Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And if you conjoined to a connected subject pronoun *** separate it with the detached pronoun"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And if you conjoined to a connected subject pronoun *** separate it with the detached pronoun":
"In" is undoubtedly a conditional particle, and the verb of the condition is his saying: "you conjoined", meaning: and if you conjoined to a connected subject pronoun, the answer to the condition is: separate it with the detached pronoun, separate it with the detached pronoun.
And his saying: "on a subject pronoun": this excludes the object pronoun and the genitive pronoun, so this ruling does not apply to them.
And his saying: "connected": this includes the apparent and the hidden, because both are connected, and it excludes the detached pronoun, so this ruling does not apply to it.
And his saying: "separate it": this is a command verb, and the command implies obligation, the command implies obligation, yes. "with the detached pronoun": which detached pronouns?
The student: Which one is appropriate.
The Shaykh : The subject pronoun, because the meaning now is a subject pronoun, so the detached pronoun that separates it is a subject pronoun. An example of this is if you say: "Zayd stood up and 'Amr," intending to conjoin 'Amr to the hidden pronoun in "stood up," you must say: "He stood up and 'Amr," "Zayd, he stood up and 'Amr," do you understand?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Good, and you say: "I stood up and 'Amr," meaning: "I stood up and 'Amr," right? I must say: "I stood up, I, and 'Amr," because the "ta" in "I stood up" is a connected pronoun, a subject pronoun, not an object pronoun?
The student: A subject pronoun.
The Shaykh : Right? A subject pronoun, so I must say: "I stood up, I, and 'Amr." If I do not say "I," then I say: "I stood up and 'Amr," in the accusative case, to be the "waw" of accompaniment. Ibn Malik pointed to this in the chapter on the accompanying object, Ibn Malik, where he said, right?
The student: Meaning regarding the "waw."
The Shaykh : Yes, and the accusative case!
The student: It comes.
Another student: It comes in the genitive and accusative cases.
The Shaykh :"And the accusative is preferred when the sequence is weak".
Like this, so we say: if you conjoin to a connected subject pronoun, bring the detached pronoun. If you do not bring it, shift from the conjunction to the accusative case, so that the "waw" becomes the "waw" of accompaniment, and what was to be conjoined becomes an accompanying object. Is that clear?
And his saying: "connected pronoun": if it were a detached pronoun, separation with a detached pronoun would not be obligatory, because if we obligated separation with a detached pronoun, we would not achieve anything, since the detached pronoun is with us from before. So you say: "No one stood up except I and 'Amr," "No one stood up except I," "I": this is the subject of "stood up," "except I," and "'Amr": the "waw" is a conjunction letter and "'Amr" is conjoined to the pronoun "I," and what is conjoined to a nominative is nominative. I think it is clear, everyone?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Good, this is the rule: if we conjoin to a connected subject pronoun, it is obligatory to separate it with a detached pronoun. If we do not do so, we make it accusative as an accompanying object.
"In" is undoubtedly a conditional particle, and the verb of the condition is his saying: "you conjoined", meaning: and if you conjoined to a connected subject pronoun, the answer to the condition is: separate it with the detached pronoun, separate it with the detached pronoun.
And his saying: "on a subject pronoun": this excludes the object pronoun and the genitive pronoun, so this ruling does not apply to them.
And his saying: "connected": this includes the apparent and the hidden, because both are connected, and it excludes the detached pronoun, so this ruling does not apply to it.
And his saying: "separate it": this is a command verb, and the command implies obligation, the command implies obligation, yes. "with the detached pronoun": which detached pronouns?
The student: Which one is appropriate.
The Shaykh : The subject pronoun, because the meaning now is a subject pronoun, so the detached pronoun that separates it is a subject pronoun. An example of this is if you say: "Zayd stood up and 'Amr," intending to conjoin 'Amr to the hidden pronoun in "stood up," you must say: "He stood up and 'Amr," "Zayd, he stood up and 'Amr," do you understand?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Good, and you say: "I stood up and 'Amr," meaning: "I stood up and 'Amr," right? I must say: "I stood up, I, and 'Amr," because the "ta" in "I stood up" is a connected pronoun, a subject pronoun, not an object pronoun?
The student: A subject pronoun.
The Shaykh : Right? A subject pronoun, so I must say: "I stood up, I, and 'Amr." If I do not say "I," then I say: "I stood up and 'Amr," in the accusative case, to be the "waw" of accompaniment. Ibn Malik pointed to this in the chapter on the accompanying object, Ibn Malik, where he said, right?
The student: Meaning regarding the "waw."
The Shaykh : Yes, and the accusative case!
The student: It comes.
Another student: It comes in the genitive and accusative cases.
The Shaykh :"And the accusative is preferred when the sequence is weak".
Like this, so we say: if you conjoin to a connected subject pronoun, bring the detached pronoun. If you do not bring it, shift from the conjunction to the accusative case, so that the "waw" becomes the "waw" of accompaniment, and what was to be conjoined becomes an accompanying object. Is that clear?
And his saying: "connected pronoun": if it were a detached pronoun, separation with a detached pronoun would not be obligatory, because if we obligated separation with a detached pronoun, we would not achieve anything, since the detached pronoun is with us from before. So you say: "No one stood up except I and 'Amr," "No one stood up except I," "I": this is the subject of "stood up," "except I," and "'Amr": the "waw" is a conjunction letter and "'Amr" is conjoined to the pronoun "I," and what is conjoined to a nominative is nominative. I think it is clear, everyone?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Good, this is the rule: if we conjoin to a connected subject pronoun, it is obligatory to separate it with a detached pronoun. If we do not do so, we make it accusative as an accompanying object.