Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On 11/16/06, Vadim Cherny wrote:
> From: "Yitzhak Sapir"
> > Furthermore, the suffix -na appears to be original to both and
> > if dropped, it was first dropped in the third person feminine
> > conjugation.
>
> Another possibility is that suffix -na is actually a "polite imperative" na
> which follows the verbs, like tictov  na.

Not really.  The "polite" suffix word is in my opinion probably related to
a verb form that ended in -n.  In any case, it is a development of only
some Semitic languages, whereas the -na that follows the feminine
plurals is original to Semitic.  Even Hebrew recognizes the difference,
whereby the feminine plural conjugation suffix is spelled "nh" while the
"polite" suffix is spelled "n)".

Yitzhak Sapir