אִכּוּן, a new Hebrew word

For discussions which focus upon specific words, their origin, meaning, relationship to other ANE languages.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1591
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

אִכּוּן, a new Hebrew word

Postby Isaac Fried » Fri Mar 20, 2020 5:51 pm

I see today in a Hebrew newspaper that
הוכרז כי יבוצע איכון סלולרי של חולים כדי לדעת היכן היו בשבועיים האחרונים
"Those ill (with the coronavirous) will be tracked by phone (סלולרי cellular) to know their whereabouts in the last two weeks"
The new word אִכּוּן (or איכון), 'location pinpointing', is from the post biblical אַיכָן = אי-כאן, 'where?'.
We notice the the letter כ of אִכּוּן is with a dagesh as it follows a xiriq, to be read IKUN. The niqudless איכון is written in full with a yod, and the letter כ need not have a dagesh in it, and should be read IXUN. Still it is pronounced IKUN with a hard K.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: אִכּוּן, a new Hebrew word

Postby Jason Hare » Sat Mar 21, 2020 7:35 pm

The verb לְאַכֵּן is a simple piel form from the root אכ״ן (alef-kaf-nun) (see the Milog entry for this verb). It was originally אֵיכָן with the first part similar to the אֵי־ in אֵיפֹה "where?" and אֵיזֶה "which?" It was later changed to הֵיכָן, which is what we're used to seeing. Look under the etymology tab here for this information (in Hebrew).

The kaf contains a dagesh because this is the pattern for the shem pe'ulah in piel verbs. It's like דִּבּוּר (from the verb לְדַבֵּר) and אִתּוּר (from the verb לְאַתֵּר).
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian

Isaac Fried
Posts: 1591
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: אִכּוּן, a new Hebrew word

Postby Isaac Fried » Sun Mar 22, 2020 11:59 am

Jason says
The verb לְאַכֵּן is a simple piel form from the root אכ״ן (alef-kaf-nun) (see the Milog entry for this verb).

אִכּוּן is not "from" אכן. Conversely, first there was אִכּוּן and now there is also אכן, obtained from אִכּוּן by removing all vowels.
It was originally אֵיכָן

Yes, it is inspired by אֵיכָן, which is, indeed, a compound starting with אֵי.
The kaf contains a dagesh because this is the pattern for the shem pe'ulah in piel verbs.

This business of "pattern" is not clear to me. The word דִּבּוּר has a dagesh in the letter בּ since it follows a xiriq. The word לְדַבֵּר has a dagesh in the letter בּ since it follows a patax. On the other hand, the word דְּבָרִים is with a dageshless ב.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: אִכּוּן, a new Hebrew word

Postby Jason Hare » Sun Mar 22, 2020 8:23 pm

It's not because it follows chirik (see that דִּבְרֵיהֶם has bet following chirik and no dagesh—there simply is no rule like what you're saying). It's because the dagesh doubles the letter. Piel words have the middle radical doubled, as do hitpael words. This is a common feature of other Semitic languages. Your denial of this fact doesn't make it go away.
Last edited by Jason Hare on Sun Mar 22, 2020 9:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian

User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: אִכּוּן, a new Hebrew word

Postby Jason Hare » Sun Mar 22, 2020 9:48 pm

Isaac Fried wrote:This business of "pattern" is not clear to me.


We see the same pattern in the following:

דִּבּוּר
סִפּוּר
בִּדּוּד
פִּצּוּל
פִּזּוּר
מִזּוּג
קִטּוּר
בִּגּוּד
חִדּוּשׁ
סִפּוּק
בִּצּוּעַ
בִּקּוּר
גִּלּוּחַ


The pattern is constructed as:

קִטּוּל
CONSONANT-chirik (short)-DOUBLED CONSONANT-shuruk-CONSONANT.

This is how the שֵׁם הַפְּעֻלָּה of Piel verbs is formed. It's not by accident that they bear these vowels and contain a dagesh in the middle radical. Each of them has the chirik. Each of them has dagesh. Each of them has shuruk. This is the pattern.

There are some letters that refuse to accept a dagesh in normal situations. The gutturals and resh. Thus, if we have one of those letters in the middle position, the short chirik lengthens to long tsere—except in the case of virtual doubling.

בֵּרוּר (*בִּרּוּר)
בֵּאוּר (*בִּאּוּר)
דֵּרוּג (*דִּרּוּג)
גֵּרוּף (*גִּרּוּף)
גִּהוּץ
(virtual doubling)
זִהוּם (virtual doubling)
זִהוּי (virtual doubling)
מֵרוּק (*מִרּוּק)

If this doesn't constitute a pattern, I don't know what would. The fact that you don't see a pattern indicates that you look at Hebrew incorrectly. It is a language that is robust with patterns. I don't know how you could think you know the language at all when you don't recognize patterns that naturally occur within it. In the end of grammatical examination, binyan means "pattern," gizrah means "pattern," and mishkal means "pattern. Patterns emerge when we look at the forms that roots fall into (that is, binyanim and mishkalim) and what specific letters appear within a root (that is, gzarot). Hebrew is all about patterns.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian

User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: אִכּוּן, a new Hebrew word

Postby Jason Hare » Sun Mar 22, 2020 11:25 pm

Isaac Fried wrote:Jason says
The verb לְאַכֵּן is a simple piel form from the root אכ״ן (alef-kaf-nun) (see the Milog entry for this verb).

אִכּוּן is not "from" אכן.

אִכּוּן is "from" the root אכ״ן in the same way that both דָּבָר and דִּבּוּר are from the root דב״ר. The specific forms are derived from (1) the root and (2) patterns of vowels, dagesh, and infixes. Why be obstinate in these perspectives? This is the usual mode of speaking of things.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian

Isaac Fried
Posts: 1591
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: אִכּוּן, a new Hebrew word

Postby Isaac Fried » Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:01 am

Jason writes
It's because the dagesh doubles the letter. Piel words have the middle radical doubled, as do hitpael words. This is a common feature of other Semitic languages.

I have never, never ever, "doubled" a letter while speaking Hebrew, or reading aloud from the תנ"ך. I don't recall ever hearing some other speakers of Hebrew ever "doubling" a letter. I don't see any need nor advantage in "doubling" a letter. Spoken Hebrew functions very well without this supposed "doubling" of a letter.
So the question arises then as to what is the purpose of the dgushot letters in Hebrew, and when was the dagesh introduced into the Hebrew script.
The dagesh is ancient and is now redundant. Delete all dgeshim from a Hebrew text and you will not miss them, except in the BKP letters, that bedevils the vocalization of Hebrew.
Notice that in בִּדּוּד the first letter ד is dgusha, but in ִבִּדּוּדִים the second ד is not dgusha. Why so? Not because of any "pattern", but because the xiriq is here חסר, without a yod, but the sound U is written מלא with a shuruq וּ. In my thinking writing in full ִבִּידוּדִים removes the need for a dagesh even in the first ד (not that it matters), "pattern" or no "pattern". Otherwise, if written entirely חסר, it is ִבִּדֻּדִּים with two "forte" dgeshim (not that it matters). Methinks.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: אִכּוּן, a new Hebrew word

Postby Jason Hare » Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:24 am

Youthinks incorrectly. It's simply not true what you're saying. The dagesh existed in non-begedkefet letters to indicate doubling of the consonants. The fact that we don't pronounce it that way today doesn't mean that it wasn't that way historically. This is an anachronism. You cannot judge the history of the language by how people today pronounce it.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian

Isaac Fried
Posts: 1591
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: אִכּוּן, a new Hebrew word

Postby Isaac Fried » Mon Mar 23, 2020 9:48 am

Jason says
The dagesh existed in non-begedkefet letters to indicate doubling of the consonants. The fact that we don't pronounce it that way today doesn't mean that it wasn't that way historically. This is an anachronism. You cannot judge the history of the language by how people today pronounce it.

Yes! Right! It is an anachronism! The question is why. In my opinion it is because the niqud rendered it redundant. I would really appreciate references to solid historical evidence for the doubling of consonants in ancient Hebrew. Wikipedia,
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%93%D7 ... 7%96%D7%A7
emphatically states that the "dagesh forte" is a gemination sign, but without bringing not even a shred of support for this claim.
Explain to me please why there is no dagesh in the letter ד of כִּידוֹן but there is a dagesh in the letter נ of כִּנּוֹר?

Isaac Fried, Boston University

User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: אִכּוּן, a new Hebrew word

Postby Jason Hare » Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:30 pm

Isaac Fried wrote:Explain to me please why there is no dagesh in the letter ד of כִּידוֹן but there is a dagesh in the letter נ of כִּנּוֹר?


In unaccented syllables, closed syllables have short vowels and open syllables have long vowels. That's the rule.

In the case of כִּידוֹן, we have two syllables. Ki- is open and unaccented, and -don is closed and accented. The open unaccented has a long vowel, which is chirik-yod. In fact, it could even be a simple chirik that is long (כִּדוֹן). Chirik (like kubuts) can represent either a long or a short vowel (thus, we should not be surprised to find אֲבוּדוֹת found defectively in the Tanach as אֲבֻדוֹת with a long kubuts).

In the case of כִּנּוֹר, the doubled nun represents the fact that we have two syllables here: kin- that is unaccented and closed, and -nor that is accented and closed. The unaccented syllable must have a short vowel, thus short chirik. The same short syllable could be, in other lexemes, a patach (כַּדּוּר) or another of the short vowels. It is the fact that the syllable is unaccented and closed that necessitates the short vowel. Thus, chirik-yod is not allowed in such syllables (despite the violation that the modern Hebrew vocalization creates, such as in technically impossible דִּיבֵּר—and this innovative violation was initiated in post-biblical Hebrew, even appearing in many copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls).

You're looking at it exactly backwards. You're thinking "the presence of the yod causes the dagesh not to appear" or "the absence of a yod makes the dagesh appear." This has nothing to do with it. It is the doubling of the consonants with dagesh that necessitates a short vowel before it – because the syllable must necessarily be closed.

All of this is covered in any basic Hebrew grammar. I find myself asking where you studied Hebrew, given the way that you've transformed Hebrew in your mind into something completely unnatural and invented. Who in the world taught you that the י in אָכִיל means "she"? That's just weird and false.
Last edited by Jason Hare on Mon Mar 23, 2020 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian


Return to “Etymological & Lexicographic Approaches to the Hebrew Bible”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest