[b-hebrew] Study on energic nun ter
if at math.bu.edu
Tue Dec 4 10:24:37 EST 2007
1. On your website page you are saying that the nun is "inserted". To
me this sounds like some intended act of addition. I think the
implication is misleading and appears to actually result from the
fact that this nun is said to be "energic" and therefore supposedly
of some peculiar power or purpose.
3. You are absolutely right in saying that the question if this nun
is "added" or "subtracted" is idle. The nun is just there.
2. I think that we are in agreement on the fact that there is no
difference in the meaning of Y-QIM-E-HA and Y-QIM-E-NAH. They both
3. It stands to reason that the compound YQIMEHA consisted
"originally" of three distinct words HI) QIM HI), 'he-QIM-her', an
act accompanied by two personal pronouns for the actors. With time
the speech economization instinct and the invention of writing,
brought them together into what we see today as a single fused word
with a "prefix" and a "suffix".
4. The initial Y in Y-QIM-E-NAH is thus, in my opinion, a stunted HI)
and the closing NAH [or ANAH] a variant personal pronoun.
5. By saying that T or N are personal pronouns I mean that they are
possibly part of a compound pronoun. In this sense they are either
radicals or identity markers, nothing in between.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:29 AM, <pporta at oham.net> <pporta at oham.net> wrote:
> Do you really believe that the ancient Hebrews had something that
> we are compelled to fancifully call today "energic nun"? You are
> saying that this nun is inserted. But is it not the reverse,
> namely, that this nun was there in the first place and then over
> time dropped out of the form? Should we then mark and call the
> vacated spot "the dropped energic nun fault line", or something
> else to this effect?
> When I write "energic nun" I follow the path of grammars and
> dictionaries at use on this subject. I do not know if this
> "energic" nun was there first and it dropped over time out of the
> (By the way I wonder if there is any way to know this: was the nun
> first? did it come after (supposedly, after -hu)?
> At putting my question I assumed that the "normal", so to say, form
> is ending "hu", while ending "nu" would be somewhat special,
> unusual... perhaps reserved or restricted to some given special
> emphatic cases, etc. That's why I asked.
> Now, if you state that every consonant in Hebrew is either root
> consonant or personal pronoun... and since, methink, this
> "energic" nun is, of itself, neither root consonant nor personal
> pronoun, please tell the list: which is the true role of this
> "energic" nun within your theory?
> Pere Porta
> Barcelona (Spain)
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
> On Dec 2, 2007, at 1:35 PM, <pporta at oham.net> wrote:
>> EXCUSE ME! I'm not skilled in Internet affairs!
>> Does anyone know if someone has studied the case of the endings -ha
>> and -na. -hu and -nu, etc (personal pronouns as suffixes of verb
>> Frequencies, difference of meaning or of shade of meaning, cases
>> where -ha/-hu is used rather than -na/-nu and contrary or reverse
>> cases ...
>> To have under the eyes some sample so that everyone may better
>> what I mean click www.oham.net/out/PIS-d/PIS-d383.html (for -ha) and
>> www.oham.net/out/PIS-d/PIS-d424.html (for -nah)
>> If yes, where is such a study available (either online or in
>> printed form)?
>> Pere Porta
>> Barcelona (Spain)
>> b-hebrew mailing list
>> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the b-hebrew