Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And the son of the definite, the singular vocative *** upon that which in its raising has been known"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said: "And that" Yes.
"And the son of the definite, the singular vocative *** upon that which in its raising has been known":
The author (may Allah have mercy on him) began with the rulings of the vocative now, and this is the important point, meaning the rulings are more important than the tools; the tools come easily and a person finds them in what others have written, but the discussion is on the ruling of the vocative.
The author began with the ruling of the built (mabni) form and said: "And the son of the definite" this is one.
The second is "the vocative": or this clarifies the reality, "the singular", "and the son of the definite, the singular vocative": meaning he says: if you call out a definite singular name, then its son.
"upon that which in its raising has been known":
Meaning it is known, and the intended meaning of singular here is not the opposite of plural and dual; the intended meaning of singular here is what is not attached (mudaf) and not similar to an attached noun; this is the singular. It is built on what it is raised with, and for this reason he said: "upon that which in its raising has been known": meaning upon that which has been known in its raising. So what indicates one is built on the dammah, what indicates two is built on the alif, and what indicates a plural is built on the waw. Do you understand, everyone?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Good: "the son of the definite".
The student: The plural; some plurals are not fixed with the waw.
The Shaykh : Good:
"And the son of the definite, the singular vocative *** upon that which in its raising has been known":
So: if the vocative is a definite singular, this is the rule: "If the vocative is a definite singular, it is obligatory to build it on what it is raised with", like Zayd; if we call him we say: O Zayd, O Zayd. And it is known from the author's saying: "and the son": that it is not tanweened, because the dammah is a dammah of building, not inflection. So you say: O Zayd. Good, Bakr? Here?
O Bakr, Ali?! O Ali, Ja'far? O Ja'far, like this!
A man for a specific man, you say: O man, so then we build it on the dammah, without tanween, because the built form is not tanweened except as a substitute as passed, you call out to two and say: O Zaydan, O Bakran, O Imran, O Khaledan, like this?!
O two men, if you intend two specific men, and this is called the intended indefinite; a man is indefinite but here when it is intended it becomes like the definite, here, good, you call out to the plural, the sound masculine plural so you say: O Muslims, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And you say: O obedient ones, O righteous ones, O learners, and the like of that.
"upon that which in its raising has been known".
So the summary: "If the vocative is a definite singular name, it is obligatory to build it on what it is raised with", good, what is your opinion of a man who said: O Zayd?
The student: Incorrect.
The Shaykh : Here? A mistake?! O Zayd?!
The student: Incorrect.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because it is built on the dammah.
The Shaykh : Because it is built on the dammah, if he said: O Muslims?!
The student: Incorrect.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Incorrect.
The Shaykh : A mistake, why?
The student: Because it is definite.
The Shaykh : It is built on the waw, here!
The student: A synonymous meaning.
The Shaykh : What is it?
The student: With a synonym of the same meaning.
The Shaykh : How is it a synonym?
The student: In terms of meaning.
The Shaykh : Yes, the important thing is the discussion that it is not suitable; it is necessary that we say: O Muslims.
"And the son of the definite, the singular vocative *** upon that which in its raising has been known":
The author (may Allah have mercy on him) began with the rulings of the vocative now, and this is the important point, meaning the rulings are more important than the tools; the tools come easily and a person finds them in what others have written, but the discussion is on the ruling of the vocative.
The author began with the ruling of the built (mabni) form and said: "And the son of the definite" this is one.
The second is "the vocative": or this clarifies the reality, "the singular", "and the son of the definite, the singular vocative": meaning he says: if you call out a definite singular name, then its son.
"upon that which in its raising has been known":
Meaning it is known, and the intended meaning of singular here is not the opposite of plural and dual; the intended meaning of singular here is what is not attached (mudaf) and not similar to an attached noun; this is the singular. It is built on what it is raised with, and for this reason he said: "upon that which in its raising has been known": meaning upon that which has been known in its raising. So what indicates one is built on the dammah, what indicates two is built on the alif, and what indicates a plural is built on the waw. Do you understand, everyone?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Good: "the son of the definite".
The student: The plural; some plurals are not fixed with the waw.
The Shaykh : Good:
"And the son of the definite, the singular vocative *** upon that which in its raising has been known":
So: if the vocative is a definite singular, this is the rule: "If the vocative is a definite singular, it is obligatory to build it on what it is raised with", like Zayd; if we call him we say: O Zayd, O Zayd. And it is known from the author's saying: "and the son": that it is not tanweened, because the dammah is a dammah of building, not inflection. So you say: O Zayd. Good, Bakr? Here?
O Bakr, Ali?! O Ali, Ja'far? O Ja'far, like this!
A man for a specific man, you say: O man, so then we build it on the dammah, without tanween, because the built form is not tanweened except as a substitute as passed, you call out to two and say: O Zaydan, O Bakran, O Imran, O Khaledan, like this?!
O two men, if you intend two specific men, and this is called the intended indefinite; a man is indefinite but here when it is intended it becomes like the definite, here, good, you call out to the plural, the sound masculine plural so you say: O Muslims, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And you say: O obedient ones, O righteous ones, O learners, and the like of that.
"upon that which in its raising has been known".
So the summary: "If the vocative is a definite singular name, it is obligatory to build it on what it is raised with", good, what is your opinion of a man who said: O Zayd?
The student: Incorrect.
The Shaykh : Here? A mistake?! O Zayd?!
The student: Incorrect.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because it is built on the dammah.
The Shaykh : Because it is built on the dammah, if he said: O Muslims?!
The student: Incorrect.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Incorrect.
The Shaykh : A mistake, why?
The student: Because it is definite.
The Shaykh : It is built on the waw, here!
The student: A synonymous meaning.
The Shaykh : What is it?
The student: With a synonym of the same meaning.
The Shaykh : How is it a synonym?
The student: In terms of meaning.
The Shaykh : Yes, the important thing is the discussion that it is not suitable; it is necessary that we say: O Muslims.