Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "So al-Adham is the shackle, for it was *** originally placed as a description, and its declension was prevented."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Its example is that he said:
"So al-Adham is the shackle"
Al-Adham, the shackle; this is an explanatory apposition.
"For it was placed *** originally as a description, and its declension was prevented"
Al-Adham is the first subject, and "its declension" is the second subject, and "prevented" is the predicate of the second subject. The clause, along with the clause of the second subject and its predicate, is in the position of the predicate of the first subject. So, al-Adham's declension is prevented. And the word al-Adham is a description, or is it not?
The student: Description.
The Shaykh : Huh? A description?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, al-Adham is originally a description, like al-Akhdar (green), like al-Abyad (white), and azraq (blue). But it was placed as a shackle, placed as a name for the shackle, the fetter. Yes, for the fetter. And it was mentioned previously in rhetoric, the saying of al-Hajjaj: "We are carrying you on al-Adham". What did al-Muhaddid say? He said: "Like the prince?!" Carried on al-Adham or al-Abyad? I forgot. And the meaning of al-Adham is the shackle, even if it is white, it is called al-Adham. So al-Adham is now originally a description, but it was made a name for the shackle, whether it is black or not black. So, is its being a name incidental or original?
The student: Occasional.
The Shaykh : What do we consider when it is incidental?
The student: The original.
The Shaykh : We consider the original. For this reason, he said:
"So al-Adham is the shackle"
"The shackle" is an explanation of al-Adham, meaning so al-Adham, which is the shackle. Yes, the author says:
"For it was placed *** originally as a description, and its declension was prevented"
His saying "for it," "for it being originally a description," is connected to "prevented." Meaning: So al-Adham, the shackle, its declension is prevented because it is originally, huh?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : A description. The summary of the three verses, its summary is: If an original description on the pattern of Af'il, whose feminine form is not closed with a taa, is present, then it does not decline, and the consideration is for the original. So if its original was a name and then it was made a description, does it decline or not?
The student: It declines.
The Shaykh : It declines. And if it is the opposite, originally a description and then made a name?
The student: It does not decline.
The Shaykh : Then it does not decline. It does not decline. The consideration is for the original. And what is an example of one that was originally a name and then became a description?
The student: Arba' (four).
The Shaykh : Arba' (four). The word arba' (four). And what is an example of one that was a description and then was made a name?
The student: Al-Adham.
The Shaykh : Al-Adham. Al-Adham is originally a description, then it was made a name for the shackle. So al-Adham is prevented from declension, even if it is not intended as a description, because the original is that it is for a description. And arba' (four)? Huh?
The student: It declines.
The Shaykh : It declines, even if it is made a description, considering the original. Now, what do you think of qaim (standing)? Is qaim declinable or not declinable?
The student: It declines.
The Shaykh : It declines? Qaim?
The student : ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It declines.
The Shaykh : Is it not a description, qaim?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It is not on the pattern of Af'il.
The Shaykh : It is not on the pattern of Af'il, correct?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : It is true that it is a description, but it is not on the pattern of Af'il. It is not on the pattern of Af'il. Now, is ghadhaban (angry) declinable or not declinable?
The student: It declines...
The Shaykh : Meaning it declines?
The student: On the pattern of Fa'lan, it does not decline.
The Shaykh : ...
The student: On the pattern of Fa'lan.
The Shaykh : Huh, there is another reason. Fine, okay.
"So al-Adham is the shackle"
Al-Adham, the shackle; this is an explanatory apposition.
"For it was placed *** originally as a description, and its declension was prevented"
Al-Adham is the first subject, and "its declension" is the second subject, and "prevented" is the predicate of the second subject. The clause, along with the clause of the second subject and its predicate, is in the position of the predicate of the first subject. So, al-Adham's declension is prevented. And the word al-Adham is a description, or is it not?
The student: Description.
The Shaykh : Huh? A description?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, al-Adham is originally a description, like al-Akhdar (green), like al-Abyad (white), and azraq (blue). But it was placed as a shackle, placed as a name for the shackle, the fetter. Yes, for the fetter. And it was mentioned previously in rhetoric, the saying of al-Hajjaj: "We are carrying you on al-Adham". What did al-Muhaddid say? He said: "Like the prince?!" Carried on al-Adham or al-Abyad? I forgot. And the meaning of al-Adham is the shackle, even if it is white, it is called al-Adham. So al-Adham is now originally a description, but it was made a name for the shackle, whether it is black or not black. So, is its being a name incidental or original?
The student: Occasional.
The Shaykh : What do we consider when it is incidental?
The student: The original.
The Shaykh : We consider the original. For this reason, he said:
"So al-Adham is the shackle"
"The shackle" is an explanation of al-Adham, meaning so al-Adham, which is the shackle. Yes, the author says:
"For it was placed *** originally as a description, and its declension was prevented"
His saying "for it," "for it being originally a description," is connected to "prevented." Meaning: So al-Adham, the shackle, its declension is prevented because it is originally, huh?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : A description. The summary of the three verses, its summary is: If an original description on the pattern of Af'il, whose feminine form is not closed with a taa, is present, then it does not decline, and the consideration is for the original. So if its original was a name and then it was made a description, does it decline or not?
The student: It declines.
The Shaykh : It declines. And if it is the opposite, originally a description and then made a name?
The student: It does not decline.
The Shaykh : Then it does not decline. It does not decline. The consideration is for the original. And what is an example of one that was originally a name and then became a description?
The student: Arba' (four).
The Shaykh : Arba' (four). The word arba' (four). And what is an example of one that was a description and then was made a name?
The student: Al-Adham.
The Shaykh : Al-Adham. Al-Adham is originally a description, then it was made a name for the shackle. So al-Adham is prevented from declension, even if it is not intended as a description, because the original is that it is for a description. And arba' (four)? Huh?
The student: It declines.
The Shaykh : It declines, even if it is made a description, considering the original. Now, what do you think of qaim (standing)? Is qaim declinable or not declinable?
The student: It declines.
The Shaykh : It declines? Qaim?
The student : ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It declines.
The Shaykh : Is it not a description, qaim?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It is not on the pattern of Af'il.
The Shaykh : It is not on the pattern of Af'il, correct?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : It is true that it is a description, but it is not on the pattern of Af'il. It is not on the pattern of Af'il. Now, is ghadhaban (angry) declinable or not declinable?
The student: It declines...
The Shaykh : Meaning it declines?
The student: On the pattern of Fa'lan, it does not decline.
The Shaykh : ...
The student: On the pattern of Fa'lan.
The Shaykh : Huh, there is another reason. Fine, okay.