Biblical Hebrew Forum

[mjoseph <mjoseph AT terminal.cz>]

Matthew Anstey responded to my:

>>So why would (or even, "how could") a speaker of Hebrew write "they (fem.
>>plur.) did (masc. sing.)"?

with:

>Can a "why" question be answered with reference to just textual data in the
>MT? Perhaps sociolinguistics, or some other recent field of study would shed
>light on your question.

Perhaps. Though historical linguistics may at least answer the question 
"how could?"

>Also, how would you explain the shift in English
>nowadays with sentences like this, "The student liked to exercise very much.
>This preference was based on their great stamina." The word "their" does not
>agree in number with "the student," but this is accepted grammar now.

It may be "accepted" (by whom?), but I've certainly never heard it.

>Another example (from Givon) is "If you see anybody there, tell them to ..."
>The "them" used to be unacceptable.

This is a better example, and of course I've heard it. I suspect that in 
this particular case it is a result of reaction to too many times having 
to say "him or her."

Languages change over time (not particularly profound, I know), and at 
least in some cases, inflectional endings are lost. Perhaps that is what 
is going on in the exapmples you gave. But could that *really* explain 
the "W:XF$ (:ATIDOT" in Deut. 32:35d?

>So, I cannot answer your question. But if the language is understandable,
>and communicates, is 100% concord necessary?

No, 100% concords am not necessary. Even a paragraphs with much lacks of 
accords be understandable by y'all. Mine question, though, be not does we 
understand the verse, neither it communicated. The question are rather be 
it possible for persons to talking and writing without concords that be 
built into they from the times they was borned. I says it isn't, 
witnesses many trouble I have had to write this paragraph. Me hope thou 
understanded me point.

Mark Joseph