# Hosanna



## alexacohen

Hosanna as far as I know (which is not much) is Aramaic and not Hebrew. It means "so save us Lord" or something similar.


----------



## ahshav

Hosanna is in Hebrew - it appears in certain prayers and it just means "save us" - and a better transliteration would be "hosha-na"


----------



## cyberpedant

Wiki:


 "Hoshana" (הושענא) is a Hebrew word meaning _please save_ or _save now._ [1]

"Hosanna" (Greek transcription: ὡσαννα, _hōsanna_) is the cry of praise or adoration shouted in recognition of the Messiahship of Jesus on his entry into Jerusalem, _Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!_[6] It is used in the same way in Christian praise.
 Overall, it seems that, "Hosanna," is a cry for salvation, while at the same time is a declaration of praise. Therefore, it may be derived that this plea for help is out of an agreeably positive connotation.


----------



## berndf

ahshav said:


> Hosanna is in Hebrew - it appears in certain prayers and it just means "save us" - and a better transliteration would be "hosha-na"


I thought הושענא was Aramaic. Hebrew is הושיעה־נא (not quite accurately transcribed "hosianna" by Luther). Wouldn't you agree?


----------



## wonderment

berndf said:


> I thought הושענא was Aramaic.


It’s strange to see Aramaic written in the Hebrew script; Syriac (a dialect of Aramaic) has three different scripts, none of which looks like Hebrew. If I transliterate הושענא back to Syriac it would look like this: _hozsha’na_ [spelled, heth-zayn-shin-‘e-nun-alap]; it’s not a Syriac word (and if it's Aramaic, I don't recognize it). In the _Peshitta_ (Syriac New Testament), _awsha’na_ is a transliteration of the NT Greek ὡσαννά which in turn is a transliteration of the Hebrew הושיעה־נא. In Syriac as in Greek, ‘hosanna’ has come to signify a cry of praise. The word for ‘savior’ in Syriac is _paroqa_; the verb ‘save’ derives from the same root _prq_—this affirms that ‘hosanna’ (‘save us’) is not of Syriac, but Hebrew origin. (Incidentally, _hawsana_ in Syriac means ‘pity’.)

Edit add: I don't know if הושענא is Hebrew, only that it doesn't look Aramaic to me, and I'm pretty sure it's not Syriac of the _Peshitta_.


----------



## berndf

So you say הושענא is just a contraction of הושיעה־נא and both are Hebrew. Do I understand you correctly?

(BTW: What today is called Hebrew script is a slight modification of another Aramaic script which was used to write Imperial Aramaic, not Syriac. The original Hebrew script, usually called Paleo-Hebrew, looks very different.)


----------



## ahshav

I would say they both are. I can't quite put my finger on the basis in Hebrew grammar - but if I'm correct both הצל (ha'tzel) and הציל (ha'tzil) seem to mean the same thing (save, imperative sing. masc.) and share similar format with the י.ש.ע root


----------



## origumi

השם 'הושענא' מקורו בצמד המילים 'הושע נא', שבה היו פונים אל האל במהלך קיום מצווה זו, ומבקשים בעיקר על גשמי החורף, שיהיו מבורכים. מקור הביטוי בתהילים קי"ח - "אנא ה' הושיעה נא".​
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/הושענות

The name 'hoshana' is derived from the Hebrew word pair 'hosha na' (pray save, salvage) used when praying to g*d mainly for abundance of winter rains.​


----------



## scriptum

berndf said:


> So you say הושענא is just a contraction of הושיעה־נא and both are Hebrew. Do I understand you correctly?


 
הושע and הושיעה are two different imperative forms.
According to Gesenius, these forms are parallel to the imperfect and the cohortative.
To the best of my understanding, in the Bible they have different meanings.
הושע : a simple imperative.
הושיעה : an entreaty.


----------



## berndf

scriptum said:


> According to Gesenius, these forms are parallel to the imperfect and the cohortative.


Ah! You are saying it is jussive (_may he [G*d] save_). Of course, stupid me. Thank you.


----------



## scriptum

berndf said:


> Ah! You are saying it is jussive (_may he [G*d] save_).


According to Gesenius, this is cohortative (the lengthened form). Gesenius calls "jussive" the shortened form (found only in lamed-heh verbs: e. g. גל instead of גַלֵּה).
Anyway, both lengthened and shortened imperative forms were in the process of vanishing already in the biblical language. Gesenius himself seems to be rather at a loss as to the differences in their meanings.


----------



## origumi

scriptum said:


> Anyway, both lengthened and shortened imperative forms were in the process of vanishing already in the biblical language.


 
Were they really archaic forms in their way to oblivion, or alternatively contemporary stylistic expressions, never in common use?

The short form exists in modern language, for example תחי מדינת ישראל.


----------



## scriptum

origumi said:


> Were they really archaic forms in their way to oblivion, or alternatively contemporary stylistic expressions, never in common use?


There seems to be no contradiction between the two.
As to תחי etc., well, it is an idiomatic expression. I don't think it has any bearing on our issue here. To the best of my knowledge, no verb except לחיות appears in a shortened form.


----------



## berndf

scriptum said:


> According to Gesenius, this is cohortative (the lengthened form). Gesenius calls "jussive" the shortened form (found only in lamed-heh verbs: e. g. גל instead of גַלֵּה).
> Anyway, both lengthened and shortened imperative forms were in the process of vanishing already in the biblical language. Gesenius himself seems to be rather at a loss as to the differences in their meanings.


Now I am confused. Normally the forms have the following meanings:
Cohortative: Let us do xxx
Imperative: Do xxx
Jussive: May he/she do xxx
I fail to see how a cohortative could make sense here. But very ancient Hebrew probably had an even more complex structure of imperfect derivatives. I don't know.


----------



## origumi

scriptum said:


> There seems to be no contradiction between the two.


 
I do see the difference between a form that was in public use at a certain time period vs. a form that was (maybe) invented for and used only in specific context.



scriptum said:


> To the best of my knowledge, no verb except לחיות appears in a shortened form.


 
לו יהי


----------



## scriptum

berndf said:


> Now I am confused. Normally the forms have the following meanings:
> Cohortative: Let us do xxx
> Imperative: Do xxx
> Jussive: May he/she do xxx
> I fail to see how a cohortative could make sense here.


I agree that the situation is confusing - the more so that there are no verbs that appear both in the lengthened and the shortened imperative form...
Anyway, the difference between the long and the "normal" imperative seems to me obvious.
שכב על-משכבך : (please) lie down on your bed.
שכבה עמי: I beseech you, lie with me.


----------



## scriptum

origumi said:


> לו יהי


Well, that makes two of them...


----------



## berndf

scriptum said:


> Anyway, the difference between the long and the "normal" imperative seems to me obvious.
> שכב על-משכבך : (please) lie down on your bed.
> שכבה עמי: I beseech you, lie with me.


So it is neither a cohortative nor a jussive in this case but a special emphatic form of the imperative used for begging or praying. That would make sense and inserting vowels to create emphatic or pausa forms is not uncommon (like "me'odecha" instead of "me'odcha" in the "Shma' Yisrael").


----------



## dinji

I think the discussion above is obscured by the suggestions by some that we are dealing with two different grammatical categories here. The point remains that both forms are real and valid imperatives. So hoshá'-na and hoshí'a-na are both practically synonymous. The question is at maximum about a difference in semantic nuance. Whatever difference in nuance Gezenius think he has spotted would hardly be enough to call either anything else than a variant of the imperative.

This is to be clearly differentiated from the difference between the cohortative (noshí'a) and the jussive (noshía') in the first person plural where we are really dealing with two different grammatical categories.

Am I wrong to make this clarification Scriptum?

PS. The form **הציל (**hatzíl) refered to above does not AFAIK exist in classical Hebrew. The equvalent to the longer imperative hoshí'a would be hatzíla. I don't think Ivrit allows for this either, where the imperative is used less and less anyway.


----------



## scriptum

dinji said:


> I think the discussion above is obscured by the suggestions by some that we are dealing with two different grammatical categories here. The point remains that both forms are real and valid imperatives. So hoshá'-na and hoshí'a-na are both practically synonymous. The question is at maximum about a difference in semantic nuance. Whatever difference in nuance Gezenius think he has spotted would hardly be enough to call either anything else than a variant of the imperative.


Well, it is difficult to agree or disagree on the question whether the given words have different meanings or just carry different nuances of meaning. Such expressions as "semantic nuance" or "practically synonymous", etc., are not clear enough...
I think it should be an axiom that different words must have different meanings. Why should anybody use different words to say the same thing?


----------



## origumi

dinji said:


> PS. The form **הציל (**hatzíl) refered to above does not AFAIK exist in classical Hebrew.


Psalms 120:2 יְהוָה הַצִּילָה נַפְשִׁי מִשְּׂפַת-שֶׁקֶר
Psalms 22:21 הַצִּילָה מֵחֶרֶב נַפְשִׁי מִיַּד-כֶּלֶב יְחִידָתִי


----------



## berndf

I have gone through a few books about Classical Hebrew grammar. All seem to agree that for tertiae laryngalis Hif`il masculine singular imperatives* there are the two variants -C2aC3 and -C2iYC3aH (C2 and C3 representing the 2ns and 3rd root consonant) which corresponds to the two forms הושע and הושיעה under discussion here. Bauer-Leander have them side by side without any comment. In “Eduard König, Historische Grammatik der Hebräischen Sprache” I found the comment “verstärkt“ (emphatic) in conjunction with the long form.

If the English Wikipedia article quotes Bauer-Danker correctly then this might be the source of the interpretation that הושענא be an Aramaic rendering of הושיעה־נא which I stated earlier.

------------------------------ 
*_If someone wants to check: The root is __ישע (yot-shin-`aiyn). The binjan is Hif`il and paradigm is a combination of tertiae laryngalis and peh-yot (it is a double-weak verb)._


----------



## dinji

origumi said:


> Psalms 120:2 יְהוָה הַצִּילָה נַפְשִׁי מִשְּׂפַת-שֶׁקֶר
> Psalms 22:21 הַצִּילָה מֵחֶרֶב נַפְשִׁי מִיַּד-כֶּלֶב יְחִידָתִי


 
Your examples confirm my point: the longer form is hatzíla, but indeed not **hatzíl


----------

