Is this a defective feminine plural, or what?

Classical Hebrew morphology and syntax, aspect, linguistics, discourse analysis, and related topics
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Post Reply
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Is this a defective feminine plural, or what?

Post by Isaac Fried »

Our recent discussion on biblical and modern Hebrew fresh in my mind, I have just noticed this morning in the Hebrew paper הארץ haaretz
https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/law/.premium-1.776045
this sentence:
‎במשטרה מעריכים כי נכדהּ של האישה שנורתה למוות ביפו ביום ראשון היה היעד של הירי
with the biblical word נכדהּ, 'the grandson of', with even an added mapik in the ה, instead of the expected "modern", separated, from הנכד של.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
ducky
Posts: 769
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Is this a defective feminine plural, or what?

Post by ducky »

Modern Hebrew has a lot of styles, Higher, lower.
Its quality is very high, and not as many would think that because it is not the Biblical Hebrew, then it must be simple.
It is very understood with high quality.

Just for the fun of it, let's analyze the sentence Isaac brought.
‎במשטרה מעריכים כי נכדהּ של האישה שנורתה למוות ביפו ביום ראשון היה היעד של הירי
A literal translation would be:
"In the police, (they) estimate that the grandson of the woman that got shot to death in Jaffa at Sunday (he) was the target of the shooting."

Now let's compare it to Biblical vocabulary and forms.
ב = in the (Biblical).
משטרה = Police (Biblical root שטר; and form miqtala).
מעריכים = estimate (from Biblical root ערך; conjugation Hiphil).
כי = that (Biblical).
נכדה = (her) grandson (Biblical).
של = of (Biblical) (it is a combination of ש+ל that comes in the bible linked to the next word).
האישה/האשה = the woman (Biblical).
ש = that (Biblical).
נורתה = got shot (Biblical root ירה; Niphal)
ל = to (Biblical).
מוות/מות = death (Biblical).
ב = in (Biblical).
יפו = Jaffa (Biblical).
ב = at (Biblical).
יום = day (Biblical).
ראשון = first (Biblical).
יום ראשון = Sunday.
היה = was (Biblical).
ה = the (Biblical).
יעד = target, aim, purpose, objective (from Biblical root יעד which means to appoint or to set something to a specific time or place).
של = of (Biblical) (it is a combination of ש+ל that comes in the bible linked to the next word).
ה = the (Biblical).
ירי = shooting (noun) ( from Biblical root ירה).
David Hunter
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Is this a defective feminine plural, or what?

Post by Isaac Fried »

What caught my eye is the mapik in the ה of נכדהּ, 'her נכד', to distinguish it from נכדה, 'a granddaughter', a niqud marking that assumes some sophistication on the part of the reader.
I would not have been so surprised at בנה, 'her son', nor at בתה, 'her daughter'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
ducky
Posts: 769
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Is this a defective feminine plural, or what?

Post by ducky »

Sometimes, people, when they write, try to make sure that they are more understood.
Because as first, it can be read as "one (indefinite) grand-daughter of the woman" but then we have היה as masculine. (even though it would sound strange anyway)
but just to keep from the confusion they put the Mapiq.
David Hunter
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Is this a defective feminine plural, or what?

Post by kwrandolph »

ducky wrote:Everything that you wrote doesn't contradict anything that was said here.
The Biblical verbs, Tiberian or not, are not about tense.
and you gave the examples yourself.
Are you claiming that my professor didn’t know what he was talking about? And that the textbook we used and its author were completely mistaken? They taught that the verbal conjugations conjugated for tense and tense is grammar.
ducky wrote:The choice of the Biblical syntax between yqtl and qtl is about the syntax.
(there are specific rules).
When the form of a verb gives an indication as to its meaning, that’s grammar. For example, “I ask you” is present tense because the form of the verb indicates present action. “I asked you” the form of the verb indicates past action. “I will ask you” refers to future action. Grammar is where the forms indicate meaning, in the above example, tense.

When I was taught Tiberian Hebrew, I was taught that the Qatal refers to past action, participle to present action, and Yiqtol for future action. That use of the forms to indicate when an action happens is grammar.

“Syntax” comes from a Greek word meaning “to put together”. In English, “The man bit the dog” and “The dog bit the man” have completely different meanings, because of syntax, how the words are put together. Syntax in English tells us which is the subject, which is the object. In German, “Den Mann biß der Hund” and “Der Hund biß den Mann” have the same meaning because of grammar, different forms indicate which is the subject, which is the object, of the sentences. In the above sentences, “der Hund” is the subject, “den Mann” the object, so it doesn’t matter which comes first, the grammar sorts it out, the syntax is not as important in German.

In Tiberian Hebrew, and I hear it’s the same in modern, Israeli Hebrew, the different forms of verbs indicate different time references, that’s grammar. In Biblical Hebrew, the different forms don’t reference time, therefore the grammars of Biblical Hebrew and modern Israeli Hebrew are significantly different.
ducky wrote:It is true, that the Mishnaic syntax started to use clear tenses (and probably that happened way before the Mishnaic time) and Modern Hebrew prefers the simple way (like anyone would).
That’s grammar, not syntax. See above.
ducky wrote:When you translate בקומך to "in your rising up" it is a very literal translation, and so it has no place for understanding the meaning.
Have you ever said to someone: "in you rising up, call me!"
Here you confuse understanding within a language, and the very different activity of translation.
ducky wrote:(I don't know if you're still mad or not, but I'm not)
Who said I was mad?

Karl W. Randolph.
ducky
Posts: 769
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Is this a defective feminine plural, or what?

Post by ducky »

Hello Karl
kwrandolph wrote:Are you claiming that my professor didn’t know what he was talking about? And that the textbook we used and its author were completely mistaken? They taught that the verbal conjugations conjugated for tense and tense is grammar.
I'm sorry, I was too decisive with my comments.
There are more than one theories about the verbal-system in Biblical Hebrew.
One of them indeed talks about a no-tense system and that it was all about aspects.
While other theories claim that there is a tense-system, and each one explains the system differently.
So I guess your professor taught you one of these theories.
I shouldn't have written what I wrote in such a way. I don't know why I was too hesitant to write that.
And of course, there is a room for all of the theories to be talked about.
kwrandolph wrote:When the form of a verb gives an indication as to its meaning, that’s grammar. For example, “I ask you” is present tense because the form of the verb indicates present action. “I asked you” the form of the verb indicates past action. “I will ask you” refers to future action. Grammar is where the forms indicate meaning, in the above example, tense.
Yes. But we can see that even in the "tense-system there is a relationship between the syntax and the choice between qtl and yqtl.
Gen. 1:27
ויברא אלהים את האדם בצלמן
בצלם אלהים ברא אותו
Both are "past tense" - but the syntax is related to the different forms of these "past tense" verbs.

By the way, even according to the tense-system, there is no "present tense" as part of the verbal system. (only perfect and imperfect).
And also in English, I can see that the future is represented in the same form of the "present" because the future is actually the same form (ask) while giving it the word "will/shall" before it.
The form is the same form.
So also in English, the forms of the present and the future are one (imperfect form).
kwrandolph wrote:When I was taught Tiberian Hebrew, I was taught that the Qatal refers to a past action, participle to present action, and Yiqtol for future action. That use of the forms to indicate when an action happens is grammar.
It seems to me as a very basic method, which maybe was given just as a starting point for the English speakers?
maybe they taught that at first as a basis just to "break it down" later?
I don't know.
As I said, the past and present/future (as perfect and imperfect) are one of the right ways to see things but it is weird that they taught you the Participle as "present".
kwrandolph wrote:“Syntax” comes from a Greek word meaning “to put together”. In English, “The man bit the dog” and “The dog bit the man” have completely different meanings, because of syntax, how the words are put together. Syntax in English tells us which is the subject, which is the object. In German, “Den Mann biß der Hund” and “Der Hund biß den Mann” have the same meaning because of grammar, different forms indicate which is the subject, which is the object, of the sentences. In the above sentences, “der Hund” is the subject, “den Mann” the object, so it doesn’t matter which comes first, the grammar sorts it out, the syntax is not as important in German.
Also in Hebrew, the sentence can be read in two ways.
You gave an example of “The man bit the dog” and “The dog bit the man”.
If I would write in Hebrew, כלב נשך אדם it can be understood in both ways.
the same with אדם נשך כלב.
such in Job 14:19 when it writes אבנים שחקו מים - the subject is מים and the object is אבנים.
we understand that through the logical way and the context (but theoretically, it can be the opposite).

But as for the Semitic languages that weren't really a problem because they were using cases-suffixes which signs the direct object and the subject and others. So if it was written אדם נשך כלב it had different cases-suffixes which told what is the subject and what is the object.
Hebrew lost them, and some say that we can see seeds of them in the Bible (when the first part of the construct state has a suffix-vowel) but some doubt that and say that these vowels don't really represent the old cases. (Classic Arabic has them).
kwrandolph wrote:In Tiberian Hebrew, and I hear it’s the same in modern, Israeli Hebrew, the different forms of verbs indicate different time references, that’s grammar. In Biblical Hebrew, the different forms don’t reference time, therefore the grammars of Biblical Hebrew and modern Israeli Hebrew are significantly different.
I think you're going too deep with it.
we see in the surface that there are past and future forms (in the surface). and that is enough to see the modern uses the same surface system. We also said that there are theories that the Bible does use tenses.
but it doesn't matter.
Modern Hebrew uses the qtl and yqtl as past and future (and doesn't use the W to change the tense).
And so it is very like the Bible way when it comes to the surface.
the deep view of the verbal system is just for the research, and I think you would agree with me that no matter what system is right, you would still read the Bible the same way. because the deep view doesn't affect the surface view. and that is what I'm talking about.
kwrandolph wrote:That’s grammar, not syntax. See above.
As I said before, the chosen form is linked to the syntax. But you understand what I wrote.

kwrandolph wrote:Here you confuse understanding within a language, and the very different activity of translation.
Sorry if I didn't understand your intentions, but because this was a comment that referred to a natural way of talk, I said what I said.
kwrandolph wrote:Who said I was mad?
I thought so, and I'm happy I was wrong.
David Hunter
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Is this a defective feminine plural, or what?

Post by Isaac Fried »

ויברא = בא-היא-ברא

Isaac Fried, Boston University
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Is this a defective feminine plural, or what?

Post by kwrandolph »

ducky wrote:There are more than one theories about the verbal-system in Biblical Hebrew.
One of them indeed talks about a no-tense system and that it was all about aspects.
While other theories claim that there is a tense-system, and each one explains the system differently.
So I guess your professor taught you one of these theories.…And of course, there is a room for all of the theories to be talked about.
Of course, there’s room for all these theories to be discussed. That’s what this forum is about.

When I studied Hebrew in class, the Tiberian tense schema was the only one taught. There were some that questioned if aspect instead of tense is the reason for Biblical Hebrew conjugations, but that hadn’t reached mainstream yet.
ducky wrote:Yes. But we can see that even in the "tense-system there is a relationship between the syntax and the choice between qtl and yqtl.
Gen. 1:27
‎ויברא אלהים את האדם בצלמן
‎בצלם אלהים ברא אותו
Both are "past tense" - but the syntax is related to the different forms of these "past tense" verbs.
Syntax doesn’t change tense. All syntax does is to choose which tense to use. The wayyiqtol was taught as a narrative past tense.
ducky wrote:By the way, even according to the tense-system, there is no "present tense" as part of the verbal system. (only perfect and imperfect).
The perfect and imperfect division comes as a result of the claims that the conjugations indicate aspect. Back when I studied in class, they were called “perfect” and “future”, with the participle being the present tense.
ducky wrote:And also in English, I can see that the future is represented in the same form of the "present" because the future is actually the same form (ask) while giving it the word "will/shall" before it.
The form is the same form.
So also in English, the forms of the present and the future are one (imperfect form).
English, like some other Indo-European languages, has what are called “helper verbs”. These are the same as the verb having a different form. Helper verbs include “will” for future, “have” for perfect past, and others. They are grammar because they are always used for those purposes. Therefore, “will ask” is not the same as “ask” because “will” in that construct always changes the present form to a future.
ducky wrote:… but it is weird that they taught you the Participle as "present".
They taught me that way because in Tiberian Hebrew, the participle is used for the present tense.
ducky wrote:Also in Hebrew, the sentence can be read in two ways.
You gave an example of “The man bit the dog” and “The dog bit the man”.
If I would write in Hebrew, כלב נשך אדם it can be understood in both ways.
the same with אדם נשך כלב.
Nope, not in Biblical Hebrew. Actually your example is not Biblical Hebrew. In Biblical Hebrew is found the accusative marker את which indicates which is the subject, which is the object.
ducky wrote:such in Job 14:19 when it writes אבנים שחקו מים - the subject is מים and the object is אבנים.
we understand that through the logical way and the context (but theoretically, it can be the opposite).
That verse is poetry, which you yourself indicated is more difficult to read.
ducky wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:In Tiberian Hebrew, and I hear it’s the same in modern, Israeli Hebrew, the different forms of verbs indicate different time references, that’s grammar. In Biblical Hebrew, the different forms don’t reference time, therefore the grammars of Biblical Hebrew and modern Israeli Hebrew are significantly different.
I think you're going too deep with it.
we see in the surface that there are past and future forms (in the surface).
Biblical Hebrew never had past and future forms. Not even “in the surface”. The interpretation that these form represented tenses came long after Biblical Hebrew was no longer spoken as a native language.
ducky wrote:and that is enough to see the modern uses the same surface system.
Mishnaic Hebrew, Tiberian Hebrew and modern Israeli Hebrew have repurposed the Biblical forms to make them tenses. They never were tenses in Biblical Hebrew, nor do they even appear to be tenses.
ducky wrote:but it doesn't matter.
Yes it does matter, in understanding Biblical Hebrew. The purpose of this forum is the understanding of Biblical Hebrew.
ducky wrote:Modern Hebrew uses the qtl and yqtl as past and future (and doesn't use the W to change the tense).
And so it is very like the Bible way when it comes to the surface.
Which is grammar.
ducky wrote:the deep view of the verbal system is just fo r the research, and I think you would agree with me that no matter what system is right, you would still read the Bible the same way. because the deep view doesn't affect the surface view. and that is what I'm talking about.
That depends on how important you think is the Bible to today’s world. If you think it is God’s Word and you think it is really important to know what God says to us, then the “deep view” does affect the “surface view”. But if the Bible is merely an interesting book for the ancient past, but doesn’t have relevance to today’s world, then you can let certain things slide.

Karl W. Randolph.
ducky
Posts: 769
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Is this a defective feminine plural, or what?

Post by ducky »

Hello Karl,
kwrandolph wrote:When I studied Hebrew in class, the Tiberian tense schema was the only one taught. There were some that questioned if aspect instead of tense is the reason for Biblical Hebrew conjugations, but that hadn’t reached mainstream yet.
I don't know what Tiberian has to do with the script.
The script is the same script.
you can read it, as it is, with a view of aspects and you can read it, as it is, with the view of tenses.
I don't know what you mean by saying "Tiberian".

And also, tenses-view or no-tense-view is not about conjugations at all.
It is about the forms (of each conjugation).
So once again, we may talk about other views, which I have no idea what the conjugation has to do with it.
kwrandolph wrote:Syntax doesn’t change tense. All syntax does is to choose which tense to use. The wayyiqtol was taught as a narrative past tense.
I didn't say it changes the tense.
I said that the syntax is related to the form that would be used.
In the example I gave, ברא and ויברא come to say the same things.
But they come in different forms because each one stands in another place of the sentence (syntax).
kwrandolph wrote:The perfect and imperfect division comes as a result of the claims that the conjugations indicate aspect. Back when I studied in class, they were called “perfect” and “future”, with the participle being the present tense.
As I said, Participle being part of the verbal system is weird.
The participle even acts as a noun, linguistically. So I don't know why they taught you like that.
The whole point of the term "imperfect" is an act that wasn't done yet (present+future).

And anyway, instead of talking about what you've been taught, let's talk from now on about your current view and your current reading, so we'll see each other clearly.
kwrandolph wrote:English, like some other Indo-European languages, has what are called “helper verbs”. These are the same as the verb having a different form. Helper verbs include “will” for future, “have” for perfect past, and others. They are grammar because they are always used for those purposes. Therefore, “will ask” is not the same as “ask” because “will” in that construct always changes the present form to a future.
Okay. I cannot argue about English because I don't have enough knowledge.
But as for my first look, it seems to me that the "will" and "shall" as "helping-words" are a late thing.
In my first look, I have to say that these "helping-words" did not start as a grammatical thing, but they are "helping-words" that were developed through times for the understanding.
In Arabic, they also have "perfect" and "imperfect" and when they want to refer to a future act, they add a prefix word before the imperfect to make sure that it refers to the future and not the present.
The fact that in English you use the word Ask in the same form for future and present, tells me that this form originally is an imperfect form that refers to an act that wasn't done yet. And later, the English (and/or others) added a prefix word to specify this form to future action.
I could be wrong, and I'll try to check it, but if you may, I bet you have more tools to check it.
kwrandolph wrote:They taught me that way because, in Tiberian Hebrew, the participle is used for the present tense.
As I said, I don't know why you use the term Tiberian. It seems to me that because of your rejection of their pointings, you use that term also for other things.
Take the text as it is - no pointing. What did the Tiberian do to make it a "present tense"?
Would you point the participle differently?
The text is the same text.
and you read it as it is.
Just a participle.
kwrandolph wrote:Nope, not in Biblical Hebrew. Actually, your example is not Biblical Hebrew. In Biblical Hebrew is found the accusative marker את which indicates which is the subject, which is the object.
Okay. So let's make it to "a dog bits a man"
(in my comment I wrote it like that, while you wrote it with definite articles and I didn't notice that) .
Now, the word את doesn't come before an undefine direct object.
So it could be written both ways. אדם נשך כלב and כלב נשך אדם

But also, even with a defined direct object, the את doesn't have to come.
The את would come for a specific noun with a definite article.
Meaning: that even if the noun is with a definite article because of the narrow context, but it refers to an "eternal" case, then the את doesn't have to come.

In the sentence "a dog bit a man" - it doesn't come.
And even if the direct object would be with a definite article, it doesn't have to come as well, if the sentence is a general sentence.

ְAnd also, even if the noun is very specific in the narrow context, it still comes sometimes without the prefix את.

I bet you can check it yourself.
kwrandolph wrote:That verse is poetry, which you yourself indicated is more difficult to read.
You can see it in prose too. (See above).
And anyway, Poetry or not poetry, it doesn't contradict the Hebrew rules.
You may say that the prose has a tendency to be more clear, while poetry "brings it as it is".
(and here, by the way, the object is not defined so no matter what, it would not get the word את).
kwrandolph wrote:Biblical Hebrew never had past and future forms. Not even “in the surface”. The interpretation that these form represented tenses came long after Biblical Hebrew was no longer spoken as a native language.
1. I don't understand your views about tenses. (what is your view?)
2. Even if you see it as perfect and imperfect - it is like saying past and present/future/continuing.
So I don't know what's the big deal here.
kwrandolph wrote:Mishnaic Hebrew, Tiberian Hebrew, and modern Israeli Hebrew have repurposed the Biblical forms to make them tenses. They never were tenses in Biblical Hebrew, nor do they even appear to be tensed.
once again, what Tiberian has to do with it?
The Tiberian uses the same script that you read.
How did they change something to something? I don't get it.

Let's make a deal, Whenever you say the word "Tiberian", give an example so I could understand.
Because I truly don't understand what you mean when you say that.
David Hunter
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Is this a defective feminine plural, or what?

Post by kwrandolph »

ducky wrote:I don't know what Tiberian has to do with the script.
The script is the same script.
you can read it, as it is, with a view of aspects and you can read it, as it is, with the view of tenses.
I don't know what you mean by saying "Tiberian".
“Tiberian” is the name of the Hebrew dialect that was spoken around medieval Tiberius when the Masoretes pointed the Tanakh. It was the Tiberian pronunciations that they preserved by their points which reflected also their understanding of the text. Their understanding of the text was also influenced by the Tiberian dialect, so they pointed it according to the grammar of the Tiberian dialect.
ducky wrote:And also, tenses-view or no-tense-view is not about conjugations at all.
It is about the forms (of each conjugation).
So once again, we may talk about other views, which I have no idea what the conjugation has to do with it.
Conjugation is the forms.
ducky wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:Syntax doesn’t change tense. All syntax does is to choose which tense to use. The wayyiqtol was taught as a narrative past tense.
I didn't say it changes the tense.
Yes you did, by saying that the question is one of syntax and not grammar.
ducky wrote:As I said, Participle being part of the verbal system is weird.
The participle even acts as a noun, linguistically. So I don't know why they taught you like that.
The whole point of the term "imperfect" is an act that wasn't done yet (present+future).
Yet you use the participle as a present tense verb in modern Israeli Hebrew. Why then do you call is “weird”?
ducky wrote:And anyway, instead of talking about what you've been taught, let's talk from now on about your current view and your current reading, so we'll see each other clearly.
And your current views and reading. It would help if you knew a little more linguistics.
ducky wrote:Take the text as it is - no pointing. What did the Tiberian do to make it a "present tense"?
The third person masculine singular verb can be pointed as a Qatal Qal, Qatal Piel, or Qal participle. So in sentences where the context indicates that they’re describing present actions, how were they pointed? I haven’t done a study on such sentences, but a survey of such sentences in Tanakh would answer your question.
ducky wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:That verse is poetry, which you yourself indicated is more difficult to read.
You can see it in prose too. (See above).
And anyway, Poetry or not poetry, it doesn't contradict the Hebrew rules.
I didn’t plan on arguing this point here. Poetry doesn’t contradict Hebrew rules.

One of the rules is that in normal speech the subject comes before the object. Unless there are other grammatical clues that the object is to be understood as coming first. This is true also in Biblical Hebrew.

In the phrase אבנים שחקו מים both nouns are plural, and the verb is third person plural. There’s no indication that the object should be read first, then the verb, then the subject. So taking the rule that the subject comes first, we get the picture of stones breaking water up into tiny droplets. That’s exactly what happens when waves crash against a rocky shore, or when water in a fast moving mountain stream slams against rocks. Water doesn’t grind stones. Water moving stones causes stones to grind each other. But stones cause splashing of water, breaking water up into small droplets. And that’s the simple reading of the phrase in Job 14:19.
ducky wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:Biblical Hebrew never had past and future forms. Not even “in the surface”. The interpretation that these form represented tenses came long after Biblical Hebrew was no longer spoken as a native language.
1. I don't understand your views about tenses. (what is your view?)
As I wrote above, it would help if you knew more linguistics. I was taught linguistics at the university, and find that https://glossary.sil.org/term is a pretty good reference that says the same things I was taught.

Karl W. Randolph.
Post Reply