Ism Inna and the Noun Governed by Lā of Generic Negation

1. Definition of Ism Inna

فَصْلٌ: اسْمُ إِنَّ وَأَخَوَاتِهَا: هُوَ الْمُسْنَدُ إِلَيْهِ بَعْدَ دُخُولِهَا، نَحْوُ: «إِنَّ زَيْدًا قَائِمٌ».
Translation: The noun of inna and its sisters is the entity about which something is predicated after their entry, as in “Indeed, Zayd is standing.”

The ism of inna is the subject of predication after inna or one of its sisters enters. The former mubtadaʾ, once nominative, becomes accusative, while its khabar remains nominative.
Compare «زَيْدٌ قَائِمٌ» and «إِنَّ زَيْدًا قَائِمٌ». The person spoken about has not changed; the case-marking governor has.

2. Complete Parsing: Inna Zaydan Qāʾimun

«إِنَّ زَيْدًا قَائِمٌ»
inna: emphatic particle that governs the accusative; indeclinable.
Zaydan: ism inna, accusative with a visible fatḥah and tanwīn.
qāʾimun: khabar inna, nominative with visible ḍammah.
Meaning: Indeed, Zayd is standing. Zaydan is not an object; inna causes its accusative case.

3. Mubtadaʾ versus Ism Inna

«الطَّالِبُ مُجْتَهِدٌ»: al-ṭālibu is the nominative mubtadaʾ; mujtahidun is its nominative predicate.
«إِنَّ الطَّالِبَ مُجْتَهِدٌ»: al-ṭāliba becomes accusative as ism inna; mujtahidun remains nominative as its predicate.
The grammatical change is triggered by the entrance of a governing particle.

4. Lā of Generic Negation

فَصْلٌ: الْمَنْصُوبُ بِلَا الَّتِي لِنَفْيِ الْجِنْسِ: هُوَ الْمُسْنَدُ إِلَيْهِ بَعْدَ دُخُولِهَا، يَلِيهَا نَكِرَةٌ مُضَافَةٌ.
Translation: The noun put in the accusative by lā of generic negation is the subject of predication following lā, when an indefinite noun in an iḍāfa construction comes immediately after it.

Lā of generic negation denies the presence of any member of a class, not merely one particular person. Under its conditions it governs its noun in the accusative position.
«لَا رَجُلَ فِي الدَّارِ» means “There is no man in the house.”
The author first treats two types of its noun: muḍāf and shabīh bi-l-muḍāf.

5. Conditions for the Working Lā

The source examples show three key checks: the noun is indefinite, it directly follows lā, and its form determines its case treatment.
If the noun is definite or another expression intervenes between it and lā, the special working pattern does not apply here.
Even with an indefinite noun, muḍāf, shabīh bi-l-muḍāf, and single non-construct nouns behave differently.

6. Source Example: Muḍāf

نَحْوُ: «لَا غُلَامَ رَجُلٍ فِي الدَّارِ».
Translation: For example: No man’s servant is in the house.

«لَا غُلَامَ رَجُلٍ فِي الدَّارِ» = No man’s servant is in the house.
ghulāma is the construct noun of lā: accusative rather than built on fatḥ by the non-construct rule.
rajulin is its genitive complement.

7. Full Parsing: Lā Ghulāma Rajulin

«لَا غُلَامَ رَجُلٍ فِي الدَّارِ»
lā: particle of generic negation, functioning as governor.
ghulāma: accusative noun of lā; first term of iḍāfa.
rajulin: genitive second term of iḍāfa.
fī: preposition; al-dāri: genitive noun.
fī l-dāri: adverbial phrase related to the understood nominative predicate of lā.
Do not give both terms of the iḍāfa the same case.

8. Why the Construct Noun Differs

«Lā ghulāma rajulin»: ghulāma is a muḍāf, and is accusative as a declinable noun.
«Lā rajula»: rajula is neither construct nor quasi-construct; it is built on fatḥ in the accusative position.
The visible vowel can look the same, yet “accusative declinable” and “indeclinable in the accusative position” describe different analyses.

9. Source Example: Quasi-Construct

أَوْ مُشَابِهًا لَهَا، نَحْوُ: «لَا عِشْرِينَ دِرْهَمًا فِي الْكِيسِ».
Translation: Or the noun resembles a construct expression, as in: There are not twenty dirhams in the pouch.

The author gives «لَا عِشْرِينَ دِرْهَمًا فِي الْكِيسِ» for the quasi-construct type.
ʿIshrīna needs the following specification “dirhams”; that following noun is an accusative tamyīz, not a genitive muḍāf ilayh.
ʿIshrīna is the noun of lā, accusative with yāʾ.

10. Full Parsing: Lā ʿIshrīna Dirhaman

«لَا عِشْرِينَ دِرْهَمًا فِي الْكِيسِ»
lā: particle of generic negation.
ʿishrīna: its accusative noun, with yāʾ marking the oblique case of twenty.
dirhaman: accusative specification (tamyīz).
fī l-kīsi: prepositional phrase functioning with the implied predicate.
Dirhaman is not a genitive complement here.

11. Construct versus Quasi-Construct

«Lā ghulāma rajulin»: rajulin is a genitive muḍāf ilayh.
«Lā ʿishrīna dirhaman»: dirhaman is an accusative tamyīz.
Both nouns of lā depend on what follows them, but only the first is a true iḍāfa; the second is quasi-construct.

12. Rule for a Single Indefinite Noun

فَإِنْ كَانَ بَعْدَ «لَا» نَكِرَةٌ مُفْرَدَةٌ، تُبْنَى عَلَى الْفَتْحِ، نَحْوُ: «لَا رَجُلَ فِي الدَّارِ».
Translation: If a single indefinite noun follows lā, it is built on fatḥ, as in “There is no man in the house.”

When the noun immediately following lā is an indefinite non-construct, non-quasi-construct expression, the book calls it mufrad in this syntactic sense.
In «لَا رَجُلَ فِي الدَّارِ», rajula is built on fatḥ and occupies the accusative slot as the noun of lā.

13. Full Parsing: Lā Rajula fī l-Dār

«لَا رَجُلَ فِي الدَّارِ»
lā: functioning generic-negation particle.
rajula: noun of lā, built on fatḥ in the accusative position.
fī: preposition; al-dāri: genitive noun.
fī l-dāri: phrase associated with the omitted nominative predicate.
The denial covers any member of the named class.

14. Predicate and Syntactic Position

In «lā rajula fī l-dāri», fī l-dāri provides the predicate meaning, not merely an adjective of rajul.
An implied predicate such as “present” or “existing” can account for the predication.
The phrase retains its internal genitive structure while fulfilling the predicate function.

15. If the Noun Is Definite

وَإِنْ كَانَ مَعْرِفَةً أَوْ نَكِرَةً مَفْصُولًا بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ «لَا»، كَانَ مَرْفُوعًا، وَيَجِبُ تَكْرِيرُ «لَا» مَعَ اسْمٍ آخَرَ.
Translation: If the noun is definite, or is indefinite but separated from lā, it is nominative, and lā must be repeated with another noun in this construction.

The source says that when the noun is definite, the special lā construction does not operate: the noun is nominative, and lā is repeated with another noun.
In «لَا زَيْدٌ فِي الدَّارِ وَلَا عَمْرٌو», Zayd is a proper name, so the nominative form is used.

16. Full Parsing: Lā Zaydun ... wa Lā ʿAmrun

تَقُولُ: «لَا زَيْدٌ فِي الدَّارِ وَلَا عَمْرٌو».
Translation: You say: Neither Zayd nor ʿAmr is in the house.

«لَا زَيْدٌ فِي الدَّارِ وَلَا عَمْرٌو»
lā: negation without the special generic accusative governance.
Zaydun: nominative mubtadaʾ.
fī l-dāri: related to its implied predicate.
wa: conjunction; second lā: repeated negation.
ʿAmrun: nominative coordinated noun, or a second mubtadaʾ with understood predicate.
Neither Zayd nor ʿAmr is at home.

17. When a Phrase Intervenes

وَ«لَا فِي الدَّارِ رَجُلٌ وَلَا امْرَأَةٌ».
Translation: And: There is neither a man nor a woman in the house.

«لَا فِي الدَّارِ رَجُلٌ وَلَا امْرَأَةٌ»: the prepositional phrase fī l-dāri intervenes between lā and the noun.
That separation prevents the special construction: rajulun is nominative, not built on fatḥ as the direct noun of lā.
The source also repeats lā.

18. Full Parsing: Lā fī l-Dāri Rajulun

«لَا فِي الدَّارِ رَجُلٌ وَلَا امْرَأَةٌ»
lā: non-governing negation here.
fī: preposition; al-dāri: genitive noun.
fī l-dāri: associated with a fronted predicate.
rajulun: nominative delayed subject.
wa lā imraʾatun: conjunction, repeated lā, and nominative coordinated noun (or parallel clause).
The nominatives show the absence of the special lā-governance.

19. Two Different Reasons for Nominative

«Lā Zaydun ...» has a definite proper name, preventing the special governance.
«Lā fī l-dāri rajulun ...» has an indefinite noun, but it is separated from lā by a phrase.
Both yield nominative nouns, for different reasons.

20. The Five Readings: Lā Ḥawla wa Lā Quwwata

وَيَجُوزُ فِي مِثْلِ «لَا حَوْلَ وَلَا قُوَّةَ إِلَّا بِاللَّهِ» خَمْسَةُ أَوْجُهٍ: فَتْحُهُمَا، وَرَفْعُهُمَا، وَفَتْحُ الْأَوَّلِ وَنَصْبُ الثَّانِي، وَفَتْحُ الْأَوَّلِ وَرَفْعُ الثَّانِي، وَرَفْعُ الْأَوَّلِ وَفَتْحُ الثَّانِي.
Translation: Five readings are permissible in this expression: both with fatḥ; both nominative; first with fatḥ and second accusative; first with fatḥ and second nominative; or first nominative and second with fatḥ.

The book records five case patterns for «لَا حَوْلَ وَلَا قُوَّةَ إِلَّا بِاللَّهِ», differing in fatḥ, rafʿ, and naṣb on the two nouns.
Study these as established grammatical readings, not a license to change vowels arbitrarily. Start with the familiar built-on-fatḥ pattern.

21. All Five Forms Together

1. fatḥ / fatḥ: لَا حَوْلَ وَلَا قُوَّةَ إِلَّا بِاللَّهِ.
2. rafʿ / rafʿ: لَا حَوْلٌ وَلَا قُوَّةٌ إِلَّا بِاللَّهِ.
3. fatḥ / naṣb: لَا حَوْلَ وَلَا قُوَّةً إِلَّا بِاللَّهِ.
4. fatḥ / rafʿ: لَا حَوْلَ وَلَا قُوَّةٌ إِلَّا بِاللَّهِ.
5. rafʿ / fatḥ: لَا حَوْلٌ وَلَا قُوَّةَ إِلَّا بِاللَّهِ.
The source distinguishes the built-on-fatḥ reading from analyses involving nominative or accusative case.

22. Visible Fatḥ versus Accusative

«lā quwwata» can represent a noun built on fatḥ in the accusative syntactic position.
«lā quwwatan» with tanwīn presents an accusative declinable noun in a different analysis.
A final fatḥah alone does not settle the grammatical classification: distinguish mabnī from muʿrab manṣūb.

23. Parsing the Familiar Formula

«لَا حَوْلَ وَلَا قُوَّةَ إِلَّا بِاللَّهِ» (both with fatḥ)
First lā governs ḥawla, built on fatḥ in the accusative position.
wa connects the clauses; second lā governs quwwata on the same pattern.
illā marks restriction; bi-llāhi is a prepositional phrase attached within the implied predication.
The formula denies independent power or capacity except through Allah.

24. Omitting the Noun of Lā

وَقَدْ يُحْذَفُ اسْمُ «لَا» لِقَرِينَةٍ، نَحْوُ: «لَا عَلَيْكَ»، أَيْ: لَا بَأْسَ عَلَيْكَ.
Translation: The noun of lā may be omitted when the context makes it clear; for instance lā ʿalayka means lā baʾsa ʿalayka (“No harm upon you”).

The book cites «لَا عَلَيْكَ» and explains it as «لَا بَأْسَ عَلَيْكَ» (“No harm is upon you”).
The noun of lā is absent in the surface wording but understood from context. This is ellipsis supported by context.
Do not freely supply an unexpressed noun where no contextual evidence supports it.

25. Parsing Lā ʿAlayka with Ellipsis

The understood expansion of «لَا عَلَيْكَ» is «لَا بَأْسَ عَلَيْكَ».
lā: generic-negation particle.
baʾsa: understood (omitted) noun of lā, built on fatḥ in the accusative position.
ʿalā: preposition; -ka: genitive attached pronoun.
ʿalayka: phrase related to the understood predicate.
This ellipsis is explicitly supported by the book’s paraphrase.

26. Inna and Lā Are Not Identical

«Inna Zaydan qāʾimun»: Zaydan is an accusative declinable ism inna.
«Lā rajula fī l-dāri»: rajula is built on fatḥ in the accusative position.
«Lā ghulāma rajulin ...»: ghulāma is an accusative declinable construct noun of lā.
These analyses differ despite partly similar visible vowels.

27. Working versus Non-Working Lā

Working lā: «لَا رَجُلَ فِي الدَّارِ»; rajula is built on fatḥ in the accusative slot.
Non-working lā, definite noun: «لَا زَيْدٌ ...»; Zaydun is nominative.
Non-working lā, intervening phrase: «لَا فِي الدَّارِ رَجُلٌ ...»; rajulun is nominative.
Check definiteness and adjacency before choosing an analysis.

28. Three Structures of Ism Lā

1. Muḍāf: «لَا غُلَامَ رَجُلٍ» — accusative ghulāma with genitive rajulin.
2. Quasi-construct: «لَا عِشْرِينَ دِرْهَمًا» — ʿishrīna accusative with yāʾ; dirhaman accusative tamyīz.
3. Single non-construct: «لَا رَجُلَ» — rajula built on fatḥ in the accusative position.

Here “single” means non-construct, not necessarily singular in number.

29. Four Common Case-Analysis Errors

1. Calling rajula in «lā rajula» a declinable accusative: it is built on fatḥ in the accusative position.
2. Calling rajulin in «lā ghulāma rajulin» accusative: it is genitive.
3. Calling dirhaman in «lā ʿishrīna dirhaman» genitive: it is an accusative tamyīz.
4. Calling rajulun in «lā fī l-dāri rajulun» a governed accusative: it is a delayed nominative subject.

30. Decision Procedure for New Sentences

For an unfamiliar sentence: 1. Is the noun indefinite or definite?
2. Does anything intervene between lā and its noun?
3. Is the noun a construct, quasi-construct, or single non-construct expression?
4. Distinguish a declinable accusative from an indeclinable form in the accusative position.
5. Identify the predicate, even where it is unexpressed.

31. Added Example: A Construct Noun

«لَا طَالِبَ عِلْمٍ مُهْمِلٌ» = No student of knowledge is negligent.
lā: generic negation.
ṭāliba: accusative construct noun of lā.
ʿilmin: genitive complement.
muhmilun: nominative predicate of lā.

This is an added teaching example, not a quotation from the source.

32. Added Example: A Quasi-Construct Noun

«لَا طَالِبًا عِلْمًا مَلُومٌ» = No seeker of knowledge is blameworthy.
ṭāliban: accusative quasi-construct noun of lā.
ʿilman: accusative object governed by the active participle ṭāliban.
malūmun: nominative predicate of lā.

ʿIlman is not a genitive muḍāf ilayh; the active participle governs it. This is an added teaching example.

33. Added Example: An Intervening Phrase

«لَا عَلَى الطَّاوِلَةِ كِتَابٌ وَلَا دَفْتَرٌ» = There is neither a book nor a notebook on the table.
lā: non-governing negation in this pattern.
ʿalā l-ṭāwilati: prepositional phrase associated with fronted predicate.
kitābun: delayed nominative subject.
wa lā daftarun: coordinated repeated negation and nominative noun.

In «لَا كِتَابَ عَلَى الطَّاوِلَةِ», no phrase intervenes, so kitāba is a built noun of working lā.

34. Consolidation of Inna and Lā Rules

The ism of inna is the accusative subject of predication.
For generic lā, indefinite construct and quasi-construct nouns are accusative; a non-construct single noun is built on fatḥ.
With a definite noun or an intervening phrase, the book gives nominative case and repetition of lā.
The book also records five readings of lā ḥawla wa lā quwwata and the contextual omission of lā’s noun.
The next source chapter concerns the predicates of mā and lā resembling laysa.