Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "Make the indefinite like the vocative, and what is not vocatived, nor what is ambiguous."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Yes, he said:
"What is addressed to the one called, make it for the one who is recommended"
This means: The ruling for the indefinite is exactly the same as the ruling for the vocative. It is built on the dammah where the vocative is built on the dammah, and it is in the accusative case where the vocative is in the accusative case. Is that right, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Make the indefinite like the vocative, except that the author made an exception, saying:
"And what is negated is not recommended, nor what is made indefinite"
Yes, the indefinite is not vocatived. The indefinite is not vocatived, so you do not say, for example, "O man" (wa rajulun). It is not permissible to say "O man." What is the reason? Because it is an indefinite. Because it is an indefinite, and the indefinite is not known, so one does not feel distress for it or distress from it. Is it permissible to vocatize it, or is it not permissible?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible to vocatize it. Likewise, the ambiguous is not vocatived. The ambiguous is not vocatived, such as "which" (ayy), "who" (alladhi), "who" (man), and the like. All ambiguous words are not vocatived, and he made an exception from the ambiguous regarding his statement.
"What is addressed to the one called, make it for the one who is recommended"
This means: The ruling for the indefinite is exactly the same as the ruling for the vocative. It is built on the dammah where the vocative is built on the dammah, and it is in the accusative case where the vocative is in the accusative case. Is that right, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Make the indefinite like the vocative, except that the author made an exception, saying:
"And what is negated is not recommended, nor what is made indefinite"
Yes, the indefinite is not vocatived. The indefinite is not vocatived, so you do not say, for example, "O man" (wa rajulun). It is not permissible to say "O man." What is the reason? Because it is an indefinite. Because it is an indefinite, and the indefinite is not known, so one does not feel distress for it or distress from it. Is it permissible to vocatize it, or is it not permissible?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible to vocatize it. Likewise, the ambiguous is not vocatived. The ambiguous is not vocatived, such as "which" (ayy), "who" (alladhi), "who" (man), and the like. All ambiguous words are not vocatived, and he made an exception from the ambiguous regarding his statement.