[b-hebrew] Final nun
if at math.bu.edu
Wed Oct 10 22:13:09 EDT 2007
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>
>>> 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
>>> independent', (ACMA)-I-T = (ACMA)-HI)-AT, '[she is] independent',
>>> (ACM-AH = (ACMA-HI), 'strength', (CM-AT, '[the] strength [of]',
>>> U-T = (ACM-HU)-AT, 'essence', (ACM-I = 'self', (ACM-I-U-T = (ACM-
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>>> 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