Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And we ignore the incidental quality of description *** like four, and the incidental quality of nounhood."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said:
"And we ignore the incidental quality of description *** like four"
The word "four" is a description. You say: "I passed by four women," "I passed by four women." Is this a description or not? It is a description. "Four" means: having reached this number. But since the original form of "four" is not a description, because the original form of "four" is a noun for the number between three and five, is that correct? "Four" is the number between three and five; this is the original form of "four." So is the description in it incidental or not incidental? Huh?
The student: Incidental.
The Shaykh : Incidental. You say: "I bought four what?" For example, sheep. "I bought four sheep." There is no description there now. And you say: "I passed by four women." This is a description now. Is the original form in it descriptive or nominal?
The student: Nominal.
The Shaykh : The original form is nominal; it is a noun for a number that is between three and five. Ibn Malik says:
"And we ignore the incidental quality of description"
Do not consider it. And based on that, is "four" declined or indeclinable?
The student: Declined.
The Shaykh : Because we ignored the description. So you say: "I passed by four women," yes. And "I bought four sheep" or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Why do we not describe it?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh? Because the description in it is incidental. The description in it is incidental, and Ibn Malik says: and original description. And he says:
"And we ignore the incidental quality of description *** like four, and the incidental quality of nounhood"
Also, ignore the incidental quality of nounhood and consider the original description. This is the reverse of the issue. That is to say: just as if a description were found on "af'al" (the superlative form), it would originally be a description, then nounhood would occur to it, so do we consider it?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh? We consider the original form, we do not consider the noun.
"And we ignore the incidental quality of description *** like four"
The word "four" is a description. You say: "I passed by four women," "I passed by four women." Is this a description or not? It is a description. "Four" means: having reached this number. But since the original form of "four" is not a description, because the original form of "four" is a noun for the number between three and five, is that correct? "Four" is the number between three and five; this is the original form of "four." So is the description in it incidental or not incidental? Huh?
The student: Incidental.
The Shaykh : Incidental. You say: "I bought four what?" For example, sheep. "I bought four sheep." There is no description there now. And you say: "I passed by four women." This is a description now. Is the original form in it descriptive or nominal?
The student: Nominal.
The Shaykh : The original form is nominal; it is a noun for a number that is between three and five. Ibn Malik says:
"And we ignore the incidental quality of description"
Do not consider it. And based on that, is "four" declined or indeclinable?
The student: Declined.
The Shaykh : Because we ignored the description. So you say: "I passed by four women," yes. And "I bought four sheep" or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Why do we not describe it?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh? Because the description in it is incidental. The description in it is incidental, and Ibn Malik says: and original description. And he says:
"And we ignore the incidental quality of description *** like four, and the incidental quality of nounhood"
Also, ignore the incidental quality of nounhood and consider the original description. This is the reverse of the issue. That is to say: just as if a description were found on "af'al" (the superlative form), it would originally be a description, then nounhood would occur to it, so do we consider it?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh? We consider the original form, we do not consider the noun.