B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

kwrandolph wrote:The moment you used the term “rare”, you just opened a hole big enough to drive a semi through it. Just because a use is rare does not make it wrong. Even if there’s just one example in Tanakh, that shows that the form was used.

"Rare" wasn't my word. I'm guessing that's yours. I said "with few notable exceptions." Again, those exceptions have to do with participles, not with nouns, in which the article is functioning as a relative pronoun (not as a determiner). You have not used a participle. The form המגפת is unambiguously incorrect.

kwrandolph wrote:That was deliberate. I noticed early on, and especially after I stopped reading with points, how seldom matres lectiones were used in Biblical Hebrew, especially prior to the Exile. It’s very likely that the waws ו and yods י and other letters that later were considered to be matres lectiones were all consonantal in Biblical Hebrew. The use of matres lectiones exploded post-Biblical Hebrew. Therefore, to give the feeling of Biblical Hebrew, I left out the matres lectiones that probably wouldn’t have been used in Biblical Hebrew.

So, let's say you left the matres off, so that קוֹרוֹנָה becomes קֹרֹנָה. Where did you come up with the ־ית ending? Why not leave it ־ה? I could understand if you had written מגפת הקרנה, though the form would be ambiguous (since הַקְרָנָה is already a word in Hebrew). At least מגפת הקרנה would be justifiable, but you wrote המגפת קרנית, which doesn't make any sense at all.

kwrandolph wrote:I thought critique is constructive.

Are you saying that you thought that your criticism was being constructive or that all criticism is constructive? There is constructive criticism, and there is criticism that is bordering on nihilistic commentary. Your criticism is basically just telling me that, in your opinion, I have no hope of doing better because my mapping of Hebrew damaged by knowing modern Hebrew. That isn't helpful, nor do I think it is accurate. From what I've seen, you offer corrections that are contrary to how the Hebrew language works, committing errors in basic concepts, such as definiteness and the construct state. To offer correction, you need to be correct in what you're offering.

ducky wrote:I read a nice suggestion on the internet which one said that we should call the Corona in the name of כתרת (katteret).
From the word כתר (crown) - and in the form of illnesses such as:
דלקת, שחפת, צרעת, ספחת, בהרת, ילפת, שרטת, צרבת

People made several suggestions to the Academy, but they chose to stay with קורונה.

Hi Jason,

Thanks, I didn't see that.

So I see now that there was also נזרת and קרנת which are also nice.

I think that the Academy is right for not dealing with this (on that point of time) since this virus is (maybe) not here to stay, and so it is like Sars and Ebola which came and went.

But if this virus will come every year, and each year there will be people who are sick from this Corona (like the flew in each year), so I guess it will "deserve" to have a Hebrew name.

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:The moment you used the term “rare”, you just opened a hole big enough to drive a semi through it. Just because a use is rare does not make it wrong. Even if there’s just one example in Tanakh, that shows that the form was used.

"Rare" wasn't my word. I'm guessing that's yours. I said "with few notable exceptions." Again, those exceptions have to do with participles, not with nouns,

In Biblical Hebrew, participles are nouns. They are either actors, or gerunds which are nouns. Participles are declined as nouns because they’re nouns.

Jason Hare wrote:in which the article is functioning as a relative pronoun (not as a determiner). You have not used a participle. The form המגפת is unambiguously incorrect.

Then you’ll have to say that האשמרת in Judges 7:19 is also incorrect.

I spent a few minutes to see if I could find any examples of a definite article on a noun in construct, and found what looks like one before I even got out of the Alephs. And I checked fewer than half the possibilities to get to this point. I also found that it’s far rarer than I expected.

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:I thought critique is constructive.

Are you saying that you thought that your criticism was being constructive or that all criticism is constructive? There is constructive criticism, and there is criticism that is bordering on nihilistic commentary. Your criticism is basically just telling me that, in your opinion, I have no hope of doing better because my mapping of Hebrew damaged by knowing modern Hebrew. That isn't helpful, nor do I think it is accurate. From what I've seen, you offer corrections that are contrary to how the Hebrew language works, committing errors in basic concepts, such as definiteness and the construct state. To offer correction, you need to be correct in what you're offering.

Constructive criticism identifies a problem, explains why it is is a problem, then suggests a solution. In that previous message I defined a problem—זמן‫-‬—told why it’s a problem—its use in Biblical Hebrew—and suggested a solution—“In the days of…”.

Let’s look at something else in your paragraph. In it, you used the verb שאר to talk about remaining in your house (problem). I don’t know it’s modern meaning, but in Biblical Hebrew it had the meaning of something left over, remaining, like leftovers from a meal. The way it comes out is “I was leftovers in my house” (why it’s a problem). I don’t know of any Biblical Hebrew word corresponding to the English idea of to remain, stay, so where in English we’d say “I stayed (remained) in my house for a month” the way it comes out in Biblical Hebrew is “I settled ישב in my house one month.” (solution).

The ancient Hebrew word for “yeast” שאר is from the same root—it’s the amount of dough left over after taking the amount of dough needed to make bread. However, in this case, the dough left behind is the starter for tomorrow’s bread in the sourdough process.

Let’s face it, none of us, myself included, will ever get to the point where we can write flawless Biblical Hebrew. What I say is that people like you, who know modern Israeli Hebrew better than they know Biblical Hebrew, face an extra challenge that I and people like me who don’t know modern Israeli Hebrew face, namely the problem of cognate language cross-contamination. All of us have enough problems of imposing out native languages onto Biblical Hebrew when we try to write in Biblical Hebrew.

Karl W. Randolph.

Ps. At least you didn’t do like President Kennedy—he called himself a jelly roll in a public speech in front of thousands.

kwrandolph wrote:In Biblical Hebrew, participles are nouns. They are either actors, or gerunds which are nouns. Participles are declined as nouns because they’re nouns.

Participles are verbal adjectives. The infinitive construct is the verbal noun. And participles have a feature that other adjectives do not... in that they can take the definite article with the sense of the relative pronoun.

כָּל־הָעֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת מוֹת יוּמָת׃
Everyone who does work on the Sabbath day will surely be put to death.

אַשְׁרֵי תְמִימֵי־דָרֶךְ הַהֹלְכִים בְּתוֹרַת יְהוָה׃
Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the Lord.

וְהִנֵּה עֵינֵיכֶם רֹאוֹת וְעֵינֵי אָחִי בִנְיָמִין כִּי־פִי הַמְדַבֵּר אֲלֵיכֶם׃
Behold, your eyes see, and the eyes of my brother Benjamin, that my [‎own] mouth [‎is] [the one] which is speaking to you.

This sense is most often, but not always, created when there is discord in definiteness between the referent ("subject") and the participle.

Thus also, the phrase הַפּוֹדֵ֫נוּ מִיַּד מְלָכִים "[the one] who redeems us from the hand of kings" from within the Jewish prayer service. It seems that there is but one biblical example that has an article attached with a personal suffix: Job 40.19, in which we see הָעֹשׂוֹ "[the one] who made him." As I said, it's a rare construction, and the way that you used הַמַּגֵּפַת is completely incorrect without any justifiable defense.

Whereas the participle is a verbal adjective, it shares the function of substantivalization that all adjectives can perform. That is, just as צַדִּיק can mean "righteous" or "a righteous person," so a participle can take on the quality of a noun. That's a standard feature of adjectives.

kwrandolph wrote:Then you’ll have to say that האשמרת in Judges 7:19 is also incorrect.

I don't have to say that at all. There are some nouns that take an absolute form like this that resembles the construct. אַשְׁמֹ֫רֶת happens to be one of them (which could also appear as אַשְׁמֻרָה). You could also call to mind תִּפְאֶ֫רֶת in the absolute state, which also appears as תִּפְאָרָה. These forms can be ambiguous because there is a pattern that has absolutes that look like constructs (such as מִשְׁמֶ֫רֶת). Your objection on the case is without merit, since הָאַשְׁמֹ֫רֶת is as acceptable as are הַמִּשְׁמֶ֫רֶת and הַתִּפְאֶ֫רֶת (which are both anticipated and witnessed in the text).

kwrandolph wrote:I spent a few minutes to see if I could find any examples of a definite article on a noun in construct, and found what looks like one before I even got out of the Alephs. And I checked fewer than half the possibilities to get to this point. I also found that it’s far rarer than I expected.

Far rarer? It doesn't happen.

kwrandolph wrote:Constructive criticism identifies a problem, explains why it is is a problem, then suggests a solution.

But when the criticism is not valid, it's a problem. We should not be making criticisms for the sake of being critical. The criticism should be well-placed and as accurate as we can expect from one another as we attempt to build one another up rather than just offer opposition.

kwrandolph wrote:Let’s look at something else in your paragraph. In it, you used the verb שאר to talk about remaining in your house (problem). I don’t know it’s modern meaning, but in Biblical Hebrew it had the meaning of something left over, remaining, like leftovers from a meal. The way it comes out is “I was leftovers in my house” (why it’s a problem). I don’t know of any Biblical Hebrew word corresponding to the English idea of to remain, stay, so where in English we’d say “I stayed (remained) in my house for a month” the way it comes out in Biblical Hebrew is “I settled ישב in my house one month.” (solution).

נִשְׁאַר means "remained," as in "didn't leave" or "wasn't taken." Look at Nehemiah, which you read the other day. It very clearly uses this verb of those who were living in Jerusalem when the prophet came back to inspect the city. They "remained" there while the rest of the people were carried off to Babylon. יָשַׁב can just as easily mean "I sat" as it does "I dwelt" (Gen 18.1 comes to mind, where Abraham was יֹשֵׁב sitting at the entrance to his tent when the angels came to pay him a visit). Your objections to these things are really off.

kwrandolph wrote:Let’s face it, none of us, myself included, will ever get to the point where we can write flawless Biblical Hebrew. What I say is that people like you, who know modern Israeli Hebrew better than they know Biblical Hebrew, face an extra challenge that I and people like me who don’t know modern Israeli Hebrew face, namely the problem of cognate language cross-contamination. All of us have enough problems of imposing out native languages onto Biblical Hebrew when we try to write in Biblical Hebrew.

I have to reject your criticisms. I don't see them as valid, except for the use of עִדָּן, since that is clearly not a Hebrew term. Then again, neither were פֶּחָה or דָּת before they became necessary to import it to match the realities of life.

Even you felt the need to create the word קרנית as an attempt to express "Conora," though neither I nor David were able to understand why you used ־ית instead of ־ה as the suffix. If you didn't want to use the matres lectionis, fine; but, why not use ־ה so that we would read it as קֹרֹ֫נָה? Where did that -îṯ come from? We're honestly curious to know.

Our purpose should be to build one another up, and we can do that by providing examples from the Scriptures that might demonstrate a point of grammar that we've fudged on or to show where a word is used a certain way that justifies or negates our use. We shouldn't be overly critical in a nebulous sense that serves to make others feel overcome and overwhelmed.

Jason

In Judges 7:19 it says האשמרת התיכונה
This form is not a construct state at all
it is a noun and its adjective
such as
הים האחרון
הנער הקטן
and so on...

אשמרת - even though it ends with a T doesn't mean it comes here as a construct state. The T comes as a feminine suffix also on absolute forms.

******

In Construct states, the first part does not have the definite article.
I searched for some exceptions and I saw
המלך בבל - instead of the expected מלך בבל
And also - הארון הברית - instead of the expected ארון הברית

These examples of exceptions do not reflect the "right form" of a construct state. And can be explained maybe as dropping a noun
as המלך, מלך בבל
הארון, ארון הברית
or just some sort of doubling the H for some reason.

Also, in these examples, the first part (word) of the construct state has the same form as its absolute form, and I don't know another example in which the first part comes with a specific construct form.

Construct states form appears in the Bible hundreds of times, and their way is known.
We don't need to look under the ground to justify some sort of another form.

******************************************

as for נשאר

you can see for example in Num. 11:26
וישארו שני אנשים במחנה... ולא יצאו האהלה
In this case, it says that they stayed in the camp and didn't go out.

Also, whenever it comes in the sense of people left in someplace after a war or something like that, and it says הנשארים בעיר or something like that, as "left in the city" - still, the sense is that they remained in the city.

Therefore, there is no problem to say להשאר בבית - to stay at home.

Adding to my above post.
I want to correct myself a little bit.

I wrote that "in these examples (הארון הברית, המלך בבל), the first part (word) of the construct state has the same form as its absolute form"

But of course, the word הארון (and also המלך) in the combination of הארון הברית comes in the form of the absolute (since it is after a definite article, and also according to its vowels).

**
Another example that I saw is with the first part of the combination that it is a word who has the dual form in the script - the word נבואה

the absolute form is נבואה
the construct form is נבואת

and so, this example can be seen more clearly

And it says in 2Chr. 15:8
והנבואה עדד הנביא
which here we can see it as ונבואת עדד הנביא

but the word נבואת came in the absolute form (נבואה) and with a definite article.
Meaning, even in this rare case when the first part comes with a definite article, it is that this article forces the word to be in an absolute form (and not to be in its construct form).

It could be also that this form is just with a missing ל
as: והנבואה לעדד הנביא

or with מ
והנבואה מעדד הנביא
(since it can be understood that this prophecy was said by his son).

Anyway, no style of המגפת הקורונה/קורונית is valid (even if there is some sort of exception like that, which I don't think so).

And the general point is that exceptions are to be seen as exceptions, especially when they are exceptions of a very wide and common pattern.

Sorry for the third post in a row...

Adding to my last posts...

If one would say המגפה קורונה - then it could be acceptable since it is like:
המלך דוד - King David
or
העיר ירושלים - Jerusalem City

And as you can say in English: The boy Danny is a good boy (I think).


And this form can come with private names.
And Corona is a private name.

But basically, the plagues in the Bible appear without any prefixed word.
they appear only in their name and that's it.

without saying מגפת הקורונה or מחלת הקורונה and so on...
But just would say קורונה as the name of the plague.

Anyway, it doesn't mean that using the name of plague in a combination hurts the syntax or grammar if one wants to use it that way.

Jason Hare wrote:Participles are verbal adjectives. The infinitive construct is the verbal noun. And participles have a feature that other adjectives do not... in that they can take the definite article with the sense of the relative pronoun.

I won’t argue the point with you, other than to say that “verbal adjective” sounds like an imposition of western languages onto Hebrew. When reading Hebrew, I often see it referring to an object defined by its action, whose translation into English requires a phrase as there’s no equivalent in English for such a noun. Hence they are nouns. And that’s why they can take the definite article.

In English, nouns were defined as static objects. I wouldn’t be surprised if the same is true from DSS Hebrew to modern Israeli Hebrew. But in Biblical Hebrew, many nouns were defined by their action, their function, and there’s no way in English to express such nouns other than by using a phrase with verbal adjectives. But those are nouns in Biblical Hebrew.

Jason Hare wrote:כָּל־הָעֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת מוֹת יוּמָת׃
Everyone who does work on the Sabbath day will surely be put to death.

As I frequently assert, translation often ≠ Hebrew original. Even the following is not an exact translation, “Every doer of work towards his enrichment on the Sabbath day should surely be caused to die.”

Jason Hare wrote:This sense is most often, but not always, created when there is discord in definiteness between the referent ("subject") and the participle.

The participle / noun often is the subject.

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:Then you’ll have to say that האשמרת in Judges 7:19 is also incorrect.

I don't have to say that at all. There are some nouns that take an absolute form like this that resembles the construct. אַשְׁמֹ֫רֶת happens to be one of them (which could also appear as אַשְׁמֻרָה).

All three times אשמרת is found, it is in construct, It has the same meaning as אשמורה in Psalm 90:4.

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:Let’s look at something else in your paragraph. In it, you used the verb שאר to talk about remaining in your house (problem). I don’t know it’s modern meaning, but in Biblical Hebrew it had the meaning of something left over, remaining, like leftovers from a meal. The way it comes out is “I was leftovers in my house” (why it’s a problem). I don’t know of any Biblical Hebrew word corresponding to the English idea of to remain, stay, so where in English we’d say “I stayed (remained) in my house for a month” the way it comes out in Biblical Hebrew is “I settled ישב in my house one month.” (solution).

נִשְׁאַר means "remained," as in "didn't leave" or "wasn't taken." Look at Nehemiah, which you read the other day. It very clearly uses this verb of those who were living in Jerusalem when the prophet came back to inspect the city. They "remained" there while the rest of the people were carried off to Babylon.

What? Nehemiah rebuilt Jerusalem’s walls about 417 BC. This was long after Cyrus allowed Jews to return to Judea and ordered the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem. But the city and its walls had not been rebuilt. And, according to Nehemiah, the conditions were quite unpleasant for people living in Judea.

Left unsaid, but implied by Nehemiah’s use of שאר is that even many of those who had “returned” to Judea had since left to go to where life was more pleasant. So that all who were left were the leftovers.

As for the people Nebuchadnezzar left behind in Judea, they all upped and left for Egypt, according to Jeremiah. Judea was left completely depopulated.

Jason Hare wrote: יָשַׁב can just as easily mean "I sat" as it does "I dwelt"

That’s why I used the term “settle” because it, like ישב, can be used for both sitting and dwelling.

Jason Hare wrote:Our purpose should be to build one another up, and we can do that by providing examples from the Scriptures that might demonstrate a point of grammar that we've fudged on or to show where a word is used a certain way that justifies or negates our use. We shouldn't be overly critical in a nebulous sense that serves to make others feel overcome and overwhelmed.

This is why I decided not to participate in writing nor critiquing in this forum. Even when I try to critique in a way that I intend to build up, you take it negatively.

Jason Hare wrote:Jason

Have fun.

Karl W. Randolph.