# הֲיִי / הֱיִי (feminine imperative of להיות)



## Encolpius

Hello, is there any difference between heyi and hayi? Style, frequency, etc? Thanks?


----------



## LXNDR

In feminine imperative of *להיות* in modern Hebrew both forms are recognized
In the Bible vocalization with hataf patah in feminine imperative form by itself seems to only occur once but with hataf segol seems to not occur at all

As far as actual pronunciation is concerned, disregarding the fact that imperative form of *להיות *is not a part of active vocabulary in modern Hebrew, i'd prefer hataf segol due to stress falling on the last syllable, but then i'm not a native speaker.


----------



## Drink

LXNDR said:


> i'd prefer hataf segol due to stress falling on the last syllable, but then i'm not a native speaker.



I don't see why "due to the stress falling on the last syllable" is a reason to prefer one vowel over another.


----------



## LXNDR

Drink said:


> I don't see why "due to the stress falling on the last syllable" is a reason to prefer one vowel over another.



For convenience, but it's also rooted in a phonetic principle according to which the further the stress is from a vowel the more reduced the vowel gets (which is true for both Russian, my native language, and Hebrew). Vowel [a] (which is present in past tense forms of *להיות*, i.e. *הָיָה *etc.) is often reduced to [e] or schwa which is a short [e] when stress moves farther from it, e.g. *דָּבָר* *->* *דְּבָרִים , מַלְכָּה -> מְלָכוֹת  *and hataf segol in
*הֱיִי *is a schwa equivalent associated with glottal consonants


----------



## Drink

LXNDR said:


> Out of considerations of convenience, but it's also rooted in a phonetic principle according to which the further the stress is from a vowel the more reduced the vowel gets (which is true for both Russian, my native language, and Hebrew). Vowel [a] (which is present in past tense forms of *להיות*, i.e. *הָיָה *etc.) is often reduced to [e] or schwa which is a short [e] when stress moves farther from it, e.g. *דָּבָר* *->* *דְּבָרִים , מַלְכָּה -> מְלָכוֹת  *and hataf segol in
> *הֱיִי *is a schwa equivalent associated with glottal consonants



That makes no sense. Chataf segol is not a shva. For words that start with gutturals, such as הָדָר and הֶבֶל, the shva become a chataf patach: הֲדָרִים and הֲבָלִים. But this is not comparable to the infinitive, because the first vowel in the qal infinitive is not a reduction of any vowel in any other form of the word. It is normally chataf segol for an alef and chataf patach for other gutturals, but there are exceptions, and היה is one of them, which is why we have הֱיֵה instead of הֲיֵה. The question is whether this exception extends to the feminine form. But the stress in the word has no bearing on this question.


----------



## LXNDR

Drink said:


> But the stress in the word has no bearing on this question.



My reasoning might be flawed, then it's just personal preference of a form which feels more convenient in pronunciation.


----------



## Drink

LXNDR said:


> My reasoning might be flawed, then it's just personal preference of a form which feels more convenient in pronunciation.


Got it.


----------



## OzzyM

LXNDR said:


> In the Bible vocalization with hataf patah in feminine imperative form by itself seems to only occur once but with hataf segol seems to not occur at all


The alternative form הֱוִי (hataf segol) appears in Isaiah 16:4.


----------



## Drink

OzzyM said:


> The alternative form הֱוִי (hataf segol) appears in Isaiah 16:4.



You could say that היה and הוה are different verbs. Yes they have the same meaning and origin, but they don't function as the same verb.


----------



## LXNDR

OzzyM said:


> The alternative form הֱוִי (hataf segol) appears in Isaiah 16:4



Although this is a different verb, alternative vocalization does apply to it as well and not only in the feminine imperative form


----------



## OzzyM

Drink said:


> You could say that היה and הוה are different verbs. Yes they have the same meaning and origin, but they don't function as the same verb.





LXNDR said:


> Although this is a different verb, alternative vocalization does apply to it as well and not just in the feminine imperative form


Roots הוי and היי tend to mix, see for example in the table mentioned above for הוי qal participle (present), where forms like הוֹוֶה and הוֹיֶה coexist.
Nevertheless, can we deduce from הֱוִי that הֱיִי existed in biblical time? A circumstantial evidence, for what it worth.


----------



## Drink

OzzyM said:


> Nevertheless, can we deduce from הֱוִי that הֱיִי existed in biblical time? A circumstantial evidence, for what it worth.



I think such a deduction is unwarranted.


----------



## OzzyM

Drink said:


> I think such a deduction is unwarranted


Two shifts are involved: "w" vs. "y" (as in הוה-היה, חוה-חיה, maybe ולד-ילד and alike), and hataf segol vs. hataf patah. Chronology makes a difference: if the twofold form hataf segol - hataf patah appeared before the w-y split, הֱוִי may support the existence of הֱיִי.


----------



## Drink

OzzyM said:


> Two shifts are involved: "w" vs. "y" (as in הוה-היה, חוה-חיה, maybe ולד-ילד and alike), and hataf segol vs. hataf patah. Chronology makes a difference: if the twofold form hataf segol - hataf patah appeared before the w-y split, הֱוִי may support the existence of הֱיִי.


That's an anachronistic approach. For sure at the time the w/y split happened, the vowel system was still very different from what it would become. I'd speculate that at that time the verbs certainly had the same vowel in all forms of the imperative. That vowel was probably a short /i/ at the time. Later that /i/ would become either a chataf patach or a chataf segol.


----------



## Encolpius

LXNDR said:


> ... As far as actual pronunciation is concerned, disregarding the fact that imperative form of *להיות *is not a part of active vocabulary in modern Hebrew,



Oh, interrsting, I did not know that. So it is used only in formal language, right?


----------



## Drink

In general, imperatives are likely to be replaced with the future forms. For some verbs, the imperative is still very common in colloquial speech, while for others it is nonexistent.


----------

