# shaMARtem v. shmarTEM



## trigel

The past tense second person plural, as you're aware, has two distinct vocalizations, the "informal" one penultimately stressed like other forms and the "correct"/historical one, ultimately stressed.

On another thread it was stated that


			
				C_J said:
			
		

> formal [stress patterns] might evoke historical/religious connotations



Where is the ultimate stress still used in modern-day secular life? Is it not used even in university lectures/most political speeches, or is it considered very Israel/Judaism-specific?

If a cursory peek into this 50-year-old Hebrew course is of any indication, I could guess that the formal stress pattern is considered even more archaic today than the -na verb forms in the feminine plural. (the latter is taught but the former is not.) Is that so?


----------



## Tararam

It's still used in narrated content, mostly in commercials and advertisements.
Some teachers/lecturers also use it, but not all.


----------



## airelibre

I was taught to pronounce biblical/historical words such as vaahavta with final stress and modern day words with penultimate stress because it helps you remember that ו + past makes future in Biblical Hebrew. Distinguishing between vaahavta in its modern and biblical meanings is easier with different stresses.


----------



## ystab

airelibre said:


> I was taught to pronounce biblical/historical words such as vaahavta with final stress and modern day words with penultimate stress because it helps you remember that ו + past makes future in Biblical Hebrew. Distinguishing between vaahavta in its modern and biblical meanings is easier with different stresses.



I'm not sure that's true. In binyan פָּעַל, moving the stress forward results in the contraction of the first vowel to either schwa or xataf. That's why shmarTEM but shaMARta. Compare וְשָׂמַחְתָּ בְּחַגֶּךָ (vesaMAH'ta beh'agGEcha; Deut., 16:14) and וּכְתַבְתָּם עַל-מְזוּזוֹת (uchtavTAM al-mezuZOT; Deut., 11:20).


----------



## airelibre

ystab said:


> I'm not sure that's true. In binyan פָּעַל, moving the stress forward results in the contraction of the first vowel to either schwa or xataf. That's why shmarTEM but shaMARta. Compare וְשָׂמַחְתָּ בְּחַגֶּךָ (vesaMAH'ta beh'agGEcha; Deut., 16:14) and וּכְתַבְתָּם עַל-מְזוּזוֹת (uchtavTAM al-mezuZOT; Deut., 11:20).



Yes, but how does that make my comment not true?


----------



## trigel

What ystab says implies that wa'ahavta only exists in Biblical Hebrew.

וַאֲהַבְתָּ (wa'ahavTA) waw-consecutive future tense: ultimate stress, qamatz > chataf, shwa -> patach.
וְאָהַבְתָּ (we'aHAVta) perfect tense: no stress shift, no vowel changes.

(The stress shift _could _be a mnemonic for shaMARtem being Modern Hebrew though.)

Does ve'aHAVta exist only in post-Biblical Hebrew?


----------



## ystab

But וַאֲהַבְתָּ doesn't exist. The waw-consecutive future tense doesn't push the stress forward. The only correct form is וְאָהַבְתָּ. The only case where it might change, is if you add transitive suffix, like וַאֲהַבְתָּם - and thou shall love them, or וּכְתַבְתָּם (as I wrote before).


----------



## airelibre

ystab said:


> But וַאֲהַבְתָּ doesn't exist. The waw-consecutive future tense doesn't push the stress forward. The only correct form is וְאָהַבְתָּ. The only case where it might change, is if you add transitive suffix, like וַאֲהַבְתָּם - and thou shall love them, or וּכְתַבְתָּם (as I wrote before).



Correct, I won't say anything more on this thread because I would just be digging myself a bigger hole.


----------



## trigel

How common is the correct stressing in Modern Hebrew, in comparison to other morphological characteristics of formal Hebrew? Is it as rare/formal as object suffixes on verbs or feminine plural -na forms?


----------



## ystab

I'd take a guess and say that it's rarer than feminine plural -na forms, because while the feminine plural can be evident in written language, which tends to be more formal, stress isn't evident in writing (unless it is written with niqqud).

Another guess is that it is as rare as other commonly misstressed words, such as ארבע and כובע, as well as present tense singular feminine of נחי עו"י radicals in binyan פָּעַל (daNA - discusses/is discussing, rather than DAna - discussed).


----------



## trigel

In ordinary speech is "hi RAtza" 'she's running/she ran' and "hi raTZA" "she's a runner'?


----------



## ystab

The correct usage is RAtza for past tense and raTZA for present tense, including participle (and noun). However, the common usage is RAtza for nearly all forms, and sometimes raTZA for a female runner.


----------



## ucl6

In biblical Hebrew, ו + past with ultimate stressing indicates future by most part, that's why it's vesamahTA behaGEcha (ושמחת בחגך" - דברים ט"ז") and not vesaMAhta behaGEcha. however, it is distinguishable only in the singular forms and neutralised in the plural (smahTEM vs usmahTEM). In addition, it isn't distinguishable on some weak verbs and certain positions in the sentence.
As for the prevalence of the ultimate stressing of the form in Modern Hebrew I would have to agree with ystab - it's pretty rare and restricted to very formal cases like formal TV and educational shows. The same applies to RAtsa (more common) and raTSA.


----------



## ystab

But ucl6, if the stress was to be ultimate, than the qamatz would shorten to schwa. How come this doesn't happen?


----------



## trigel

Is the same true for כולם\ן (like Wiktionary says)?


----------



## ystab

Is what true?


----------



## trigel

Wiktionary says a colloquial penultimate stressing exists for kulam/n. Does it have similar register difference as other penultimate/ultimate variants?


----------



## ystab

I don't think so. The correct stressing is quite common, while the colloquial one tends (at least as I see it) to emphasize the extent of כולם as every single one.


----------

