[b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Vol 110, Issue 15
Nir cohen - Prof. Mat.
nir at ccet.ufrn.br
Tue Feb 21 22:15:59 EST 2012
some suffixes are used as grammatical, some not.
the -UN ending is grammatical. as far as i know it was the regular
proto NW semitic second millenium third person plural. it was preserved
in aramaic but in BH was replaced by -U and was used only as a poetic
synonym for it. the difference between the two is significant because
one is possibly MILEL, the other, always MILRA.
the -EHU vs -ENU ending is also attested in some aramaic texts (maybe also
canaanite) as well as forms considered "energetic repetition" like -NNHW. some
authors see these as grammatically distinct.
i suspect the -H in
HEM-HEMAH has no grammatical role, though it is derived from the directional.
and in $UVAH it is used as volitive (a marginally grammatical use).
the -EMW ending, as synonymous for -EM, the subject of this thread,
might be similarly non-grammatical, and similarly to -WN vs -W, changes the
stress on the word. i am not aware of NW semitic evidence
for the extra -W. as far as i know, it could be invented for mere BH poetic
reasons. correct me if i'm wrong, but this is what i was referring to in the
i cannot see LAMO as divided into LA+MO, as i understand you suggest,
since M is part of the HEM-suffix. rather, as LA-HEM-O, with poetic dropping
of the middle H and a non-grammatical W-suffix.
BI: the BIY in "in me" is clearly the phoneme B: ("in") with the
grammatical suffix IY ("me"). now, in the use BIY ADONIY i believe there is no
agreement on the etymology, and maybe we shall never know. if you ask me, it
is a short form of the aramaic B(Y ("i ask/beg"), in which case it has nothing
to do with suffix. but this is mere speculation: i do not know if this use is
attested in aramaic itself.
De: Isaac Fried <if at math.bu.edu>
Cópia: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
Para: "Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir at ccet.ufrn.br>
Data: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:30:17 -0500
Assunto: Re: [b-hebrew] -HM vs -MW suffix
It is all Biblical Hebrew, but the HB contains different parallel
grammatical forms and constructions. The commonly suffixed personal
pronoun is -U as in TA-$UB-U (containing three personal pronouns)
תשובו of Jos. 23:12, but also, more rarely, -UN as in T$UBUN of
1Ki. 9:6. What prompted the editor to use -UN instead of -U is not
clear to me, the same way it is not clear to me why he prefers to use
in Ex. 9:25 $IBER שִבֵּר instead of $ABAR (I don't believe, not
even for a moment that piel represents a "strong" action.)
In the spoken Hebrew of today -UN is out.
When you say that, say, -IY is a suffix you are only implying that it
is not radical. For example, BIY as in BIY ADONIY of Nu. 12:11. If -
IY is here a suffix, then the word (or macro-word) is of the single-
consonant root B, corresponding to the English 'be', with something
attached to it. But what is this something, is it the same thing as
in BIY, 'in me', of 2Sam. 14:33?
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Feb 20, 2012, at 7:13 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. wrote:
> remember, the subject is BIBLICAL hebrew.
> nir cohen
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 21:28:04 -0500, Isaac Fried wrote
> > Different forms, previously current, for the personal pronouns
> are now preserved only in
> > attachment, as the -UN for HEM הם in ISAUNKA ישאונך HI-SA-
> UN-AKAH, 'they (shall) bear thee',
> > of Ps. 91:12.
> > Another example is TA$LIKUN = TA-$L-I-K-UN תשליכון 'ye
> (shall) cast it' of Ex. 22:30.
> > And "why not -W?". Now it is, indeed, shortened to a mere U.
> > Isaac Fried, Boston University
> > On Feb 17, 2012, at 3:29 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. wrote:
>> many other letters are used as suffixes, as in YSSWN. so, why not -W?
More information about the b-hebrew