# Biblical Hebrew: מטתם (their rods)



## vale37

In chapter 7 verse 12 of the Exodus, it is present the word "מטתם" for "their rods". However according to the grammar of the biblical hebrew that word, being constructed from a masculine plural name, should have been  מטותיהם. Is there any reason for that discrepancy? Is it an exception of some sort?


----------



## radagasty

The noun מַטֶּה, though masculine, takes the feminine plural ending -ôt, which is exceptional but not rare, whence מַטּוֹת, spelt defectively in מַטֹּתָם, with the pronominal suffix.


----------



## vale37

radagasty said:


> The noun מַטֶּה, though masculine, takes the feminine plural ending -ôt, which is exceptional but not rare, whence מַטּוֹת, spelt defectively in מַטֹּתָם, with the pronominal suffix.


That I knew, thank you. The problem is exactly that. The pronomial suffix used in the above case is for the singular nouns and not for the plural ones. מַטּוֹת is a plural name (rods) so it should require the possessive that I was pointing out, that is יהם-. For instance a very similar word in terms of grammatical construction is שדותיהם (Jeremiah 8:10) in which it is correctly present the possessive for the plural nouns. So, my question was, why is the word מַטּוֹת not written with the correct possessive?


----------



## Abaye

Notice that מטה may be also feminine.
Strong's Hebrew: 4294. מַטֶּה (matteh or mattah) -- a staff, rod, shaft, branch, a tribe


----------



## radagasty

vale37 said:


> The pronomial suffix used in the above case is for the singular nouns and not for the plural ones. מַטּוֹת is a plural name (rods) so it should require the possessive that I was pointing out, that is יהם-. For instance a very similar word in terms of grammatical construction is שדותיהם (Jeremiah 8:10) in which it is correctly present the possessive for the plural nouns. So, my question was, why is the word מַטּוֹת not written with the correct possessive?



The suffix -_êhem_ is on occasion replaced by -_ām_. Thus, for instance, we find at times אֲבוֹתָם for אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם.


----------



## Drink

radagasty said:


> The suffix -_êhem_ is on occasion replaced by -_ām_. Thus, for instance, we find at times אֲבוֹתָם for אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם.



Note that this is specifically after the -ot plural, and not in other cases.


----------



## vale37

radagasty said:


> The suffix -_êhem_ is on occasion replaced by -_ām_. Thus, for instance, we find at times אֲבוֹתָם for אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם.


Sorry but I find that your answer doesn't explain the problem I was trying to understand. Furthermore I find that אֲבוֹתָם is composed by the plural אבות followed by the alternate form of the pronominal suffix for the third masculine plural person (their father?) that is grammatically used for singular nouns as the case of the word I was enquiring about; while the word אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם has the second masculine plural person of the pronominal suffix (your fathers), as it should have. Therefore I don't understand the example you made. How can a plural noun (מטות) have a pronominal suffix (-_ām_) that is associated with singular nouns? If there are exceptions to the rule, these words which sub-rule do they follow? Otherwise to me their form seems the result of a randomic process, or an error that became grammatically accepted. The word שָׂדֶה (field) has a very similar structure to מַטֶּה (rod), so I don't understand why the latter constitutes an exception but not the former. Thank you.


----------



## vale37

Drink said:


> Note that this is specifically after the -ot plural, and not in other cases.


In the biblical hebrew grammar I found tha -_ām _is the alternate form of -_hem _and not of -_êhem_, so I don't understand how it can be found in -ot plural names.


----------



## radagasty

radagasty said:


> The suffix -_êhem_ is on occasion replaced by -_ām_. Thus, for instance, we find at times אֲבוֹתָם for אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם.



Sorry... this was a typo: אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם should of course have been אֲבוֹתֵיהֶם. Both אֲבוֹתָם and אֲבוֹתֵיהֶם mean _their fathers_.



vale37 said:


> How can a plural noun (מטות) have a pronominal suffix (-_ām_) that is associated with singular nouns? If there are exceptions to the rule, these words which sub-rule do they follow? Otherwise to me their form seems the result of a randomic process, or an error that became grammatically accepted. The word שָׂדֶה (field) has a very similar structure to מַטֶּה (rod), so I don't understand why the latter constitutes an exception but not the former.



I think you’re over-complicating matters here. The expected 3ms pronominal suffix on a plural noun in -_ôt_ is of course -_êhem, _thus אֲבוֹתֵיהֶם. On occasion, -_ām_ substitutes for -_êhem_, whence אֲבוֹתָם, with no change in meaning. As Drink pointed out, this substitution is only possible for plurals in -_ôt_.

As for why we have מַטֹּתָם but שְׂדוֹתֵיהֶם, I don't think there is a rule, or that the short and the long form of the suffix is particular to מַטֶּה and שָׂדֶה respectively. I think they are probably in free variation, and the attested forms are accidental. After all, the nouns שָׂדוֹת and מַטּוֹת only occur with the 3mp suffix once each in the OT. That אָבוֹת, on the other hand, is amply attested with both suffixes is hardly surprising, given the frequent mention of _(fore)fathers_.


----------



## vale37

radagasty said:


> Sorry... this was a typo: אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם should of course have been אֲבוֹתֵיהֶם. Both אֲבוֹתָם and אֲבוֹתֵיהֶם mean _their fathers_.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you’re over-complicating matters here. The expected 3ms pronominal suffix on a plural noun in -_ôt_ is of course -_êhem, _thus אֲבוֹתֵיהֶם. On occasion, -_ām_ substitutes for -_êhem_, whence אֲבוֹתָם, with no change in meaning. As Drink pointed out, this substitution is only possible for plurals in -_ôt_.
> 
> As for why we have מַטֹּתָם but שְׂדוֹתֵיהֶם, I don't think there is a rule, or that the short and the long form of the suffix is particular to מַטֶּה and שָׂדֶה respectively. I think they are probably in free variation, and the attested forms are accidental. After all, the nouns שָׂדוֹת and מַטּוֹת only occur with the 3mp suffix once each in the OT. That אָבוֹת, on the other hand, is amply attested with both suffixes is hardly surprising, given the frequent mention of _(fore)fathers_.



So I understand that the word doesn't follow the rules and it was generated as the result of a grammatical accident. Thank you.


----------



## Drink

This is a grammatical rule. So it does follow grammatical rules.

The rule is that a plural ending in -ōt with the 3mp pronoun suffix can be either -ōtēhem or -ōtām. Both are grammatically correct.


----------



## vale37

Drink said:


> This is a grammatical rule. So it does follow grammatical rules.
> 
> The rule is that a plural ending in -ōt with the 3mp pronoun suffix can be either -ōtēhem or -ōtām. Both are grammatically correct.


Before writing in the forum I checked several grammar books on the subject and in none of them I found the "rule" you are suggesting, and that is why it was a problem for me. As I stated, in all of them it was reported that a masculine plural name should have the suffix -_êhem. _Can you name any grammar book in which I can find what you are saying please?


----------



## Drink

Are your grammar books talking about Biblical Hebrew or Modern Hebrew?

Any thorough grammar of Biblical Hebrew would mention it.


----------



## vale37

Drink said:


> Are your grammar books talking about Biblical Hebrew or Modern Hebrew?
> 
> Any thorough grammar of Biblical Hebrew would mention it.


Biblical hebrew.


----------



## vale37

Drink said:


> Are your grammar books talking about Biblical Hebrew or Modern Hebrew?
> 
> Any thorough grammar of Biblical Hebrew would mention it.


I continued to search for books on the subject but I couldn’t find any with the rule you affirm exists. Can you please suggest me any specific book (or even better books)? Personally I doubt they exist. My doubt is based upon the fact that there is a rule (of the plural and singular suffixes) that contradicts what you are saying. So, as another member suggested, I can explain the presence of such violation only if it is a very rare case, and not a rule of a sub-rule, that exists as the result of an accident more than anything else.


----------



## radagasty

vale37 said:


> I continued to search for books on the subject but I couldn’t find any with the rule you affirm exists. Can you please suggest me any specific book (or even better books)? Personally I doubt they exist. My doubt is based upon the fact that there is a rule (of the plural and singular suffixes) that contradicts what you are saying. So, as another member suggested, I can explain the presence of such violation only if it is a very rare case, and not a rule of a sub-rule, that exists as the result of an accident more than anything else.



If, by ‘another member’, you mean me, then that is not what I suggested. When I said that the attestation was _accidental_, I was speaking specifically in reference to מַטֹּתָם and שְׂדוֹתֵיהֶם, where one has the long suffix and the other the short only because these words only come up once each in the OT with the 3mp suffix, and it just so happened that שָׂדוֹת got the long ending and מַטּוֹת the short. If there had been more examples of these words, we might have seen both endings on them.

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘grammatical accident’, but it is a rule that -_ām _may substitute for -_êhem_ on plurals in -_ôt_. Since you seem so insistent on finding it in a grammar, and since Lambdin seems to be so beloved as an authority here on this forum, I can say that he mentions this rule in §85 of his _Introduction to Biblical Hebrew_.


----------



## vale37

radagasty said:


> If, by ‘another member’, you mean me, then that is not what I suggested. When I said that the attestation was _accidental_, I was speaking specifically in reference to מַטֹּתָם and שְׂדוֹתֵיהֶם, where one has the long suffix and the other the short only because these words only come up once each in the OT with the 3mp suffix, and it just so happened that שָׂדוֹת got the long ending and מַטּוֹת the short. If there had been more examples of these words, we might have seen both endings on them.
> 
> I’m not sure what you mean by ‘grammatical accident’, but it is a rule that -_ām _may substitute for -_êhem_ on plurals in -_ôt_. Since you seem so insistent on finding it in a grammar, and since Lambdin seems to be so beloved as an authority here on this forum, I can say that he mentions this rule in §85 of his _Introduction to Biblical Hebrew_.


I’ll check that thank you.


----------



## vale37

radagasty said:


> If, by ‘another member’, you mean me, then that is not what I suggested. When I said that the attestation was _accidental_, I was speaking specifically in reference to מַטֹּתָם and שְׂדוֹתֵיהֶם, where one has the long suffix and the other the short only because these words only come up once each in the OT with the 3mp suffix, and it just so happened that שָׂדוֹת got the long ending and מַטּוֹת the short. If there had been more examples of these words, we might have seen both endings on them.
> 
> I’m not sure what you mean by ‘grammatical accident’, but it is a rule that -_ām _may substitute for -_êhem_ on plurals in -_ôt_. Since you seem so insistent on finding it in a grammar, and since Lambdin seems to be so beloved as an authority here on this forum, I can say that he mentions this rule in §85 of his _Introduction to Biblical Hebrew_.


I checked the “rule” you were pointing out in that book and it turns out that it is not a rule but an exeption applied to few words. In fact in the book it is written “the suffix -ehem is *occasionally* replaced by -am…” without defining any specific reason why it is so. This is said after presenting the effective rule I was talking about. Also it doesn’t say, like Drink was suggesting, that all the words ending in -ot are associated, by personal will I suppose, to both type of endings. This makes sense otherwise there would be a specific (general) rule regulating the matter.


----------



## Drink

Lambdin is not a great source. There is one user here who routinely cites him, that's as far as the "obsession" goes on this forum. From that users citations, I have determined that Lambdin is not a great source and is filled with mistakes and inaccuracies.


----------



## radagasty

vale37 said:


> I checked the “rule” you were pointing out in that book and it turns out that it is not a rule but an exeption applied to few words. In fact in the book it is written “the suffix -ehem is *occasionally* replaced by -am…” without defining any specific reason why it is so. This is said after presenting the effective rule I was talking about. Also it doesn’t say, like Drink was suggesting, that all the words ending in -ot are associated, by personal will I suppose, to both type of endings. This makes sense otherwise there would be a specific (general) rule regulating the matter.



I am not sure why you are so adamant about establishing whether this is a specific or a general rule, or a rule of a sub-rule, or a sub-rule of a rule, _etc.,_ since such things are the product of grammar books or their authors, and what one classifies as a sub-rule may for another be a principal rule.

The fact remains that plurals in -_ôt_ may take either -_êhem_ or -_ām _as the 3mp suffix, and that this is a grammatical rule. The fact that this only happens _occasionally_ is of no account, nor the fact that we cannot account fully for when one or other of the forms appears. Personally, I am inclined to think that they are in free variation, but the suffix -_ām_ is older than -_êhem_, so it may in fact be the case that the former appears more frequently in earlier writings.

In any case, the -_ām _as the 3mp suffix is by no means ‘very rare’, and, on some nouns, it is in fact more common than the longer suffix, אָבוֹת being one such.


----------

