# אשרי האיש - plural as singular



## rushalaim

Psalms 1:1
אשרי *האיש* אשר לא *הלך* בעצת רשעים ובדרך חטאים לא *עמד* ובמושב לצים לא *ישב*

The "man" is singular, so why here is used plural *אשרי* ?


----------



## bazq

אשרי is "happy is"/"blessed be" (same root as אושר).
"blessed be the man who has not..."

It can take possessive suffixes as well, so you might hear:
אשריך ['ashrexa] = lit. "blessed be you" = "good for you!" 
אשריכם ['ashrexem]
אשריהם ['ashrehem]
etc...


----------



## rushalaim

bazq said:


> אשרי is "happy is"/"blessed be" (same root as אושר).
> "blessed be the man who has not..."
> 
> It can take possessive suffixes as well, so you might hear:
> אשריך ['ashrexa] = lit. "blessed be you" = "good for you!"
> אשריכם ['ashrexem]
> אשריהם ['ashrehem]
> etc...


But nevertheless *אשרי* is plural?


----------



## bazq

Oh sorry, of course, it is plural.
I do not know why it is so, there are other words that are found only in the plural (אשרי is actually in the *construct state* plural only, like נבכי and others). Maybe someone else will be more useful, I've never heard/read of an explanation to this phenomenon. 

Some would argue that the question "why" this happens is unanswerable, though maybe someone knows more about this than I do.


----------



## Drink

More likely, it is either the _dual_ construct or a fixed preposition. If it were a _plural_ construct, then אשריך would have been vowelized as אֲשָׁרֶיךָ (asharekha). Anyway, you can think of the meaning as originating as something like "Oh, the happiness(es) of ...!" (which may not be historically correct, but should pacify some pedantic grammarians).


----------



## rushalaim

Drink said:


> More likely, it is either the _dual_ construct or a fixed preposition. If it were a _plural_ construct, then אשריך would have been vowelized as אֲשָׁרֶיךָ (asharekha). Anyway, you can think of the meaning as originating as something like "Oh, the happiness(es) of ...!" (which may not be historically correct, but should pacify some pedantic grammarians).


Do you mean "dual" in Devarim 33:29  *אַשְׁרֶיךָ* יִשְׂרָאֵל ? 
Is* אשרי האיש *similar to dual *ליל שמרים* in Shemot 12:42?


----------



## Drink

rushalaim said:


> Do you mean "dual" in Devarim 33:29  *אַשְׁרֶיךָ* יִשְׂרָאֵל ?
> Is* אשרי האיש *similar to dual *ליל שמרים* in Shemot 12:42?



I'm not sure what you mean. ליל שמרים has nothing to do with any of this. Hebrew has three numbers, singular, dual, and plural. The dual is characterized by the suffix -ayim, as opposed to the masculine plural suffix -im. In the construct state, however, the dual and masculine plural look very similar and can be distinguished only by the fact that the dual always uses the same stem as the singular, while the plural might have a modified stem. Thus, in segolate nouns, the dual construct can be distinguished from the plural construct only by a dagesh qal, or by the singular and first-person plural possessive suffixes. For example, רַגְלֶיךָ (raglekha) is dual, while עֲבָדֶיךָ (`avadekha) is plural because רגליך uses the singular/dual stem ragl-, while עבדיך uses the plural stem `avad- (rather than the singular/dual stem `avd-). Most of this is only distantly relevant to the question at hand.


----------



## rushalaim

Drink said:


> I'm not sure what you mean. ליל שמרים has nothing to do with any of this. Hebrew has three numbers, singular, dual, and plural. The dual is characterized by the suffix -ayim, as opposed to the masculine plural suffix -im. In the construct state, however, the dual and masculine plural look very similar and can be distinguished only by the fact that the dual always uses the same stem as the singular, while the plural might have a modified stem. Thus, in segolate nouns, the dual construct can be distinguished from the plural construct only by a dagesh qal, or by the singular and first-person plural possessive suffixes. For example, רַגְלֶיךָ (raglekha) is dual, while עֲבָדֶיךָ (`avadekha) is plural because רגליך uses the singular/dual stem ragl-, while עבדיך uses the plural stem `avad- (rather than the singular/dual stem `avd-). Most of this is only distantly relevant to the question at hand.


Is *ירושלם *dual? 2 Divrei-haYamim 32:9 uses it with suffix as *ירושלימה*


----------



## bazq

Some argue the suffix [-ayim] is for places' names, like מצרים, though I've seen explanations that conform them with the dual (the places had some sort of duality like in Ancient Egypt "The Two Lands" - upper and lower egypt).


----------



## Drink

bazq said:


> Some argue the suffix [-ayim] is for places' names, like מצרים, though I've seen explanations that conform them with the dual (the places had some sort of duality like in Ancient Egypt "The Two Lands" - upper and lower egypt).



It is grammatically the dual suffix, this does not necessarily imply any dualness in the meaning, but in the case of מצרים, it likely refers to Upper and Lower Egypt.


----------



## Drink

rushalaim said:


> Is *ירושלם *dual? 2 Divrei-haYamim 32:9 uses it with suffix as *ירושלימה*



The theory is that ירושלים was originally called יְרוּשָׁלֵם (yerushalem), evidenced by the Biblical spelling (ירושלם) and by the form borrowed into other languages, and even more originally, a compound of two words יְרוּ and שָׁלֵם, which were possibly two different cities that merged together; perhaps for this reason or some other reason, the ending became confused with the dual ending and became יְרוּשָׁלַיִם.

The ירושלימה is just ירושלים with the ה suffix, which indicates a direction, i.e. "*to* Jerusalem" (just like הביתה and ימינה).


----------



## rushalaim

Drink said:


> The theory is that ירושלים was originally called יְרוּשָׁלֵם (yerushalem), evidenced by the Biblical spelling (ירושלם) and by the form borrowed into other languages, and even more originally, a compound of two words יְרוּ and שָׁלֵם, which were possibly two different cities that merged together; perhaps for this reason or some other reason, the ending became confused with the dual ending and became יְרוּשָׁלַיִם.
> 
> The ירושלימה is just ירושלים with the ה suffix, which indicates a direction, i.e. "*to* Jerusalem" (just like הביתה and ימינה).


I've read that the capital-city *שמרון *was situated on two banks of the river, so as if that city yet named as *שמרין *(dual). And Abraham's native city was named _Aram-Naharaim_.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aram-Naharaim


----------



## Drink

rushalaim said:


> I've read that the capital-city *שמרון *was situated on two banks of the river, so as if that city yet named as *שמרין *(dual). And Abraham's native city was named _Aram-Naharaim_.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aram-Naharaim



שָׁמְרַיִן is the Aramaic form of שׁוֹמְרַיִם (i.e. "two guards") and it does seem likely that that was the original name of Samaria.

This is why "Aram-Naharaim" is often translated as "Aram of the Two Rivers".


----------



## rushalaim

Drink said:


> שָׁמְרַיִן is the Aramaic form of שׁוֹמְרַיִם (i.e. "two guards") and it does seem likely that that was the original name of Samaria.
> 
> This is why "Aram-Naharaim" is often translated as "Aram of the Two Rivers".


Is "Naharaim" dual? I read that on the left bank of the river is Haran-city, on the right bank on the same river is Aram-Naharaim between the two big rivers. Haran and Aram-Naharaim is the one city.


----------



## Drink

rushalaim said:


> Is "Naharaim" dual? I read that on the left bank of the river is Haran-city, on the right bank on the same river is Aram-Naharaim between the two big rivers. Haran and Aram-Naharaim is the one city.



Yes, נַהֲרַיִם seems to be the dual of נָהָר ("river"), although by its form, you would expect it to be the dual of the non-existent נַהַר, since the dual of נָהָר should be נְהָרַיִם, but this could be explained by influence from the Aramaic language, which was local there.


----------



## Haskol

I think that אשרי isn't a plural form, since the plural in smichut form would be with a qamatz and make an "o" sound, like kotel-kotlei. The form is weird and I don't know where it comes from, but I'd guess that it has something to do with Proto-Semitic cases. Just like יומם ולילה are probably a remnant of the use of the case system in Hebrew.


----------



## Drink

Haskol said:


> I think that אשרי isn't a plural form, since the plural in smichut form would be with a qamatz and make an "o" sound, like kotel-kotlei. The form is weird and I don't know where it comes from, but I'd guess that it has something to do with Proto-Semitic cases. Just like יומם ולילה are probably a remnant of the use of the case system in Hebrew.



That only means it's not the plural/dual of "osher", but it could still be the plural/dual of a theoretical word "esher". I don't think אשרי has anything to do with cases; I just don't see how it would.


----------



## bazq

What's your motivation to think it is a remnant of the case system?
Something like an old /-i/ that was reanalyzed as a smikhut and turned to /-e/? where did the /-e/ come from?

I too think no one believes it comes directly from "osher", but rather that they share the same root.


----------



## hadronic

Drink said:


> I'm not sure what you mean. ליל שמרים has nothing to do with any of this. Hebrew has three numbers, singular, dual, and plural. The dual is characterized by the suffix -ayim, as opposed to the masculine plural suffix -im. In the construct state, however, the dual and masculine plural look very similar and can be distinguished only by the fact that the dual always uses the same stem as the singular, while the plural might have a modified stem. Thus, in segolate nouns, the dual construct can be distinguished from the plural construct only by a dagesh qal, or by the singular and first-person plural possessive suffixes. For example, רַגְלֶיךָ (raglekha) is dual, while עֲבָדֶיךָ (`avadekha) is plural because רגליך uses the singular/dual stem ragl-, while עבדיך uses the plural stem `avad- (rather than the singular/dual stem `avd-). Most of this is only distantly relevant to the question at hand.



In the forms you cite, this is not a construct state. Already in the plural, we have _ragláyim_ and _avadim_, hence _raglékha_ / _avadékha_.
The construct state would be _ragley_- and _avdey_-, hence _ragleykhém_ / _avdeykhém_, indeed very similar.
Example with distinguishing dagesh kal :  _birkáyim-birkey _ vs.  _melakhim-malkhey_.


----------



## hadronic

I always thought אשרי was like הרי. 
Does one say אשריני or אשריי, for "oh, happy me" ?


----------



## Haskol

No real reason to throw in cases here. Sorry. Ever since I've learned that such things exist I try to find them anywhere I can. There is absolutely no basis for it in this case, it's just a wild guess. Seeing that אשרי declines according to its object, it probably has nothing to do with cases.

הרי is a loanword from Aramaic, so probably no connection there.
And I'm pretty sure the pronunciation is אשריי /aʃˈraj/, though I don't think I've ever heard or seen it used. Unlike the plural אשרינו which is used a lot, at least in certain crowds.


----------



## hadronic

Sorry, by "I thought that אשרי was like הרי", I meant in terms of declination, not meaning or origin. More precisely, that in the 1st pers sg, it should be _ashreni_, on the model of _hareni_. But, I checked in Even Shushan, it is _ashray_. Maybe a colloquial mistake ?


----------



## origumi

Strong's (H835) & Gesenius say that אשרי is the plural construct state of noun אשר esher. Gesenius adds that this is an exclamation.
ספר השורשים for אֶשֶר says practically the same, and introduces a similar construct, אחלי, as in 2 Kings 5:3 (although the א of אחלי is not part of the root, it says).
This article (pp. 20-21, by עליזה ריבשיץ, Hebrew) deals with אשרי and provides several good references (but I couldn't find any of them online).


----------



## Drink

hadronic said:


> In the forms you cite, this is not a construct state. Already in the plural, we have _ragláyim_ and _avadim_, hence _raglékha_ / _avadékha_.
> The construct state would be _ragley_- and _avdey_-, hence _ragleykhém_ / _avdeykhém_, indeed very similar.
> Example with distinguishing dagesh kal :  _birkáyim-birkey _ vs.  _melakhim-malkhey_.



My point is that the existence of _raglekha_ shows that _ragley-_ is dual and the existence of _avadekha_ shows that _avdey-_ is plural; thus, the existence _ashrekha_ shows that _ashrey-_ is dual.


----------



## hadronic

I understood what you meant.  
I just wanted to clarify that possessives in ך do not follow a construct state, as you _seemed_ to imply. 

"Thus, in segolate nouns, the dual construct can be distinguished from the plural construct only by a dagesh qal... . For example, רַגְלֶיךָ (raglekha) is dual, while עֲבָדֶיךָ (`avadekha) is plural... "

ך follows the regular plural base, while כם/ הם are the ones that follow a plural construct base, and for which a dagesh kal may be the sole distinguisher.


----------



## Drink

hadronic said:


> I understood what you meant.
> I just wanted to clarify that possessives in ך do not follow a construct state, as you _seemed_ to imply.
> 
> "Thus, in segolate nouns, the dual construct can be distinguished from the plural construct only by a dagesh qal... . For example, רַגְלֶיךָ (raglekha) is dual, while עֲבָדֶיךָ (`avadekha) is plural... "
> 
> ך follows the regular plural base, while כם/ הם are the ones that follow a plural construct base, and for which a dagesh kal may be the sole distinguisher.



_All_ the forms are based on the same stem, the only question is where the stress is. In the non-construct states and in the forms with possessive suffixes other than כם/כן/הם/הן, the stress is on the syllable immediately following the stem. In the forms with כם/כן/הם/הן, the stress is two syllables after the stem, and in the construct state, it is _as if_ the stress were two syllables after the stem. And etymologically, the forms with possessive suffixes are none other than the construct state followed by the possessive suffixes.


----------



## hadronic

I'm not saying the contrary... I'm just saying that from a synchronic point of view, possessive other than כם/הם _appear_ to follow a full plural base, whereas כם/הם _appear_ to follow a construct plural base, regardless of the etymology  - -  since as you said, only the stress pattern matters for determining whether the full or the syncopated (aka "construct" by abuse of terminology)  base has to be chosen.

In other words, the non-כם/הם possessives are construct in their meaning, but regular in their form.

I think we all agree, we're just splitting hair.   I was mainly addressing your previous stance (" in segolate nouns, the dual construct can be distinguished from the plural construct only by a dagesh qal... . For example, רַגְלֶיךָ (raglekha) is dual, while עֲבָדֶיךָ (`avadekha) is plural.."), where the example you're taking doesn't exemplify your statement about dagesh kal.

In the example you took, the difference is about full form vs.  syncopated form, not presence or absence of dagesh kal, which is the determiner for כם/הם possessives only.


----------



## Drink

hadronic said:


> where the example you're taking doesn't exemplify your statement about dagesh kal.



Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to make a statement about the dagesh qal. I meant to say that there is nothing left other than the dagesh qal to distinguish them and the dagesh qal only applies to certain roots. Since the ר in אשרי does not take dagesh qal, we are left to distinguish the dual and plural through other forms of the word.


----------



## rushalaim

Why the modern _"Hebrew"_ names ירושלים as dual?
Why the _Holy-language_ of the Bible names ירושלם so weird with two vowels under the _Lamed_-letter? It breaks all laws of _Hebrew_!

Genesis 14:18 names that city as שלם ? May שלם be as a Canaanite-god's name? _"Shalem"_ and _"Shahar"_ are twin-gods, that's why now it is written as dual?
Shahar (god) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Drink

rushalaim said:


> Why the modern _"Hebrew"_ names ירושלים as dual?
> Why the _Holy-language_ of the Bible names ירושלם so weird with two vowels under the _Lamed_-letter? It breaks all laws of _Hebrew_!



This is just because the people who wrote the vowels were not the same people who wrote the consonants, and by that time pronunciations had changed. Now the question is why did the pronunciation become "-ayim", when originally it was probably "-em"?



rushalaim said:


> Genesis 14:18 names that city as שלם ? May שלם be as a Canaanite-god's name? _"Shalem"_ and _"Shahar"_ are twin-gods, that's why now it is written as dual?
> Shahar (god) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The dual is not (and was never) used to refer to one of a set of twins, so your explanation does not make sense.


----------



## origumi

rushalaim said:


> Why the modern _"Hebrew"_ names ירושלים as dual?


The -ayim ending for Jerusalem is an alternate pronunciation attested in the Bible (e.g. Jeremiah 26:18) that became prevalent around 1st-2nd centuries AD. Probably has nothing to do with dual or Canaanite deities.

שמות ירושלים – ויקיפדיה


----------



## utopia

I remember reading - אשריי יתום אני! - by Shalom Aleichem.


----------



## utopia

rushalaim said:


> Why the modern _"Hebrew"_ names ירושלים as dual?
> Why the _Holy-language_ of the Bible names ירושלם so weird with two vowels under the _Lamed_-letter? It breaks all laws of _Hebrew_!
> 
> Genesis 14:18 names that city as שלם ? May שלם be as a Canaanite-god's name? _"Shalem"_ and _"Shahar"_ are twin-gods, that's why now it is written as dual?
> Shahar (god) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




ירושלים might have an abstract suffix:
מים, שמים are not dual, and still they end in -aim.

It might be a very old semitic ending, of what might just be amorphic nouns. It can also be the ending of a name (provided that they are both a deity name).


----------

