# It's the first time that



## hadronic

What's the most common way to say "it's the first time (I'm doing this)" ?
Is it "זו הפעם הראשונה ש" or "זו פעם ראשונה ש" ?


----------



## origumi

I assumed that it's almost always הפעם הראשונה... but according to Google the two alternatives have similar popularity.


----------



## tamah

As far as my hebrew knowledge goes it is as origumi says הפעם הראשונה

ראשונה = first
הראשונה = the first - *'ה'* preceding 'ראשונה' gives it the meaning as '*the* first' which is fitting in this sentence.


----------



## origumi

tamah said:


> As far as my hebrew knowledge goes it is [...] הפעם הראשונה


In the Mishna it is always (or almost always) פעם ראשונה.


----------



## scriptum

To the best of my understanding, the difference between זו פעם ראשונה and זו הפעם הראשונה is very much the same as between "c'est une première fois..." and "c'est la première fois..."


----------



## hadronic

I'm precisely asking because the google fight gave a 50-50 for both solutions.
And from the contexts where I've seen them, it's always in the sense of "it's the first time" and never "it's a first time". I'm precisely asking because the absence of the article, otherwise meaning undefiniteness, looks like here to be understood as an _expression figée_ without strict grammatical ground. Just as יום שישי that means "_the _sixth day", and not "_a _sixth day".


----------



## origumi

There's a little difference - you can say "*be*-yom shishi" but not "*be*-fa`am rishona", only "*ba*-ppa`am *ha*-rishona".


----------



## scriptum

hadronic said:


> Just as יום שישי that means "_the _sixth day", and not "_a _sixth day".


Why not? To the best of my understanding, it could mean both.


----------



## Aoyama

> To the best of my understanding, the difference between זו פעם ראשונה and זו הפעם הראשונה is very much the same as between "c'est une première fois..." and "c'est la première fois..."


That is a good way to put things, but then the sentence should go a bit further :
. c'est une première [fois] pour ce magasin d'ouvrir un dimanche (possible but a bit unusual, both in French and in English)
it's a first [time] for this shop to open (on) a sunday
zo pa'am rishona la hanut ha ze lefatekh [?] (lihiot patouakh) be yom rishon
. c'est la première [fois] *que* ce magasin *ouvre* un dimanche
it's the first time for this shop to open (on) a sunday
zo hapa'am ha rishona la hanut ha ze ....
sorry, no Hebrew letters here.


----------



## scriptum

Aoyama said:


> sentence should go a bit further


Est-ce à dire que la phrase "_c'est une première fois que tu te fais les sourcils_" est incorrecte? On trouve cette construction sur Google et, sauf erreur, je l'ai entendue dans la bouche des francophones. Il est vrai que la différence entre _une première fois _et _la_ _première fois _est peu perceptible, mais on en peut dire autant de la différence entre _zo_ _paam_ et _zo_ _hapaam_...


----------



## Aoyama

> Est-ce à dire que la phrase "_c'est une première fois que tu te fais les sourcils_" est incorrecte?


Euh, ce n'est pas vraiment ici le lieu de discuter l'exactitude d'une phrase en français, mais oui, cette phrase est discutable, pour ne pas dire incorrecte.
Quant à zo paam (c'est une fois + contexte) et zo hapaam (c'est la fois + contexte), les deux constructions sont très possibles en hébreu, mais la première est assez rare en français.
. c'est une fois de trop (zo paam yoter midai ?)
. c'est la fois où je suis allé chez lui (zo hapaam [k]she ayiti etslo)


----------



## hadronic

scriptum said:


> Why not? To the best of my understanding, it could mean both.


 
You didn't get my point...
"yom shishi" can actually mean both "a sixth day" and "the sixth day", but the first is the logical grammatical meaning of it, the latter more of an commonly accepted coinage, with a global meaning not reductible to the sum its components (*). 
My point is : there are expressions that, _irrelevant_ of the determinedness of the matter, will take the article or not (because the article will not sum up to a logical grammatical meaning). One says "it's the first time that" but "it's high time (for you to do)". So it could have been plausible that "zo paam..." existed, irrelevant of the fact that "this very first time" is determined by nature.

(*) just as in French (grammatical vs. unanalyzable compound): 
la belle fille  =/= la belle-fille  (the pretty girl =/= the daughter in law)
Or Hebrew :
ha + (beged-yam)  => beged ha-yam = the cloth of the sea (grammatical)
=> ha beged-yam = the swimsuit (unanalyzable compound).


----------



## hadronic

origumi said:


> There's a little difference - you can say "*be*-yom shishi" but not "*be*-fa`am rishona", only "*ba*-ppa`am *ha*-rishona".


 
Of course. The point is not to say : "pa'am rishona" and "ha-paam ha-rishona" mean exactly the same ! Of course they don't.

The point is : _in_ the expression "it's the first time that", which one do we use ? _In_ the expression "for the first time", which one do we use ?
Languages being not logical and not predictable, it can be that the former will take the undefinite form, and the latter the definite. It's not because English uses definiteness for both that Hebrew will.


----------



## origumi

hadronic said:


> Of course. The point is not to say : "pa'am rishona" and "ha-paam ha-rishona" mean exactly the same ! Of course they don't.


Actually they do mean the same. As mentioned above, in certain times people used to prefer one of the ways, in other times the other. It seems that even if the definite article is omitted, yet conceptually it's there.


----------



## hadronic

origumi said:


> Actually they do mean the same. As mentioned above, in certain times people used to prefer one of the ways, in other times the other. It seems that even if the definite article is omitted, yet conceptually it's there.


 
You've said the keyword : "conceptually".
Grammatically and logically, they do not mean the same : one is definite, the other is not. But then, if people decide to "consider" that in certain circumstances they be interchangeable, it's another layer of the language that is addressed, one that is not required to be logical and analytical.


----------



## Aoyama

> The point is not to say : "pa'am rishona" and "ha-paam ha-rishona" mean exactly the same ! Of course they don't.//
> Actually they do mean the same. As mentioned above, in certain times people used to prefer one of the ways, in other times the other. _It seems that even if the definite article is omitted, yet conceptually it's there._


Yes, I agree with this.


> Grammatically and logically, they do not mean the same : _one is definite, the other is not_. But then, if people decide to "consider" that in certain circumstances they be interchangeable, it's another layer of the language that is addressed, one that is not required to be logical and analytical.


The point is to know whether in (modern) Hebrew the difference really exists ...


----------



## Maayan

Aoyama said:


> The point is to know whether in (modern) Hebrew the difference really exists ...


 
I don't think there's a difference in Modern Hebrew between the two.
You can say:
_זו פעם אחרונה שאני קונה בחנות הזאת!_
or
_זו הפעם האחרונה שאני קונה בחנות הזאת!_
To say that _It's the last time that I buy in this store!_

I guess it's because there can only be one last time for anything, so automatically it's definite, with or without the use of ה"א הידיעה.


----------



## Aoyama

But that's for a_ last_ time. What happens when it's a _first_ time ... ?


----------



## Maayan

oops, I forgot to type it down: In my opinion, there's no difference in Modern Hebrew between the two, just as in the example of The last time and Last time that I gave.
Here's another example:
_זו פעם ראשונה שאני אופה עוגת שוקולד_
_זו הפעם הראשונה שאני אופה עוגת שוקולד_
Same thing


----------



## Aoyama

Right (I was just joking).
That confirms what origumi said and what I thought ...


----------



## origumi

hadronic said:


> You've said the keyword : "conceptually".
> Grammatically and logically, they do not mean the same : one is definite, the other is not.


Of course "gramatically" one has definite article, the other doesn't. I am not sure what's the difference "logically", at least in Hebrew of the last two thousand years.



Aoyama said:


> That confirms what origumi said and what I thought ...


I referred not only to modern Hebrew but also to Mishnaic.


----------

