The Predicate of Mā and Lā Resembling Laysa

1. The Predicates of Mā and Lā

فَصْلٌ: خَبَرُ مَا وَلَا الْمُشَبَّهَتَيْنِ بِـ«لَيْسَ»: هُوَ الْمُسْنَدُ بَعْدَ دُخُولِهِمَا، نَحْوُ: «مَا زَيْدٌ قَائِمًا، وَلَا رَجُلٌ حَاضِرًا».
Translation: The predicate after mā and lā that resemble laysa is the part that supplies the predication; for example, Zayd is not standing, and no man is present.

Here mā and lā negate the statement. Under the conditions discussed by the author, they operate like laysa: their noun remains nominative and their predicate is accusative.

2. Full Parsing: Mā Zaydun Qāʾiman

«مَا زَيْدٌ قَائِمًا» = Zayd is not standing.
mā: negative particle operating here like laysa.
Zaydun: ism mā, nominative with a visible ḍammah.
qāʾiman: khabar mā, accusative with fatḥah and tanwīn.
There is no lexical verb that makes Zayd a fāʿil; Zayd is the noun governed by this negative particle.

3. Full Parsing: Lā Rajulun Ḥāḍiran

«لَا رَجُلٌ حَاضِرًا» = No man is present.
lā resembles laysa in this example.
rajulun is its nominative noun; ḥāḍiran is its accusative predicate.
Do not confuse this with «لَا رَجُلَ حَاضِرٌ», the separate construction of lā of generic negation.

4. Predicate and Subject of Predication

Musnad ilayh is what the statement is about (Zayd); musnad is what is said about it (standing).
The khabar of mā/lā is the predicate following the negative governing particle.
«مَا زَيْدٌ قَائِمًا» denies Zayd’s being upright; it does not deny that Zayd exists.

5. Before and After Mā

«زَيْدٌ قَائِمٌ» has two nominative elements: mubtadaʾ and khabar.
«مَا زَيْدٌ قَائِمًا» has a nominative ism mā but an accusative khabar mā.
The predicate changes to fatḥah because this mā performs the governing action associated with laysa.

6. Three Cases that Cancel Mā’s Governance

وَإِنْ وَقَعَ الْخَبَرُ بَعْدَ «إِلَّا» نَحْوُ: «مَا زَيْدٌ إِلَّا قَائِمٌ»، أَوْ تَقَدَّمَ الْخَبَرُ عَلَى الِاسْمِ، نَحْوُ: «مَا قَائِمٌ زَيْدٌ»، أَوْ زِيدَتْ «إِنْ» بَعْدَ «مَا»، نَحْوُ: «مَا إِنْ زَيْدٌ قَائِمٌ»، بَطَلَ الْعَمَلُ، كَمَا رَأَيْتَ فِي الْأَمْثِلَةِ.
Translation: If the predicate follows illā, or precedes the noun, or an added in comes after mā, then the governing action ceases, as shown in the examples.

The source states these three cases together; the following slides parse them separately.

7. Parsing: Mā Zaydun Illā Qāʾimun

«مَا زَيْدٌ إِلَّا قَائِمٌ»
mā: negative but non-governing here.
Zaydun: nominative mubtadaʾ.
illā: particle expressing restriction.
qāʾimun: nominative khabar of the mubtadaʾ.
The form is not qāʾiman because the source explicitly cancels mā’s governance in this construction.

8. Restriction and Case Are Different

In «مَا زَيْدٌ إِلَّا قَائِمٌ», illā expresses restriction while the predicate stays nominative.
Do not automatically analyze every word after illā as an accusative exception. Here qāʾimun is the predicate, not an accusative mustathnā.

9. Fronted Predicate: Source Example

Source example: «مَا قَائِمٌ زَيْدٌ»
Translation: Zayd is not standing.

The predicate qāʾimun comes first. The source’s rule cancels the governance, so the fronted khabar remains nominative.

10. Parsing: Mā Qāʾimun Zaydun

«مَا قَائِمٌ زَيْدٌ»
mā: non-governing negative particle.
qāʾimun: fronted nominative khabar.
Zaydun: delayed nominative mubtadaʾ.
Fronting the predicate prevents the accusative governance in this source construction.

11. Two Word Orders, Two Case Analyses

«مَا زَيْدٌ قَائِمًا»: noun first; mā governs, so khabar is accusative.
«مَا قَائِمٌ زَيْدٌ»: predicate first; mā does not govern, so both predicate and mubtadaʾ are nominative.
Case endings help identify the construction rather than just word order.

12. Added In after Mā: Source Example

Source example: «مَا إِنْ زَيْدٌ قَائِمٌ»
Translation: Zayd is not standing.

The added in after mā blocks its governance. Zaydun and qāʾimun therefore remain nominative.

13. Parsing: Mā In Zaydun Qāʾimun

«مَا إِنْ زَيْدٌ قَائِمٌ»
mā: negative, not governing here.
in: added particle; it is not inna with accusative governance.
Zaydun: nominative mubtadaʾ.
qāʾimun: nominative predicate.
Do not confuse this in with «إِنَّ زَيْدًا قَائِمٌ», which has a different particle and case pattern.

14. In versus Inna

«مَا إِنْ زَيْدٌ قَائِمٌ» uses added in with sukūn; Zayd remains a mubtadaʾ.
«إِنَّ زَيْدًا قَائِمٌ» uses inna with shaddah, a particle that makes Zayd its accusative noun.
Always distinguish these two particles by form, meaning and governance.

15. Three Reasons the Governance Ends

1. illā stands before the predicate: «مَا زَيْدٌ إِلَّا قَائِمٌ».
2. The khabar is fronted: «مَا قَائِمٌ زَيْدٌ».
3. Added in follows mā: «مَا إِنْ زَيْدٌ قَائِمٌ».
The predicate is nominative in all three source examples, not accusative.

16. Hijazi and Tamimi Usage

وَهَذَا لُغَةُ أَهْلِ الْحِجَازِ، وَأَمَّا بَنُو تَمِيمٍ فَلَا يُعْمِلُونَهُمَا أَصْلًا.
Translation: This is the usage of the people of the Hijaz; Banū Tamīm, however, do not give these two particles governing force at all.

The author reports two classical dialectal practices. They differ in case government without changing the basic negative meaning.

17. Mā: Hijazi versus Tamimi

Hijazi: «مَا زَيْدٌ قَائِمًا»; qāʾiman is an accusative khabar mā.
Tamimi: «مَا زَيْدٌ قَائِمٌ»; mā is non-governing and both mubtadaʾ and khabar are nominative.
Both deny standing; the case contrast reflects the classical dialectal analysis.

18. Lā: Two Case Patterns

Governing lā resembling laysa: «لَا رَجُلٌ حَاضِرًا» (nominative noun, accusative predicate).
Non-governing lā: «لَا رَجُلٌ حَاضِرٌ» (nominative mubtadaʾ and khabar).
Generic-negative lā: «لَا رَجُلَ حَاضِرٌ» is a third construction with a noun built on fatḥ; do not blend the analyses.

19. The Source’s Tamimi Verse

وَمُهَفْهَفٍ كَالْغُصْنِ قُلْتُ لَهُ انْتَصِبْ، فَأَجَابَ: «مَا قَتْلُ الْمُحِبِّ حَرَامٌ».
Translation: I told a slender figure, like a branch, to stand upright. He replied: “The killing of a lover is not forbidden.”

This is literary hyperbole. It is cited as grammatical evidence of non-governing mā, not as a moral or legal assertion.

20. Why the Verse Has Ḥarāmun

«مَا قَتْلُ الْمُحِبِّ حَرَامٌ»
mā: negative and non-governing in the Tamimi reading.
qatlu: nominative mubtadaʾ in iḍāfa.
al-muḥibbi: genitive muḍāf ilayh.
ḥarāmun: nominative predicate.
The source quotes this verse precisely to illustrate a nominative predicate after non-governing mā.

21. Exactly What the Poem Proves

The grammatical point is the nominative predicate ḥarāmun after mā.
That ending illustrates non-governing mā. The imagery of the couplet and its syntactic evidence should be kept separate.

22. A Practical Decision Sequence

For a new example, ask in order:
1. Is mā/lā negative?
2. Is the predicate fronted?
3. Does illā precede it?
4. Is added in placed after mā?
5. Which classical usage is intended?
Then determine whether the predicate is accusative or nominative.

23. Supplementary Example: The Student

Supplementary example: «مَا الطَّالِبُ مُجْتَهِدًا» = The student is not hardworking.
mā governs like laysa.
al-ṭālibu is its nominative noun.
mujtahidan is its accusative predicate.
This ending reflects the governing construction, not an inherent property of the word.

24. Supplementary Example: After Illā

Supplementary example: «مَا الطَّالِبُ إِلَّا مُجْتَهِدٌ» = The student is indeed hardworking (and nothing else is asserted here).
mā is non-governing; al-ṭālibu is mubtadaʾ, illā restricts the predication, and mujtahidun is nominative khabar.
Compare mujtahidan without illā and mujtahidun with it.

25. Supplementary Example: Fronted Khabar

Supplementary example: «مَا مُجْتَهِدٌ الطَّالِبُ» = The student is not hardworking.
mā: non-governing negative.
mujtahidun: nominative fronted predicate.
al-ṭālibu: delayed nominative mubtadaʾ.
Under the source’s rule, moving the predicate before the noun prevents mā’s governance.

26. Common Error: Negation Does Not Fix Case

Not all negative sentences take the same case ending.
«مَا زَيْدٌ قَائِمًا» has an accusative predicate.
«مَا زَيْدٌ إِلَّا قَائِمٌ» and «مَا إِنْ زَيْدٌ قَائِمٌ» have nominative predicates.
«مَا زَيْدٌ قَائِمٌ» is nominative in the Tamimi usage described by the source.
Negation of meaning and syntactic governance are separate issues.

27. Common Error: Three Kinds of Lā

Lā resembling laysa: «لَا رَجُلٌ حَاضِرًا» — nominative noun, accusative predicate.
Lā of generic negation: «لَا رَجُلَ حَاضِرٌ» — built noun in accusative position, nominative predicate.
Non-governing lā: «لَا رَجُلٌ حَاضِرٌ» — nominative mubtadaʾ and predicate.
The letters lā alone do not determine which pattern is present.

28. Same Topic, Different Grammar

Negation alone does not determine a case ending.
Governing mā: «مَا زَيْدٌ قَائِمًا».
Mā with illā: «مَا زَيْدٌ إِلَّا قَائِمٌ»; this construction additionally expresses restriction.
Tamimi non-governing mā: «مَا زَيْدٌ قَائِمٌ».
Always consider both the syntax and the specific meaning, including restriction with illā.

29. Summary: When Is Khabar Accusative?

1. When mā/lā resemble laysa and govern, their predicate is accusative.
2. The source cancels that governance after illā, on predicate fronting, or when added in follows mā.
3. In the Tamimi usage mentioned by the book, neither particle governs, so ordinary nominative mubtadaʾ–khabar analysis applies.
4. Generic-negative lā remains a separate chapter.