# Development of Hebrew Phonology and Morphology



## berndf

*Split from this thread.*



Abu Rashid said:


> What you say may have some relevance, but the fact that the language was not spoken widely for about 2000 years tends to suggest that the modern reconstruction of Hebrew is just that, a reconstruction. Its phonetic accuracy can be largely disputed and one only needs to look at other similar examples to know that it's very likely what we hear today differs radically from what someone sitting in Solomon's temple would've heard.
> 
> Just look at Hebrew's sister language, Arabic, and its divergence over the past few centuries of just not having one unified political force to maintain it. The variations in pronunciation, selection of varying synonyms etc.  throughout the Arabic world since the demise of the Arabic/Islamic Caliphate have left colloquial dialects which differ greatly from one another.  One would assume that such variation would've also existed amongst the last Hebrew speakers who then continued the liturgical use of Hebrew. After 2000 odd years you'd end up with something quite distorted from the original I'd think. This would all be compounded by the fact that Jews lived mostly in small isolated disapora communities around the world in a time when not a lot of communication occured over such distances.
> 
> Then if you consider how modern Hebrew was reconstructed, largely by non-native Hebrew speakers (Ashkenazim I believe) who would've added their own European (Yiddish) influence to the reconstructed form.
> 
> I once read that one of those reconstructers added (coined) 4,000 of his own new terms for Modern Hebrew. Although many were probably technical terms not relating to the basic structure of the language, the fact that one man (An Ashkenazi I believe) had so much input alone to the reconstruction indicates that it would've had linguistic bias peculiar to his particular language skills.
> 
> As has been mentioned it was certainly a great feat to have achieved, but I think the claim that it's anything other than an artificial modern reconstruction is at best fanciful.


This is a very old post and you have probably revised some of your opinions in the mean time but I cannot leave your phonological remarks uncontradicted.

Modern Hebrew phonology is not based on Biblical or Mishnaic pronunciation (our knowledge about the former is indeed doubtful while Mishnaic pronunciation is fairly well understood) and was never intended to be but is based on living oral traditions. The pronunciation was originally intended to reflect the Sephardi tradition and not Ashkenazi as you suspected. Modern Hebrew has been a living language for a bit more that a century and has seen some organic development. Some of these changes (or tendencies; not all speakers apply them) are characteristics of Ashkenazi pronunciation, e.g.: Uvular instead of alveolar /r/, gliding pronunciation [eɪ] instead of [e] of what was [e:] in Tiberian Hebrew, loss of phonemicity of the glottal stop.


----------



## Abu Rashid

berndf,

Your post does not appear to address my statements at all.

I don't know what you're responding to, but it certainly doesn't appear to be my post. Can you narrow down the specific parts of my post you intended to address? Nowhere did I mention Biblical nor Mishnaic pronunciation.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> Nowhere did I mention Biblical nor Mishnaic pronunciation.


Yes, indeed and that was my objection. You were treating the Hebrew language as if it had just two development languages: pre-biblical (king Salomon's times) and modern Israeli ignoring 3000 years of development.  Modern Hebrew is not a reconstruction but a compromise between different existing oral traditions with the main source being the Spanish (Sephardi) tradition.

There were attempts to return to the late biblical development stage of the language (700 years after Solomon) in the 18th and 19th centuries (_Hashkala, enlightenment_) and modern Hebrew is influenced by this and, hence, modern Israelis can read biblical texts better than medieval texts; but this concerns only the literary language and not phonology.


----------



## Abu Rashid

Yes it was based on scattered oral traditions, from people who spoke it only as a second language for about 2000 years.

That was precisely my point. You can't honestly think that would lead to a re-construction that is faithful to the original pronunciation? Hebrew pronunciation even in Biblical times was already very heavily evolved from the original Semitic phonetic system, hence the reason so many phonemes had already been lost. Hebrew pronunciation today is even far more removed from its Semitic origins than that, due to the massive non-Semitic influence brought in by those who re-constructed the language.

Are you seriously going to attempt to argue against this?


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> That was precisely my point. You can't  honestly think that would lead to a re-construction that is faithful to  the original pronunciation?


Again, modern Hebrew is *not* an attempt to reconstruct any so-called "original pronunciation".



Abu Rashid said:


> Hebrew pronunciation today is even far more removed from its Semitic origins.


And why should that matter?


----------



## Abu Rashid

berndf said:


> Again, modern Hebrew is *not* an attempt to reconstruct any so-called "original pronunciation".



Great, so where's the disagreement?



berndf said:


> Any[way] why should that matter?



I don't know that it _matters_, but that was all my post was pointing out. You are the one who felt the need to contradict it.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> Great, so where's the disagreement?


As far as phonology and phonetics is concerned, here where you insist it is a reconstruction:





Abu Rashid said:


> As has been mentioned it was certainly a great  feat to have achieved, but I think the claim that it's anything other  than an artificial modern reconstruction is at best fanciful.


----------



## arielipi

And again, why do you care berndf?, really, what does it matter and how does it change anything?


----------



## berndf

arielipi said:


> And again, why do you care berndf?, really, what does it matter and how does it change anything?


Because the phonological and phonetic history of Hebrew has been misrepresented. And I do care about history of language.


----------



## Albert Schlef

berndf said:


> And I do care about history of language.



 And about history of a people. Some want to nurture the narrative that Hebrew is a language created by Russian "Khazars" who came to Palestine by boats 70 years ago. There are political implications to this narrative. No point arguing with these people.


----------



## Abu Rashid

berndf said:


> As far as phonology and phonetics is concerned, here where you insist it is a reconstruction:



But the fact is it is a reconstruction. The phonetics may not strictly be reconstructed, but the language as a whole is. Large parts of it had to be completely invented, because the language simply wasn't used outside of a liturgical environment for so long.

As for the phonetics, I've mentioned that already by the Biblical period, the phonetics of Hebrew had undergone a great degree of decay, and that process could only have worsened during the 2000 odd years it was not spoken as a first language. Do you deny this? We've discussed it before, and you seem quite aware that around 1/3 of the original Semitic phonemes have vanished from modern Hebrew.

Still I do not really understand what you are disagreeing with.


----------



## Abu Rashid

Albert Schlef said:


> And about history of a people. Some want to nurture the narrative that Hebrew is a language created by Russian "Khazars" who came to Palestine by boats 70 years ago. There are political implications to this narrative. No point arguing with these people.



That's not really relevant to language. What is relevant though is that nobody was a first language speaker of Hebrew for a good 2000 years. This is a simple fact that no narrative can deny.


----------



## tFighterPilot

Latin has not been a first language of anyone for quite a while as well, how is it different phonology-wise?


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> That's not really relevant to language.


Right.





Abu Rashid said:


> What is relevant though is that nobody was a first language speaker of Hebrew for a good 2000 years.


Actually closer to 1500 years (~ 400 - 1900), but never mind. For what precisely would this be relevant?


----------



## arielipi

Abu Rashid said:


> But the fact is it is a reconstruction. The phonetics may not strictly be reconstructed, but the language as a whole is. Large parts of it had to be completely invented, because the language simply wasn't used outside of a liturgical environment for so long.
> 
> As for the phonetics, I've mentioned that already by the Biblical period, the phonetics of Hebrew had undergone a great degree of decay, and that process could only have worsened during the 2000 odd years it was not spoken as a first language. Do you deny this? We've discussed it before, and you seem quite aware that around 1/3 of the original Semitic phonemes have vanished from modern Hebrew.
> 
> Still I do not really understand what you are disagreeing with.




Hebrew didnt lose third of its phonemes, only the arabic kh[which fyi we can produce, even the ashkenazim] same for the ayin. waw - we can say that. you forget that hebrew gained phonemes instead, such as ch<-- j,french j.

Above all, why does it matter,and what is this stupid debate about and where is it going, and above that - what are you trying to say and reach with those "facts" and speeches and arguments?


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> As for the phonetics, I've mentioned that already by the Biblical period, the phonetics of Hebrew had undergone a great degree of decay, and that process could only have worsened during the 2000 odd years it was not spoken as a first language.


It didn't decay, it underwent change as any decent language does, whether it is spoken as a first language or not. I really don't understand your perspective. You sound as if for you _n__ot changing_ were a virtue.


----------



## Abu Rashid

berndf said:


> Actually closer to 1500 years (~ 400 - 1900), but never mind. For what precisely would this be relevant?



Unless you mean 400 B.C.E (in which case your 1500 years should be 2300) then this is not the generally accepted opinion.



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Aramaic became a spoken language in the land of Israel as early as by the start of Israel's Hellenistic Period in the 4th century BCE, and that as a corollary Hebrew ceased to function as a spoken language around the same time



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language#Jewish_diaspora




berndf said:


> It didn't decay, it underwent change as any decent language does, whether it is spoken as a first language or not.


 
The variety of etymologically distinct phonemes was reduced by sounds collapsing together to become indistinguishable. Whether or not you accept the term "decay" to refer to that process, in reality that is what it is.

Not that any language is devoid of change, but are you suggesting it's indecent not to undergo change? 



berndf said:


> I really don't understand your perspective. You sound as if for you _n__ot changing_ were a virtue.



No more than hydrogen is more virtuous than uranium.


----------



## Abu Rashid

arielipi said:


> Hebrew didnt lose third of its phonemes, only the arabic kh[which fyi we can produce, even the ashkenazim] same for the ayin. waw - we can say that. you forget that hebrew gained phonemes instead, such as ch<-- j,french j.



Current research shows us that the Semitic languages originally had 29 etymologically distinct phonemes. This isn't just about sounds it's about separate distinct phonemes that form roots in the language. Biblical Hebrew had 23 distinctly separate phonemes (perhaps 2 others, based on Greek transliterations of the OT). Modern Hebrew has about 17-18. ie. about 1/3 of them were lost.

To demonstrate, although Hebrew speakers can make the sounds Haa & Khaa, and different dialects may favour one of these two sounds over the other, the distinction no longer serves any etymological purpose. A Hebrew speaker does not distinguish between the roots for dumb/silent (חרש) & plough (חרש). One of them is actually with Haa, and the other with Khaa in all Semitic languages which distinguish between these two phonemes properly, like Arabic: dumb/silent (خرس) and plough (حرث). Also the last letter of this root actually differs, but again in Hebrew, the sounds merged together long ago, and no longer are distinct.

You can see the way in which this occurred in this chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiti...of_Proto-Semitic_sounds_in_daughter_languages



arielipi said:


> Above all, why does it matter,and what is this stupid debate about and where is it going, and above that - what are you trying to say and reach with those "facts" and speeches and arguments?



I'd like to know the same. Why did berndf resurrect this discussion after so long? The things I've stated are based on facts, if you choose to reject them then I am not particularly interested in discussing the issues with you.


----------



## arielipi

Abu Rashid said:


> Current research shows us that the Semitic languages originally had 29 etymologically distinct phonemes. This isn't just about sounds it's about separate distinct phonemes that form roots in the language. Biblical Hebrew had 23 distinctly separate phonemes (perhaps 2 others, based on Greek transliterations of the OT). Modern Hebrew has about 17-18. ie. about 1/3 of them were lost.
> 
> To demonstrate, although Hebrew speakers can make the sounds Haa & Khaa, and different dialects may favour one of these two sounds over the other, the distinction no longer serves any etymological purpose. A Hebrew speaker does not distinguish between the roots for dumb/silent (חרש) & plough (חרש). One of them is actually with Haa, and the other with Khaa in all Semitic languages which distinguish between these two phonemes properly, like Arabic: dumb/silent (خرس) and plough (حرث). Also the last letter of this root actually differs, but again in Hebrew, the sounds merged together long ago, and no longer are distinct.
> 
> You can see the way in which this occurred in this chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiti...of_Proto-Semitic_sounds_in_daughter_languages
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to know the same. Why did berndf resurrect this discussion after so long? The things I've stated are based on facts, if you choose to reject them then I am not particularly interested in discussing the issues with you.



How convenient. You didnt answer any of mu questions, probably cuz you dont have any. And fyi het is always the throatic sound, only khaf can func as ordinary kh. And just because hebrew and arabic are both semitic doesnt mean all is linked, they were actually on the two edges of that semitic languages area, wonder what happened to them? Arabs killed them. FYI! kheresh is silent, and kharash is plough... case lost for you.

t*he distinction no longer serves any etymological purpose* - explain please, how can it cease to do that? it is what it is, just like ayin and alef are well distinguishable if one would say them correctly.

again, what is this about, and where is it going to?


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> Unless you mean 400 B.C.E (in which case your 1500 years should be 2300) then this is not the generally accepted opinion.


Jewish communities remained diglossic for several centuries. The precise extend of continued use of Hebrew in spoken language is difficult to determine but scattered evidence of continued use of Hebrew as daily language exist (e.g. Bar Kokhba letters) which were unknown in the early 20th century.

In the sentence you quoted from Wiki you seem to have failed to notice the past tense at the beginning: _*In the early half of the 20th centur*y, most scholars follow*ed* Geiger and Dalman in thinking that..._


Abu Rashid said:


> The variety of etymologically distinct phonemes was reduced by sounds collapsing together to become indistinguishable. Whether or not you accept the term "decay" to refer to that process, in reality that is what it is.


It makes an enormous difference if you say _a language decays _or _phonemic distinctions in a language decay_. The former is judgemental, insulting and unscientific; the letter is a factual description.

_________________________

To repeat my question concerning what your point is about Hebrew not having been a first language for some time:





berndf said:


> For what precisely would this be relevant?


----------



## tFighterPilot

Abu Rashid said:


> Current research shows us that the Semitic languages originally had 29 etymologically distinct phonemes. This isn't just about sounds it's about separate distinct phonemes that form roots in the language. Biblical Hebrew had 23 distinctly separate phonemes (perhaps 2 others, based on Greek transliterations of the OT). Modern Hebrew has about 17-18. ie. about 1/3 of them were lost.
> 
> To demonstrate, although Hebrew speakers can make the sounds Haa & Khaa, and different dialects may favour one of these two sounds over the other, the distinction no longer serves any etymological purpose. A Hebrew speaker does not distinguish between the roots for dumb/silent (חרש) & plough (חרש). One of them is actually with Haa, and the other with Khaa in all Semitic languages which distinguish between these two phonemes properly, like Arabic: dumb/silent (خرس) and plough (حرث). Also the last letter of this root actually differs, but again in Hebrew, the sounds merged together long ago, and no longer are distinct.
> 
> You can see the way in which this occurred in this chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiti...of_Proto-Semitic_sounds_in_daughter_languages
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to know the same. Why did berndf resurrect this discussion after so long? The things I've stated are based on facts, if you choose to reject them then I am not particularly interested in discussing the issues with you.


Hebrew didn't lose خ ض ظ, these were lost before the North Semitic branch had split. None of these exist in any of the Western Semitic languages, all of which having the same 22 letters.


----------



## berndf

arielipi said:


> kheresh is silent, and kharash is plough... case lost for you.


Not really. AR's point was that the *roots *merged as a result of the /H/,/kh/>/H/ merger in Cannanite languages (including Hebrew). There are other examples, e.g. _Halal=space_ and _Halal=person deprived of priesthood_, the latter being derived from the pu`al verb _Hulal_ (to be desecrated) where the roots are indistinguishable yet they are etymologically different (_H-l-k_ as in space from PS _kh-l-l _and _H-l-k _as in to be desecrated from PS _H-l-l_).


----------



## arielipi

Again, in correct hebrew HET always is throatic sound. I still do not see why it matters anyone, as any language has context issues.
To the question: what is the point of this argument? *<...>*


----------



## tFighterPilot

berndf said:


> Not really. AR's point was that the *roots *merged as a result of the /H/,/kh/>/H/ merger in Cannanite languages (including Hebrew). There are other examples, e.g. _Halal=space_ and _Halal=person deprived of priesthood_, the latter being derived from the pu`al verb _Hulal_ (to be desecrated) where the roots are indistinguishable yet they are etymologically different (_H-l-k_ as in space from PS _kh-l-l _and _H-l-k _as in to be desecrated from PS _H-l-l_).


The problem is that he then mixes it up with the amount of distinct consonants in modern Hebrew.


----------



## arielipi

You forgot abot the niqqud which in correct hebrew(e.g. Hebrew teachers and such) does make a difference even between halal and halal. Case lost.


----------



## berndf

arielipi said:


> you forgot abot the niqqud which in correct hebrew(e.g. hebrew teachers and such) does make a difference even between halal and halal. Case lost.


Nope. Both are H-kamatz-l-kamatz-l.


----------



## arielipi

Again, there are context issues in every language.


----------



## Abu Rashid

arielipi said:


> How convenient. You didnt answer any of mu questions



Either that or the responses went over your head.



arielipi said:


> And fyi het is always the throatic sound, only khaf can func as ordinary kh.


 
The re-emergence of the sound kh as an allophone of kaph has nothing to do with the original Semitic Khaa phoneme, which in Hebrew was merged with Het and its distinction as a separate etymological phoneme lost.



arielipi said:


> they were actually on the two edges of that semitic languages area



This is just plain wrong. Both Hebrew & Arabic are from the Central Semitic branch, although Hebrew is from the North-West sub-branch. The "two edges" would be South Semitic & East Semitic.



arielipi said:


> wonder what happened to them? Arabs killed them.


 
Not that it's related at all to language, but this is just hogwash.



arielipi said:


> FYI! kheresh is silent, and kharash is plough... case lost for you.



Silent is kh-r-s/sh whilst Plough is H-r-th, as Kh & H merged in Hebrew and th & sh merged in Hebrew, that's why they seem to share the one root. Ugaritic, Arabic & Ge'ez all confirm this fact.



arielipi said:


> t*he distinction no longer serves any etymological purpose* - explain please, how can it cease to do that? it is what it is, just like ayin and alef are well distinguishable if one would say them correctly.




Imagine if another Semitic language related to Hebrew had merged meem & noon together, and pronounced them both as noon so they said "shalon" for peace, with the sound meem disappearing from their language. If they then later added the sound meem back into their language as a way of saying lamed in certain cases, it would sound pretty mixed up right? So they might say "shamon" instead of "shalom". That's pretty much how Hebrew appears to Arabic speakers.




arielipi said:


> again, what is this about, and where is it going to?



You asked questions, I've answered them for you. If you don't accept the facts, then I'd advise you to go and study the Semitic languages comparatively, and examine the facts for yourself.


----------



## Abu Rashid

berndf said:


> In the sentence you quoted from Wiki you seem to have failed to notice the past tense at the beginning: _*In the early half of the 20th centur*y, most scholars follow*ed* Geiger and Dalman in thinking that..._



The other alternative view mentioned there was that it was 200 B.C.E.



berndf said:


> It makes an enormous difference if you say _a language decays _or _phonemic distinctions in a language decay_. The former is judgemental, insulting and unscientific; the letter is a factual description.



I don't think I ever said the entire language has decayed, but actually if we examine it, we'll find Hebrew did decay in many other aspects too, not just phonetics. The loss of the case system, of the dual and many other grammatical functions are in the same category as the loss of phonemes, ie. a process of decay.



berndf said:


> To repeat my question concerning what your point is about Hebrew not having been a first language for some time:



We know that even when a language is being maintained by active speakers its phonemes can drift and alter. So one would assume that 2000~ years of disuse would make it fair far worse.


----------



## Abu Rashid

tFighterPilot said:


> Hebrew didn't lose خ ض ظ, these were lost before the North Semitic branch had split. None of these exist in any of the Western Semitic languages, all of which having the same 22 letters.



When the losses occurred makes little difference. From proto-Semitic -> Hebrew, the losses occurred, that's all that matters.


----------



## Abu Rashid

arielipi said:


> Again, in correct hebrew HET always is throatic sound.



Het is a merger of the two sounds Haa & Khaa. In Arabic, Ugaritic, Ge'ez, Sayhadic etc. these two sounds are two completely distinct letters/phonemes, and the roots they make up are completely separate roots. In Hebrew, Akkadian, Aramaic they collapsed into 1 single sound, and so the roots they make up are no longer distinct. It seems that you cannot fathom this, since to you their distinction has never existed.


----------



## arielipi

Abu Rashid said:


> Either that or the responses went over your head.
> 
> 
> The re-emergence of the sound kh as an allophone of kaph has nothing to do with the original Semitic Khaa phoneme, which in Hebrew was merged with Het and its distinction as a separate etymological phoneme lost.
> 
> 
> 
> This is just plain wrong. Both Hebrew & Arabic are from the Central Semitic branch, although Hebrew is from the North-West sub-branch. The "two edges" would be South Semitic & East Semitic.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that it's related at all to language, but this is just hogwash.
> 
> 
> 
> Silent is kh-r-s/sh whilst Plough is H-r-th, as Kh & H merged in Hebrew and th & sh merged in Hebrew, that's why they seem to share the one root. Ugaritic, Arabic & Ge'ez all confirm this fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine if another Semitic language related to Hebrew had merged meem & noon together, and pronounced them both as noon so they said "shalon" for peace, with the sound meem disappearing from their language. If they then later added the sound meem back into their language as a way of saying lamed in certain cases, it would sound pretty mixed up right? So they might say "shamon" instead of "shalom". That's pretty much how Hebrew appears to Arabic speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> You asked questions, I've answered them for you. If you don't accept the facts, then I'd advise you to go and study the Semitic languages comparatively, and examine the facts for yourself.



1)My original questions were what is your point in this debate.
2)Khaf and kaf were in Biblical Hebrew, I do not understand what you're trying to say there.
3)Look at fighterpilot's post
4)Not hogwash, all those languages ceased to exist thanks to Arabs conquers. I wonder what light they would shone.
5)Hebrew is Hebrew, and yes it is influenced by English and Europe languages. So we lost a few phonemes, and? besides both kheresh and kharash are written in the Bible, therefore your argument is what exactly?
6)That proves what berndf said,  judgemental, insulting and unscientific.
7) Answer these questions please:
a)What is your point
b) What are you trying to say
c) Why does it matter
d) What does it change
e) Why do you care?


----------



## arielipi

Abu Rashid said:


> The other alternative view mentioned there was that it was 200 B.C.E.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I ever said the entire language has decayed, but actually if we examine it, we'll find Hebrew did decay in many other aspects too, not just phonetics. The loss of the case system, of the dual and many other grammatical functions are in the same category as the loss of phonemes, ie. a process of decay.
> 
> 
> 
> We know that even when a language is being maintained by active speakers its phonemes can drift and alter. So one would assume that 2000~ years of disuse would make it fair far worse.



Used Wikipedia for case system, if I got it right we do have that in Hebrew, I can say door of house in two words - delet (ha)bait. Dual sure does exist - shnatayim is two years.
If case system is about noun,numbers m/f then we have that.
If you mean for the letters at the end of a word we have that too.



Abu Rashid said:


> Het is a merger of the two sounds Haa & Khaa. In Arabic, Ugaritic, Ge'ez, Sayhadic etc. these two sounds are two completely distinct letters/phonemes, and the roots they make up are completely separate roots. In Hebrew, Akkadian, Aramaic they collapsed into 1 single sound, and so the roots they make up are no longer distinct. It seems that you cannot fathom this, since to you their distinction has never existed.



But of course! In Hebrew we dont have that seperation, this is our language, whats your point?


----------



## tFighterPilot

Abu Rashid said:


> When the losses occurred makes little difference. From proto-Semitic -> Hebrew, the losses occurred, that's all that matters.


Of course, I was just correcting this little detail. I'm not even sure what's the argument is about.


----------



## berndf

arielipi said:


> Again, there are context issues in every language.


Of course. Nobody says this is a defect in the Hebrew language. In daily use of the language these things hardly ever matter. They are interesting for historians of language.

Yet, these mergers can lead to misguided folk-etymologies. I heard Hebrew scholars unaware of the actual etymology of _Halal _philosophize about the semantic link between _space_ and _desecration_.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> The other alternative view mentioned there was that it was 200 B.C.E.


You have to read more carefully, 200 C.E. not 200 B.C.E. Whether the actual demise of Hebrew as a spoken language was closer to 200CE or to 400CE is something I concede is not clear.


Abu Rashid said:


> I don't think I ever said the entire language has decayed, but actually if we examine it, we'll find Hebrew did decay in many other aspects too, not just phonetics. The loss of the case system, of the dual and many other grammatical functions are in the same category as the loss of phonemes, ie. a process of decay.


If is the process of decay of declensions not of the language. If you can't understand this difference, I find it difficult to see a basis for discussion.


Abu Rashid said:


> We know that even when a language is being maintained by active speakers its phonemes can drift and alter. So one would assume that 2000~ years of disuse would make it fair far worse.


Nobody ever denied that Hebrew phonology changed _drastically _since the days of Salomon. My question remains: For what precisely would this be relevant?


----------



## berndf

arielipi said:


> 2)Khaf and kaf were in Biblical Hebrew, I do not understand what you're trying to say there.


Most likely not, at least not in early Biblical Hebrew. Remember that the Tiberian Niqqud system records Mishnaic and not Biblical pronunciation. The spirantization of Bet, Gimmel, Dalet, Kaf, Pe and Taw in the syllable coda happened in post-exile times, probably under Aramaic influence. There was probably a long period in the history of Hebrew where [x] (the sound of the _Khaf_) did not exist, neither phonemically nor allphonically.


----------



## Abu Rashid

arielipi said:


> 2)Khaf and kaf were in Biblical Hebrew, I do not understand what you're trying to say there.



Berndf already addressed this. Yes Khaa probably did exist (as Greek Transliterations of the OT show us), but it was not an allophone of kaph as it is today. It was the phoneme that the word for "silent" would've started with, or the middle letter in the name "rachel", a sound which eventually become lost as it merged with modern Het, the same letter representing both of them.



arielipi said:


> 3)Look at fighterpilot's post



His post does not validate your wild claim that Arabic and Hebrew are from opposite "edges" of the Semitic language spectrum.



arielipi said:


> 4)Not hogwash, all those languages ceased to exist thanks to Arabs conquers. I wonder what light they would shone.



I'm completely lost as to what you're even saying now. You mentioned Hebrews and Arabs, then claim "Arabs conquers" killed them. This is just plain jibberish,  it makes no sense at all. Please sort yourself out, then continue that line of thought if you insist.



arielipi said:


> 5)Hebrew is Hebrew, and yes it is influenced by English and Europe languages. So we lost a few phonemes, and? besides both kheresh and kharash are written in the Bible, therefore your argument is what exactly?



Hebrew was written with the Phoenician, then later Aramaic alphabet, so it had to make do with less letters than it had sounds. So both those words were pronounced differently, in Biblical Hebrew, but were written the same. Later even the phonetic difference was lost.

The simple fact is that these two Semitic roots are actually very different in their origin and actually only share one radical (resh/raa) in common. The fact that Hebrew lost the distinctions and merged them together, doesn't change that. Whether they lost it yesterday, in the Biblical period, or before any written records exist, is irrelevant.

The rest of your "questions" have no relevance to language or these topics whatsoever, and belong in a schoolyard more than in an enlightened discussion about languages.


----------



## Abu Rashid

arielipi said:


> Used Wikipedia for case system, if I got it right we do have that in Hebrew, I can say door of house in two words - delet (ha)bait.



No, that is annexation. Only Arabic & Akkadian and probably Ugaritic retained the Semitic case system, all other Semitic languages, including Hebrew lost it.



arielipi said:


> Dual sure does exist - shnatayim is two years.



It remains only in a few isolated nouns. It is not productive in verbs nor adjectives, and cannot be applied to nouns except the few cases in which it was frozen as a vestige of the former feature.



arielipi said:


> If case system is about noun,numbers m/f then we have that.



No.



arielipi said:


> If you mean for the letters at the end of a word we have that too.



Yes it does relate to case endings, or final vowels of words, but Hebrew does not have it.

Here is an example:

*A boy ate a wolf*
_akala waladu dhi'ba
akala dhi'ba waladu_

*A wolf ate a boy*
_akala dhi'bu walada
akala walada dhi'bu_

In Hebrew it must be:

*A boy ate a wolf*
_yeled akel zi'b_

*A wolf ate a boy*
_zi'b akel yeled_

(I might be off a little with the vowels of the Hebrew, but the principle is sound I think)
As you can see, the word order is irrelevant, as the final vowels of the nouns decide their function in the sentence. 'u' indicates subject and 'a' indicates object of the verb. It is a bit more complex than that, but you should now get the idea. Hebrew does not have such a system. In Hebrew word order must be adherd to (IIRC) for proper sentence construction.

We can also see from this example above that Hebrew lost the VSO verbal sentence order of Semitic, replaced the initial 'waw' of most words with initial 'yod' and merged the phoneme 'dh' with 'zayn', apart from having lost the case endings from the nouns.


----------



## Abu Rashid

berndf said:


> You have to read more carefully, 200 C.E. not 200 B.C.E. Whether the actual demise of Hebrew as a spoken language was closer to 200CE or to 400CE is something I concede is not clear.



Honestly berndf, on the scale of things, a language being out of use for even a century or two is enough. So 1500, 1700, 2300, it all makes little difference. It's kinda like saying if dinosaurs were extinct for only 45 million years instead of 65 million years, then it would be easier to make Jurassic Park a reality.



berndf said:


> If is the process of decay of declensions not of the language. If you can't understand this difference, I find it difficult to see a basis for discussion.
> Nobody ever denied that Hebrew phonology changed _drastically _since the days of Salomon. My question remains: For what precisely would this be relevant?



Since the discussion is from over a year ago, I cannot for the life of me remember what the initial context was.

You revived the thread, not me.


----------



## arielipi

Abu Rashid said:


> No, that is annexation. Only Arabic & Akkadian and probably Ugaritic retained the Semitic case system, all other Semitic languages, including Hebrew lost it.
> 
> 
> 
> It remains only in a few isolated nouns. It is not productive in verbs nor adjectives, and cannot be applied to nouns except the few cases in which it was frozen as a vestige of the former feature.
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> Yes it does relate to case endings, or final vowels of words, but Hebrew does not have it.




The last questions were asked when this was still under hebrew forum.
I can dual verbs, itll just sound weird; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_alphabet  we have final letters.

Now, het with a 'geresh' [ ' ] represents the biblical kh sound, just like g'imel is j, z'ayin is french j, tz'adi is ch, t'aw is th, r'esh is r.  Perhaps hebrew did lose a few letters or hebrew speakers lost phonemes, I can live with that.

What I said about the lost languages is that perhaps we could have learnt things unknown to us if they werent lost.
Again, Het is always in correct hebrew a throatic sound, only kaf can func as the ordinary haa sound, in correct hebrew.

And to remind you, he didnt revive it, a person questioned something and he berndf simply answered. Just in case you forgot, or didnt see

Edit after yours: I can also say yeled ne'echal al yedey zeev, a boy was eaten by a wolf, our binyanim says what is doing the action and what is affected by it.
Words order in a sentence in hebrew is flexible as you can dream, learn your facts about hebrew before declaring something.


----------



## Abu Rashid

arielipi said:


> The last questions were asked when this was still under hebrew forum.
> I can dual verbs, itll just sound weird; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_alphabet  we have final letters.



Yeh.... not quite the same. nevermind.



arielipi said:


> Now, het with a 'geresh' [ ' ] represents the biblical kh sound, just like g'imel is j, z'ayin is french j, tz'adi is ch, t'aw is th, r'esh is r.  Perhaps hebrew did lose a few letters or hebrew speakers lost phonemes, I can live with that.



This is innovative representation of foreign sounds in loanwords. I think you're not even really following the discussion.



arielipi said:


> What I said about the lost languages is that perhaps we could have learnt things unknown to us if they werent lost.



Which languages? Personally I think you just wanted to take some off hand swipe at Arabs.



arielipi said:


> Again, Het is always in correct hebrew a throatic sound, only kaf can func as the ordinary haa sound, in correct hebrew.



Again, you're obviously not following the points being made. One last time, Modern day Hebrew Het is the result of two sounds Haa & Khaa merging together. In Arabic, Ugaritic, Ge'ez and Sayhadic they are completely separate letters and sounds.



arielipi said:


> And to remind you, he didnt revive it, a person questioned something and he berndf simply answered. Just in case you forgot, or didnt see



And then he dredged up one of my old posts and begin addressing it.



arielipi said:


> Edit after yours: I can also say yeled ne'echal al yedey zeev, a boy was eaten by a wolf, our binyanim says what is doing the action and what is affected by it.
> Words order in a sentence in hebrew is flexible as you can dream, learn your facts about hebrew before declaring something.



That's merely putting the sentence in the passive voice. Again, I really don't think you're up to this discussion.


----------



## arielipi

I am following the discussion, perhaps you should make clear of what you say.

Which languages? Well, all the semitic extinct languages, wikipedia it yourself.
So what are you trying to say here, ok hebrew lost a few things, but as well did all those [they wre if im not correct] western-northern semitic languages.

I dont see why its not equal to your -u- and -a- at the end, we also have ha - ...yeled achal hazeev - ...boy ate the wolf.


----------



## Abu Rashid

arielipi said:


> I am following the discussion, perhaps you should make clear of what you say.



I've made it very clear. And each time you've indicated you didn't understand, I've clarified further. And have no problem doing so, in a sincere discussion.



arielipi said:


> Which languages? Well, all the semitic extinct languages, wikipedia it yourself.



How can I "wikipedia" that which I don't even know what I'm supposedly looking for? The only languages I know which became extinct during the Arabic expansion (Semitic or otherwise) were the Sayhadic languages of South Arabia. They simply feel into disuse or were possibly superseded by the Modern South Arabian languages.

Since you seem to know all about it, do elaborate. How about linking me to these wikipedia pages? todah rabah.



arielipi said:


> So what are you trying to say here, ok hebrew lost a few things, but as well did all those [they wre if im not correct] western-northern semitic languages.



Well most, not all. Ugaritic retained almost as much as Arabic in many aspects.



arielipi said:


> I dont see why its not equal to your -u- and -a- at the end, we also have ha - ...yeled achal hazeev - ...boy ate the wolf.



The Arabic case endings serve a grammatical function. I am not aware of any such feature still present in Hebrew relating to grammatical case.

'ha' is the definite article, you're talking apples and oranges now. Please try to stick with one topic at a time.


----------



## arielipi

So what do you want to say/debate about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic#Semitic_peoples
I believe thats a small list, as Ive seen longer ones.

Still didnt say what youre trying to say, aka what is this whole discussion about?

What exactly is that grammatical function? Like saying in one word my door/house/etc? then we have letters for all of those, hebrew mostly has prefixes.  Like yald-i/o/a/am/etc is saying in one word my/his/her/etc child.

Could you explain more about this case system?


----------



## berndf

arielipi said:


> I dont see why its not equal to your -u- and -a- at the end, we also have ha - ...yeled achal hazeev - ...boy ate the wolf.


_Ha-_ is the definite article, that's something else than case marking. Let me give you an example of a hypothetical variant of Hebrew which had the same case markings and word order than Akkadian, the oldest attested Semitic language, and as Akkadian lacked the definite article; then you could say:
_yeledum ze´evam __´__achal = boy ate wolf
yeledam ze__´__evum __´__achal = wolf ate boy
_Compare this with Latin another fully case-marked SOV language allowing word order variation and lacking the definite article (_-us_ marks the subject and _-um_ the object; the nominative _puer_ is irregular):
_puer lupum edit = boy ate wolf
puerum lupus edit = wolf ate boy
_
If you now added the definite article nothing would change (assuming there were no accusative preposition _´et_ or at least it wouldn't be required):
_hayeledum haze__´__evam __´__achal = the boy the ate wolf
hayeledam haze__´__evum __´__achal = the wolf the ate boy

_Compare this again to late classical Latin where the case system was still intact but _ille (=that) _began to function as a definite article:
_ille puer illum lupum edit = the boy ate the wolf
illum puerum ille lupus edit = the wolf ate __the __boy
_


----------



## arielipi

But thats unneeded, the binyanim tells whos the actioner and whos the actioneer.


----------



## berndf

arielipi said:


> But thats unneeded, the binyanim tells whos the actioner and whos the actioneer.


No, the distinction here is between _subject _and _object _and not between _agens _and _patiens_. In non-case-marked languages, this is distinction is achieved by word order:
_hayeled __´achal __´et __ha__ze´ev = __the boy the ate the wolf_
_haze´ev __´achal ´et __hayeled__ = the wolf the ate the boy

_In case-marked languages, the noun-phrases carry the information, whether say are subject or object, within them and the word order can be varied (e.g. to emphasize a word) without changing the meaning. E.g. German is an SVO language, like English of Hebrew, hence you normally say:
_Der Wolf frisst den Jungen = the wolf eats the boy
_
If you want to emphasize that the wolf ate the boy and not someone else than you can move _den Jungen_ (=_the boy_ ACCUSATIVE) to the first position and the sentence still means the same:
_Den Jungen frisst der Wolf = __the wolf eats the boy_

In English or Hebrew this would not be possible. For definite nouns the preposition _´et _serves a similar purpose than case-marking, so in theory you could say
_´et __hayeled __´achal__ha__ze´ev
_still meaning_the boy the ate the wolf
_but I believe you don't say that (correct me, if I am wrong).


----------



## tFighterPilot

הילד אכל הזאב is actually grammatically wrong. The object should be preceded by את. If we use correct grammar, then you can say "the child ate the wolf" as both

הילד אכל את הזאב
את הזאב אכל הילד


----------



## berndf

tFighterPilot said:


> The object should be preceded by את.


Yes, I noticed the mistake. Your post crossed with my correction. Sorry for the confusion.



tFighterPilot said:


> את הזאב אכל הילד


Is that idiomatic Hebrew or just a theoretical possibility?


----------



## tFighterPilot

berndf said:


> Yes, I noticed the mistake. Your post crossed with my correction. Sorry for the confusion.
> 
> Is that idiomatic Hebrew or just a theoretical possibility?


It's not something you'd hear often, but it does exist, usually when people want to stress the object.


----------



## arielipi

Its on higher level of hebrew that people speak like that, writing books[fantasy] often uses that.
Therefore vayeled achal hazeev is correct - as you said yourself, et in these cases is meant to emphasize = not needed.
Again - הילד אכל את הזאב
הילד אכל הזאב
=
הזאב נאכל על ידי הילד
את הזאב אכל הילד
Here the subject changed, first it was the boy ,then the action then the object.
Second the subject is the wolf, then verb, then the object(yes, neechal is passive but it doesnt contradict what i said).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject%E2%80%93verb%E2%80%93object hebrew is an svo language.


----------



## berndf

tFighterPilot said:


> It's not something you'd hear often, but it does exist, usually when people want to stress the object.


Do you think this is German influence on Modern Hebrew or do you find this in classical text? I haven't come across this, yet.


----------



## berndf

arielipi said:


> הזאב נאכל על ידי הילד
> את הזאב אכל הילד
> ...
> ... the subject is the wolf, then verb, then the object(yes, neechal is passive but it doesnt contradict what i said).


Well, in הזאב נאכל על ידי הילד the subject is, as you said, הזאב while in את הזאב אכל הילד the subject is הילד. The word order has changed here from SVO to OVS. This is possible because את serves as a case marker. Without את the sentence would mean the opposite.

By contrast, the _agens _is in both sentences הילד: In the first sentence the verb is passive, hence _object=agens_=הילד and in the second sentence the verb is active, hence _subject=agens_=הילד. Please be careful not to confuse the concepts of _subject_ vs. _object_ and _agens_ vs. _patiens_.


----------



## arielipi

Im still unclear about the case system thing.


----------



## berndf

arielipi said:


> Im still unclear about the case system thing.


Don't worry. It is always a difficult concept to learn for a speaker of non-case-marked languages when learning case-marked languages.

You know math. Regard a verb as a function with several argument, like f(x,y). Suppose f(x,y)=2*x+y then f(2,3) is not the same as f(3,2). You could alternatively write f(x=2,y=3) (some computer languages allow this notation); then is doesn't matter, if you write f(x=2,y=3) or f(y=3,x=2), it is always clear which number x stands for and which number y stands for. Now you can write _the boy eats the wolf_ as _eat(subject=the boy, object=the wolf)_. And case-markers are then the strings "subject=" (nominative) and "object=" (accusative).

The entire picture is more complicated; cases have more uses than just to distinguish subject and object(s). But for now, this should suffice.


----------



## arielipi

So i could theoretically say that the wolf was eaten by the boy in a not passive verb?, Which in turn is equal to et hazeev achal hayeled.


----------



## berndf

arielipi said:


> So i could theoretically say that the wolf was eaten by the boy in a not passive verb?, Which in turn is equal to et hazeev achal hayeled.


A passive verb is like an inversion function, where x any y swap roles. I.e. _eat(subject=the boy, object=the wolf)=was_eaten(subject=the wolf, object=the boy)_.


----------



## arielipi

*not* passive verb, after the question mark, is that case sentence?
Other try, 
_yeledum ze´evam ´achal = boy ate wolf
yeledam ze´evum ´achal = wolf ate boy
_But there is a change here, which is equal to the change in the binyan in real hebrew.
The way i see it, um indicates the one doing the action and am the affected. Thats just passive and active with a smart bypass system to have more ways to say the same thing.

And whats nominative and accusative?

PS: in the bible(genesis) theres i believe an indication of that existence, as jacob's sons tell him that "tarof toraf yosef" which means he was eaten.


----------



## berndf

arielipi said:


> _yeledum ze´evam ´achal = boy ate wolf
> yeledam ze´evum ´achal = wolf ate boy_


Yes.





arielipi said:


> But there is a change here, which is equal to the change in the binyan in real hebrew.


Binyanim modify verbs, cases modify nouns and adjectives.


arielipi said:


> The way i see it, um indicates the one doing the action and am the affected. Thats just passive and active with a smart bypass system to have more ways to say the same thing.


This is true in active verb forms. In passive verb forms it is the opposite. Let's go back to the Latin example as a real and not an imaginary language:
_Lupus puerum edit=the wolf ate the boy _-- _lupus_=_the __wolf=_subject, _puerum_=_the boy_=object, _edit_=_ate_=3rd person perfect active verb.
_Puer a lupo ederit=The boy was eaten by the wolf_ -- _puer=subject_, _a lupo_=_by the wolf_=prepositional adjuct (similar to object in this case), _ederit_=_was eaten_=3rd person perfect passive verb.

Note that in both cases, _the wolf _does the action and _the boy _is affected. But in the active voice, _the boy_ is case-marked as object (_puerum_) while in the passive voice _the boy_ is case-marked as subject (_puer_).


arielipi said:


> And whats nominative and accusative?


Nominative marks the subject (_puer _and _lupus _are nominative forms), accusative marks the direct object (_puerum _and _lupum _are accusative, _lupo_ is ablative, but that't getting to complication at this stage).



arielipi said:


> PS: in the bible(genesis) theres i believe an indication of that existence, as jacob's sons tell him that "tarof toraf yosef" which means he was eaten.


I am not quite sure what you want to say with this example. If I am not mistaken, the grammatical analysis is: טֹרַף=passive qal -> טֹרַף יוֹסֵף=_was-torn Joseph=Joseph was torn_, and טָרֹף is an intensifying absolute infinitive, i.e.  _Joseph was surely/really torn._


----------



## Abu Rashid

arielipi said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic#Semitic_peoples
> I believe thats a small list, as Ive seen longer ones.



Thanks, and which ones exactly do you think the Arabs killed and made their language extinct?

Btw interesting to see the Amalekites there. 

Any idea who killed them and how their language became extinct?



arielipi said:


> What exactly is that grammatical function? Like saying in one word my door/house/etc? then we have letters for all of those, hebrew mostly has prefixes. Like yald-i/o/a/am/etc is saying in one word my/his/her/etc child.


 
These are enclitic pronouns, again a completely different grammatical phenomena.



arielipi said:


> Could you explain more about this case system?



Berndf has explained it quite well with the computing function analogy, I hope that has made it clearer for you.


----------



## arielipi

berndf said:


> I am not quite sure what you want to say with this example. If I am not mistaken, the grammatical analysis is: טֹרַף=passive qal -> טֹרַף יוֹסֵף=_was-torn Joseph=Joseph was torn_, and טָרֹף is an intensifying absolute infinitive, i.e. _Joseph was surely/really torn._


Nope, as nitraf would be the passive. Another one - azov azav habayit, habayit azov azav = left home, home [someone=]left. Isnt it the same? Note that i can only think of 3rd person with this, as achol ochal IS intensifying the action.


----------



## berndf

arielipi said:


> Nope, as nitraf would be the passive.


In Mishnaic and Modern Hebrew: yes, in Biblical Hebrew it was a bit different. The _qal passive_ was already almost extinct 2600 years ago when the Torah was written down - but a few cases remained. The niph`al later completely replaced the qal passive.


----------



## rayloom

Another way to explain it (the case system):
If we take for example Classical Arabic, because of the case system, you can say "a boy ate a wolf" in 6 different ways, without changing the binyanim of the verb:

akala waladun dhi'ba(n)
akala dhi'ban walad(un)
waladun akala dhi'ba(n)
waladun dhi'ban akal(a)
dhi'ban waladun akal(a)
dhi'ban akala walad(un)

(in pausa, the final nunation isn't pronounced, neither are any short vowels in Arabic, except the accusative where the short a becomes long)
Of course the VSO is the commonest form in the end, changes in order mark a change in emphasis usually. But all would be considered and understood as "a boy ate a wolf".

Now if we take a look at colloquial Arabic, which like English and Hebrew, has become more of a SVO language, saying "a boy ate a wolf", we'd say:

walad akal dhi'b 
(variations in the short vowels and pronunciation of /dh/ and hamza depend on the dialect).


----------



## arielipi

At berndf
That i am aware of, but isnt *that *an equal  to that case-thingy?
For both berndf and rayloom:
Why isnt 'et' acting as the equal of am um thing, im still a bit puzzled at it,i do see the verb remains the same but so does it can be in hebrew
et hazeev achal hayeled, hayeled achal [et] hazeev.
And besides - thats why we ahve passive and active binyanim, to describe these exact things, which goes back to my saying that its just a smart bypass...

To rayloom:
What equivalent binyan is to dhiba(n), and it does change - dhiba dhiban, why is it so?


----------



## rayloom

arielipi said:


> At berndf
> That i am aware of, but isnt *that *an equal  to that case-thingy?
> For both berndf and rayloom:
> Why isnt 'et' acting as the equal of am um thing, im still a bit puzzled at it,i do see the verb remains the same but so does it can be in hebrew
> et hazeev achal hayeled, hayeled achal [et] hazeev.
> And besides - thats why we ahve passive and active binyanim, to describe these exact things, which goes back to my saying that its just a smart bypass...
> 
> To rayloom:
> What equivalent binyan is to dhiba(n), and it does change - dhiba dhiban, why is it so?



No dhi'b means wolf (ze'ev in Hebrew), not a verb.
dhi'ban is the accusative case (marking here that it was the receiver of the action), with the nunation in the end marking indefiniteness (well not quite, but lets leave it at that).
dhi'bā is when dhi'ban occurs at the end of speech, the nun of nunation is dropped (as always when it occurs at the end of speech in Arabic).

As for Hebrew 'et, well it's not a case ending, so while it can be used to change the syntax while keeping the meaning, it's technically not a case ending. Colloquial Arabic also would add a pronoun to change the order, but that's also technically not a case ending.


----------



## origumi

arielipi said:


> ...


The case system looks like a riddle to native Hebrew speaker. The concept is to change the nouns and adjectives (not verbs) according to their role in the sentence. For example the nominative case (for נושא of a sentence), accusative case (for מושא ישיר), dative or ablative (for מושא עקיף and other things) and so on. The number and nature of cases depends on the language. Only 3 in Classic Arabic (if I'm not mistaken), 6 in Latin, many more in Russian.

In Hebrew את before a definite noun in indeed similar to the accusative case, and yet not equivalent. Also: Hebrew construct state (סמיכות) reminds of a case, so is ה המגמה, and some other examples.


----------



## berndf

arielipi said:


> That i am aware of, ...


You surely didn't give me that impression when you said: _Nope, as nitraf would be the passive._


arielipi said:


> Why isnt 'et' acting as the equal of am um thing


As Rayloom said, it technically isn't a case ending which predecessors of Hebrew certainly once had, but it serves a similar purpose. Non case-marked languages tend to replace the missing case distinctions with prepositions. Now imagine you had another preposition to mark the subject; then you know the most elementary concept a case system expresses. The "real thing" is far more complex. Arabic has three cases, German four, Old English five, Latin seven (or six, depending on whether you count the locative), Proto-Indo-European eight; and Finnish has even 15 "noun classes". But for now this should be sufficient.

Think of cases as being the same to nouns what conjugations are to verbs. You say _I am, you are, he is, we are, you are, they are, I was, you were, he was, we were, you were, they were_. In Chinese, e.g., you don't have any of that, you just have the equivalent of _be_. In addition, you don't have plural forms. You say: _I be, you be, he be, I many be, you many be, he many be, I be past, you be past, he be past, I many be past, you many be past, he many be past_. You see, if you have fewer word forms you stick in more words to express the same thing.


----------



## arielipi

Actually, I did say its smart, and I think I understand it now. Though the idea was weird to me at first, it does make sense now.

Reposting that.[X] azov azav [X] habayit [X],[X] habayit [X] azov azav [X] = left home, home [someone=]left. Isnt it the same? Note that I can only think of 3rd person with this, as achol ochal IS intensifying the action.
[X] = any place I can put a name(only once though).


----------



## berndf

arielipi said:


> Actually, I did say its smart, and I think I understand it now. Though the idea was weird to me at first, it does make sense now.


Great.


arielipi said:


> Reposting that.[X] azov azav [X] habayit [X],[X] habayit [X] azov azav [X] = left home, home [someone=]left. Isnt it the same? Note that I can only think of 3rd person with this, as achol ochal IS intensifying the action.
> [X] = any place I can put a name(only once though).


Do you have a text reference for that?


----------



## Abu Rashid

arielipi said:


> What equivalent binyan is to dhiba(n), and it does change - dhiba dhiban, why is it so?



I thought it was obvious that I had deliberately chosen a sentence which is completely cognate between Arabic and Hebrew.

akala = akhal
walad = yeled
dh'ib = zeev

dh -> z & b -> v in Hebrew.


----------



## arielipi

This is very interesting,as i can only think of a 3rd person with this form, and it does affect like this: regular: danny taraf et hazeev. here: hazeev toraf al yedey danny.
shofat also works for me,ozav,shomar,hitputar(not really official, but people use it and it carries the same meaning of affection[bad word choice i know]).
Another interesting thing is that nearly all roots that start with tet i can do that, though with different initializing letter it is harder.
As to your question, it is not something we say on regular basis, judges use these things in their verdicts, translations of old things(shakespeare, antiquities and such).
Expect more later.


To abu rashid, hebrew is very well influenced by arabic, b-r-z root for instance.
Edit: Yes abu rashid, after understanding that dhiba is not the verb it made sense.​


----------



## berndf

arielipi said:


> This is very interesting,as i can only think of a 3rd person with this form, and it does affect like this: regular: danny taraf et hazeev. here: hazeev toraf al yedey danny.
> shofat also works for me,ozav,shomar,hitputar(not really official, but people use it and it carries the same meaning of affection[bad word choice i know]).


Yes, like _toraf, __shofat _and_`ozav_ could be examples of those mysterious old Qal passive forms, those makes sense. In your post above 


arielipi said:


> Reposting that.[X] azov *a*zav [X] habayit [X],[X] habayit [X] azov *a*zav [X] = left home, home [someone=]left. Isnt it the same? Note that I can only think of 3rd person with this, as achol ochal IS intensifying the action.


you wrote _*a*zav _and not _*o*zav _or_ *u*zav*_. That's what confused me.
______________________
*In Masoretic texts with niqqud, the qal passive most often gets the pu`al vowels. When the niqqud system was created the qal passive had long been extinct and the vowels should be taken "with a grain of salt", as they say.


----------



## arielipi

Yes, because this one starts with ayin, and by intuition i wrote azov azav, like ador adar,haloch halach, barokh barakh - all of them represent one forced to do something(whether emotionally or physically).

Uzav is ofc pual and were talking about qal passive. By the way, people do want passive for the binyanim that dont have a passive, so we just invent it by intuition - for example, hitpael in passive we say hitpual.
Qal as we can see would be poal, with few exceptions.
More info here:

הרכבה של תחילית פועלית על צורה שמנית: צורות נדירות כמו וְכָל-מִקְנְךָ תִּזָּכָר, וְכָל-הַמְּלָאכָה נְמִבְזָה הן כנראה הרכבה של תחילית מתחום הפועל (תִּ-) על שם עצם (זָכָר).
taken from wikipedia
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/בנייני...90.D7.95_.D7.97.D7.A8.D7.99.D7.92.D7.99.D7.9D
Ive no idea how to translate this thing.


----------



## berndf

arielipi said:


> Uzav is ofc pual and were talking about qal passive.


I thought you might comment on that. That's why I added a footnote to my previous post six minutes later. When you wrote this, you might not yet have seen it.


----------



## Abu Rashid

arielipi said:


> To abu rashid, hebrew is very well influenced by arabic, b-r-z root for instance.​




The features and cognates discussed so far were inherited through shared Semitic origins. I'm not quite sure why you're not mentioning loans, and specifically this word? Especially when there are an abundance of loans in modern Hebrew.




arielipi said:


> Edit: Yes abu rashid, after understanding that dhiba is not the verb it made sense.



Do you understand it is etymologically the same word as zeev? In Hebrew, the dh phoneme was merged with 'zayn'. The glottal stop in the middle became a long vowel, and the bet on the end is now pronounced like a 'v'. ie. in the distant history of Hebrew the word was originally dh'ib but over time it evolved to become zeev.


----------



## arielipi

Just to make it clear for further posts the lost sounds are(and are not really lost, we just dont speak, but we can that way)
1)Th for dalet lo-dgusha, and 'dal' sound - د - for dalet dgusha.
2)غ for gimel not dgusha, and g sound for dgusha.
3)Th for taw not dgusha and t for dgusha.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> The glottal stop in the middle became a long vowel


Not quite. Some word-internal Alephs are mute like in رأس=ראש. But the Aleph in זאב is pronounced. The phonemic transcription is /zə'ʔe:v/. The MH deviation from TH is only that /e:/ is realized as a Spanish "e", i.e lowered [e], and the realization of /ə/ is not a "real" Schwa but fronted to a reduced lowered [e]. This is of course due to Spanish, or more precisely Ladino, influence.


----------



## berndf

arielipi said:


> Just to make it clear for further posts the lost sounds are(and are not really lost, we just dont speak, but we can that way)
> 1)Th for dalet lo-dgusha, and 'dal' sound -د - for dalet dgusha.
> 2)غ for gimel not dgusha, and g sound for dgusha.
> 3)Th for taw not dgusha and t for dgusha.


Those things should not be confused with the Canaanite mergers AR mentioned. The דּ-ד allophonic split happened about 400BC, the Canaanite /ð/,/z/>/z/ phonemic merger some 800-1000 years earlier, but certainly before Hebrew written records began. The dating is based on developments in related languages, mainly Ugaritic, the the /ð/ phoneme was lost around that time, only that the Ugaritic /ð/ merged with /d/ and not not with /z/. Similarly, the TH and MH ת without Dasesh has nothing to do with the Arabic ث which in Canaanite merged with the PS s1 = Hebrew שׁ. This is, e.g., the reason why you have שׁלשׁ in Hebrew and ثلاثة in Arabic for the number _three_. Also غ has nothing to do with ג without Degesh but merged with ע; this distinction most likely survived into Biblical Hebrew but was never spelled, the letter ע was used for both sounds. This is why you spell the name of the city _Ghaza _with غ in Arabic and ע in Hebrew.


----------



## arielipi

Took it from wikipedia... anyhow talk to you later


----------



## berndf

arielipi said:


> Took it from wikipedia


I understand what you did. Those are the sound correspondences between Tiberian Hebrew, the development stage of the Hebrew language the niqqud records, and classical Arabic. I just warned you not to mix this with etymological sound correspondence which result from the sound shifts which have occurred since the predecessor languages of Hebrew and Arabic split from a common ancestor in a distant past. What AR explained to you was why Arabic _dh'ib_ and Hebrew _ze'ev_ are really the same word, as far as the consonant pattern is concerned, just the pronunciation of those consonants changed over time.

It is one of the most dangerous traps in historical comparative linguistics that sound shift can produce accidental homophones (word which sound the same) of etymologically totally unrelated words. There is a very famous example in European languages: The verb _to have_ is in German _haben_ (the English and German words are really related) where _hab-_ is the root and and _-en_ the infinitive ending. The Latin verb for _to have_ is _habere_ where _hab-_ is the root and _-ere_ the infinitive ending. The German and Latin roots _hab-_ sound the same and they mean the same yet they are etymologically completely unrelated. The German verb _haben_, and also the English verb _to have_, are derived from the same origin as the Latin verb _capere_ (=_to seize_). This is so because in the predecessor language of German and English, called Proto-Germanic, the phoneme /k/ became /x/, pronounced  at the beginning of the word, and /p/ became /b/.


----------



## Abu Rashid

Re: Development of Hebrew Phonology and Morphology 





arielipi said:


> further posts the lost sounds are(and are not really lost, we just dont speak, but we can that way)



Again, it's not just about the sounds, it's about their etymological roots.

There's _no_ Hebrew tradition/dialect in which zeev is pronounced dheev. In Hebrew this sound was indeed completely lost, and the words which contained it merged with zayn. Then later Hebrew speakers adopted the Aramaic spirantisations in which dh becomes an alternative pronunciation of dalet.

eg.
dhi'b -> zeev
dhahab -> zahab
midhbah -> mizbeakh
dhakara -> zekr
kadhaba -> kazav
akhadha -> akhaz

So a root like dh-r-3* and the root z-r-3 have become indistinguishable in Hebrew. It would seem almost like the word for plant/sow and the one for arm are from the same root, and some Edenics "enthusiasts" indeed come to the conclusion that since one plants with one's arm, that's why. But in reality they stem from different roots.

Same for s1-m-n (fat) and th-m-n (price/eight). As s1 + th -> sh in Hebrew, both appear as sh-m-n, when in fact they are completely separate roots.

And s1-l-7* (send) and s1-l-kh (strip), again both 7 & kh became ח the one phoneme in Hebrew, and so these two roots are indistinguishable.

So it's not just that Hebrew lost the sounds, or retains them, it lost the distinction between roots containing these sounds, and this indicates a loss, and then a re-acquisition (albeit with no linguistic value) at a much later date, almost certainly via heavy contact with Aramaic.

*Note: 3 = ayin, 7 = Haa (throaty h)


----------

