if at math.bu.edu
Wed Oct 3 07:52:18 EDT 2007
You are saying:
"This theory is all the more unusual for the NXXXH forms, as when the
verb is already in the plural"
You may be right that it is "unusual" in the sense of not being in
the traditional grammar books, but it is unavoidable. We have no
choice but to explain the nature of this extra AH within a systematic
context and reason of Hebrew grammar. The Hebrew language is logical,
systematic and transparent. There is not a "pips" in the Hebrew
language that is not grammatically meaningful and logically
explainable. I am sorry but I refuse to accept the idea that the
ancient Hebrews idiosyncratically distorted and bloated
["paragogized"] their words not according to inherent grammatical
logic but just "for purely poetic reasons". I can not agree with the
argument that the ancient Hebrews inflated a word by a certain
mysterious process of agglutination or HE-HI-zation just to make it
look or sound more important, or endowed with some ephemeral
additional shade of meaning such as "urgency".
As free thinking men it is our right and duty to boldly question the
most cherished assumptions of the traditional Hebrew grammar books.
If you discard the notion, which I do without a shred of hesitation,
that the additional -HA in RIYB-AH is clumsily stuck there just for
extra volume and vocal effect, then what is it? It must be what it
always is, the universal personal pronoun HI) as for instance in:
YALDAH = YALD-HI), 'a girl, girl-she'.
YALDAH = YALD-HI), 'she gave birth, gave-birth-she'.
YALDAH = YALD-HI), 'her YELED, her son, son-she'.
It is true that the last H is mupeket, but this internal speck is a
mere minimal graphical mark anciently dropped into the letter to
remind us of the discriminating nature of this final H. Those, who
with great fanfare and deliberation cough out a H mupeket do it on
their own cognizance. In fact, I am put off by this, occasionally
heard, fanny barking out of the H mupeket.
Language is full of apparent redundancies. You may ask why is it PARX-
AH HA-GEPEN and not PARAX HA-GEPEN, is GEPEN a woman? And why do we
say HEM YA-$IR-U, they will sing', and not HEM YA$IR? The extra
personal pronoun U = HU) following YA-$IR is obviously superfluous
since HEM, 'they', is already clearly declaring the number. Give me a
free hand and I will slash for you eighty percent of the English
grammar without so much as a shade of damage.
Hebrew is in the habit of placing its referential personal pronouns
in front of the root as in NA-RUC = )ANU-RUC, 'we will run', at the
end of the root as in RAC-NU = RAC-)ANU, 'we ran', or at both ends of
the root as in YA-RUC-U = HI)-RUC-HU), 'they will run'. In Psalms
57:8-9 A-$IR-AH =ANI-$IR-HI) is with both pronouns referring to the
speaker, (UR-AH = (UR-HI) is with HI) referring to the dignity
[essence, soul], the lyre and the fiddle [harp]. )A-(IR-AH is again
with both pronouns referring to the speaker.
People are telling me that they "feel" that the last -HA of A-$IR-AH
is for the $IR, as in the $IR-AH = $IR-HI), 'poetry', of Exodus 15:1,
and that the last -AH of )A-(IR-AH is for the $AXAR, 'dawn'.
As for urgency, you can find it everywhere.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Oct 2, 2007, at 1:25 PM, Yaakov Stein wrote:
> I quite agree with you that LKH is not in the plural,
> and didn't mean to imply that it was.
> Sorry if my wording was not clear.
> I furthermore understand your contention that all the terminal
> H (at least in the song of songs) are personal pronouns,
> but disagree. This theory is all the more unusual for
> the NXXXH forms, as when the verb is already in the plural
> it is not clear why the personal pronoun is needed.
> I could accept a theory that the terminating H is purely
> for poetic reasons, or that it is a dialectic ending.
> But when it appears it is always in an urgent context.
> What do you make of Psalms 57 )$YRH,
> (WRH KBWDY and )(YRH $XR ?
> Here there is no partner for a pronoun,
> and once again there is urgency in the context.
> (Once again getting up early in the morning,
> the self-awakening, etc.)
More information about the b-hebrew