Qamets Qatan Spreadsheet

[Isaac Fried]

Rafael writes

There is no need to call it "zohoraim" because there is relation between זהר, צהר,סהר as glow/light (יצהר).

This is interesting, what do you think is the relation between זוֹהַר and סוֹהַר.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[ducky]

Hi

There is no relation between זהר and סהר
סהר is based on the meaning of "roundness"
and צהר and זהר based on the meanng of "brightness"
and anyway, there is nothing better with זהרים than צהרים
צהרים is just fine

****
Isaac,
My previous post was to show the basics
I think you got it.

But you finished our comment with a wonder of why people don't say tsaharaim" in a way that the first qamats as "a" would efect the H to be "a" as well.

But you're missing it all.
First, the Qamats has only one sound, and therefore the H got Hataph-Qamats to fit to the Qamats.
Hataph Qamats is always pronounced as "o" (in Sephardi and others)
So there is no choice for the speaker to sayt the H as "A"

And if we want to go back, then we've already saw that the צהרים comes from צהר=tsohar.
The original sound of the TS is "O"
So how would this "o" will effect the H to be "a"?

Never mind.
You should study the basics.
you don't have to agree with everything
but you must at least understand some basic points

[Refael Shalev]

Isaac,

סהר is the moon, the connection is clear enough I presume.

[Isaac Fried]

Refael writes

סהר is the moon, the connection is clear enough I presume.

So, should we call midnight סהריים?

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Refael Shalev]

I wouldn't, but if you want to call it סהריים and it works for you...

Semantic connections not necessarily make free word alternatives.

[Isaac Fried]

I wonder, Was he called כּוּשַׁן רִשְׁעָתַיִם, see Judges 3:8
וַיִּחַר אַף יהוה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּמְכְּרֵם בְּיַד כּוּשַׁן רִשְׁעָתַיִם מֶלֶךְ אֲרַם
because he was doubly (greatly) evil רשע?

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Jason Hare]

I wonder, Was he called כּוּשַׁן רִשְׁעָתַיִם, see Judges 3:8
וַיִּחַר אַף יהוה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּמְכְּרֵם בְּיַד כּוּשַׁן רִשְׁעָתַיִם מֶלֶךְ אֲרַם
because he was doubly (greatly) evil רשע?

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

I'm sure it was because he was doubly (◌ַיִם) femininely wicked (רִשְׁעָה).

[Isaac Fried]

Now, how about the name אֶפְרָיִם of Gen. 41:52
וְאֵת שֵׁם הַשֵּׁנִי קָרָא אֶפְרָיִם כִּי הִפְרַנִי אֱלֹהִים בְּאֶרֶץ עָנְיִי
Was he so called because he was doubly (very) dark skinned (as was mommy?), the color of אפר, 'soot'?

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Jason Hare]

And don't forget that יְרוּשָׁלַ֫יִם is doubly Jerusheled!

[ducky]

The root of course is פרה (not אפר)

its suffix, in my opinion, is not about dual or plural.
Just like the suffix of צהרים is not about dual or plural.

this suffix is based on a Semitic old suffix.
In other languages, for example, the word צהרים is always singular.
And in a Moabic script, it is written צהרם
(the M is the suffix)
and Hebrew expanded that to "aim" (with no relation to dual or plural)

I can see for example the name of the place דתן - and it was expanded to דתינה (and not דתנה)
(I guess this process is relevant for this case as well)

**
so i think that also in the word אפרים, the M is just a suffix to give the description - like חנם with חן)
So I think that this suffix comes to describe the attidue of the aspect.