majesty vs irregularity?

A place for those new to Biblical Hebrew to ask basic questions about the language of the Hebrew Bible.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: majesty vs irregularity?

Post by Jason Hare »

Isaac Fried wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:44 pm Jason emphatically declares
Yes, it's goats. Goats and cows. Of course.
This is interesting. Are you suggesting, Jason, that 'bull' is בעל? Otherwise, where did you get the cows?

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com
I could just as meaningfully written "monkeys."
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: 1195
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: majesty vs irregularity?

Post by Jason Hare »

ralph wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:19 pm
ducky wrote: Jason wrote you בעלים
It doesn't occur anywhere in tanach, so maybe he is thinking of modern hebrew again?!
:sigh:

Please refer to ducky's comment on this in the other thread. Why are we talking across threads with this topic? If you want to have a conversation about something, please refrain from opening three threads on the same question.

To be clear: Biblical Hebrew and modern Hebrew are not different languages. They are different time periods of the same language. בעלים is clearly used the same in the Bible as how I mentioned it. You have to look for words' suffixes, too. Not just the absolute (free) form of the word. When I write בעלים, I assume that anyone who looks for the term will also search for בעליו and בעליה (and all the other forms with suffixes). That's how Hebrew works.
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: 1776
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: majesty vs irregularity?

Post by Isaac Fried »

Jason says
I could just as meaningfully written "monkeys."
It gets wittier and funnier by the hour. Now I will still more delightfully write "zebras".

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com
ralph
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

Re: majesty vs irregularity?

Post by ralph »

Jason Hare wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 9:52 am When I write בעלים, I assume that anyone who looks for the term will also search for בעליו and בעליה (and all the other forms with suffixes)
Well I don't try to read into what people are saying. Likewise better if you don't try to read into what I am saying.

if you say בעלים is there, I assume you mean that.

But next time i'll know that when you say בעלים you mean not necessarily בעלים or(as in this case), not בעלים at all, but other forms of the word.
Ralph Zak
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: majesty vs irregularity?

Post by Jason Hare »

ralph wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 12:42 pm But next time i'll know that when you say בעלים you mean not necessarily בעלים or(as in this case), not בעלים at all, but other forms of the word.
When I talk about the word כסף, I figure it's obvious to everyone that I'm talking about it when it's in construct, when it's in the absolute state, when it's got a suffix, when it's singular, when it's plural. When we talk about a WORD, we talk about all the forms that word might appear in (unless we specify otherwise). I never said "the form בעלים to the exclusion of all of its various functions within a sentence." In fact, that would be odd. I think this is a basic assumption that we all make when we talk about words. I was obviously talking about the plural of בעל, but I wasn't talking about it only in the absolute form. I never made that contention.
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
ralph
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

Re: majesty vs irregularity?

Post by ralph »

Jason Hare wrote: ....
When people study basic hebrew, then if they were asked for example, to say "I go", it'd be "Ani Holech". Not Ani Holchim. Holchim would be seen as the wrong word, and a different word to Holech. Different letters too, though the same root.

Not a perfect analogy, but my point is that when you said one form of the word, I didn't expect you meant another form of the word.

And that's fine.

I hope you are tolerant to the idea that I might think of two forms of a word as being a different word(though with the same root). Just as I am tolerant to the idea that you might say one form of a word and mean another.

Now I know you wanted to say a form of plural of the root Baal. (And not actually the form you wrote).

As I said. The important thing is "next time i'll know that when you say בעלים you mean not necessarily בעלים or(as in this case), not בעלים at all, but other forms of the word."
Ralph Zak
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: majesty vs irregularity?

Post by Jason Hare »

No. הולך and מתהלך are two different words with the same root. הולך and הולכים are the same word. אתה הולכים is a grammatical mistake of concord (agreement). It isn't a lexical mistake (using the wrong word). If you look up all of the instances of ללכת (which is normally referred to as הלך among those who had seminary training), you will look for הלך הלכתי הלכה אלך ילך הולך etc. It's all the same word, like "eat" is the same word as "eats" in English.

In the end, it doesn't matter. I'd totally like to move on from this nonsense.
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
ralph
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

Re: majesty vs irregularity?

Post by ralph »

Jason Hare wrote:
like "eat" is the same word as "eats" in English.
for the sake of moving on from this discussion about what is a word, let's agree to disagree about that statement of yours? and I will bear in mind that when you speak of words it means something slightly different to when I do.
Ralph Zak
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: majesty vs irregularity?

Post by Jason Hare »

ralph wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:55 pm
Jason Hare wrote:
like "eat" is the same word as "eats" in English.
for the sake of moving on from this discussion about what is a word, let's agree to disagree about that statement of yours? and I will bear in mind that when you speak of words it means something slightly different to when I do.
I would hate to think that people don't agree on what a word is, though. That's just odd.
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
kwrandolph
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: majesty vs irregularity?

Post by kwrandolph »

What I’ve noticed is that some words, the plural refers to status or state—e.g. ילדים used for the state of being a youth, זקנים the state of being old, מגורים the state of being a sojourner, מותים the state of being dead, and so forth.

I hadn’t considered the nouns אדנים or אלהים, but are these examples where the plural is used not only to refer to the individual, but also to his status?

On another note, the name ירושלם was still pronounced in backwards Galilee as “Yerosoluma” as late as the first century, while it was pronounced as “Yerusalem” in Jerusalem itself as well as the diaspora. It wasn’t dual. I mention “backwards Galilee” as a place more likely to retain older pronunciations.

Karl W. Randolph.
Post Reply