# תזבחנו



## Isidore Demsky

What does תזבחנו mean?

(And is it an interrogative?)


----------



## airelibre

You shall sacrifice it.

It's not interrogative.


----------



## Isidore Demsky

> You shall sacrifice it.



Thank you.

Is that what it means in ancient or modern Hebrew?

And could you point out any meaningful prefixes or suffixes to me?

Why is it "*you shall* sacrifice *it*"?



> It's not interrogative.



Does that it couldn't be part of a question, when combined with other words as part of a sentence?


----------



## origumi

Isidore Demsky said:


> Why is it "*you shall* sacrifice *it*"?


Root ז-ב-ח.
תזבח is qal future (imperfect) 2nd sing. masc. (see any verbs conjugation table).
נו- is a suffix that denotes *it* (also *us*, but this wouldn't make sense).

The meaning is identical in Biblical and Modern Hebrew. However forms like this are rarely used in modern times.


----------



## Isidore Demsky

origumi said:


> Root ז-ב-ח.
> תזבח is qal future (imperfect) 2nd sing. masc. (see any verbs conjugation table).
> נו- is a suffix that denotes *it* (also *us*, but this wouldn't make sense).
> 
> The meaning is identical in Biblical and Modern Hebrew. However forms like this are rarely used in modern times.



Could this word be used as part of a question by adding a word, prefix, or suffix?


----------



## origumi

Isidore Demsky said:


> Could this word be used as part of a question by adding a word, prefix, or suffix?


Every word can be used as part of a question... just add a question mark at the end and employ the appropriate tone. Or maybe you should clarify your question.


----------



## Isidore Demsky

Thank you.


----------



## Isidore Demsky

origumi said:


> Every word can be used as part of a question... just add a question mark at the end...



Is that as true in written Hebrew as it is in written English?

Can any word be used as part of a question by adding some punctuation, or would you have to change the spelling or the form of the word to use it as part of a question?

For example, could תזבחנו (as I spelled it) be used as part of a question, or would you need to add an interrogative ה ?


----------



## airelibre

Question marks didn't exist in Biblical Hebrew so context is required to suggest whether or not something is a question.

In modern Hebrew question marks canbe used, but nobody would say תזבחנו in everyday speech.

There are also question words (מתי when, מה what etc.).


----------



## arielipi

There are equivalents to the WH words in hebrew.
Any word can be a part of a question, and all you need to do is simply give the "im asking a question" tone.


----------



## Isidore Demsky

arielipi said:


> There are equivalents to the WH words in hebrew.
> Any word can be a part of a question, and all you need to do is simply give the "im asking a question" tone.



Thank you.


----------



## Isidore Demsky

origumi said:


> Root ז-ב-ח.
> תזבח is qal future (imperfect) 2nd sing. masc. (see any verbs conjugation table).
> נו- is a suffix that denotes *it* (also *us*, but this wouldn't make sense).
> 
> The meaning is identical in Biblical and Modern Hebrew. However forms like this are rarely used in modern times.



Why wouldn't "us" make any sense?

If I were a wife with children who felt that my husband was neglecting  his family, couldn't I say "if you keep putting other things first, *you  will sacrifice us* (תזבחנו)"?

I know you said forms like תזבחנו are *rarely* used today, but *could* it be used in that way?

Would it make sense?


----------



## arielipi

Isidore Demsky said:


> *[1]*Why wouldn't "us" make any sense?
> 
> If I were a wife with children who felt that my husband was neglecting  his family, couldn't I say "if you keep putting other things first, *​[2]**you  will sacrifice us* (תזבחנו)"?
> 
> I know you said *[3]*forms like תזבחנו are *[3]**rarely* used today, but *[4]**could* it be used in that way?
> 
> Would it make sense?



[1] technically it can, but hebrew is dense so: a. ז-ב-ח just wouldnt be the right word for that, hebrew would use a word that is more in the 'ritual' category, להקריב-> תקריבנו.
b.since z-v-kh is viewed as positive, you cant really do that to a human.

[2] that construct doesnt feel natural in hebrew to me, but im usually alone in that opinion around here; see [1]b.

[3] these forms [=possessive ] are not popular nowadays, but to say theyre rare is quite a length; in general, archaic words will tend to not be said in possessive form, as well as modern words.

[4] yes, it can be used.

PS: its important to notice that tizbehenu is not equal to tizbehehu (second person acting on third person). now, if im not wrong, there a difference between (second person acting on second person) and (second person acting on first person) and i think its (respectively) tizbehen*o* tizbehen*u* (single male -> single male) (single male -> we/us)


----------



## Isidore Demsky

I have trouble with understanding the genders, and you lost me here.



> PS: its important to notice that tizbehenu is not equal to tizbehehu  (second person acting on third person). now, if im not wrong, there a  difference between (second person acting on second person) and (second  person acting on first person) and i think its (respectively) tizbehen*o* tizbehen*u* (single male -> single male) (single male -> we/us)



Are you saying tizbeheno would be a single male acting on (sacrificing?) a single male, and tizbehenu would be a single male acting on a (male, mixed gender, or neuter?) plurality?

Also, what do you mean when you say that ז-ב-ח wouldn't be the right word because Hebrew is dense?

What do you mean by "*dense*"*?*


----------



## airelibre

Isidore Demsky said:


> You lost me here.



Same here


----------



## arielipi

Each word has strict use, that is dense.
ז-ב-ח is viewed as a good sacrifice, and since sacrificing humans isnt good by judaism, which influenced back then hebrew, ז-ב-ח wouldnt be used on humans. ק-ר-ב would be, because its the opposite of ז-ב-ח in connotation.
tizbehenu would be a single male acting[=doing the action of] on unknown gender plural.
tizbeheno would be "...." single male


Mostly that is why the possessive forms arent liked by people, its causing too much confusion and it sounds almost the same..


----------



## airelibre

http://biblelexicon.org/deuteronomy/15-21.htm

Here tizbahenu is single male on single male.


Could you explain what the difference between תזבחנו and תזבחהו is? You hinted at it earlier, but originally I thought these both meant 'you shall sacrifice it'?


----------



## arielipi

Thats what i said, i dont remember the difference between acting on first/second person but the suffix hu/-am/-en and some more is for the third person.
That is from the bible, where many exceptions occur, and its actually acting on third male single person.


----------



## Isidore Demsky

arielipi said:


> Thats what i said, i dont remember the difference between acting on first/second person but the suffix hu/-am/-en and some more is for the third person.
> That is from the bible, where many exceptions occur, and its actually acting on third male single person.



So תזבחנו would mean "you shall sacrifice *him, or them*" (because it has this *third person* suffix), and תזבחהו would be used for "you shall sacrifice *it*"?


----------



## Egmont

Isidore Demsky said:


> So תזבחנו would mean "you shall sacrifice *him, or them*" (because it has this *third person* suffix), and תזבחהו would be used for "you shall sacrifice *it*"?


Nope. It's third person singular masculine only. The point of the previous posts is that the Bible contains several versions of this form as the language evolved. Still, it can't be plural; it must be singular. And it can't be neuter, because Hebrew doesn't have a neuter gender for nouns. Every noun is either masculine or feminine. A book, for example, is masculine, so we would use masculine forms with it in Hebrew: "Pick up the book and take him to the teacher." In translating this to English, we would probably say "... and take it to the teacher," but that doesn't reflect the Hebrew precisely.


----------



## arielipi

Egmont, whats wrong with תזבחם, תזבחן?


----------



## Egmont

arielipi said:


> Egmont, whats wrong with תזבחם, תזבחן?


Did I say something is wrong with those words? I thought this thread was about תזבחנו. It can't refer to _them_, only to _him_ (which might be _it_ in English if it refers to an inanimate object that has masculine grammatical gender in Hebrew).


----------



## Isidore Demsky

Egmont said:


> Did I say something is wrong with those words? I thought this thread was about תזבחנו. It can't refer to _them_, only to _him_ (which might be _it_ in English if it refers to an inanimate object that has masculine grammatical gender in Hebrew).



Thank you.


----------

