Explanation of the statement of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And opening or breaking and deleting the yaa continued *** in 'O son of mother, O son of uncle' there is no escape."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Opening or breaking:
"And opening or breaking and deleting the yaa continued *** in 'O son of mother, O son of uncle' there is no escape":
Here, when "mother" and "uncle" are made possessive, when the word "son" is added to them, two dialects are permissible in addition to the previous dialects: breaking and opening, "and opening or breaking". He says: "O son of mother," and he also says: "O son of mother," "and opening or breaking and deleting the yaa continued": And what does "continued" mean?
The student: Consistent.
The Shaykh : It means consistent. And his saying: "in 'O son of mother, O son of uncle'": If someone asks: Is this not like the first case? We say: No, it is not like the first case. In the first case, the one being called is the word added to the first-person pronoun. Here, what is the case? The one being called is added to a word that is added to the first-person pronoun. The one being called is not the word added to the first-person pronoun, but rather it is added to a word that is added to the first-person pronoun—understand this point. However, this is specific to: "O son of mother and O son of uncle". As for "my slave" and the like, if the one being called is not added to the first-person pronoun, the yaa remains. You say: "O son of my slave," you do not say: "O son of my slave" (with the yaa deleted), that is not correct. But: "O son of mother" has that feature. You say: "O son of mother" and "O son of uncle." The grammatical analysis is that we say: "O" is the particle of calling, and "son" is the one being called, in the accusative case due to the particle of calling, and the sign of its accusative is the visible fathah at its end. "Son" is a possessive noun, and "mother" is the possessed noun, in the genitive case due to the visible kasrah. Is that correct?
The student: Due to the assumed kasrah.
The Shaykh : Ibn Malik says: "and deleting the yaa continued": This means that the apparent meaning of his words is that he does not intend for the yaa to be assumed. You say: "O son of mother," on the basis that it was deleted and not assumed. Based on this, we say: "Son" is a possessive noun, and "mother" is the possessed noun. Let us return to the explanation now. And his saying: "O son of mother", if we say: "O son of mother" with an opening (fathah), we say: "Son" is a possessive noun, and "mother" is the possessed noun, in the genitive case due to the addition, and the sign of its genitive is an assumed kasrah on the letter before the alif that was converted from a yaa. But let us look now, let us read the explanation to him because he is somewhat confused. Yes.
"And opening or breaking and deleting the yaa continued *** in 'O son of mother, O son of uncle' there is no escape":
Here, when "mother" and "uncle" are made possessive, when the word "son" is added to them, two dialects are permissible in addition to the previous dialects: breaking and opening, "and opening or breaking". He says: "O son of mother," and he also says: "O son of mother," "and opening or breaking and deleting the yaa continued": And what does "continued" mean?
The student: Consistent.
The Shaykh : It means consistent. And his saying: "in 'O son of mother, O son of uncle'": If someone asks: Is this not like the first case? We say: No, it is not like the first case. In the first case, the one being called is the word added to the first-person pronoun. Here, what is the case? The one being called is added to a word that is added to the first-person pronoun. The one being called is not the word added to the first-person pronoun, but rather it is added to a word that is added to the first-person pronoun—understand this point. However, this is specific to: "O son of mother and O son of uncle". As for "my slave" and the like, if the one being called is not added to the first-person pronoun, the yaa remains. You say: "O son of my slave," you do not say: "O son of my slave" (with the yaa deleted), that is not correct. But: "O son of mother" has that feature. You say: "O son of mother" and "O son of uncle." The grammatical analysis is that we say: "O" is the particle of calling, and "son" is the one being called, in the accusative case due to the particle of calling, and the sign of its accusative is the visible fathah at its end. "Son" is a possessive noun, and "mother" is the possessed noun, in the genitive case due to the visible kasrah. Is that correct?
The student: Due to the assumed kasrah.
The Shaykh : Ibn Malik says: "and deleting the yaa continued": This means that the apparent meaning of his words is that he does not intend for the yaa to be assumed. You say: "O son of mother," on the basis that it was deleted and not assumed. Based on this, we say: "Son" is a possessive noun, and "mother" is the possessed noun. Let us return to the explanation now. And his saying: "O son of mother", if we say: "O son of mother" with an opening (fathah), we say: "Son" is a possessive noun, and "mother" is the possessed noun, in the genitive case due to the addition, and the sign of its genitive is an assumed kasrah on the letter before the alif that was converted from a yaa. But let us look now, let us read the explanation to him because he is somewhat confused. Yes.