Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And ajdal, akhyal, and af'aa *** are declined, though they may be prevented from declension."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then the author said:
"And ajdal, akhyal, and af'aa *** are declined, though they may be prevented from declension"
Ajdal, and what is ajdal? What is ajdal in your explanation?
The student: The falcon.
The Shaykh : The falcon. Good. Is the word ajdal originally a description or not? So-and-so is ajdal compared to so-and-so. Originally, it is a description, but he made it a noun. He made it a noun. I have an ajdal with which I hunt. I have an ajdal with which I hunt. What does ajdal mean?
The student: The falcon.
The Shaykh : The falcon. So, the intended meaning of ajdal, which is originally a description, is what? A noun. Did we forget the description and forget it once, so it became declined? Or do we say that since it was named a description at first, it is not declined? Ibn Malik says: it is declined, because the description was forgotten, and it is as if it is used as a description... For this reason, he said:
"are declined, though they may be prevented from declension"
Meaning: and they may be prevented. Now, I bought an ajdal from the market. I bought an ajdal from the market. I bought an ajdal from the market, correct?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Correct, because it is declined. I bought ajdal from the market, correct?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Correct according to the second opinion.
"though they may be prevented from declension"
What is the difference between ajdal and adham? The word adham is originally a description, then it was made a noun for the black color. Yes, and we said that it is not declined considering its origin. And ajdal, yes? Ajdal is a description, then it was made a noun for what? For the falcon. It is declined, and it may not be declined. So what is the difference? They say: because the appearance of the description in adham is stronger than its appearance in ajdal, because adham is a color, but ajdal is a superlative name. And the appearance of the description in the first is stronger than its appearance in the second. And because the description was completely forgotten, since the falcon is not a hen, it is as if the description was erased from this word and it was made a noun for falcons. The second is akhyal. What is akhyal?
The student: A bird.
The Shaykh : A bird? A known bird called akhyal. And it seems, may Allah know best, that this bird is beautiful in form, so it has a kind of pride, it keeps walking and swaying, so it is akhyal. But it was named akhyal. I saw an akhyal. I saw an akhyal, because this bird is called akhyal, or I saw akhyal? Which one?
The student: Both are permissible.
The Shaykh : Both are permissible, but akhyal with tanween is more common, because Ibn Malik says: and they may be prevented. Qad indicates diminution.
"though they may be prevented from declension"
Af'aa, af'aa. What is af'aa?
The student: The snake.
The Shaykh : The snake. Good. Af'aa is on the pattern of af'el, and it was said: so-and-so is af'aa compared to so-and-so. It was said that it has a positional alteration, and its original form is so-and-so is afu' compared to so-and-so. And the letter of the vowel was moved to the end, so it became af'aa. The word af'aa is originally a superlative name, and now it is a noun for the snake. So it is correct to make it declined, and to make it what? Hmm?
The student: Not declined.
The Shaykh : Not declined. Good, but if someone says: its end is an alif, how do we know if it is declined or not declined? We said: it is true that in pronunciation it is not clear, but in grammatical analysis it is clear. In grammatical analysis it is clear. So if I say, for example: I looked at an af'aa. I looked at an af'aa, and we want to analyze it as being prevented from declension, we say: to is a preposition, and af'aa is a noun in the genitive case by to, and its sign of the genitive case is a fatha estimated on its end in place of the kasrah, because it is a noun that is not declined. As for the opinion that it is declined, we say: af'aa is a noun in the genitive case by to, and its sign of the genitive case is a kasrah estimated on its end, prevented from appearing only by impossibility... regarding af'aa, but the grammatical analysis shows it, considering it as declined or considering it as not declined.
"And ajdal, akhyal, and af'aa *** are declined, though they may be prevented from declension"
Ajdal, and what is ajdal? What is ajdal in your explanation?
The student: The falcon.
The Shaykh : The falcon. Good. Is the word ajdal originally a description or not? So-and-so is ajdal compared to so-and-so. Originally, it is a description, but he made it a noun. He made it a noun. I have an ajdal with which I hunt. I have an ajdal with which I hunt. What does ajdal mean?
The student: The falcon.
The Shaykh : The falcon. So, the intended meaning of ajdal, which is originally a description, is what? A noun. Did we forget the description and forget it once, so it became declined? Or do we say that since it was named a description at first, it is not declined? Ibn Malik says: it is declined, because the description was forgotten, and it is as if it is used as a description... For this reason, he said:
"are declined, though they may be prevented from declension"
Meaning: and they may be prevented. Now, I bought an ajdal from the market. I bought an ajdal from the market. I bought an ajdal from the market, correct?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Correct, because it is declined. I bought ajdal from the market, correct?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Correct according to the second opinion.
"though they may be prevented from declension"
What is the difference between ajdal and adham? The word adham is originally a description, then it was made a noun for the black color. Yes, and we said that it is not declined considering its origin. And ajdal, yes? Ajdal is a description, then it was made a noun for what? For the falcon. It is declined, and it may not be declined. So what is the difference? They say: because the appearance of the description in adham is stronger than its appearance in ajdal, because adham is a color, but ajdal is a superlative name. And the appearance of the description in the first is stronger than its appearance in the second. And because the description was completely forgotten, since the falcon is not a hen, it is as if the description was erased from this word and it was made a noun for falcons. The second is akhyal. What is akhyal?
The student: A bird.
The Shaykh : A bird? A known bird called akhyal. And it seems, may Allah know best, that this bird is beautiful in form, so it has a kind of pride, it keeps walking and swaying, so it is akhyal. But it was named akhyal. I saw an akhyal. I saw an akhyal, because this bird is called akhyal, or I saw akhyal? Which one?
The student: Both are permissible.
The Shaykh : Both are permissible, but akhyal with tanween is more common, because Ibn Malik says: and they may be prevented. Qad indicates diminution.
"though they may be prevented from declension"
Af'aa, af'aa. What is af'aa?
The student: The snake.
The Shaykh : The snake. Good. Af'aa is on the pattern of af'el, and it was said: so-and-so is af'aa compared to so-and-so. It was said that it has a positional alteration, and its original form is so-and-so is afu' compared to so-and-so. And the letter of the vowel was moved to the end, so it became af'aa. The word af'aa is originally a superlative name, and now it is a noun for the snake. So it is correct to make it declined, and to make it what? Hmm?
The student: Not declined.
The Shaykh : Not declined. Good, but if someone says: its end is an alif, how do we know if it is declined or not declined? We said: it is true that in pronunciation it is not clear, but in grammatical analysis it is clear. In grammatical analysis it is clear. So if I say, for example: I looked at an af'aa. I looked at an af'aa, and we want to analyze it as being prevented from declension, we say: to is a preposition, and af'aa is a noun in the genitive case by to, and its sign of the genitive case is a fatha estimated on its end in place of the kasrah, because it is a noun that is not declined. As for the opinion that it is declined, we say: af'aa is a noun in the genitive case by to, and its sign of the genitive case is a kasrah estimated on its end, prevented from appearing only by impossibility... regarding af'aa, but the grammatical analysis shows it, considering it as declined or considering it as not declined.