[b-hebrew] Final nun

Isaac Fried if at math.bu.edu
Wed Oct 10 22:13:09 EDT 2007


Pere,

The attached personal pronoun is universal and need not correspond to  
the referential status of the unattached. Hence DOD-AN is DOD HEN,  
'their [female] uncle'. But, as a noun, DOD-AN is '[male] cousin',  
with the personal pronoun -AN standing now for the person himself.  
For a girl it is DOD-AN-I-T = DOD-AN-HI)-AT, for the one, and DOD-AN- 
I-O-T for the many. In the Hebrew bible we find )ALM-AN, 'widowed' in  
Jeremiah 51:5, and XA$M-AN in Psalms 68:32.
New nouns are created in Hebrew from one root by adding personal  
pronouns. What exactly the BIT-AN of Esther 1:5 is I don't know. In  
spoken Hebrew a BIT-AN is 'a booth', by the [surely erroneous]  
understanding that -AN is for tiny, as in QATAN. Is $ULX-AN, 'table'  
a variant [for a big one?] of a lost $ULAX? Is it so also for )IYL- 
AN, 'tree'? And what about the DARB-AN of 1 Samuel 13:21, and the  
GARZ-EN of Deuteronomy 20:19?
In Ezra 6:4 we find NI-DBAK, 'stone course', with the antecedent  
personal pronoun NI-. Also NE-BRA$-TA), 'lamp-stand [of many arms?]',  
in Daniel 5:5.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Oct 10, 2007, at 12:38 AM, <pporta at oham.net> <pporta at oham.net> wrote:

>
>
> 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:
>>>
>>>> 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