Biblical Hebrew Forum

[<pporta AT oham.net>]

[IF]

And if -AH, -AT, -ET, -IT are not gender markers, what inherently are they? 
They must be something well defined within the language. 

In YI-$LAX, 'he will send' the prefixed YI is according to your way of 
thinking a person-tense-gender [male] marker, but this same YI becomes a 
person-gender [female]-mode marker in $ALX-IY, 'send away!'. 

[PP]

You are right as regards YI-$LAX. But you are wrong in saying that "this same 
YI ... in $ALX-IY"
Indeed, it is not here YI but, as yourself write, IY. These YI and IY are not 
the same thing... Even if the consonant is the same, the combination is just 
the reverse of one another! (In English --and in most languages- a 'cane' and 
 'acne' are not the same thing ...)


[IF]

DAT-IY [after Esther 1:13] is 'religious man' but also, surprise, surprise, 
'my religion'. What are then all these IY-YI?  It calls for a decisive 
explanation. 

[PP]

Yes. This is what I'm trying to do through my work. See for instance 
www.oham.net/out/P-t/P-t186.html where the prefix YI is fully defined as 
regards cases where it comes together with the vowel pattern sheva and patah 
following it. 


"Indeed [in the] Hebrew language things are complex and by no means simple" 
will not do. To the contrary, Hebrew is an absolutely systematic and 
transparent language. Any part of any of its words can, and need be, fully 
and clearly accounted for in the context of the language itself.

[PP]

I think, Isaac, that Hebrew is systematic. But not to the point that this 
systematization is, as you write, "absolute". There is a good regularity in 
the inner nature of most Hebrew words and structures but there are also 
deviations, exceptions and rarities. 

Pere Porta
Barcelona (Spain)

   

  Isaac Fried, Boston University
    Isaac, 
    I think we agree. Indeed Hebrew language things are complex and by no 
means simple... 
    You ask: Any person marker in DIBER?  And one could answer: No person 
marker here so that we could say that when there is no person marker... then 
the IMPLIED person marker is that of third person singular masculine. 
    But... then... what about, say, these Imperative forms with no explicit 
person marker such as $:LAX!, send! (1Sa 20:31) or $:)AL!, ask! (1Ki 3:5) 
that refer to second -and no more to third-  person singular masculine? 
    Maybe could we say here that the sheva after the first root consonant is 
the person marker? Look at www.oham.net/out/N-t/N-t017.F.2.html


    So the above assertion  -no person marker = third person singular 
masculine-   would be true only for the Past or Perfect... 



    [IF]
    Indeed, it is inconceivable that the ancient Hebrews would have 
encumbered, say, ')ADAM-AH, 'earth' with the "suffix" -AH just to inform us 
about something that is utterly irrelevant, and that springs into existence 
post factum only by dint of the -AH affixation, namely the "gender" of 
'earth'. To the contrary, after -AH is added, for whatever reason, the noun 
becomes classified as "feminine" in the sense of requiring a matching coupler 
ending for a qualifier as in )ADAM-AH TOB-AH, or as in D)AGAH (AMUQ-AH, 'deep 
worry', and so on.

    [PP]

    Yes, I think you are right.

    [IF]

    Local conclusion: -AH, -AT, -ET, -IT are not gender markers. 

    [PP]

    You  --we--- should better say that -AH, -AT, -ET, -IT are this and this 
and this... and ALSO gender markers.

    The -AH in the noun "DIBRAH" you mentionned is a good example of gender 
marker. We find other samples in Ne 8:12; 13:5 or in Is 1:21.
    But... even here we must be careful: in numbers... final -AH means 
masculine (look at Lv 27:6, five shekels)

    [IF]
    Global conclusion: Hebrew does not have a marker specific for gender.   


    [PP]

    True. But even if it has no specific marker for gender... it has some 
gender markers such as 

    1. -AT ---------  PIQAXAT, (female) seer (not in the Bible) <> PIQ"AX, 
(male) seer or seeing (Ex 4:11) or YODA(AT, (female) who knows (Nm 31:17) <> 
YOD"(A, (male) who knows (Js 22:22)

    2. -ET ---------- )AXERET, other (female) (last word in Gn 17:21) as 
compared to )AX"R, other (male) (last word in Rt 2:22) or GAXELET, hot 
coal(s) (Is 47:14) (root: gxl, kindle, burn)

    3. -IYT --------- $"NIYT, second (female) (last word in Lv 13:5) as 
compared with $"NIY, second (male) (last word in Gn 1:8)

    and as it will be clear from the explanation pages I'm being making ready 
(for the pattern type look for instance at www.oham.net/out/S-t/S-t1904.html

    none of these -AT, -ET or -IYT refer to a male (1). 

    (1) There is perhaps the exception of Qal Imperative, second person 
masculine singular, of some verbs: GA(AT, touch! (you, male) and the -AT or 
-ET marking the construct state in some cases as that we find in Js 1:11: 
$:lo$et yamym, three days.


    Pere Porta
    Barcelona (Spain)
       

      Isaac Fried, Boston University

        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: pporta AT oham.net 
        To: Isaac Fried 
        Cc: b-hebrew Hebrew 
        Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 9:20 PM
        Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Replaying



        It has been my experience of many years that planting a new idea is 
easy but supplanting an existing idea is nigh impossible. Planted ideas are 
the MASMROT NTU(IM of Ecclesiastes 12:11. Explaining is also best done 
interactively.

        Yes. 

        You appear to agree with David that "gender-marking is not 
person-marking!", so pray, explain to me first what is in your opinion a 
Hebrew "gender-marking", 

        "Gender-marker" is every "device" that tells to the reader or the 
listener which is the gender of the being/thing (person, object, animal, mind 
being...) dealt with.

        And so,

        1. A final -AH is a "gender-marker" in "na(arAH", girl (Rt 2:6), 
compared with "na(ar", boy (Gen 37:2)
        2. A final -T is a "gender-marker" in "(omedeT" (Hag 2:5) compared 
with "(omed" (Gen 18:8)


        what is a Hebrew "person-marking", and why "gender-marking IS NOT [or 
can not be] person-marking".

        "Person-marker" is every "device" that tells to the reader or the 
listener which is the person (I, you, he, we...) who/which speaks, acts... 
and so on...

        Thus,

        1. A final -TY is a "person-marker" in "dibarTY", I spoke (Js 1:3) 
compared with "diber", he spoke (Gen 18:8)
        2. An initial "Yi" is a "person-marker" AND at a time a 
"tense-marker" in "yishlax", he will send (Gn 3:22) compared with 'shalax", 
he sent.
        2. A final -U is a "person-marker" in "dibrU", they spoke (Gn 45:15), 
compared with "diber", he spoke (Gen 

        Person-markers apply to verbs (or verb forms) and personal pronouns. 

        and why "gender-marking IS NOT [or can not be] person-marking".

        These are two quite different concepts. The same as this: color and 
thickness are differents things or concepts... and they can be found 
coexisting together in a given object, let us say in a piece of chalk (a blue 
thick piece of chalk or a thick blue piece of chalk) or not... 
        Now, can a color be or become thickness?  Surely no!  
        Can thickness be or become a color?  Surely no!

        What can you argue against this? 

        Pere Porta
        Barcelona (Spain)

         
          [cut]


        __________ NOD32 1.1365 (20060114) Information __________

        This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
        http://www.eset.com



    __________ NOD32 1.1365 (20060114) Information __________

    This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
    http://www.eset.com