[b-hebrew] Final nun

pporta at oham.net pporta at oham.net
Wed Oct 10 00:38:19 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.

  How do you explain these two facts:

  1. The final -N in BYTAN, palace (Est 1:5), built on BAYT, house.
  2. (In modern Hebrew) The final -N in NEKDFN, nephew <> the classical NEKDFN, their grandson (of females), of NEKED, progeny, grandson (Job 18:19)?

  Pere Porta
  Barcelona (Spain)

  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:


        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

        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
        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 ?


      b-hebrew mailing list
      b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list