# forming adverbs using ית



## Aleppan

Can you add -it (ית) to the end of any adjective to form an adverb? Like אֲחֹרַנִּית in וַיִּפֹּל מֵעַל הַכִּסֵּא אֲחֹרַנִּית (He fell from above his chair again.) or שֵׁנִית (again, secondly) in modern Hebrew.


----------



## Abaye

No such general rule.
אחורנית is "backward".

Generally speaking (not necessarily for the examples above) seems that two rules combined may lead to adverbs with ית- suffix: forming a feminine with ית- suffix (e.g. יחסית), and then using feminine singular as adverb. Similarly adverbs with suffix ות- from feminine plural (e.g. תכופות , ארוכות , ישירות , גלויות).


----------



## duhveer

As I read your post a thought crossed my mind, the format of ית at the end of a word as in שנית ואחורנית as you mentioned in your post, wouldn't be as common as the format without the ית suffix (speaking in everyday Hebrew), you may hear it on formal speeches or even seldomly come across it in everyday chat  
That format is absolutely acceptable and everyone should understand it when using it.


----------



## Abaye

duhveer said:


> As I read your post a thought crossed my mind, the format of ית at the end of a word as in שנית ואחורנית as you mentioned in your post, wouldn't be as common as the format without the ית suffix (speaking in everyday Hebrew), you may hear it on formal speeches or even seldomly come across it in everyday chat
> That format is absolutely acceptable and everyone should understand it when using it.


Can you write an example? I don't understand what are אחורנית and שנית without the ית- suffix. Also, if we omit the suffix, a sentence like היום קר יחסית will become היום קר יחס which is meaningless.


----------



## duhveer

Abaye said:


> Can you write an example? I don't understand what are אחורנית and שנית without the ית- suffix. Also, if we omit the suffix, a sentence like היום קר יחסית will become היום קר יחס which is meaningless.


Sure, even though "אחורנית" will be less common in an everyday conversation than "מאחורה", it is just a matter of personal taste and to be subject to individual discretion. For instance, "Look behind" equates to "תסתכל מאחורה "תסתכל אחורנית". Both versions will be used and both have the same meaning.
It certainly depends on the word itself, as you said, the sentence "היום קר יחס..." will be sound obscure unless you're using "יחסית". 
Using "אחורנית" is equivalent to saying "מאחורה".


----------



## Abaye

But if we take the verse listed above, וַיִּפֹּל מֵעַל הַכִּסֵּא אֲחֹרַנִּית, it cannot become ויפול מעל הכיסא מאחורה (it can become ויפול מעל הכיסא לאחור). Also, from אחורנית to מאחורה (or מאחור) we remove נית- and also add -מ, so it's not a trivial removal of the ית- suffix.

In the bottom line, I don't think we can find a rule here. Hebrew (biblical through modern) is not systematic about adverbs. There are various patterns but not one system.


----------



## Drink

I find it interesting that in Aramaic, this -it is exclusively an adverbial suffix. Taking the adjective for "Aramean" for example, the feminine singular would be (abs.) aramaya/arama'a or (emph.) aramayta, while the adverb is aramit.


----------



## duhveer

Abaye said:


> But if we take the verse listed above, וַיִּפֹּל מֵעַל הַכִּסֵּא אֲחֹרַנִּית, it cannot become ויפול מעל הכיסא מאחורה (it can become ויפול מעל הכיסא לאחור). Also, from אחורנית to מאחורה (or מאחור) we remove נית- and also add -מ, so it's not a trivial removal of the ית- suffix.
> 
> In the bottom line, I don't think we can find a rule here. Hebrew (biblical through modern) is not systematic about adverbs. There are various patterns but not one system.


That is why I said it depends on the word and utterly on the sentence.


----------



## Abaye

Drink said:


> I find it interesting that in Aramaic, this -it is exclusively an adverbial suffix. Taking the adjective for "Aramean" for example, the feminine singular would be (abs.) aramaya/arama'a or (emph.) aramayta, while the adverb is aramit.


I don't think Hebrew has ever developed a grammatical adverb (that is, a specific form with extensive coverage). I wonder why. Didn't  our ancestors need adverbs? Of course they did.


----------



## Drink

They had adverbs, just without a special universal adverbial form.

But my point was more that perhaps there is more to the story of -it as an adverb in Hebrew.


----------



## Abaye

Well, my point was that unlike Aramaic, Hebrew doesn't have any specific adverbial form, including ית- (at least in first glance). I think (didn't count) that ית- adverbs have no statistical significance (compared to other means of forming adverbs). It would be interesting to see when Aramaic developed this feature, maybe adverbs are yet another grammatical form that each Semitic language has developed independently.


----------

