Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And make the vocative sound if it is attached to my *ya* *** like 'Abd, 'Abdi, 'Abd, 'Abda, 'Abdiya."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And make the vocative sound":
"Sound" means: that its end is sound. What is sound? It is that which does not end with a letter of weakness. The letters of weakness are: waw, alif, and ya. So "sound" means its end is sound, and you call out to it:
"And make the vocative sound if it is attached to my *ya*":
The *ya* intended here is the *ya* of the speaker. Make it:
"Like 'Abd, 'Abdi, 'Abd, 'Abda, 'Abdiya":
How many are these?
The student: Five.
The Shaykh : Five languages, yes. Like 'Abd: you call your slave and say: O 'Abd. Oh Allah, its grammatical analysis: *ya* is the particle of vocative, and 'Abd is the vocative, in the accusative case due to the *ya* of vocative, and the sign of its accusative is a *fathah* estimated on the letter before the *ya*, prevented from appearing by the occupation of the position with the movement of agreement. And 'Abdi is attached. Now, what do we say? We say: 'Abdi is attached, because the *ya* is deleted, and the *ya* was deleted for lightness. " 'Abdi ": is like it, except that you say: 'Abd is attached, and the *ya* is the object of attachment, built on sukun in the genitive case. 'Abd: what brought about 'Abd? We say: its original form is 'Abda with an alif. What did we do? We turned the *ya* into an alif, then we deleted the alif for lightness, so we said: O 'Abd. How is the grammatical analysis? *Ya* is the particle of vocative, and 'Abd is the vocative, in the accusative case due to the *ya* of vocative, and the sign of its accusative is an estimated *fathah*. This *fathah* is not for grammatical case, but an estimated *fathah* on the letter before the *ya* of the speaker, which was turned into an alif, in the accusative case. And the *ya* that was turned, yes, and the alif that was turned from a *ya* deleted for lightness. 'Abda: what is the difference between it and the one before it? That the alif remained. The alif that was turned from a *ya* remained. So we say in the grammatical analysis of 'Abda: 'Abda is the vocative, in the accusative case due to the *ya* of vocative, and the sign of its accusative is an estimated *fathah* on the letter before the alif that was turned from a *ya*, prevented from appearing by what? The occupation of the position with the movement of agreement. 'Abd: is attached, and the alif that was turned from a *ya* is the object of attachment, built on sukun in the genitive case. Look at the language of the Arabs!! Because attaching a thing to oneself is common, like 'Abdi, my camel, for example: my house, and so on, much of it. And therefore, multiple languages came in it. Whenever a thing is common among the Arabs, you find many names for it.
"Sound" means: that its end is sound. What is sound? It is that which does not end with a letter of weakness. The letters of weakness are: waw, alif, and ya. So "sound" means its end is sound, and you call out to it:
"And make the vocative sound if it is attached to my *ya*":
The *ya* intended here is the *ya* of the speaker. Make it:
"Like 'Abd, 'Abdi, 'Abd, 'Abda, 'Abdiya":
How many are these?
The student: Five.
The Shaykh : Five languages, yes. Like 'Abd: you call your slave and say: O 'Abd. Oh Allah, its grammatical analysis: *ya* is the particle of vocative, and 'Abd is the vocative, in the accusative case due to the *ya* of vocative, and the sign of its accusative is a *fathah* estimated on the letter before the *ya*, prevented from appearing by the occupation of the position with the movement of agreement. And 'Abdi is attached. Now, what do we say? We say: 'Abdi is attached, because the *ya* is deleted, and the *ya* was deleted for lightness. " 'Abdi ": is like it, except that you say: 'Abd is attached, and the *ya* is the object of attachment, built on sukun in the genitive case. 'Abd: what brought about 'Abd? We say: its original form is 'Abda with an alif. What did we do? We turned the *ya* into an alif, then we deleted the alif for lightness, so we said: O 'Abd. How is the grammatical analysis? *Ya* is the particle of vocative, and 'Abd is the vocative, in the accusative case due to the *ya* of vocative, and the sign of its accusative is an estimated *fathah*. This *fathah* is not for grammatical case, but an estimated *fathah* on the letter before the *ya* of the speaker, which was turned into an alif, in the accusative case. And the *ya* that was turned, yes, and the alif that was turned from a *ya* deleted for lightness. 'Abda: what is the difference between it and the one before it? That the alif remained. The alif that was turned from a *ya* remained. So we say in the grammatical analysis of 'Abda: 'Abda is the vocative, in the accusative case due to the *ya* of vocative, and the sign of its accusative is an estimated *fathah* on the letter before the alif that was turned from a *ya*, prevented from appearing by what? The occupation of the position with the movement of agreement. 'Abd: is attached, and the alif that was turned from a *ya* is the object of attachment, built on sukun in the genitive case. Look at the language of the Arabs!! Because attaching a thing to oneself is common, like 'Abdi, my camel, for example: my house, and so on, much of it. And therefore, multiple languages came in it. Whenever a thing is common among the Arabs, you find many names for it.