Weingreen Composition - Chapter 30 and On

[Jason Hare]

Ah, right yes. So no definite articles with construct nouns and names?

The definiteness of the construct string is inherited from the absolute form. If the final word in the string is definite, it passes that sense to the words that are connected to it. So, since אברהם is a proper name and definite, the phrase עבד אברהם is definite. You cannot put an article on עבד in such a situation.

וָאֶשְׁאַ֣ל לַנַַּּעֲרָה?

I know that in modern Hebrew we use את after שאל. It makes sense to me to put ל because it would seem that you ask a question (accusative) to a person (indirect object). I think Hebrew just uses a double accusative, like with לִמד "he taught." You say שאלתי אותה את השאלה "I asked her the question" and לִמדתי את הילדים את הנושא "I taught my children the topic." There is no indirect object in these sentences.

Knowing this is based mainly on Genesis stories, does Weingreen encourage the use of older forms?

I just think that עמדי is the more "biblical" of the forms, and it was being simplified as time went one.

Cheers, Jason. So essentially 'ְ + 'ֲ = 'ַ ?

Hmm.... A vocal sheva doesn't like to be up against another vocal sheva. This applies to regular vocal sheva (םְ as ə) and composite sheva (םֲ םֱ םֳ).

So, the infinitive construct of אכל is אֱכֹל if you attach a preposition, the vocal sheva will be adjusted:

לְ + אֱכֹל ← * לְאֱכֹל ← לֶאֱכֹל "to eat"

The sheva adjusts to the full vowel of the composite sheva, though there are a few exceptions (such as לאמר, לאדני and לאלהים, in which the alef quiesces and we get לֵאמֹר for *לֶאֱמֹר, לַאדֹנִי for *לַאֲדֹנִי and לֵאלֹהִים for *לֶאֱלֹהִים).

If it is two vocal shevas, one will become chirik.

לְ + שְׁפֹט ← *לְשְׁפֹט ← *לִשְׁפֹט ← לִשְׁפֹּט "to judge"

If the word begins with יְ (yod with sheva), it reduces to î.

לְ + יְהוּדָה ← *לְיְהוּדָה ← *לִיְהוּדָה ← לִיהוּדָה "to Judah"
לְ + יְרוּשָׁלִַם ← *לְיְרוּשָׁלִַם ← *לִיְרוּשָׁלִַם ← לִירוּשָׁלִַם "to Jerusalem"

This is actually one way that we can know that the Tetragrammaton should not be read as Yəhōvâ, since we should expect:

לְ + יְהוָֹה ← *לְיְהוָֹה ← *לִיְהוָֹה ← *לִיהוָֹה

Instead, we see the vowels of לַאדֹנָי copied directly onto לַיהוָֹה, since the vowels written on the Tetragrammaton do not belong to it. They are copied from the other word.

[Jonathan Beck]

I was taught from a professor who used the Weingreen textbook in class. It was only after reading Tanakh about five times through that I came to the conclusion that the grammar taught in Weingreen’s book is wrong. Wrong for Tanakh. And the vowel points are indicators of that wrong grammar.

Of course. Almost every grammar contains things in it that are wrong, or at least, arguable. Weingreen was written in 1956. Since then, we've made discoveries about the language and have learned more, for instance, the word יִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה being derived from חוה instead of originally-believed שׁחה. As the understanding of the language changes, grammars (i.e., Weingreen and Guisenius) become dated. But that doesn't mean they should be ignored or dismissed as useless. Though they are old, both of these books are especially good grammars. Guisenius is still used today in intermedate and advanced Hebrew courses at the graduate level.

The Yiqtol preceded with a waw is there in narrative texts to carry the narrative along. But the form is not an indicator of past tense.

Speaking of discoveries: Yes, this was true in Hebrew grammar for hundreds of years. But what grammarians have found recently is that the wayyiqtol form did NOT evolve from the yaqtul form as originally thought. By analogy to Akkadian, there was an original "yaqtulu" form, existing distinctive from the "yaqtul" (imperfective) form. So, yes, Hebrew does in fact have a past tense. I would recommend the following article by John Cook:https://ancienthebrewgrammar.files.word ... avcons.pdf. He was my Hebrew professor and has his PhD in Hebrew Linguistics. In my estimation, all biases fully displayed, he's one of the rockstars in the field today.

I was told that my understanding of Biblical Hebrew grammar is very similar to that of the late Dr. Diethelm Michael of Uni Mainz. But I came to my understanding independently of ever hearing of him, and I have yet to read anything by him.

I haven't heard of him, but now you have me curious. I wanna see if I can find his stuff.

Thanks for responding!

Jonathan

[ducky]

Hi everyone

I don't know if I will join in every time, But this is my translation

Hidden Text

וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם עֶבֶד אַבְרָהָם הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי עֹמֵד בַּדָּרֶךְ וָאֶשְׁאַל אֶת הַנַּעֲרָה לֵאמֹר הֲיֵשׁ בְּבֵיתֵךְ מָקוֹם לִי וְלָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר אִתִּי וַתֹּאמַר יֵשׁ מָקוֹם לַאדֹנִי וְלַאֲנָשָׁיו וָאֶתֶּן לָהּ כָּסֶף וְעַתָּה אֲדֹנִי זָקֵן וְי"י בֵּרַךְ אֹתוֹ וַיִתֵּן אֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ לְיִצְחָק בְּנוֹ אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה לוֹ שָׂרָה וְעַתָּה אִם טוֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם הָבָה נִשְׁאֲלָה אֶת הַנַּעֲרָה אִם תִּהְיֶה לְבֶן אֲדֹנִי לְאִשָׁה וְתֵלֵךְ אַחֲרַי לְבֵית אֲדֹנִי

I put it here again with punctuation marks.

Hidden Text

וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם עֶבֶד אַבְרָהָם: "הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי עֹמֵד בַּדָּרֶךְ, וָאֶשְׁאַל אֶת הַנַּעֲרָה לֵאמֹר: הֲיֵשׁ בְּבֵיתֵךְ מָקוֹם לִי וְלָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר אִתִּי? וַתֹּאמַר: יֵשׁ מָקוֹם לַאדֹנִי וְלַאֲנָשָׁיו, וָאֶתֶּן לָהּ כָּסֶף. וְעַתָּה, אֲדֹנִי זָקֵן, וְי"י בֵּרַךְ אֹתוֹ. וַיִתֵּן אֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ לְיִצְחָק בְּנוֹ אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה לוֹ שָׂרָה. וְעַתָּה, אִם טוֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם, הָבָה נִשְׁאֲלָה אֶת הַנַּעֲרָה אִם תִּהְיֶה לְבֶן אֲדֹנִי לְאִשָׁה וְתֵלֵךְ אַחֲרַי לְבֵית אֲדֹנִי."

***************************************
I saw a lot of discussions here, and I didn't read it all (yet).
But I just notice one thing that gave the claim of השחוה based on חוה.
I know this theory, and it is doubtful, and I don't think that this claim is correct. I mean, when I read it I wasn't convinced so much from the explanation.

[Jason Hare]

I saw a lot of discussions here, and I didn't read it all (yet).
But I just notice one thing that gave the claim of השחוה based on חוה.
I know this theory, and it is doubtful, and I don't think that this claim is correct. I mean, when I read it I wasn't convinced so much from the explanation.

I think it's pretty much accepted today that it is the root חוה in the stem הִשְׁתַּפְעֵל, which is attested in Ugaritic. You can read about it here and here (with citations).

[Jason Hare]

Hi everyone

I don't know if I will join in every time, But this is my translation

Hidden Text

וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם עֶבֶד אַבְרָהָם הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי עֹמֵד בַּדָּרֶךְ וָאֶשְׁאַל אֶת הַנַּעֲרָה לֵאמֹר הֲיֵשׁ בְּבֵיתֵךְ מָקוֹם לִי וְלָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר אִתִּי וַתֹּאמַר יֵשׁ מָקוֹם לַאדֹנִי וְלַאֲנָשָׁיו וָאֶתֶּן לָהּ כָּסֶף וְעַתָּה אֲדֹנִי זָקֵן וְי"י בֵּרַךְ אֹתוֹ וַיִתֵּן אֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ לְיִצְחָק בְּנוֹ אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה לוֹ שָׂרָה וְעַתָּה אִם טוֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם הָבָה נִשְׁאֲלָה אֶת הַנַּעֲרָה אִם תִּהְיֶה לְבֶן אֲדֹנִי לְאִשָׁה וְתֵלֵךְ אַחֲרַי לְבֵית אֲדֹנִי

I'd just correct that ואתן would either be pointed וָאֶתֵּן (with tsere) or joined the next word with makaf (וָאֶתֶּן־לָהּ) and that there might be an issue with the form of וְתֵלֵךְ since it is future in sense and would probably be with vav consecutive: וְהָֽלְכָה "and she will go"; or removed from the vav: וְאַחֲרַי הִיא תֵּלֵךְ.

Very nice!

[ducky]

Hi Jason,

As for השתחוה, I'll check it on the weekend.

As for ואתן לה - it must come with Segol since it is connected to לה.
(I didn't add Maqaph because it is a cantillation mark, and I didn't put them, maybe I will next time).
But there is no אתן with Tsere before לי, לה and so on.

As for ותלך, explain to me again what is the problem that you see.
I voweled it with two Tsere, and the prefix V with Sheva, so it is also future tense.
just like 1Kings 11:21 שַׁלְּחֵנִי וְאֵלֵךְ אֶל אַרְצִי
or:
Jer. 51:9 עִזְבוּהָ וְנֵלֵךְ אִישׁ לְאַרְצוֹ
or:
2Sam. 19:27 אֶחְבְּשָׁה לִּי הַחֲמוֹר וְאֶרְכַּב עָלֶיהָ וְאֵלֵךְ אֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ
or:
Ho. 5:14 אֲנִי אֲנִי אֶטְרֹף וְאֵלֵךְ אֶשָּׂא וְאֵין מַצִּיל

[Jason Hare]

As for ותלך, explain to me again what is the problem that you see.
I voweled it with two Tsere, and the prefix V with Sheva, so it is also future tense.
just like 1Kings 11:21 שַׁלְּחֵנִי וְאֵלֵךְ אֶל אַרְצִי
or:
Jer. 51:9 עִזְבוּהָ וְנֵלֵךְ אִישׁ לְאַרְצוֹ
or:
2Sam. 19:27 אֶחְבְּשָׁה לִּי הַחֲמוֹר וְאֶרְכַּב עָלֶיהָ וְאֵלֵךְ אֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ
or:
Ho. 5:14 אֲנִי אֲנִי אֶטְרֹף וְאֵלֵךְ אֶשָּׂא וְאֵין מַצִּיל

As far as I can tell, every instance of וַתֵּ֫לֶךְ has past reference, though. Contrast that with וְהָֽלְכָה, which has future or potential reference. I just think it would be better, since the text says "she will go," to make it either והלכה or to remove תלך from the vav so that it isn't read as vav-consecutive. That is, move the prepositional phrase to the front.

Don't you agree?

[Jonathan Beck]

Hidden Text

וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם הִנֵּה עָמַדְתִּי בַדֶרֶךְ וַאֶשְׁעַל הַנְּעַרָה לֵאמֹר הֲיֵשׁ מָקוֹם לִי בְּבֵתְּךָ וְהָאֲנָשִׁים עִמָדִּי וַתֹּאמֶר יֵשׁ לַאדֹנִי וּלְאֲנָשָׁיו וָאֵתֶּן לָהּ כֶּסֶף וְעַתָּה אדֹנִי זָקֵן וַיהוה בֶּרְכּוֹ
וַיְִתֶּן אֵלָיו כָל־אַשֶׁר לוֹ אֶל־יִצחַק בְּנוֹ אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה לוֹ שָׂרָה וְעָתָה אִם־טוֹב בְּעֵנֶיךָ נִשְׁאַל אַנַחְנוּ אֶת־הַנְעֲרָה אִם תִּהְיֶה לָבֵן־אֲדֹנִי וַתֵּלֶךְ אַחֲרַי אֶל־בֵּית־אדֹנִי

Just one quick correction here Jonathan - think you're missing a yod from בְּבֵתְּךָ , else your sentence reads something else here.

Secondly, I'm pretty sure the preposition ל- should be prefixed to all direct objects of the verb, so לִי and וְלַאֲנָשִׁים.

Edit:
Also, I think we've got a decision to make in this sentence:

And now, if it is good in your eyes, let us ask the girl...

Is this a singular "your", or a plural "your"? Context wise I actually think this should be plural.

Would happily like to amend my translation from בְּעֵינֶיךָ to בְּעֵינֵיכֶם.

You are correct on all counts. Thanks!

[ducky]

Hi Jason,

Notice, that I didn't write וַתֵּ֫לֶךְ - This indeed represents the past.
I wrote, וְתֵּלֵ֫ךְ - which is a regular imperfect form + the conjunctive Vav.

***

Before I'll comment to your suggestions, I think that we need to check if we understand the request (in the quote) in the same way.
Because when I read this request, I feel that it can be understood in two ways (and I understand only in one way):

His request was: Let's ask the girl if she agrees to Be his wife and to Come with me.

There are two verbs here (to be his wife - and to come with me).

I read these two verbs as part of the same request.
As: If she agrees to be his wife and +Also+ to come with me.

But I don't know if you read it as if she agrees to be his wife (and if she does) +Then+ she'll come with me.
That reading breaks the request only to the first verb (to be his wife).
And the second verb is not part of the request, but actually, the conclusion that is said to his hosts.

As I said, my understanding is that these two verbs are part of the same request.
If she agrees to be his wife and (also) to come with me.


And so, I read this as a one-time "if", which the two verbs refer to the same subject in the same context. And also, as I said above in this post, it is not an "if and then" (with result). Just "if".

And so, look for example at Jer. 2:24
כִּי אִם תְּכַבְּסִי בַּנֶּתֶר וְתַרְבִּי לָךְ בֹּרִית נִכְתָּם עֲוֺנֵךְ לְפָנַי

Here there are two verbs for the same subject and idea (תכבסי and תרבי), and so they are written together with the conjunctive Vav.

*****
And generally, there is no problem using the conjunctive Vav with the imperfect.

Gen. 30:3
בֹּא אֵלֶיהָ וְתֵלֵד עַל בִּרְכַּי

Gen. 38:24
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה הוֹצִיאוּהָ וְתִשָּׂרֵף

Ex. 2:7
וְקָרָאתִי לָךְ אִשָּׁה מֵינֶקֶת מִן הָעִבְרִיֹּת וְתֵינִק לָךְ אֶת הַיָּלֶד

Num. 21:27
תִּבָּנֶה וְתִכּוֹנֵן עִיר סִיחוֹן

Deut. 32:1
הַאֲזִינוּ הַשָּׁמַיִם וַאֲדַבֵּרָה וְתִשְׁמַע הָאָרֶץ אִמְרֵי פִי

Judges 9:15
תֵּצֵא אֵשׁ מִן הָאָטָד וְתֹאכַל אֶת אַרְזֵי הַלְּבָנוֹן

And more.

****
When I read it with והלכה אחרי I feel that the change of the verb form (from imperfect to perfect) creates a distance, and gives the sense of a case and result.

I can "feel more comfortable" with your other suggestion of ואחרי תלך.
But I'll stick with how I wrote.

I'm willing to hear any kind of argument or correction to my words if you think that I'm wrong or still need an "adjustment".

[Jason Hare]

Well, actually I did understand it as you suggested in the second instance. That is, "let's ask her if she will become his wife, and [then] she'll come with us." As if the case was already somehow settled. That's how I was reading it, and it's what influenced by translation.

I think we've gone back and forth on it enough.
Shall we go ahead with the next exercise?