# הדחויה



## Isidore Demsky

Could someone tell me if the verb הדחויה is singular or plural?


----------



## Drink

It's not a verb. It's the definite feminine singular of the adjective דחוי (= rejected; deferred).


----------



## Isidore Demsky

Drink said:


> It's not a verb. It's the definite feminine singular of the adjective דחוי (= rejected; deferred).



Thank you, but isn't it used as a verb in Psalm 62:3?

And why is it listed as a verb here?


----------



## Drink

Isidore Demsky said:


> Thank you, but isn't it used as a verb in Psalm 62:3?
> 
> And why is it listed as a verb here?



Because technically it is the passive participle of the verb דחה.


----------



## Isidore Demsky

So technically, is it still singular, or is it plural?

And isn't the subject of the sentence in Psalm 62:3 (ye shall all die, ye shall be as a bowing wall) plural?And 

shouldn't the verb therefore be plural?


----------



## Drink

Isidore Demsky said:


> So technically, is it still singular, or is it plural?
> 
> And isn't the subject of the sentence in Psalm 62:3 (ye shall all die, ye shall be as a bowing wall) plural?And
> 
> shouldn't the verb therefore be plural?



The "subject" (really the noun that the adjective is reffering to) of הדחויה is גדר ("fence"), which is feminine singular (and indefinite). But I am confused about why the definiteness doesn't match.


----------



## origumi

Drink said:


> But I am confused about why the definiteness doesn't match.


Several possible explanations, for example:

a. The definite article is scarce in these parts of Psalms. When presents, it looks sometimes like late addition. See for example Psalms 63, where the first and last of 12 verses attribute the psalm to David while the other 10 has nothing to do with him. And... only the last verse contains definite articles. So: maybe these psalms were authored either before the definite article existed, or when it was evolving, or was uncommon/optional.

b. The ה in הדחויה may mean _which is_: גדר אשר היא דחויה. This use of the definite article exists until today, although in modern Hebrew ש is preferred: איש ההולך בגשם / איש שהולך בגשם.


ביאליק employs this form in his song זֹהַר:

וַחֲבֵרַי מָה-רָבּוּ: כָּל-עוֹף הַפּוֹרֵחַ 
כָּל-חָרוּל מֵאַחֲרֵי כָל-גָּדֵר הַדְּחוּיָה 

עוף הפורח is taken from the Gemara, Sukka 28a, and spelled in different sources either הפורח or שפורח, as explained by (b) above.


----------



## Drink

origumi said:


> a. The definite article is scarce in these parts of Psalms. When presents, it looks sometimes like late addition. See for example Psalms 63, where the first and last of 12 verses attribute the psalm to David while the other 10 has nothing to do with him. And... only the last verse contains definite articles. So: maybe these psalms were authored either before the definite article existed, or when it was evolving, or was uncommon/optional.



That's interesting. I always thought the Psalms were more recent than the Torah, but I guess some of them might have older origins. Or maybe it was just the poetic register of the time to avoid the definite article.



origumi said:


> b. The ה in הדחויה may mean _which is_: גדר אשר היא דחויה. This use of the definite article exists until today, although in modern Hebrew ש is preferred: איש ההולך בגשם / איש שהולך בגשם.
> 
> 
> ביאליק employs this form in his song זֹהַר:
> 
> וַחֲבֵרַי מָה-רָבּוּ: כָּל-עוֹף הַפּוֹרֵחַ
> כָּל-חָרוּל מֵאַחֲרֵי כָל-גָּדֵר הַדְּחוּיָה
> 
> עוף הפורח is taken from the Gemara, Sukka 28a and spelled in different sources either הפורח or שפורח, as explained by (b) above.



I knew about that, but I always thought that the the object must be definite in these cases, such as "ואלה שמות בני ישראל הבאים מצרימה" (Exodus 1:1), where the definiteness of בני ישראל makes שמות definite.


----------



## origumi

Drink said:


> That's interesting. I always thought the Psalms were more recent than the Torah, but I guess some of them might have older origins. Or maybe it was just the poetic register of the time to avoid the definite article.


Wikipedia says: The composition of the psalms spans at least five centuries, from Psalm  29, which is adapted from early Canaanite worship, to others which are  clearly from the post-Exilic period.



Drink said:


> I always thought that the the object must be  definite in these cases, such as "ואלה שמות בני ישראל הבאים מצרימה"  (Exodus 1:1), where the definiteness of בני ישראל makes שמות  definite.


See for example וּבְכָל-*חַיָּה, הָרֹמֶשֶׂת* עַל-הָאָרֶץ in comparison to וְאֵת כָּל-נֶפֶשׁ *הַחַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת*.


----------



## Drink

origumi said:


> Wikipedia says: The composition of the psalms spans at least five centuries, from Psalm  29, which is adapted from early Canaanite worship, to others which are  clearly from the post-Exilic period.



Looking at Psalm 29, it uses the definite article seven times. So it's definitely not because of the fact that the Psalms are old that they don't use the definite article. There must be some other reason, such as the poetic register.


----------



## origumi

There are many ways and many possible reasons for taking an old psalm and adapting it to new times. The adaptation may be on religious basis and then the God name is changed. In can be on honor basis and then the psalm is attributed to a king. It can be on lingual basis and then archaic forms are substituted by current ones. I guess that Psalms shows all of these and apparently more. It is usually agreed that Psalm has an ancient layer (in regard to its language).

I agree that Psalm 29 may have aggressively changed from its original form, in regard to both ideology and language.

Poetic style is also an important issue, and yet should correlate to place and time. Omitting the definite article in late periods and not as imitation of older language - sounds questionable.


----------



## arielipi

Just to clarify - this construct can still be with a verb, if you struggle with what it matches to, go a few words back till you see the correct word it relates to.


----------



## Albert Schlef

origumi said:


> The ה in הדחויה may mean _which is_: גדר אשר היא דחויה. This use of the definite article exists until today, although [...]



 Right. One can also see this in the song "שר הממונה" (if anybody is interested, search YouTube for "שר הממונה עופר כלף" for a short lecture by Itamar Pinhas on this phrase).


----------



## airelibre

Drink said:


> Looking at Psalm 29, it uses the definite article seven times. So it's definitely not because of the fact that the Psalms are old that they don't use the definite article. There must be some other reason, such as the poetic register.


I don't think age has anything to do with whether or not the definite article appears. As far as I know, the definite article existed in Proto-Semitic. In Arabic it is al- and in Hebrew, it is thought that it was originally -הנ since nun often disappears as Hebrew developed, like לגעת-נגע, and this would explain the dagesh that appears after almost every definite article, since it indicates gemination. (Gemination of the following consonant suggests the assimilation of nun)
n and l are phonologically similar, so it is likely that there was a definite article in Proto-Semitic which was either one of these.


----------



## Drink

airelibre said:


> I don't think age has anything to do with whether or not the definite article appears. As far as I know, the definite article existed in Proto-Semitic. In Arabic it is al- and in Hebrew, it is thought that it was originally -הנ since nun often disappears as Hebrew developed, like לגעת-נגע, and this would explain the dagesh that appears after almost every definite article, since it indicates gemination. (Gemination of the following consonant suggests the assimilation of nun)
> n and l are phonologically similar, so it is likely that there was a definite article in Proto-Semitic which was either one of these.



That was exactly my point. I was trying to say that the definite article is pretty old. As to its origin, however, it is unlikely that the definite article was already used as a definite article in Proto-Semitic. It was likely just a demonstrative pronoun or determiner then (compare the development of "the" in English, and "le/el/il/la/etc." in Romance languages). It likely had different forms for singular and plural and possibly for masculine and feminine, for example _*han_ [m.], _*hat_ [f.], _*hal_ [pl.], with the Hebrew one descending from _*han_ and the Arabic one from _*hal_. Probably the most unusual thing about the definite article in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic is the agreement between the noun and adjective. If you Googling the subject will present various theories.

Also here is a paper that attempts to explain some of these things. Incidentally, its theory is that the ancestor of the definite article was originally used only on adjectives, and that later it spread back to the noun as well. This may explain the Psalm quote that this thread is about, or it may just be a coincidence.

EDIT:
After taking a closer look at the paper I linked to above, it says that an unmarked noun (i.e. one without the definite article) + a marked adjective (i.e. one with a definite article) is a relatively common construction in Biblical Hebrew (I guess I just haven't noticed it much for some reason), and the noun in these cases is considered definite. This construction becomes even more common in Mishnaic Hebrew. These cases are even used as evidence to support the main thesis. Some common examples are things like "יום השישי".


----------

