# laarog



## babaz

shalom,

ma ha-binyan chel laarog ?

paal o hiphil ?

toda


----------



## arielipi

Do you mean laharog, la'arog(alef), la'arog(ayin)?


----------



## Egmont

Pa'al. It's a standard construction, similar to the more common verbs לעמוד (la'amod, to stand), לעבוד (la'avod, to work) and לעצור (la'atsor, to stop), plus many more. You'll have the same vowels whenever the first letter of the root is an ע (ayin).

(Added in edit: I assumed the poster meant לערוג, to yearn. If it's one of the others that *arielipi* mentioned, that changes the answer.)


----------



## origumi

Well, all of them are pa`al: לערוג la-`a-rog, להרוג la-ha-rog, לארוג le-e-rog


----------



## babaz

Thank you !

I note the malice of arielipi  
It was simply to encourage me to better pronounce what should be three distinct pronunciations...
... I suppose.


----------



## Egmont

babaz said:


> ... I note the malice of arielipi   ...


_Malice_ is a "false friend." In French, it means (more or less) a trick. In English, its meaning is much more negative: a deliberately bad act. I don't think that's what you meant.

(If you want to discuss this further, the French-English Vocabulary forum would be a better place to continue.)


----------



## babaz

Oh, sorry...


----------



## JaiHare

Notice that peh-alef verbs should be _e-e_ in the infinitive.

לאכול _le-e-chol_
לאסוף _le-e-sof_
לארוז _le-e-roz_

Israelis tend to say, for example, לארוז as if it were לערוז _la-a-roz_. This is also what was demonstrated here, where לארוג was transliterated as _la-a-rog_, which is a mistake.


----------



## arielipi

Wow, youre right, havent thought about that. Thank you. But still i was malice on purpose, to teach a lesson, you need to be more specific with the pronunciation


----------



## tFighterPilot

JaiHare said:


> Notice that peh-alef verbs should be _e-e_ in the infinitive.
> 
> לאכול _le-e-chol_
> לאסוף _le-e-sof_
> לארוז _le-e-roz_
> 
> Israelis tend to say, for example, לארוז as if it were לערוז _la-a-roz_. This is also what was demonstrated here, where לארוג was transliterated as _la-a-rog_, which is a mistake.


It's not a mistake if native speakers speak that way.


----------



## arielipi

Scuse moi? Certainly we dont speak correctly, shtey yeladim instead of shney is one example.


----------



## tFighterPilot

arielipi said:


> Scuse moi? Certainly we dont speak correctly, shtey yeladim instead of shney is one example.


Nope. Languages change over time. These changes were not decided upon by a committee, they happen because of what you call mistakes. Without these so called mistakes, there would only be a handful of languages in the whole world because languages split when two people speak the same language differently.


----------



## JaiHare

tFighterPilot said:


> Nope. Languages change over time. These changes were not decided upon by a committee, they happen because of what you call mistakes. Without these so called mistakes, there would only be a handful of languages in the whole world because languages split when two people speak the same language differently.



I agree in principle, but Hebrew is a recreated language and did not undergo natural evolution. We're probably at the point of a split, but we all recognize what is "correct" and what is "incorrect" based on (1) the examples of the past 2000 years of Hebrew study and the language of the Bible and (2) the Academy of the Hebrew Language. There are now several languages that have academies dedicated to them in order to establish what is "acceptable" speech in the regular form of the language. This doesn't take into account all of the change that individual speakers produce, but it accounts for the general consensus of the population that speaks the language.

For sure, שתי ילדים is a mistake in Hebrew.


----------



## tFighterPilot

The academy doesn't make the consensus and even the bible contains more than one form of Hebrew (non of which relevant to modern Hebrew). I would agree that ילדים קטנות is a mistake, but שתי ילדים wouldn't be noticed as a mistake by most people and thus it isn't. The Hebrew language was revived over a hundred years ago, and since then it's as prone to changes as any other language.


----------



## tirgumx

tFighterPilot said:


> The academy doesn't make the consensus and even the bible contains more than one form of Hebrew (non of which relevant to modern Hebrew). I would agree that ילדים קטנות is a mistake, but שתי ילדים wouldn't be noticed as a mistake by most people and thus it isn't. The Hebrew language was revived over a hundred years ago, and since then it's as prone to changes as any other language.



In modern Hebrew there is no difference between ה, א, ע. They sound the same, although a minority of the speakers will still sometimes pronounce the "h" sound for ה. Also, the פ"א rules mentioned here are scarcely relevant these days. Thus, the verbs for "crave", "kill" and "weave", although written differently, are essentially the same verbs in the spoken language - "arag".

Don't listen to grammar cops


----------



## tFighterPilot

Actually the majority of speakers will sometimes pronounce ה as , depending on where it is. For example I doubt many people pronounce הדהים the same as הדים.


----------



## tirgumx

tFighterPilot said:


> Actually the majority of speakers will sometimes pronounce ה as , depending on where it is. For example I doubt many people pronounce הדהים the same as הדים.




this is because sometimes we listen with our eyes


----------

