Reading from Ibn Aqil’s commentary (may Allah have mercy on him), with the Shaykh’s annotations: " .
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The reader: "If it is a disyllabic word that is pure of the taa or ambiguous with it, then what was omitted from it in the diminutive is restored to it. So for *dam* (blood), it is *dumay*; for *shafah* (lip), it is *shafiyah*; for *'addah* (number), it is *wa'idah*; and for *ma'* (water) named with it, it is *mawiy*. And if it is on three letters..."
The Shaykh : So this is a disyllabic word, is it?
The student: It is a trisyllabic word, from *ma'* (water).
The Shaykh : No, but now he is explaining the disyllabic word. So his saying "for *ma'* (water) with the hamzah" is not correct. What is he talking about now?
The student: About the trisyllabic word.
The Shaykh : About the disyllabic word, and in this ... as in the original. For this reason he said: "Thirdly, as..." What is said for it?
The student: *Mawiy*.
The Shaykh : *Mawiy*.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So this is a disyllabic word, is it?
The student: It is a trisyllabic word, from *ma'* (water).
The Shaykh : No, but now he is explaining the disyllabic word. So his saying "for *ma'* (water) with the hamzah" is not correct. What is he talking about now?
The student: About the trisyllabic word.
The Shaykh : About the disyllabic word, and in this ... as in the original. For this reason he said: "Thirdly, as..." What is said for it?
The student: *Mawiy*.
The Shaykh : *Mawiy*.
The student: Yes.