Lesson Forty-Six

الدَّرْسُ السَّادِسُ وَالْأَرْبَعُونَ

The Seventh Observation: Deletion of Waw and Ya when Two Quiescent Letters Meet

الْإِفَادَةُ السَّابِعَةُ: حَذْفُ الْوَاوِ وَالْيَاءِ عِنْدَ اجْتِمَاعِ السَّاكِنَيْنِ

The waw is deleted from the masculine plural of the third and second persons, and the ya from the singular feminine second person, namely لَيَفْعَلُونْ، وَلَتَفْعَلُونْ، وَلَتَفْعَلِينْ, when they occur with the heavy emphatic nun, as in لَيَفْعَلُنَّ، لَتَفْعَلُنَّ، وَلَتَفْعَلِنَّ. According to the Basrans, this deletion is because two quiescent letters meet; according to the Kufans, it is because two heavy elements meet. For this reason, the alif is not deleted with the emphatic nun in the dual forms, since it is not heavy in them, as in لَيَضْرِبَانِّ and لَتَضْرِبَانِّ. According to the Basrans, it does not fall so that the dual will not be confused with the singular لَيَفْعَلَنَّ; otherwise, it would require deletion.

تُحْذَفُ الْوَاوُ مِنْ جَمْعِ الْمُذَكَّرِ الْغَائِبِ وَالْحَاضِرِ، وَالْيَاءُ مِنْ وَاحِدِ الْمُؤَنَّثِ الْحَاضِرِ - أَيْ: لَيَفْعَلُونْ، وَلَتَفْعَلُونْ، وَلَتَفْعَلِينْ - إِذَا كَانَتْ مَعَ النُّونِ الثَّقِيلَةِ، مِثْلُ: لَيَفْعَلُنَّ، لَتَفْعَلُنَّ، وَلَتَفْعَلِنَّ، فَعِنْدَ الْبَصْرِيِّينَ هَذَا الْحَذْفُ لِاجْتِمَاعِ السَّاكِنَيْنِ، وَعِنْدَ الْكُوفِيِّينَ لِاجْتِمَاعِ الثَّقِيلَيْنِ، فَلِذَا لَا تُحْذَفُ الْأَلِفُ مَعَ نُونِ التَّأْكِيدِ مِنْ صِيَغِ الْمُثَنَّى؛ لِأَنَّهَا لَيْسَتْ بِثَقِيلَةٍ فِيهَا، مِثْلُ: لَيَضْرِبَانِّ وَلَتَضْرِبَانِّ، وَعِنْدَ الْبَصْرِيِّينَ إِنَّهَا لَا تَسْقُطُ؛ لِئَلَّا تَلْتَبِسَ التَّثْنِيَةُ بِالْوَاحِدِ “لَيَفْعَلَنَّ”، وَإِلَّا فَهِيَ تَقْتَضِي السُّقُوطَ.

Our teacher, may Allah have mercy on him, used to prefer the Kufan position. He objected to the Basrans that, if this meeting required the deletion of one of the two quiescent letters, the heavy nun should likewise not occur in the dual forms, just as the light nun does not occur there.

وَكَانَ أُسْتَاذُنَا رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ يُرَجِّحُ مَذْهَبَ الْكُوفِيِّينَ، وَكَانَ يَعْتَرِضُ عَلَى الْبَصْرِيِّينَ: بِأَنَّهُ لَوْ كَانَ هَذَا الِاجْتِمَاعُ مُقْتَضِيًا لِحَذْفِ أَحَدِ السَّاكِنَيْنِ لَكَانَ يَنْبَغِي أَنْ لَا تَأْتِيَ النُّونُ الثَّقِيلَةُ أَيْضًا فِي صِيَغِ الْمُثَنَّى كَالنُّونِ الْخَفِيفَةِ.

The explanation of the rule here is as follows: when the meeting of two quiescent letters occurs between a long vowel and a doubled letter within one word, this meeting is permissible and the long vowel is not deleted, as in الضَّالِّينَ and أَتُحَاجُّونِّي. This is the meeting of two quiescent letters in its proper form. If they occur in two words, the long vowel must be deleted, as in يَخْشَى اللَّهَ، ادْعُوا اللَّهَ and ادْعِي اللَّهَ.

وَبَيَانُ الْقَانُونِ هُنَا هَكَذَا: إِذَا كَانَ اجْتِمَاعُ السَّاكِنَيْنِ بَيْنَ حَرْفِ الْمَدَّةِ وَحَرْفٍ مُشَدَّدٍ فِي كَلِمَةٍ وَاحِدَةٍ يَجُوزُ هَذَا الِاجْتِمَاعُ، وَحَرْفُ الْمَدَّةِ لَا يُحْذَفُ، مِثْلُ: “الضَّالِّينَ” وَ“أَتُحَاجُّونِّي”، هَذَا هُوَ اجْتِمَاعُ السَّاكِنَيْنِ عَلَى حَدِّهِ، وَإِذَا كَانَا فِي كَلِمَتَيْنِ يَجِبُ حَذْفُ حَرْفِ الْمَدَّةِ، مِثْلُ: “يَخْشَى اللَّهَ” وَ“ادْعُوا اللَّهَ” وَادْعِي اللَّهَ.

Although the heavy nun in the present tense is an independent word, the present verb and the heavy nun become like one word because of the intensity of their combination. We therefore say: if unity of the word were the determining consideration, the waw and ya should not be deleted from لَيَفْعَلُونَّ and لَتَفْعَلِينَّ. If we regard them as two words, it would likewise be appropriate to delete the alif from the dual, because it is a long vowel, just as it was deleted in يَخْشَى اللَّهَ.

وَالنُّونُ الثَّقِيلَةُ فِي الْمُضَارِعِ وَإِنْ كَانَتْ كَلِمَةً مُسْتَقِلَّةً، لَكِنْ لِأَجْلِ شِدَّةِ الِامْتِزَاجِ بَيْنَهُمَا - الْمُضَارِعُ وَالنُّونُ الثَّقِيلَةُ - صَارَتَا كَلِمَةً وَاحِدَةً، فَلِذَا نَقُولُ: لَوْ كَانَ الِاعْتِبَارُ لِوَحْدَةِ الْكَلِمَةِ لَكَانَ يَنْبَغِي أَنْ لَا تُحْذَفَ الْوَاوُ وَالْيَاءُ مِنْ “لَيَفْعَلُونَّ وَلَتَفْعَلِينَّ”، وَإِنِ اعْتَبَرْنَاهُمَا كَلِمَتَيْنِ فَكَانَ مِنَ الْمُنَاسِبِ حَذْفُ الْأَلِفِ أَيْضًا مِنَ التَّثْنِيَةِ؛ لِأَنَّهَا حَرْفُ الْمَدَّةِ، كَمَا حُذِفَتْ فِي “يَخْشَى اللَّهَ”.

As for the Basrans’ statement, ‘The alif was not deleted for fear that the dual would necessarily be confused with the singular,’ it is a weak statement. Ambiguity cannot be escaped, for many words become confused with others after weak-letter modification. For example, تَدْعِينَ for the singular feminine second person becomes confused with the feminine plural of the second person after weak-letter modification. This occurs in every form of the defective verb, whether its middle radical has kasrah or fathah and whether it is basic or augmented. How, then, can ambiguity be escaped? Why did this ambiguity not prevent weak-letter modification in these forms?

وَأَمَّا قَوْلُ الْبَصْرِيِّينَ: “إِنَّ الْأَلِفَ لَمْ تُحْذَفْ خَوْفًا مِنْ لُزُومِ الْتِبَاسِ الْمُثَنَّى بِالْوَاحِدِ”، فَكَلَامٌ وَاهٍ؛ لِأَنَّهُ لَا يُمْكِنُ الْفِرَارُ مِنَ الِالْتِبَاسِ، فَكَثِيرٌ مِنَ الْكَلِمَاتِ تَلْتَبِسُ بِأُخْرَى بَعْدَ الْإِعْلَالِ، مَثَلًا: “تَدْعِينَ” وَاحِدُ الْمُؤَنَّثِ الْحَاضِرِ يَلْتَبِسُ بِجَمْعِ الْمُؤَنَّثِ الْحَاضِرِ بَعْدَ الْإِعْلَالِ، وَهَذَا فِي جَمِيعِ أَبْوَابِ النَّاقِصِ مَكْسُورَ الْعَيْنِ كَانَ أَوْ مَفْتُوحَهَا، وَمُجَرَّدًا كَانَ أَوْ مَزِيدًا فِيهِ، فَكَيْفَ الْفِرَارُ مِنَ الِالْتِبَاسِ؟ وَلِمَاذَا لَمْ يَصِرْ هَذَا الِالْتِبَاسُ مَانِعًا عَنِ الْإِعْلَالِ فِي هَذِهِ الصِّيَغِ؟

As for the statement that the dual differs from the singular and indicates multiplicity, this is a purely arbitrary assertion, because the plural is also like this. How can ambiguity be permitted in one and not permitted in the other?

وَأَمَّا الْقَوْلُ بِـ”أَنَّ التَّثْنِيَةَ مُغَايِرَةٌ لِلْوَاحِدِ وَدَالَّةٌ عَلَى التَّعَدُّدِ“، فَهَذَا تَحَكُّمٌ مَحْضٌ؛ لِأَنَّ الْجَمْعَ أَيْضًا هَكَذَا، فَجَوَازُ الِالْتِبَاسِ فِي وَاحِدٍ وَعَدَمُ جَوَازِهِ فِي آخَرَ كَيْفَ يُمْكِنُ؟

By way of concession, we ask: may two quiescent letters meet in order to avoid ambiguity, or not? If the answer is ‘yes,’ the light nun should also occur in the dual. If the answer is ‘no,’ the dual must not be emphasized with the heavy nun and neither of the two would be valid. So produce a way out.

وَعَلَى سَبِيلِ التَّنَزُّلِ نَقُولُ: هَلْ يَجُوزُ اجْتِمَاعُ السَّاكِنَيْنِ اجْتِنَابًا عَنِ الِالْتِبَاسِ أَمْ لَا؟ فَلَوْ كَانَ الْجَوَابُ بِـ”نَعَمْ” يَنْبَغِي أَنْ تَأْتِيَ الْخَفِيفَةُ أَيْضًا فِي التَّثْنِيَةِ، وَإِنْ كَانَ الْجَوَابُ بِـ”لَا” يَلْزَمُ أَنْ لَا يُؤَكَّدَ الْمُثَنَّى بِالثَّقِيلَةِ وَلَا يَصِحُّ أَيٌّ مِنْهُمَا، فَهَاتُوا مَخْرَجًا.

If you say, ‘The light nun does not occur in the dual; if the heavy nun also did not occur, how could it be emphasized?’ we reply: this statement is also extremely weak, because emphasis is not confined to the nun alone. Emphasis can also be achieved by another method. Do you not see that the comparative or superlative noun is not formed directly from a color, a defect, or a verb other than the basic triliteral? They devised a second method for it, namely placing the expression أَشَدَّ at the beginning of an accusative verbal noun from any verb whose comparative or superlative form you wish to express.

فَإِنْ قُلْتُمْ: “إِنَّ الْخَفِيفَةَ لَا تَأْتِي فِي التَّثْنِيَةِ فَلَوْ لَمْ تَأْتِ الثَّقِيلَةُ أَيْضًا، فَمَا سَبِيلُ تَوْكِيدِهِ؟” فَنَقُولُ: هَذَا الْقَوْلُ أَيْضًا ضَعِيفٌ جِدًّا؛ لِأَنَّ التَّأْكِيدَ لَيْسَ مُنْحَصِرًا فِي النُّونِ فَقَطْ، بَلْ يُمْكِنُ التَّأْكِيدُ بِطَرِيقٍ آخَرَ أَيْضًا، أَلَا تَرَى أَنَّ اسْمَ التَّفْضِيلِ لَا يَأْتِي مِنْ لَوْنٍ وَعَيْبٍ وَمِنْ غَيْرِ الثُّلَاثِيِّ الْمُجَرَّدِ، فَإِنَّهُمْ اخْتَرَعُوا لَهُ طَرِيقًا ثَانِيًا، وَهُوَ: الْإِتْيَانُ بِلَفْظِ “أَشَدَّ” فِي بِدَايَةِ مَصْدَرٍ مَنْصُوبٍ، مِنْ أَيِّ فِعْلٍ إِذَا شِئْتَ اسْمَ التَّفْضِيلِ مِنْهُ.