# Their rod/Their rods



## kamalie

Hi everyone, I would like to ask which are the correct forms for the hebrew words "their (m.) rod" and "their (m.) rods"?
I know that the word for rod is מטה and it's a masculine noun with an ending typical of feminine nouns, so the plural should be מטות. When adding a pronominal suffix the masculine plural ending should be dropped, but in the case of masculine nouns that have feminine-like endings what happens?
Thanks.


----------



## amikama

"Their rod" is מטם (or alternatively המטה שלהם), and "Their rods" is מטותיהם (or המטות שלהם).
The plural suffix ‏-ות is not dropped when adding the possessive suffix, regardless of the gender of the noun.


----------



## utopia

מַטֶּה has a masculine ending. Its ending is EH and not AH.

Ah is the typical feminine ending.

The plural is a little bit tricky, but not more than other plurals.

As for the pronominal possessive suffix - the singular - their rod - is מַטָּם, or מַטֵּהֶם, according to the Academy of the Hebrew Language.

The plural is more conventional - מטות + יהם: מטותיהם.


----------



## kamalie

Thank you for your replies. 
In the Bible (Numbers 17:6) there is the word מַטּוֹתָֽם (or מַטֹּתָֽם), and I found that it is always translated as "their rods". Shouldn't the suffix ם  be used for singular names? I personally would write, following the general rules on pronominal suffixes in biblical hebrew, "their rods" as מטותיהם, and "their rod" as מטתם, although "matteh" has a final "eh" and not "ah" and I'm not sure if the replacement of the final hey with the tav is correct. As I see it, the word מַטּוֹתָֽם is the combination of the plural word מטות and the suffix for singular nouns ם, so I'm a little confused.


----------



## Drink

Replacement of the final heh with a tav is only correct for the feminine -ah ending, not for the masculine -eh ending. מַטּוֹתָם is an allowable alternative to מטותיהם, but is rare outside of Biblical Hebrew.


----------



## utopia

According to Yehoshua Blau, in the Bible:

the short final ending, without the HEH - AM/AN - can be found especially after originally short vowels. The vowel that precedes AM/AN is A in past tense and in most nouns. The noun possessive endings are simply influenced by the past tense and prepositions that ended with adverbial a:

shmarAM, otAM, shmAM, shmotAM (that interchanges with shmotEIHEM)


----------



## Drink

In the case of שמותם vs שמותיהם, the problem is related to something else. Originally (probably pre-biblically), the feminine plural ending took suffixes that looked like the regular singular suffixes:
- base form: שֵׁמות
- construct: שְׁמוֹת
- שְׁמוֹתִי
- שְׁמוֹתְךָ
- שְׁמוֹתֵךְ
- שְׁמוֹתוֹ
- שְׁמוֹתָהּ
- שְׁמוֹתֵנוּ
- שְׁמוֹתְכֶם/ן
- שְׁמוֹתָם/ן
(Although the actual forms were probably different back then)

And the masculine plural took suffixes like those that go on אבי:
- base form: דְּבָרִים
- construct: דִּבְרִי
- דְּבָרִי
- דְּבָרִיךָ
- דְּבָרִיךְ
- דְּבָרִיו
- דְּבָרִיהָ
- דְּבָרִינוּ
- דִּבְרִיכֶם/ן
- דִּבְרִיהֶם/ן
(Notice these are all spelled exactly the same as the current forms)

The dual suffixes, however, were the ones we are familiar with today:
- base form: רַגְלַיִם and שְׂפָתַיִם
- construct: רַגְלֵי and שִׂפְתֵי
- רַגְלַי and שְׂפָתַי
- רַגְלֶיךָ and שְׂפָתֶיךָ
- רַגְלַיִךְ and שְׂפָתַיִךְ
- רַגְלֵינוּ and שְׂפָתֵינוּ
- רַגְלָיו and שְׂפָתָיו
- רַגְלֶיהָ and שְׂפָתֶיהָ
- רַגְלֵיכֶם/ן and שִׂפְתֵיכֶם/ן
- רַגְלֵיהֶם/ן and שִׂפְתֵיהֶם/ן
(Again, the actual forms were probably different back then)

At some point, the plural suffixes were replaced with the dual suffixes (which were also the suffixes used for certain prepositions like אל and על), giving us:
- base form: דְּבָרִים and שֵׁמוֹת
- construct: דִּבְרֵי and שְׁמוֹת
- דְּבָרַי and שְׁמוֹתַי
- דְּבָרֶיךָ and שְׁמוֹתֶיךָ
- דְּבָרַיִךְ and שְׁמוֹתַיִךְ
- דְּבָרֵינוּ and שְׁמוֹתֵינוּ
- דְּבָרָיו and שְׁמוֹתָיו
- דְּבָרֶיהָ and שְׁמוֹתֶיהָ
- דִּבְרֵיכֶם/ן and שְׁמוֹתֵיכֶם/ן
- דִּבְרֵיהֶם/ן and שְׁמוֹתֵיהֶם/ן

Notice how with the masculine plural, the forms are all spelled the same, but with the feminine plural, they are not: there is an extra yud in all forms except the first person singular, and in the third person plural there is also an extra heh (this is due to the reason given by utopia). I guess it is because these third plural forms were more different than the other ones, that the old forms were often retained in Biblical Hebrew.


----------



## utopia

Where does this info about dual influence of plural come from?


----------



## Drink

utopia said:


> Where does this info about dual influence of plural come from?



Well the first two paradigms above were the original ones. This is known both from comparison with other Semitic languages, including Arabic, Akkadian, and Ugaritic, and also by looking at the base forms themselves within Hebrew (of course in both cases, the phonological history of Hebrew needs to be taken into account.

The last paradigm is what we have today. Nothing to debate there.

How and why we got from one to the other is a much more difficult question and I cannot answer that for certain. But the first reasonable explanation that comes to mind is influence from the dual and/or the prepositions like אל and על.

Note also that all the Canaanite languages seemingly went through this shift, and so did Aramaic.


----------



## utopia

I've checked with Blau's book, and you're right! He says that the dual had influenced the plural paradigm.

But reading your paradigm of דברִי I'm not so sure about some things, especially דבריו DVARIV - wasn't it supposed to be DVARAYHU>DVARAWU>DVARO?

Why was this supposed to be DVARAV too, which is what we have today (dual)?


----------



## utopia

Something interesting I read in Blau's book too was the reason for the change from TSERE to SEGOL in שְׁמוֹתֶיךָ and שְׁמוֹתֶיהָ compared to שְׁמוֹתֵינוּ and שְׁמוֹתֵיכֶם.

He explains it with the KAMATS that comes at the end of the word that pulled the vowel down in the vowel chart and changed it.


----------



## Drink

utopia said:


> I've checked with Blau's book, and you're right! He says that the dual had influenced the plural paradigm.
> 
> But reading your paradigm of דברִי I'm not so sure about some things, especially דבריו DVARIV - wasn't it supposed to be DVARAYHU>DVARAWU>DVARO?
> 
> Why was this supposed to be DVARAV too, which is what we have today (dual)?



I'm a little confused by what you're trying to say. It would have went from "dabarīhu" to "dabarīw" simply by the eliding the "h" sound and making the "u" into a semivowel, as in other places. Compare the exact same situation with "’abīhu" to "’abīw" (although we have the two attested forms אביו and אביהו, so perhaps we would have had both dvariv and dvarihu).



utopia said:


> Something interesting I read in Blau's book too was the reason for the change from TSERE to SEGOL in שְׁמוֹתֶיךָ and שְׁמוֹתֶיהָ compared to שְׁמוֹתֵינוּ and שְׁמוֹתֵיכֶם.
> 
> He explains it with the KAMATS that comes at the end of the word that pulled the vowel down in the vowel chart and changed it.



Yeah, I thought that had something to do with the qamatz, but I wasn't sure exactly why.


----------



## utopia

You're right, my mistake.


----------



## aavichai

Hi

There's two ways for this suffix "their" in that for the plural
one is יהם and one is just ם

examples
their names שמותם
their families משפחותם you can see also משפחותיהם
their fathers אבותם also אבותיהם
their "gifts" מתנותם
their fields שדותם
and many more...

even the prefix ב (mostly "in") with suffix "them" can be בהם or בם - both means "in them"

Genesis 25:16
אֵלֶּה הֵם בְּנֵי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְאֵלֶּה *שְׁמֹתָם* בְּחַצְרֵיהֶם וּבְ*טִירֹתָם* שְׁנֵים-עָשָׂר נְשִׂיאִם לְ*אֻמֹּתָם*


Genesis 36:40
וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת אַלּוּפֵי עֵשָׂו לְ*מִשְׁפְּחֹתָם* לִ*מְקֹמֹתָם* בִּ*שְׁמֹתָם* אַלּוּף תִּמְנָע אַלּוּף עַלְוָה אַלּוּף יְתֵת
*********
The suffix of הם or any other suffix with ה
like "of him" הו and more

is the early way
but the ה in this case and other "regular" words tend to "fall"
especially if it stand between two vowels
so sometimes the text preserve an early text and sometimes not

i'll give you another example for this from Arabic
in the classic Arabic they will say "Kalbuhu" (his dog) the H is like the suffix that you see in Hebrew
but the spoken Arabic say "Kalbo" the H dropped (and also changing vowel at the end - again like the Hebrew)


----------

