in a position where they indicate a meaning, like: *aqum* and *yaqum*”
The Shaykh : *Aqum*.
The reader: “*Aqum* and *yaqum*, unlike the nun, for it is in a position where it does not indicate any meaning at all. And *al-nadd* and *yil-nadd* mean the adversary; one says a man is”.
The Shaykh : The adversary, the adversary.
The reader: “The adversary; one says: a man is *al-nadd* or *yil-nadd*, meaning an adversary like *al-add*.
And the ya, not the waw, delete if you pluralize what *** like *hayzubun*, that is a definite rule:
If the name contains two extra letters and deleting one allows the plural form to be formed, while deleting the other does not allow that”.
The Shaykh : The other, deleting the other.
The reader: “And deleting the other does not allow that. Delete the one with which the plural form cannot be formed and keep the other. So you say for *hayzubun*: *hazabin*; you delete the ya and keep the waw, which becomes a ya due to its sukun and the kasrah of the letter before it. And the waw was preferred to remain because if it were deleted, its deletion would not suffice to delete the ya, because the remaining ya would prevent the ultimate plural form. And *hayzubun* is the old man”.
The Shaykh : Strange.
The student: We have *hayzubun* meaning good!!
The Shaykh : *Hayzubun* meaning good?!
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : That is a difference!
The student: The skilled one.
The Shaykh : *Hayzubun*?!
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : No, an old man, because... hehehe