Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>]

Pere,

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.

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