[b-hebrew] Stress

pporta at oham.net pporta at oham.net
Mon Oct 8 10:40:15 EDT 2007

> If a letter is not
> radical, then it is a personal pronoun.


So, the final (paragogic) N in words like YFD:(WN, they knew (Dt 8:3), is a 
personal pronoun? If yes, please explain it.

Pere Porta
Barcelona (Spain)

Admittedly, it is not much to
> work with, yet Hebrew manages admirably.
> In the word (ACMA)-U-T, 'independence', from the root (CM, the
> endings -U-T = HU)-AT, are two personal pronouns for the thing
> itself. It is to be distinguished from (ACMA)-I = (CMA)-HI), '[he is]
> independent', (ACMA)-I-T = (ACMA)-HI)-AT, '[she is] independent',
> (ACM-AH = (ACMA-HI), 'strength', (CM-AT, '[the] strength [of]', (ACM-
> U-T = (ACM-HU)-AT, 'essence', (ACM-I = 'self', (ACM-I-U-T = (ACM-HI)-
> HU)-AT, '[the] essence [of]'.
> In (ACAM-O-T = (ACAM-HU)-AT, the O = HU) is for the plural and the T
> = AT is for the gender. Sorry, but that's all Hebrew has to work with
> and we need to patiently bear with her.
> Of course, the words (ACMA)UT, 'independence', and (ACAMOT, 'bones'
> are related. They are related by their common progenitor, the root
> (CM, 'to be massive, to be strong, to be substanial'.
> The final H is a personal pronoun, not necessarily feminine. I have a
> well thumbed copy of Zeidel's Hikrei Lashon somewhere here, but I
> need to find it.
> The word "paragogic H" is never going to cross the threshold of my
> lips because it demeans the Hebrew language.
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
> On Oct 6, 2007, at 1:16 PM, Yaakov Stein wrote:
>> Isaac,
>> Please do not misunderstand my statements.
>> I am not sticking blindly to traditional grammar books,
>> and I have a lot of respect for researchers who try to systematically
>> discover the original forms using internal evidence and logical
>> reasoning.
>> However, as a scientist, I am also rather skeptical about theories
>> based on insufficient evidence.
>> To show you what I mean, imagine someone 1000 years from now
>> trying to understand the terminating WT in various words in modern
>> Hebrew.
>> He comes across  )CM)WT  (independence).
>> Someone tells him that the terminating WT is such words is
>> pronounced ut and is different from the terminating WT in
>> )CMWT  (bones) which indicates a plural form.
>> But our researcher is unconvinced. He doesn't believe that Hebrew
>> speakers idiosyncratically distorted and bloated their words,
>> and claims that we can not be sure how the WT was pronounced
>> and that all WT meant plural forms. This leads him to conclude
>> that independence comes from bones, and he theorizes that
>> this derived from Ezekiel's vision of the dry bones.
>> OK, our researcher gets a paper out of this, but WE know that
>> it is nonsense.
>> How can we conclude that ALL terminal H mean feminine forms ?
>> Zeidel (Hikrei Lashon) gives examples of terminal H as an archaic
>> plural form.
>> We certainly have the directive final H.
>> So why is the paragogic H the only one you can't accept ?
>> Y(J)S
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list