The נו- suffix

[kwrandolph]

Has anyone done a study of the נו- suffix, appended on both verbs and nouns?

The question came up for me during the discussion of Hosea 6:2 with the word יקמנו being understood as “he will raise us up”. The usual understanding of the suffix is that it refers to the first person plural. But I had originally read that verse as “he will raise him up” on the third day with the suffix referring to the third person singular.

Curious, I then looked up words ending in נו-, there are well over 2000 in Tanakh, and found 27 verses in Genesis where the נו- suffix refers to the third person singular (omitting ממנו from the counting), another 14 in Exodus, 21 in Leviticus. Was this something that was earlier and not later? As I was reading Psalm 93, I noticed verse 12 has it too.

Does anyone have any reason or pattern as to why sometimes a nun is inserted before the waw in the third person singular suffix?

Karl W. Randolph.

[porta]

Karl,
have you remarked that in the Masorete pointed text the nun of -nu takes a dot (dagesh) when נו means 'him' or 'it'?
Look, for instance, at http://www.oham.net/out/S-d/S-d1452.html

Pere Porta

[kwrandolph]

Karl,
have you remarked that in the Masorete pointed text the nun of -nu takes a dot (dagesh) when נו means 'him' or 'it'?
Look, for instance, at http://www.oham.net/out/S-d/S-d1452.html

Pere Porta

Pere: you know I use an unpointed text so I can’t tell if it takes an additional dagesh or not.

This third person singular נו suffix is found not only on imperatives, but also on Yiqtols (Genesis 3:5, 9:5, 21:13, 42:4), on adjectives (Genesis 29:9, Judges 6:24, 8:20 (עוד may be a special case)) and that’s not counting ממנו and איננו where the suffix points to a third person subject. These are just a few of the examples that I found so far.

Your example mentions only imperatives, which I have also found.

Does your source give reasons for those other uses of the נו suffix?

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jemoh66]

Karl,

This is how Ross addresses it in his Grammar:

When pronominal suffixes are added to imperfect tense verbs, a joining vowel ṣérê usually inetervenes, which may be shortewned to segôl or shewa.

[center]יִפְקֹד + נִי = יִפְקְדֵנִי[/center]

The suffixes may be strengthened by נ, which normally assimilates to the following consonant. Suffixes strengthened by this נ do not occur with imperfect forms that have vocalic endings (i.e., 2fsg, 3pl, and 2pl).

יִפְקֹד + נ + נִי = יִפְקְדֵנִי

The nature of this strengthening נ has been much discussed. Earlier grammarians called it nûn energicum (i.e., energic nûn) on the analogy of Arabic, but this נ is found where no energic, or strengthening, force is indicated. Nevertheless, these older forms may have been retained after their significance was forgotten. S for want of a better term, this added נ may be referred to as energic nûn, or at least regarded as the remnant of such.

This נ added to suffixes is to be distinguished from the so-called paragogic nûn written after vocalic endings of imperfect verbs (e.g., יִפְקְדוּן). Paragogic nûn is preceded by a long vowel and does not take dāgēš forte; eneric nûn usually has dāgēš forte and is preceded by a short vowel. The pronominal suffixes for imperfect tense verbs, therefore, may take one of two forms.

[img]https://www.dropbox.com/s/261fui5taues8 ... n.jpg?dl=0[/img]

Ross, Allen P. Introducing Biblical Hebrew. Baker Academic, 2001.

[Isaac Fried]

1. יִפְקְדֵנִי = היא-פקד-אני
2. The tsere is possibly a compromise mark for a patax, which it resembles, introduced to accommodate different reading traditions. Reading יִפְקְדַנִי is as good.
3. It is not clear to me what makes the segol "short".
4. The dagesh is, in my opinion, not part of the NIYQUD. Remove all the dgeshim (except in ב כ פ BKP) and no one will miss them.
5. the UN in יִפְקְדוּן = היא-פקד-אוּן is possibly but a curtailed הוּן or הוּם, HUN, HUM, 'they', later הֵם and הֵן. Still later the attached HUN and HUM were cut down by fluent speech to a mere U, as we say today: אוּ אמר, 'he said', אִי אמרה, 'she said'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jemoh66]

2. The tsere is possibly a compromise mark for a patax, which it resembles, introduced to accommodate different reading traditions. Reading יִפְקְדַנִי is as good.
3. It is not clear to me what makes the segol "short".

The tsere is long and could not be a "compromise" for pathaq (whatever you mean by compromise is unclear). The pathaq is a short vowel, and occurs usually in closed syllables. The syllable /dee/ is open, so it is appropriate to find a long vowel, in this case, the tsere. As an English speaker, think "DAY" as pronounced by a Canadian (not a diphthong a la ashkenazi). As for the segol, the same argument holds it is a short vowel, and we find it appropriately so in closed syllables. Notice, without the dagesh you get /yiph/-/qə/-/dee/-/nuu/--> CVC-CV-CVV-CVV. With the dagesh you get /yiph/-/qə/-/dɛn/-/nuu/-->CVC-CV-CVC-CVV. The dagesh or strengthened for is older. When a speaker no long bears down on that geminate consonant he/she would naturally lengthen the vowel from segol to tsere, because of the universal instinct to compensatory lengthening.

4. The dagesh is, in my opinion, not part of the NIYQUD. Remove all the dgeshim (except in ב כ פ BKP) and no one will miss them.

It doesn't matter; the dagesh is there. It is evidence, data to be examined. And when examined it follows well established linguistic observations.

5. the UN in יִפְקְדוּן = היא-פקד-אוּן is possibly but a curtailed הוּן or הוּם, HUN, HUM, 'they', later הֵם and הֵן. Still later the attached HUN and HUM were cut down by fluent speech to a mere U, as we say today: אוּ אמר, 'he said', אִי אמרה, 'she said'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

I am sorry, but it is still unclear to me why the tsere is "long", and the patax is "short". I myself never "lengthen" the tsere and "shorten" the patax. I have also yet to actually hear a "geminated" consonant.
I agree that YIPKEDE NIY is not YIPKEDENIY, but the gap is artificial. It takes a word and separates it into two words with an in-between pause. Any consonant situated between two vowels is faintly doubled by entrance and exit.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[kwrandolph]

Thank you for your response.

This is how Ross addresses it in his Grammar:

I never heard of this Ross guy before, but then I haven’t heard of most of the people active in Biblical Hebrew studies, so that’s no surprise.

The nature of this strengthening נ has been much discussed. Earlier grammarians called it nûn energicum (i.e., energic nûn) on the analogy of Arabic, but this נ is found where no energic, or strengthening, force is indicated. Nevertheless, these older forms may have been retained after their significance was forgotten. S for want of a better term, this added נ may be referred to as energic nûn, or at least regarded as the remnant of such.

In other words, he’s guessing.

This נ added to suffixes is to be distinguished from the so-called paragogic nûn written after vocalic endings of imperfect verbs (e.g., יִפְקְדוּן). Paragogic nûn is preceded by a long vowel and does not take dāgēš forte; eneric nûn usually has dāgēš forte and is preceded by a short vowel. The pronominal suffixes for imperfect tense verbs, therefore, may take one of two forms.

I’ve wondered about this too, is there a reason for its use and how does is change the meaning of the sentence?

Ross, Allen P. Introducing Biblical Hebrew. Baker Academic, 2001.

OK, so Allen Ross wrote a textbook. How much of it is based on original research?

Sorry, I don’t mean to cut him down, but when I’m looking for an answer, I want to see evidence that the person has made a list of all such forms found in Tanakh, then has analyzed them to see how they may have affected the meaning of the sentences in which they are found. What he has written here looks merely like he has regurgitated what others have said, in order to put it in an introduction to Hebrew textbook.

I have found over 100 times that the נו suffix refers to a third person singular in Torah alone. Does it also appear in later writings? I’ve found it in Psalms too. If I’m to do such a study, I’m still in the evidence gathering phase, before the analysis is done.

Really, should I take on another such study? I started a study as to why some nouns take both masculine and feminine forms, and while I’ve gathered the evidence, I have yet to make an in depth analysis that that study deserves. Even in just gathering the evidence I’ve found some patterns.

Karl W. Randolph.