We said that the attribute is derived, so how do we parse "O such a man" when "man" is an attribute and it is static?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : And what?
The questioner : The attribute must be derived.
The Shaykh : Yes, but what do you mean?
The questioner : Like saying:, or: O such a man.
The Shaykh : Yes, well done. Here, there is no doubt that it is static, but it is interpreted as derived, because the meaning of "O such a man" is "O such a one being called."
The student: In a similar manner.
Another student: On the reading of the nominative case!
The student: Its parsing in the Qur'an.
The Shaykh : It is possible that it serves as an explanatory apposition, and we can avoid raising the objection of Muhammad.
The student: I said, O my Shaykh: In the nominative case, it is preferable to use "the man" as the original vocative. Is "the man" the original vocative?
The Shaykh : Which of them?
The student: I said: It is not permissible for it to be other than "the man" (in the accusative case)!
The Shaykh : We said: The stronger opinion.
The questioner : The attribute must be derived.
The Shaykh : Yes, but what do you mean?
The questioner : Like saying:
O man
يا أيها الإنسانThe Shaykh : Yes, well done. Here, there is no doubt that it is static, but it is interpreted as derived, because the meaning of "O such a man" is "O such a one being called."
The student: In a similar manner.
Another student: On the reading of the nominative case!
The student: Its parsing in the Qur'an.
The Shaykh : It is possible that it serves as an explanatory apposition, and we can avoid raising the objection of Muhammad.
The student: I said, O my Shaykh: In the nominative case, it is preferable to use "the man" as the original vocative. Is "the man" the original vocative?
The Shaykh : Which of them?
The student: I said: It is not permissible for it to be other than "the man" (in the accusative case)!
The Shaykh : We said: The stronger opinion.