[b-hebrew] Stress

Isaac Fried if at math.bu.edu
Tue Oct 9 06:36:01 EDT 2007


The ending -UN = -HUN in YAD(-UN is a variant of the independent  
personal pronoun HEN otherwise used as a stand alone to designate a  
group of females. In contrast, in $MAR-U-M, and $MAR-U-N, the -U =  
HU) is for the plurality of the guardians, and -M = HEM and -N=HEN  
are for the plurality of the guarded. Notice also the difference  
between $AMAR-NU, 'we guarded' and $MAR-A-NU, 'he guarded us'.
The form -ON for an individual is found in XAR-ON, '[it is] anger',  
XESR-ON, '[it is] lack', XIPAZ-ON, '[it is] haste', and more.  
Possibly also in )AS-ON, 'calamity', )AT-ON, 'she-ass', and more. The  
radical/pronoun nature of the H,A,M,N,T,Y consonants of the detached  
personal pronouns )ANIY, )ATAH, )AT, HU), HIY), )ATEM, )ATEN, HEM,  
HEN is sometimes ambiguous.
The ending -AN [the essential part of ANI, 'I'] is common in spoken  
Hebrew for a person doing something habitually or a thing having some  
inherent property: GAZL-AN, '[he is a] robber', XALB-AN, '[he is a]  
milkman', $AKR-AN, '[he is a] lier', SART-AN, 'crab', POTX-AN, '[it  
is a can] opener', all in accordance with RAXAM-AN-I-O-T = RAXAM-AN- 
HI)-HU)-AT, 'compassionate', of Lamentations 4:10 and XARC-AN,  
'seeds?, kernels?, unripe grapes?' of Numbers 6:4.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Oct 8, 2007, at 10:40 AM, <pporta at oham.net> <pporta at oham.net> wrote:

>> 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