# Second person masculine singular possessive suffix



## rushalaim

I saw some Jews use a strange form of the second-male suffix as if _Aramaic_ and _Hebrew_-mixture *עַמָּךְ* or *עִירָךְ* or *שְׁמָךְ*
But common are עַמֶּךָ or עִירֶֽךָ 

Do the first group is more ancient? Or it is just the mixture of the spoken and the Holy-languages together? What is the rule of applying it? 
But the Bible and Psalms use the second group! 

Explain me, please!


----------



## ystab

Can you please provide an example for the first group? I haven't seen such a form of possessive second person masculine singular.

Please keep in mind that the second group is not the standard possessive form, but rather the pausal form, that in the Bible and in prayers come at the end of a verse or a clause.

Also note that in some prepositions, the pausal form does look like the first group, for example וְחֵי אָחִיךָ עִמָּךְ (Leviticus 25:36)


----------



## rushalaim

נַקְדִּישָׁךְ וְנַעֲרִיצָךְ  וּנְשַׁלֵּשׁ לָךְ קְדֻשָּׁה מְשֻׁלֶּשֶׁת

However Isaia 57:12 Aramaic is different אֲנִי אַגִּיד צִדְקָתֵךְ וְאֶת־מַעֲשַׂיִךְ וְלֹא יֹועִילוּךְ


----------



## Drink

rushalaim said:


> נַקְדִּישָׁךְ וְנַעֲרִיצָךְ  וּנְשַׁלֵּשׁ לָךְ קְדֻשָּׁה מְשֻׁלֶּשֶׁת



This is simply mixing Aramaic with Hebrew.



rushalaim said:


> However Isaia 57:12 Aramaic is different אֲנִי אַגִּיד צִדְקָתֵךְ וְאֶת־מַעֲשַׂיִךְ וְלֹא יֹועִילוּךְ



This is not Aramaic, but pure Hebrew.


----------



## Haskol

It's already been answered that in some cases it's the pausal form, when it is at the end of a phrase or verse, and sometimes due to Aramaic influence.
The pausal form more often lengthens the schwa, changing -cha to -écha.

I'd also like to add that you find this form much more in Sephardi prayers than in Ashkenazi prayers. There are many prayers that are almost identical in the two traditions, but the Ashkenazi text says -cha or -écha and the Sephardi one says -ach.


----------



## rushalaim

Psalms 35:3  אֱמֹר לְנַפְשִׁי יְֽשֻׁעָ*תֵךְ* אָֽנִי
However, why that form we can see rarely in the Pentateuch or Psalms? Is it the matter of style? Can we suggest what form is more ancient, Sephardic (V-akh) or Ashkenazic (V-ekha)? *How can you explain when Sephardic text has V-akh and V-ekha both (V-ekha in the end)?*
Though, Aramaic in Daniel 5:10 looks different than  נַקְדִּי*שָׁךְ* -sample:  אַֽל־יְבַהֲ*לוּךְ* רַעְיֹונָךְ וְזִיוָיךְ אַל־יִשְׁתַּנֹּֽו


----------



## Haskol

The texts you brought aren't relevant here. The Psalms verse is using the feminine because נפש is a feminine word. In Daniel it's just a different form of verb (3rd-person pl.) so the ending is "uch". Plus, it's in Aramaic, so it isn't so helpful in understanding the situation in Hebrew.

As for which tradition older and why the texts seem inconsistent, I'm no expert so I won't try guessing.


----------



## rushalaim

May I suggest, that in the beginning there was only the one genuine _Niqud_ of the first-Temple era. Then Ezra made revolution, he changed _Qtav-Ivri_ to _Qtav-Ashuri_, invented 5 final-letters shapes, made his _Niqud_ (what was preserved by ben-Asher up to 800 A.C.), made _Targum-Arami_. Later, 200 B.C. was appeared _Septuagint_, by Greek-Jews communities request.
Thus, now we have three vocalization systems existing side-by-side together:
1. First-Temple system.
2. Ezra system.
3. Septuagint system (Dead-Sea scrolls too).  

May I assume, that now as Torah as Tehillim were revowelized by Ezra? The real Torah sounds slightly different?


----------



## Drink

rushalaim said:


> May I suggest, that in the beginning there was only the one genuine _Niqud_ of the first-Temple era. Then Ezra made revolution, he changed _Qtav-Ivri_ to _Qtav-Ashuri_, invented 5 final-letters shapes, made his _Niqud_ (what was preserved by ben-Asher up to 800 A.C.), made _Targum-Arami_. Later, 200 B.C. was appeared _Septuagint_, by Greek-Jews communities request.
> Thus, now we have three vocalization systems existing side-by-side together:
> 1. First-Temple system.
> 2. Ezra system.
> 3. Septuagint system (Dead-Sea scrolls too).
> 
> May I assume, that now as Torah as Tehillim were revowelized by Ezra? The real Torah sounds slightly different?



This is oversimplified and inaccurate.
- Ktav (כתב) cannot be spelled with a "Q".
- Ezra did not invent the 5 final letters. They came about through natural evolution of the alphabet.
- Ezra did not make any changes to how the text was pronounced, even if he did invent some kind of niqud system of which there is no evidence.
- The Septuagint is not a vocalization system, although it does contain transliterations of some names and words that help us get an inkling of how they were pronounced at that time.
- The Dead Sea Scrolls also do not contain any vocalization information.
- The First-Temple period's pronunciation of Hebrew never existed at the same time as any of the above, but naturally evolved into them.
- None of this has anything to do with the _-akh_ ending, which is simply from Aramaic and whenever it appears in Hebrew (other than with some prepositions), it is a direct and transparent mixture of Aramaic into the Hebrew.


----------



## rushalaim

Drink said:


> This is oversimplified and inaccurate.
> - Ktav (כתב) cannot be spelled with a "Q".
> - Ezra did not invent the 5 final letters. They came about through natural evolution of the alphabet.
> - Ezra did not make any changes to how the text was pronounced, even if he did invent some kind of niqud system of which there is no evidence.
> - The Septuagint is not a vocalization system, although it does contain transliterations of some names and words that help us get an inkling of how they were pronounced at that time.
> - The Dead Sea Scrolls also do not contain any vocalization information.
> - The First-Temple period's pronunciation of Hebrew never existed at the same time as any of the above, but naturally evolved into them.
> - None of this has anything to do with the _-akh_ ending, which is simply from Aramaic and whenever it appears in Hebrew (other than with some prepositions), it is a direct and transparent mixture of Aramaic into the Hebrew.


-May I assume that _V-akh_ is not _Aramaic_ but _Mishnaitic Hebrew_? Those are the traces of the first-Temple _Hebrew_? It may prove that the ancient Jewish language was _Aramaic_ (dialect)?
-The _Dead Sea scrolls_ contain _Ctav-Ivrit_ God's Name. Ezra-version doesn't. _DSS_ have different writing. It indirectly proves that the ancient Torah was written _Ctav-Ivrit_.
-I meant, _Septuagint_ has *G*aza and *G*amorah for  עזה עמרה . Where modern _"Ayin"_ in the beginning of a word is _"*g*Ayin"_-sound.
-There wasn't any special final letters in _Ctav-Ivrit_. There wasn't any final letters in _Ctav-Ashurit_ in Assyria. That was Ezra's invention for separating words.
-Today there are exist at least three _Niqud_. Shemot 20:13 Some _Humashin_ has _Dagesh_ in _Taw_ some don't.
Bemidbar 6:23 תְבָרֲכוּ with _Hataph-Patah_, others write only with _Shwah_.
I can see at least three _Humashin_: the first writes so, the second writes differently, the third writes from the first cases and from the second cases.


----------



## Drink

rushalaim said:


> -May I assume that _V-akh_ is not _Aramaic_ but _Mishnaitic Hebrew_? Those are the traces of the first-Temple _Hebrew_? It may prove that the ancient Jewish language was _Aramaic_ (dialect)?
> -The _Dead Sea scrolls_ contain _Ctav-Ivrit_ God's Name. Ezra-version doesn't. _DSS_ have different writing. It indirectly proves that the ancient Torah was written _Ctav-Ivrit_.
> -I meant, _Septuagint_ has *G*aza and *G*amorah for  עזה עמרה . Where modern _"Ayin"_ in the beginning of a word is _"*g*Ayin"_-sound.
> -There wasn't any special final letters in _Ctav-Ivrit_. There wasn't any final letters in _Ctav-Ashurit_ in Assyria. That was Ezra's invention for separating words.
> -Today there are exist at least three _Niqud_. Shemot 20:13 Some _Humashin_ has _Dagesh_ in _Taw_ some don't.
> Bemidbar 6:23 תְבָרֲכוּ with _Hataph-Patah_, others write only with _Shwah_.
> I can see at least three _Humashin_: the first writes so, the second writes differently, the third writes from the first cases and from the second cases.



- You can personally assume whatever you want, but there is no evidence to suggest that -akh is Mishnaic Hebrew.
- Ktav-Ivrit for G-d's name is not a different "vocalization". I don't understand what this has to do with anything.
- Yes, like I said, it gives us a clue as to how words were pronounced at that time, but I don't think any of this evidence relates to the -akh ending. That doesn't make it a vocalization system.
- The non-final forms developed from the older forms (which looked like our final forms) by curving the descending lines up towards the next letter. This has nothing to do with separating words since words were already always separated (by spaces in Ktav-Ashurit, and by dots in Ktav-Ivrit). Once again, this is irrelevant to the -akh ending.
- These are minor variations in the vocalization, not entirely different vocalization systems. And this is irrelevant unless you find a Chumash with -akh instead of -(e)kha.


----------



## rushalaim

Drink said:


> - You can personally assume whatever you want, but there is no evidence to suggest that -akh is Mishnaic Hebrew.
> - Ktav-Ivrit for G-d's name is not a different "vocalization". I don't understand what this has to do with anything.
> - Yes, like I said, it gives us a clue as to how words were pronounced at that time, but I don't think any of this evidence relates to the -akh ending. That doesn't make it a vocalization system.
> - The non-final forms developed from the older forms (which looked like our final forms) by curving the descending lines up towards the next letter. This has nothing to do with separating words since words were already always separated (by spaces in Ktav-Ashurit, and by dots in Ktav-Ivrit). Once again, this is irrelevant to the -akh ending.
> - These are minor variations in the vocalization, not entirely different vocalization systems. And this is irrelevant unless you find a Chumash with -akh instead of -(e)kha.


I heard that some Sefardim still pronounce _"S*e*gol"_ like _"S*a*gol"_. They also use _V-akh_ mostly. My question is why they use as _V-ekha_ as _V-akh_ both?


----------



## Drink

rushalaim said:


> I heard that some Sefardim still pronounce _"S*e*gol"_ like _"S*a*gol"_.



The Yemenites pronounce segol as "a", but patach as "o". So they would pronounce -ekha as "-akho" and -akh as "-okh". So these forms are still differentiated.



rushalaim said:


> They also use _V-akh_ mostly. My question is why they use as _V-ekha_ as _V-akh_ both?



Not mostly, just more. They just tend to use more Aramaic in general, so this has nothing to do with the -akh ending specifically.


----------



## rushalaim

Drink said:


> The Yemenites pronounce segol as "a", but patach as "o". So they would pronounce -ekha as "-akho" and -akh as "-okh". So these forms are still differentiated.
> Not mostly, just more. They just tend to use more Aramaic in general, so this has nothing to do with the -akh ending specifically.


Don't you think, if they say _"S*a*gol"_, it may mean _"S*e*gol"_ is the modern form, there wasn't any _"S*e*gol"_ during the first-Temple?


----------



## Drink

rushalaim said:


> Don't you think, if they say _"S*a*gol"_, it may mean _"S*e*gol"_ is the modern form, there wasn't any _"S*e*gol"_ during the first-Temple?



During the First-Temple period, the vowels were very different from what they are today and the Tiberian segol probably did not exist yet. The second-person singular ending at that time was probably pronounced -aka, or -ika, or both depending on context. But of course, the farther back in time you go, the closer Hebrew and Aramaic get, since they did originate from a common dialect of Proto-Semitic. However, the -akh remaining today (other than with a few prepositions) derives exclusively from Aramaic in post-Biblical times.


----------



## rushalaim

1 masc.-fem.sing._*-i*_ עמי
2 masc. sing._*-akh*_ עמך           
2 fem. sing._*-ekh*_ עמך       
3 masc.sing._*-oh*_ עמו
3 fem.sing._*-ah*_ עמה

1 masc.-fem.pl._*-anu*_ עמנו
2 masc. pl._*-akha*_ עמיך
2 fem. pl._*-aikh*_ עמיך
3 masc.pl._*-ekham*_ עמיכם
3 fem.pl._*-ekhan*_ עמיכן

Don't you think, that the second masculine plural wasn't _(V)ekha_ but _(V)akha_? Because _"Segol"_ was invented by Tiberian-Masorets later. Note also, that today 2feminine singular and plural are the same with the ancient! (masc._*-akh*_ and fem._*-ekh*_; masc.pl.*-akha* and fem.pl.*-aikh*)

Why modern Hebrew uses 2masc.sing. _*-ekha*_? Maybe Ezra added spare vowels to sing the text as prayer, reading Pentateuch and Psalms?
Maybe Jews of 700 C.E. were singing when prayed? That's why muslims now sing they prayers, because muslims imitate Jewish mode when Islam was born in 700 C.E.? It's strange to see how hurriedly and negligently Jews are praying now!
Maybe Ezra's _Hebrew_ is good for praying but not for talking? Aramaic is perfect for streets, it is fast and short. But it's hard to sing Aramaic or Arabic. Only the last syllable is melodious.


----------



## Drink

The only thing I can say is please re-read my previous post.


----------



## arielipi

its not -akh, its -kha - amcha...


----------



## rushalaim

arielipi said:


> its not -akh, its -kha - amcha...


עַמֶּךָ or
עַמָּךְ or
עַמְּךָ ?


----------



## hadronic

The plural forms you gave for 2nd and 3rd persons are the plural form for the *possessed* object for 2nd person singular and plural.


----------



## rushalaim

hadronic said:


> The plural forms you gave for 2nd and 3rd persons are the plural form for the *possessed* object for 2nd person singular and plural.


My idea is just to show how Feminine and Masculine patterns are similar in singular and plural.
2 Singular Masculine and Feminine _*-akh -ekh*_
3 Singular Masculine and Feminine _*-oh -ah* _
2 Plural Masculine and Feminine _*-akha -aikh*_

I don't understand why modern Hebrew adobted  the form? (_*-akha*_) עַמֶּךָ
That is just the full form of Biblical עמכה
I think one may use it only where the full inscription is with _Hei_-letter as the exception.

The same story with the full form of Masculine אתה
The Feminine is את
Masc. אהבת (_ahabt _not_ ahabtah_), but the Bible has sometimes אהבת*ה* (_ahabt*ah*_).


----------



## rushalaim

Drink said:


> During the First-Temple period, the vowels were very different from what they are today and the Tiberian segol probably did not exist yet. The second-person singular ending at that time was probably pronounced -aka, or -ika, or both depending on context. But of course, the farther back in time you go, the closer Hebrew and Aramaic get, since they did originate from a common dialect of Proto-Semitic. However, the -akh remaining today (other than with a few prepositions) derives exclusively from Aramaic in post-Biblical times.


1. What about _Samaritan_ suffixes? They say it nor _Hebrew_ nor _Aramaic_, for example, בֵּי*תֵךְ* ? Is _Samaritan_ the language of the first-Temple or late _Aramaic/Hebrew_ mix?
*<<Moderator note: link to youtube video removed. See Rule #4.>>*
2. _Hebrew_ has some inconsistency: וְאָסַפְתָּ דְגָ*נֶךָ* וְתִירֹ*שְׁךָ* וְיִצְהָ*רֶךָ* However _Aramaic_ is more logical:  וְתִכְנוֹשׁ עֲבוּ*רָךְ*, וְחַמְ*רָךְ* וּמִשְׁ*חָךְ*
May I assume, that Ezra invented those pausal-suffixes, but everyday speech (_Aramaic_) doesn't have any pausal?


----------



## Drink

rushalaim said:


> 1. What about _Samaritan_ suffixes? They say it nor _Hebrew_ nor _Aramaic_, for example, בֵּי*תֵךְ* ? Is _Samaritan_ the language of the first-Temple or late _Aramaic/Hebrew_ mix?



You can't use nikkud to describe Samaritan pronunciation, because it is quite different from the Tiberian vocalization system. Samaritan is not the language of the first-Temple. It is descended from it, but so is Jewish Hebrew. However, Samaritan Hebrew and Jewish Hebrew have diverged quite a bit since then. I would doubt that Aramaic influenced Samaritan Hebrew very much, in fact quite the opposite, Hebrew seemed to influence their Aramaic too much (or much more so than Hebrew influenced Jewish Aramaic).



rushalaim said:


> 2. _Hebrew_ has some inconsistency: וְאָסַפְתָּ דְגָ*נֶךָ* וְתִירֹ*שְׁךָ* וְיִצְהָ*רֶךָ* However _Aramaic_ is more logical:  וְתִכְנוֹשׁ עֲבוּ*רָךְ*, וְחַמְ*רָךְ* וּמִשְׁ*חָךְ*
> May I assume, that Ezra invented those pausal-suffixes, but everyday speech (_Aramaic_) doesn't have any pausal?



No you may not assume that. Compare Arabic: Classical Arabic had many changes going on in pausal position, much like Hebrew.


----------



## rushalaim

Drink said:


> You can't use nikkud to describe Samaritan pronunciation, because it is quite different from the Tiberian vocalization system. Samaritan is not the language of the first-Temple. It is descended from it, but so is Jewish Hebrew. However, Samaritan Hebrew and Jewish Hebrew have diverged quite a bit since then. I would doubt that Aramaic influenced Samaritan Hebrew very much, in fact quite the opposite, Hebrew seemed to influence their Aramaic too much (or much more so than Hebrew influenced Jewish Aramaic).


I think the modern term _"Hebrew"_ is mythical, because it based on Pentateuch with _Tiberian_-vocalization. Talking about _Aramaic_ we must take place and time, for example there is _"Palestinian"_ (_Galilean_) _Aramaic_ and _Babylonian_ (_Mishnaitic_) _Aramaic/Hebrew-_mix (Qaddishin, Q'dushot). Don't you think, that _Samaritan_ isn't any _"Hebrew"_ but the first-Temple (_Galilean_) *Aramaic*? May I assume, that the first-Temple morning-service (and Pentateuch-reading) had _Aramaic_ (or _Galilean-Aramaic_)?


Drink said:


> No you may not assume that. Compare Arabic: Classical Arabic had many changes going on in pausal position, much like Hebrew.


How can you explain that Samaritans say *דֶרֶךְ* though they don't use _Tiberian_-vocalization but non-pausal *אֲחַד* instead of _Hebrew_ *אֶחָד* (in Sh'ma)?


----------



## rushalaim

*לְכָה* (Genesis 37:13) or *לֶךְ־לְךָ* (Genesis 12:1), why Pentateuch has full- and incomplete-form both?
Or why she uses complete and strange-inscribed second male: *אֹתָכָה* (Exodus 29:45), *בֹּאֲכָה* (Genesis 13:10), *וּלְכָה* (Genesis 27:37)?


----------



## Drink

rushalaim said:


> I think the modern term _"Hebrew"_ is mythical, because it based on Pentateuch with _Tiberian_-vocalization. Talking about _Aramaic_ we must take place and time, for example there is _"Palestinian"_ (_Galilean_) _Aramaic_ and _Babylonian_ (_Mishnaitic_) _Aramaic/Hebrew-_mix (Qaddishin, Q'dushot). Don't you think, that _Samaritan_ isn't any _"Hebrew"_ but the first-Temple (_Galilean_) *Aramaic*? May I assume, that the first-Temple morning-service (and Pentateuch-reading) had _Aramaic_ (or _Galilean-Aramaic_)?



No, Samaritan Hebrew is Hebrew. It's not Tiberian Hebrew, but it is most certainly not any form of Aramaic.



rushalaim said:


> How can you explain that Samaritans say *דֶרֶךְ* though they don't use _Tiberian_-vocalization but non-pausal *אֲחַד* instead of _Hebrew_ *אֶחָד* (in Sh'ma)?



The Samaritans do not say "אֲחַד", they say what in IPA can be transcribed as [ʕɒd]. Anyway, I don't see your point.



rushalaim said:


> *לְכָה* (Genesis 37:13) or *לֶךְ־לְךָ* (Genesis 12:1), why Pentateuch has full- and incomplete-form both?
> Or why she uses complete and strange-inscribed second male: *אֹתָכָה* (Exodus 29:45), *בֹּאֲכָה* (Genesis 13:10), *וּלְכָה* (Genesis 27:37)?



What's so unusual? There are a lot of words that can be spelled multiple ways.


----------



## rushalaim

Drink said:


> No, Samaritan Hebrew is Hebrew. It's not Tiberian Hebrew, but it is most certainly not any form of Aramaic.


What do you think, maybe _Arabic _influenced on _Samaritan-Hebrew _nowadays?
There are 3 vocalizations: Tiberian (7 vowels), Babylonian (6 vowels), Palestinian (5 vowels). Wikipedia says that _niqqud_ was invented to write different accents of _Aramaic_. If there are 3 vocalizations, does it mean that there isn't any "true" Pentateuch-sounding, but every tribe read their own Pentateuch-sounding style?


----------



## Drink

rushalaim said:


> What do you think, maybe _Arabic _influenced on _Samaritan-Hebrew _nowadays?



It did a little bit, but not on their reading of the Torah.



rushalaim said:


> Wikipedia says that _niqqud_ was invented to write different accents of _Aramaic_.



This is simply false. Niqqud was invented specifically to preserve the vocalization of the Bible.



rushalaim said:


> If there are 3 vocalizations, does it mean that there isn't any "true" Pentateuch-sounding, but every tribe read their own Pentateuch-sounding style?



I don't think the vocalization systems go back to specific tribes, especially since the Jews are descended mostly only from Judah, Benjamin, and the co-territorial Levites, and in these tribes' region there probably wasn't much variation in pronunciation. But the other tribes certainly did have pronunciation differences, as, for example, demonstrated in the famous שבלת story. The descent of the Samaritans is disputed and unclear.


----------



## rushalaim

Drink said:


> I don't think the vocalization systems go back to specific tribes, especially since the Jews are descended mostly only from Judah, Benjamin, and the co-territorial Levites, and in these tribes' region there probably wasn't much variation in pronunciation. But the other tribes certainly did have pronunciation differences, as, for example, demonstrated in the famous שבלת story. The descent of the Samaritans is disputed and unclear.


I read that Samaritans have: cohanim, l'viyim and israelim (from Yoseph-tribe). Thus, vocalization 4 of Samaritans from youtube:


> שֵׁמַעְ יִשְׁרַאֵלְ שִׁמַאְ אִלֻהִינוּ שִׁמַאְ אֲחַד וַאַהְבְתַ אִתְ שִׁמַאְ אִלֻהַי*כְ* וּבְכַלְ לֵבַבַ*כְ* וּבְכַלְ נַפְשַׁ*כְ* וּבְכַלְ מֵאֻדַ*כְ* וַהְיוּ הַדֵבַרִימְ הַאֵלֵה אֵשַׁר אַנַכִי מֵצַוַ*כְ* הַיוּמְ עַלְ לֵבַבַ*כְ* וּשִׁנַנְתֵמַ לֵבַנֵי*כְ* וּדִבַרְתַ בִמַ בֵשִׁבְתַ*כְ* בַבֵיתַ*כְ* וּבְלֵכְתַ*כְ* בַדֵרַכְ וּבְשְׁכַבַ*כְ* וּבְקוּמַ*כְ* וּקַשַׁרְתִמַ לֵאוּת עַלְ יֵדַ*כְ* וַהְיוּ לֵטַטַפֻת בִינְ עֵינִי*כְ* וּכַתַבְתֵמַ עַלְ מַזֻזוֹת בֵיתַ*כְ* וּבְשַׁעְרֵי*כְ*


----------



## rushalaim

1. Don't you think that _Hebrew_ singular masculine *לְךָ* from Torah is the most ancient one version, and there is even its full-inscription *וּלְכָה* (Genesis 27:37). However, _Aramaic_ shortened it for colloquial purposes as *לָךְ* ?
2. Don't you think that _Aramaic_ plural feminine *בְּעֵינַכִי* is the most ancient one than _Hebrew_ *בְּעֵינָיִךְ* ? _Hebrew_ even hard to pronounce, it's may mean it's artificial version. Why _Hebrew_ simplified that?
3. Today Hebrew uses the verb feminine as *עָבַדְתְּ* , but maybe the ancient version was *עָבַדְתִּ* ?


----------

