Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And the omission of the antecedent is permitted here *** And your conjoining of a verb to a verb is valid."

The Shaykh :"And the omission of the antecedent is permitted here":
"And the omission of the antecedent is permitted": In the chapter of conjunction, we have the dependent and the antecedent. What is the antecedent?
The student: The one to which something is conjoined.

The Shaykh : The one to which something is conjoined, and the dependent is the one that is conjoined. Ibn Malik says: If the antecedent is explicit, he says: "is permitted": meaning make it permissible, meaning that it is permissible to omit the antecedent if it is explicit and clear. They gave as an example for this the saying of Allah the Exalted: , and they said: The intended meaning is: "So they were heedless and did not travel in the land." So here, what is omitted?
The student: The antecedent.

The Shaykh : The antecedent. The antecedent is omitted and the dependent is kept. Yes, and it has been mentioned to us previously that the grammarians have two positions regarding this type of construction:
The first is what was mentioned, that the question particle is attached to an omitted word that is estimated based on the context.
The second opinion is that the question particle is placed first, and its position is after the conjunction, but it was placed first because it has precedence, and that this sentence is an interrogative sentence conjoined to what came before, and that the original form of: is: "And did they not travel." So here, there is nothing omitted. And we said previously that this opinion is stronger, because we are free from estimation, and because in some verses you cannot estimate anything; it is difficult for you to estimate. And this estimated thing that the one who says the original form is estimated estimates, this estimated thing is only estimated from what is understood from the context. And if the context will make it understood to us, there is no need to estimate it, no need to estimate it. So his saying: : The interrogation here is for rebuke, and there is no rebuke except for heedlessness, so the heedlessness is derived from the mere interrogation. And in that case, we do not need to estimate. And the most important thing for me in this topic is: that sometimes estimation is difficult for you; you cannot estimate the speech. And in that case, we say: The stronger opinion is that the question particle is after the waw, but it was placed before it, because the interrogation, the question particle has precedence. Yes, but according to the opinion of the author (may Allah have mercy on him), he sees that it is of this type. They gave as an example for this this verse.
"And your conjoining of a verb to a verb is valid":
Conjoining a subject, and the verb: is the object of the verbal noun. And your conjoining of the verb: means that you conjoin a verb to a verb, and that is valid. But is the conjunction to the sentence or to the verb?
The student: To the sentence.

The Shaykh : No, it is said: The conjunction is to the verb. And the evidence for that is that if you conjoin a verb in the jussive mood to a verb in the jussive mood, you put it in the jussive mood. And this is evidence that the verb is what is conjoined. So you say, for example: If you strive and know the inflection, you will succeed in grammar. Yes, correct?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : And know the inflection, this is conjoined to strive. And the evidence for that is that it is in the jussive mood. Allah the Exalted said: , and "and he will be made to abide": so "he will be made to abide" is conjoined to "doubled."