# ה' המגמה



## htims

I've just learnt that to say "I return home" you use ha-bayit-ha and not be-bayit
Can anyone please explain the concept behind this and whether there is a rule.

Thanks


----------



## origumi

_be-bayit_ is not an option. _be-_ means in, inside, and you need towards, thus _le-_ (or the proposition _el_). So you could ask why it's not _le-bayit_ (or actually _le-vayit_, but forget about it for now).

1. _bayit_ = home requires the definite article, therefore _ha-bayit_ when standalone and _la-bayit_ = (to) the house.

2. Home is not just "the house". It's a special house and has a special form. We remove the _la-_ and add instead the _-ah_ at the end. This suffix is called ה המגמה and expresses the "towards" idea. It's meaning is very similar (or identical?) to the prefixed _la-_ (when expresses "towards"), it is not commonly used in modern Hebrew, and yet it is required in _ha-bayt-ah_ = (to) home.


Two comments about ה המגמה:

* You can say that you go _Yerushalaym-ah_ = to Jerusalem.

* You may hear many Israelis say _le-sham-ah_ instead of _le-sham_ = to there. This is actually duplicate "towards", both _le-_ and _-ah_, and therefore regarded as wrong.


----------



## Flaminius

Shalom,

Indeed the typical Hebrew expression for "I go back home" is:
אני חוזר *הביתה*.
This is pronounced _ha-bayita_ (without _h_ between _t_ and _a_).  There are a very limited number of Hebrew words that take _-a_ suffix to express the direction of movement.  They include:
ימין, שמאל, ירושלים


----------



## origumi

Flaminius said:


> There are a very limited number of Hebrew words that take _-a_ suffix to express the direction of movement.


In biblical times the -ה (pronounced -a, long vowel) was productive. You can find examples like בארה-שבע = לבאר-שבע, or אפרתה = לאפרת, or סדומה = לסדום. Also צפונה, דרומה, ימה, נגבה and other.


----------



## MaNitma

You can think of that "_-ah_" suffix as an equivalent of "_-ward(s)_" in English.
As origumi and Flaminius have already said, it's not really a selective thing (in modern Hebrew anyway), there are certain words that take this suffix.

Some examples which come to mind:

שמאלה ("_smolah_", leftward, to the left)
ימינה ("_yaminah_", rightward, to the right)
אחורה ("_akhorah_", backwards)
קדימה ("_kadimah_", forward)
צפונה ("_tzafonah_", towards the north)
דרומה ("_daromah_", towards the south)
מזרחה ("_mizrakhah_", towards the east)
מערבה ("_ma'aravah_", towards the west)
פנימה ("_pnimah_", towards the inside)
החוצה ("_ha'khutzah_", towards the outside)
מעלה ("_malah_", upwards)
מטה ("_matah_", downwards)
הנה ("_hennah_", towards here)
שמה ("_shamah_", towards there) - Not very common. Usually takes the "ל" instead ("לשם").
ארצה ("_artzah_", towards the ground/land/earth/country)
השמימה ("_ha'shamaïmah_", towards the sky)


----------



## Clara_

Thank you for asking and providing answers to this question! 

Would you say for "I am going to the land of Israel":
אני הולכת ארצה ישראל 
or can you as well use 
אני הולכת לארץ ישראל


----------



## MaNitma

Clara_ said:


> Thank you for asking and providing answers to this question!
> 
> Would you say for "I am going to the land of Israel":
> אני הולכת ארצה ישראל
> or can you as well use
> אני הולכת לארץ ישראל



Although I think it is grammatically correct, I think "ארצה ישראל" would sound rather weird in a colloquial context.
I'd choose "אני הולכת לארץ ישראל".

Usually "ארצה" is used alone, for example:

"הוא בניו-יורק" (he's in New-York)
"מתי הוא חוזר ארצה?" (when's he coming back [to Israel]?)
"מחרתיים" (the day after tomorrow)


----------



## origumi

Clara_ said:


> Would you say for "I am going to the land of Israel":
> אני הולכת ארצה ישראל
> or can you as well use
> אני הולכת לארץ ישראל


Both are correct. ארצה ישראל was popular during the modern Hebrew revival - late 19th and early 20th centuries (for example in הקול הקורא של ויתקין http://benyehuda.org/vitkin/articles_01.html) but sounds today too old fashioned.


----------



## Flaminius

MaNitma said:


> Usually "ארצה" is used alone, for example:
> 
> "הוא בניו-יורק" (he's in New-York)
> "מתי הוא חוזר ארצה?" (when's he coming back [to Israel]?)
> "מחרתיים" (the day after tomorrow)


Is it common to say _artsa_ without the _hey yedia`_?


----------



## MaNitma

Flaminius said:


> Is it common to say _artsa_ without the _hey yedia`_?



Do you mean "_artsa_" vs "_ha'artsa_"?
If so, then yes, "_artsa_" doesn't take _hey ha'yedia_.


----------



## scriptum

Clara_ said:


> Thank you for asking and providing answers to this question!
> 
> Would you say for "I am going to the land of Israel":
> אני הולכת ארצה ישראל
> or can you as well use
> אני הולכת לארץ ישראל


ארצה ישראל is beautifully archaic. To my ears it sounds much better than לארץ ישראל. But it should be used with לעלות, never with ללכת. In the given context ללכת is too low register, compared with the lofty ארצה ישראל.


----------



## Flaminius

MaNitma said:


> Do you mean "_artsa_" vs "_ha'artsa_"?
> If so, then yes, "_artsa_" doesn't take _hey ha'yedia_.


What I meant is if it is common to say, for example, "ani nosea` artsa" without _hey ha-yedia`_.  When the preposition is used, it is definitely with _hey ha-yedia`_, no?:
ani nosea` la-arets.


----------



## MaNitma

Flaminius said:


> What I meant is if it is common to say, for example, "ani nosea` artsa" without _hey ha-yedia`_.  When the preposition is used, it is definitely with _hey ha-yedia`_, no?:
> ani nosea` la-arets.



OK, I think I understand the question.

You can't use the _hey ha'yedia_ with "_artsah_".
The usage of the "_-ah_" suffix already incorporates the 'specificness' of the destination, which means that "_artsah_" actually means "towards *the *country" and not "towards *a *country", or "towards *the *ground" and not "towards *a *ground".

That is, "_artsah_" pretty much means "_la-aretz_". Hey ha'yedia built in


----------



## Flaminius

Thanks, *MaNitma*.

I think that you understand me and that I understand you.  

This makes me wonder, how a form like _ha-bayita_ exists, with both _hey ha-medama _and _hey ha-yedia`_.  Is this a colloquialism which a prescriptivist would frown upon?

How a sentence like this sound to you?
אני צריך לחזור ביתה.


----------



## MaNitma

Flaminius said:


> Thanks, *MaNitma*.
> 
> I think that you understand me and that I understand you.
> 
> This makes me wonder, how a form like _ha-bayita_ exists, with both _hey ha-medama _and _hey ha-yedia`_.  Is this a colloquialism which a prescriptivist would frown upon?
> 
> How a sentence like this sound to you?
> אני צריך לחזור ביתה.



I've never heard "אני צריך לחזור ביתה".

My guess:

I think that "הביתה" takes _hey ha'yediah_ because unlike other examples, dropping it could lead to ambiguity.

For example, you can say "to the left", but you can't say "to a left".
You can say "to the north", you can't say "to a north".
You can say "towards the inside", you can't say "towards an inside".

However, both "to the house" and "to a house" are possible. Maybe this _hey ha'yediah_ in "הביתה" is there in order to emphasize that we're talking about "the specific house which is mine".

I honestly can't tell you why the same thing doesn't apply to "ארצה". Maybe it goes to show that there's only one true "ארץ" in the mind of the speaker (the land of Israel) or something like that, maybe it's just a shorter form of "ארצה ישראל" which has been adopted over the years, I really don't know.
Those are just my guesses.

Maybe someone else will be able to give a better explanation.


----------



## origumi

MaNitma said:


> Maybe someone else will be able to give a better explanation.


I don't have an explanation, just want to point out that this looks sometimes like an arbitrary decision.

We find for example:

* ארצה vs. השמיימה - to earth vs. to *the* sky.
* פנימה vs. החוצה - to inside vs. to *the* outside.
* In the Bible there are both הרה and ההרה, to mountain and to *the* mountain.


----------



## theunderachiever

*>>> NEW QUESTION - threads merged by moderator <<<*

I don't know what to call it exactly, but I've known that Hebrew sometimes will inflect nouns this way.  I was watching a show called חטופים and saw a sign that read "החזירו אותם הביתה" and it made me wonder about this case.



Is this used fairly commonly?  Or, for instance, do most opt for language like "לשם" in place of "שמה"?
Is its _only _attribute showing direction toward some destination?
What happens when the word ends in ה? is a ת used in its place? (e.g. מסעדתה)
Is it used with pronominal suffixes?  If so (kind of redundant but maybe there's a rule for it), what happens if that suffix is in the feminine 3rd?  "מסעדתה" (which I'm sure is wrong) is the same guess I'd make if, for whatever reason, I felt saying המסעדה שלה didn't capture how pretentious I wanted to seem, so I'm truly lost when it comes to the 3rd person feminine.

Also, what is this inflectional thing called? I need to know the terms so I'm better equipped to research on my own. I feel bad asking such basic questions all of the time.

As always, thank you much.


----------



## ystab

In Hebrew it is called ה"א המגמה. In English I can assume that it is called directional Heh, but that's only a guess. I think it corresponds with the accusative case of adverbs and adjuncts in Arabic.

Today it is used mainly in fixed words, or occasionally in common speech with proper nouns.
As far as I know, its only attribute is directional.
When the word ends in ה, indeed ת is used in its place, for example, "וְשָׁאוּל יוֹשֵׁב בַּגִּבְעָה תַּחַת-הָאֶשֶׁל *בָּרָמָה* – וַיָּבֹא אֶל-שְׁמוּאֵל *הָרָמָתָה*" (Sam. 1, 19:22).
In construct states, only the first word gets the directional ה. I suppose that pronominal suffixes would break apart to the noun with the directional ה and to של with concordant declension.

If you can read a bit Hebrew, check out this page: https://www.safa-ivrit.org/dikduk/megama.php


----------



## origumi

ystab said:


> In English I can assume that it is called directional Heh, but that's only a guess.


Gesenius calls it "He local" (well, in the English translation, p. 248).


----------



## hadronic

Additionally, that directional ה is not stressed, so that הביתה is /habáyta/, vs. ביתה "her house"  /beytá/.

I would say that the usage of this ending is pretty much frozen to a couple words. 
ארצה /ártza/ "to Israel" 
צפונה /tzafóna/,  דרומה /daróma/, נגבה, קדמה,.... 
למעלה, למטה
קדימה /kadíma/
etc..


----------



## Drink

ystab said:


> I think it corresponds with the accusative case of adverbs and adjuncts in Arabic.



I have read that this theory is unlikely to be true.


----------



## ystab

ystab said:


> As far as I know, its only attribute is directional.



Actually, I'm not so sure. The adverbs נכונה, נכוחה and (ב)מהרה - maybe more - all share a suffix ה. Can someone shed some light on the morphology these adverbs?


----------



## hadronic

I would say this is regular feminine singular, like רשמית. 
At least, stress is on the suffix, unlike the directional ה.


----------



## JAN SHAR

Then why does the Bible say אֱלֹהִים מוֹשִׁיב יְחִידִים בַּיְתָה מוֹצִיא אֲסִירִים בַּכּוֹשָׁרוֹת אַךְ סוֹרֲרִים שָׁכְנוּ צְחִיחָה. (note that the definite article is not there in ביתה)?


----------



## Drink

What exactly is your question? Are you asking why the definite article is missing? The definite article is frequently omitted in poetic passages of the Bible. This doesn't have much to do with the suffix though.


----------



## JAN SHAR

I did not understand the meaning of בַּיְתָה because it seemed to mean to a house even though it should be in a house. As you said, it means direction, not location. Right?


----------



## Drink

It's not that it doesn't mean location. It just means a _destination_ as opposed to the location of the _entire_ action.

EDIT: Fixed typo.


----------



## Ali Smith

Drink said:


> It's not that it doesn't mean location. It just doesn't means a _destination_ as opposed to the location of the _entire_ action.


Doesn't it indicate destination rather location in the following:

אַ֣חַר זֶ֗ה שָׁ֠לַ֠ח סַנְחֵרִ֨יב מֶלֶךְ־אַשּׁ֤וּר עֲבָדָיו֙ יְר֣וּשָׁלַ֔יְמָה וְהוּא֙ עַל־לָכִ֔ישׁ וְכׇל־מֶמְשַׁלְתּ֖וֹ עִמּ֑וֹ עַל־יְחִזְקִיָּ֙הוּ֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ יְהוּדָ֔ה וְעַל־כׇּל־יְהוּדָ֛ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר בִּירוּשָׁלַ֖͏ִם לֵאמֹֽר׃
(דברי הימים ב לב ט)

After this Sennacherib king of Assyria sent his slaves to Jerusalem while he with all of his power was against Lachish, against Hezekiah king of Judah, and against all Judah who were in Jerusalem, saying,

I think ה' המגמה can have either a locative or directive meaning depending on the context.


----------



## Drink

Sorry, there was a typo in my comment. I have fixed it.

Can you give an example of where you think it has a locative meaning?


----------



## Ali Smith

אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ מ֘וֹשִׁ֤יב יְחִידִ֨ים ׀ בַּ֗יְתָה
  מוֹצִ֣יא אֲ֭סִירִים בַּכּוֹשָׁר֑וֹת
    אַ֥ךְ ס֝וֹרְרִ֗ים שָׁכְנ֥וּ צְחִיחָֽה׃
(תהלים סח ז)

God makes lonely people dwell in a house,
brings out prisoners into prosperity,
but rebellious people settled down in a dry land.


----------



## Drink

This is exactly what I was commenting on. It's not locative. It's a destination.

In English, when you say "he makes you dwell in a house", the "in" is attached to the word "dwell" alone, not to the concept of "make dwell". That's just a quirk of English.

And besides, even in other cases in English, "in" can really refer to a destination. For example, "he housed you in a house" really means "he placed you in a house to live", which itself really means "he placed you _into_ a house to live". In all these sentences, the "in" or "into" is a _destination_, and is _not_ locative, and therefore in Hebrew can be rendered with the ה suffix.

So likewise with the verb מושיב. The house is the destination, and so it is not locative.


----------

