# cognate accusative / מושא פנימי



## zaw

Hi,

Someone wrote that in Jonah 1:16 (see below) we have a cognate accusative. What does that mean and what is its function?

וייראו האנשים יראה גדולה את־יהוה ויזבחו־זבח ליהוה וידרו נדרים
Then the men feared the LORD greatly, and they offered a sacrifice to the LORD and made vows.

How does one usually translate it? Actually, I don't see it in the translation.

Toda raba


----------



## radagasty

The cognate accusative is a form of _figura etymologica_, whereby a verb (that may not usually take an object) has as an object a noun that is cognate to it. This is less common in English, but it does exist, _e.g._, ‘He died a slow and painful death.’, where _to die_ is normally intransitive.

*וייראו* האנשים *יראה גדולה* את־יהוה
And the men *feared* the Lord *a great fear*.

Here, יראה גדולה ‘a great fear’ is a cognate accusative, added to a clause where the verb וייראו already has a direct object את־יהוה. However, _to fear a great fear_ sounds strange in English, so it is translated instead as an adverb _greatly_.

This cognate accusative (المفعول المطلق) is common in Arabic, _e.g._, أكرمني إكراما عظيما.


----------



## elroy

This is المفعول المطلق in Arabic.

The most widespread Arabic translation of this verse uses the same construction:

*فخاف* الرجال من الرب *خوفًا *عظيمًا وذبحوا ذبيحة للرب ونذروا نذورًا


----------



## radagasty

By the way, the second half of the verse contains another two examples of cognate accusatives.

ויזבחו־זבח ליהוה וידרו נדרים
And they *sacrificed* a *sacrifice* to the Lord, and they *vowed* *vows*.

Here, ויזבחו is cognate to its object זבח, and וידרו to נדרים. English eschews repetition of this sort, so the translation ends up being _offered a sacrifice_ and _made vows_.


----------



## elroy

Are you sure those are the same construction?  At least in Arabic, I don't think ذبيحة or نذورًا are cognate accusatives.  I think they're direct objects (مفعول به) that are simply derived from the same root as the verb.  I believe the cognate accusative / المفعول المطلق has to be a مصدر (the equivalent of the שם פעולה in Hebrew), i.e. ذبحوا ذبحًا / نذروا نذرًا.


----------



## radagasty

Hmm... you may have a point. I’ll have to give it some thought. You’re certainly correct from the point of view of Arabic, where the المفعول المطلق does have to be a مصدر.

The term _cognate accusative _came originally from the (western) classical languages, however, where it has a broader application. In the narrowest sense, it applies to the cognate object of intransitive verbs, which must usually be modified: _tutiorem vitam vivere_ ‘to live a surer life’. In some cases, it is not clear whether a verb is intransitive: _Mirum atque inscitum somniavi somnium._ “I dreamt a wonderful and uncanny dream.” In others, the verb is clearly transitive, and the cognate accusative is in fact the direct object: _Juravi verissimum jus jurandum._ “I sware the truest oath.”

This last would be analogous to the frequent נָדַר נֶדֶר of Hebrew, as in _Jonah_ above. Ultimately, I suppose, there may be no _correct_ answer. It just comes down to a matter of definition.


----------



## Abaye

[Moderator note: thread merged with a previous one.]

יש בעברית תופעה שקרויה מושא פנימי. בקצרה, מושא פנימי הוא שם פעולה שבא לאחר פועל מאותו שורש, דומה בצורתו למושא ישיר אבל אינו כזה. למשל "אני הולך הליכה", "הכוהן הניף תנופה". קיים כבר מימי המקרא ושימושי עד ימינו.

*והשאלה היא*: האם זה משהו מיוחד לשפה העברית, או קיים גם בשפות אחרות. אני יודע שיש באנגלית ביטויים כמו he talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk שנראים כאילו יש בהם מושא פנימי, אבל לא בטוח שזה אותו הדבר.


----------



## Drink

It's called "cognate accusative" or "cognate object" in English. It occurs in many languages. See the Wikipedia article: Cognate object - Wikipedia


----------



## Abaye

Drink said:


> It's called "cognate accusative" or "cognate object" in English. It occurs in many languages. See the Wikipedia article: Cognate object - Wikipedia


Great, thanks. Apparently my question should have been what's the phenomenon's name and not whether it exists.


----------

