Biblical Hebrew

A forum for guides, lessons and sharing of useful information.
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2654
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 03:06

Biblical Hebrew

Post by Shemtov » Mon 19 Sep 2016, 05:28

NOTE: Because of the difficulty in finding a Hebrew keyboard that allows one to type Gimmel Dagesh, Daled Dagesh, and Dagesh Chazak I will be using a romanzation throughout.


Phonology:
Because the Biblical Hebrew's exact phonology has not been recorded, I am using a reconstruction based on the Tiberian pronunciation; I will finish this post with the reconstruction's differences between the Israeli Reading pronunciation and Ashkenazic Pronunciation.

Consonants:
/p~f b~v d~ð t~θ tˤ k~x g~ɣ q ʔ/ <p~p̠ b~b̠ d~d̠ t~t̠ t̟ k~k̠ g~g̠ q ʔ/
/m n/ <m n>
/s z t͡sˤ ś ʃ ħ ʕ h/ <s z s̟ ś š h̟ ʕ h>
/r/ <r>
/l/<l>
/j w/ <y w>

The phonetics of /ś/ are unknown. It may have been a different way of writing /s/- (as it is treated in all mordern reading pronounciations), or it may have been /ɬ/.


The medieval grammarians divided the consonants into five "POAs". Note that the coronals are split into two POAs:
Labial: <p b m w>
Lingual: <t d n l t̟>
Dental: <s z s̟ ś š r>
Palatal: <k g y q>
Guttural: <ʕ ħ ʕ h>

Vowels:
/i: i u: u e o ə ɛ ɔ a/ <iy i uw u ē ō ə e o a>


Phomological processes:
The fricative pronunciations of the non-emphatic plosives are used intervocally or after the silent schwa.
All non-guttural phonemes, aside from the non-emphatic plosives, can be geminated.
A non-word-final coda consonants are considered to have silient schwas. Because these schwas can pop up again in certain morphological processes, I will transcribe them as <ə̥>
Similarly <ʔ h> are considered to be semivowels, as one of the two is automatically written in the Hebrew alphabet to mark a word final open syllable that doesn't end in a high or high-mid vowel. All vowels that occur in such syllables are lengthened. <h ʔ> do not occur word-finally except in his capacity.

Israeli Reading Pronunciation:
<g d t> do not have their fricative pronunciations.
Emphatic consonants are depharyngialized.
<h̟> is pronounced /x/.
<ʕ>is pronounced as /ʔ/ syllable initially; and ∅ syllable finally.
<w> is pronounced /v/.
<ɔ> is fused with <a>.

Askenazic Pronunciation:
<g d > do not have their fricative pronunciations.
The fricative pronunciation of <t> is /s/.
Emphatic consonants are depharyngialized.
<h̟> is pronounced /x/.
<ʕ>is pronounced as /ʔ/ syllable initially; and ∅ syllable finally.
<w> is pronounced /v/.
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
clawgrip
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2395
Joined: Sun 24 Jun 2012, 06:33
Location: Tokyo

Re: Biblical Hebrew

Post by clawgrip » Mon 19 Sep 2016, 07:01

I look forward to seeing a bit more of this. I find that a lot of descriptions of ancient languages are lacking, because either they are aimed at translating to modern language and ignore grammatical explanations of things that don't exist in the target language, or they refuse anything but ancient sources for language samples as if the language is some sort of precious artifact that can never be touched by modern hands, so that trying to learn Sanskrit, for example, you're immediately confronted with complicated passages from the Rigveda or whatever. So I look forward to seeing a clear description of this ancient language.
User avatar
k1234567890y
runic
runic
Posts: 2953
Joined: Sat 04 Jan 2014, 04:47
Contact:

Re: Biblical Hebrew

Post by k1234567890y » Mon 19 Sep 2016, 07:54

is it possible that there were length distinctions between /e a o/ and /ɛ ə ɔ/, like /e/ /a/ and /o/ were actually something similar to [e:], [a:] and [o:] respectively?
私のアツい人工言語活動!言カツ!始まります!!
mahagugu
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun 18 Sep 2016, 20:57

Re: Biblical Hebrew

Post by mahagugu » Mon 19 Sep 2016, 13:46

It is quite easy to make an own keyboard and you find lots of resources on the net.
User avatar
Davush
greek
greek
Posts: 481
Joined: Sat 10 Jan 2015, 14:10

Re: Biblical Hebrew

Post by Davush » Tue 20 Sep 2016, 13:12

Shemtov wrote:
Askenazic Pronunciation:
<g d > do not have their fricative pronunciations.
The fricative pronunciation of <t> is /s/.
Emphatic consonants are depharyngialized.
<h̟> is pronounced /x/.
<ʕ>is pronounced as /ʔ/ syllable initially; and ∅ syllable finally.
<w> is pronounced /v/.
What about the weird things with vowels that Ashkenazi pronunciation does? I usually hear in this very orthodox shuls with /o/ -> /oj/ or /əj/ being the most notable, as well as general vowel reduction.

shalom aleichem -> /ʃəlojm əlejχəm/ etc.
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2654
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 03:06

Re: Biblical Hebrew

Post by Shemtov » Tue 20 Sep 2016, 15:39

Davush wrote:
Shemtov wrote:
Askenazic Pronunciation:
<g d > do not have their fricative pronunciations.
The fricative pronunciation of <t> is /s/.
Emphatic consonants are depharyngialized.
<h̟> is pronounced /x/.
<ʕ>is pronounced as /ʔ/ syllable initially; and ∅ syllable finally.
<w> is pronounced /v/.
What about the weird things with vowels that Ashkenazi pronunciation does? I usually hear in this very orthodox shuls with /o/ -> /oj/ or /əj/ being the most notable, as well as general vowel reduction.

shalom aleichem -> /ʃəlojm əlejχəm/ etc.
There are two Ashkenazi pronunciations: The one I described, which is generally called "Ashkenazis" and the one you described, which is called "Ungris" ie. "Hungarian" as it is mostly used by Hngarian and Romanian Jews, though there are some from other areas of Europe who use it. There's also the fact that such phrases as "Shalom Aleichem" are "Yiddishized"; they are pronounced more like Yiddish words then Hebrew words, despite their origin.
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
User avatar
Lao Kou
korean
korean
Posts: 5650
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2012, 10:39
Location: 蘇州/苏州

Re: Biblical Hebrew

Post by Lao Kou » Tue 20 Sep 2016, 16:11

Shemtov wrote:
Davush wrote:shalom aleichem -> /ʃəlojm əlejχəm/ etc.
There's also the fact that such phrases as "Shalom Aleichem" are "Yiddishized"; they are pronounced more like Yiddish words then Hebrew words, despite their origin.
I, who don't speak Yiddish, thought that sounded a little Yiddisher around the edges when Davush wrote it. Nice to know it wasn't just khaloymes. [xP] My inner Linda Richman gezoink lives on.
道可道,非常道
名可名,非常名
User avatar
Davush
greek
greek
Posts: 481
Joined: Sat 10 Jan 2015, 14:10

Re: Biblical Hebrew

Post by Davush » Tue 20 Sep 2016, 18:44

Shemtov wrote:.
There are two Ashkenazi pronunciations: The one I described, which is generally called "Ashkenazis" and the one you described, which is called "Ungris" ie. "Hungarian" as it is mostly used by Hngarian and Romanian Jews, though there are some from other areas of Europe who use it. There's also the fact that such phrases as "Shalom Aleichem" are "Yiddishized"; they are pronounced more like Yiddish words then Hebrew words, despite their origin.
I'm not so sure about that - do you have any sources?

The Ashkenazi pronunciation you have mentioned is basically Modern Israeli except with fricative /t/ as /s/ (which is something I've never heard). I'm not sure where you are, but in the UK (whose Jewish population is a mix from all over Europe not heavily biased towards Hungarian/Romanian communities) every time I have heard the Ashkenazi pronunciation with /s/ for /t/ it has always also included all the vowel changes with kamatz as /ɔ/ and cholam as /oj/ or /əj/. This is also how it is taught at (orthodox) religious Jewish schools. Some prefer to use a more Modern Israeli based pronunciation. Granted there are certain differences between Ashkenazi communities, such as the exact realization of /oj/ as well as other things like /u/ -> /i/ which I have heard occasionally.

Naturally this pronunciation is only heard in liturgy as nobody speaks Modern Hebrew in the old Ashkenazi way, but nonetheless I haven't heard Ashkenazi speakers pronounce say Shabbat as /ʃabas/, it's always /ʃabəs/ (or maybe sometimes /ʃabɔs/) with stress on the first syllable. The 'Yiddishified' pronunciation of shalom aleichem is not limited to this phrase, the whole liturgy in UK orthodox shuls is mostly done in this pronunciation (which does of course show influence from Yiddish, but it affects the entire thing not just certain phrases).
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2654
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 03:06

Re: Biblical Hebrew

Post by Shemtov » Wed 21 Sep 2016, 03:11

Davush wrote:
Shemtov wrote:.
There are two Ashkenazi pronunciations: The one I described, which is generally called "Ashkenazis" and the one you described, which is called "Ungris" ie. "Hungarian" as it is mostly used by Hngarian and Romanian Jews, though there are some from other areas of Europe who use it. There's also the fact that such phrases as "Shalom Aleichem" are "Yiddishized"; they are pronounced more like Yiddish words then Hebrew words, despite their origin.
I'm not so sure about that - do you have any sources?

The Ashkenazi pronunciation you have mentioned is basically Modern Israeli except with fricative /t/ as /s/ (which is something I've never heard). I'm not sure where you are, but in the UK (whose Jewish population is a mix from all over Europe not heavily biased towards Hungarian/Romanian communities) every time I have heard the Ashkenazi pronunciation with /s/ for /t/ it has always also included all the vowel changes with kamatz as /ɔ/ and cholam as /oj/ or /əj/. This is also how it is taught at (orthodox) religious Jewish schools. Some prefer to use a more Modern Israeli based pronunciation. Granted there are certain differences between Ashkenazi communities, such as the exact realization of /oj/ as well as other things like /u/ -> /i/ which I have heard occasionally.

Naturally this pronunciation is only heard in liturgy as nobody speaks Modern Hebrew in the old Ashkenazi way, but nonetheless I haven't heard Ashkenazi speakers pronounce say Shabbat as /ʃabas/, it's always /ʃabəs/ (or maybe sometimes /ʃabɔs/) with stress on the first syllable. The 'Yiddishified' pronunciation of shalom aleichem is not limited to this phrase, the whole liturgy in UK orthodox shuls is mostly done in this pronunciation (which does of course show influence from Yiddish, but it affects the entire thing not just certain phrases).
I really don't know what you're talking about with cholam being /oj/. Ungris (the /u/>/i/ one) does that, and it's possible that some British Jews have adopted a kind of fusion between Askenazis and Ungris. Also, if you'd look carefully at what I said, the Ashkenazi pronunciation I was talking about also does have kamatz as /ɔ/, as I said that was part of the ancient vowel system.
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
Astraios
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed 08 Dec 2010, 01:06
Location: Manchester, UK

Re: Biblical Hebrew

Post by Astraios » Thu 22 Sep 2016, 13:20

There are a lot of things to point out here. First, you don’t make clear which stage of Biblical Hebrew you’re talking about. As late as the 3rd century BCE, the Proto-Semitic uvular fricatives were still unmerged with the pharyngeals, while the pronunciation of ⟨ś⟩ is known to have been /ɬ/ until even later; the emphatic plosives were ejectives, not pharygealized, and the plain plosives were only fricatized because of Aramaic influence, and the evidence suggests that they weren’t fricatized (even in Aramaic!) until after Biblical Hebrew ceased to be spoken as a native language. Also, the Tiberian vocalization is a product of the medieval period, and doesn’t give you the pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew.

Additionally, you have plenty of actual mistakes. For example, word-final /h/ most certainly does exist (compare the consonantal /h/ in tāmah /tɑmah/ “he was astonished” with the purely orthographical ⟨h⟩ in rāʾāʰ /rɑʔɑ/ “he saw”), and the non-emphatic plosives can certainly be geminated (compare the initial /d/ with the geminated medial /bː/ in dibbēr /dibːer/ “spoke”). Coda consonants do not automatically “have silient schwas”, they simply have no vowel, which is coincidentally written in Hebrew script with the shva letter, which also represents what used to be a fully syllabic /ə/.

You are dead wrong about the Ashkenazi reading pronunciations, which always use the vowel- and stress-changes undergone by whichever dialect of Yiddish was spoken by that particular community of readers. What you are talking about is the transcription used in ArtScroll publications, which is artificial and not based on any genuine reading pronunciation. It is identical to the Israeli pronunciation, except they write ⟨s⟩ and ⟨o⟩ where the Hebrew text has fricatized tav and kamats. Their transcriptions do not reflect any reading pronunciation whatsoever, as Ashkenazi reading pronunciations are derived from Yiddish dialects, not Israeli Hebrew; they shouldn’t be claimed as authoritative.

k1234567890y wrote:is it possible that there were length distinctions between /e a o/ and /ɛ ə ɔ/, like /e/ /a/ and /o/ were actually something similar to [e:], [a:] and [o:] respectively?
Grouping the vowels this way doesn’t work, as they aren’t counterparts of each other. What Shemtov describes as /e ɔ o/ actually represent six different phonemes, while his /ɛ a/ represent just one. The normal transcriptions spell his /e o/ as ⟨ē ō⟩ (ṣērē and ḥōlām), which are followed by a mater lectionis when they represent long [eː oː] (deriving from */aj aw/), and without one when they descend from short */i u/, representing short [e o]. Shemtov’s /ɔ/ (ḳāmaṣ) is a conflation of short [ɔ] (ḳāmaṣ ḳāṭān), properly transcribed ⟨o⟩) and long [ɑː] (ḳāmaṣ gādōl), properly transcribed ⟨ā⟩), which are written with the same grapheme in Hebrew. Shemtov’s /ɛ a/ (seggōl and pátaḥ) represent short */a/, which developed into [ɛ a], and are usually transcribed ⟨e a⟩. His /ə/ (šəwā) is [ə], and has four variants, transcribed ⟨ə⟩, or as a vowel with a breve.

tl;dr The Tiberian vowels are long [iː eː ɑː oː uː], short [i e ɛ a ɔ o u], and ultrashort [ə ɛ̆ ă ɔ̆]. These descend from Biblical Hebrew’s system as represented in the Secunda of Origen’s Hexapla, which was probably something like */iː eː aː oː uː e æ o ə/.
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2654
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 03:06

Re: Biblical Hebrew

Post by Shemtov » Thu 22 Sep 2016, 13:57

To be honest, the reason I didn't post about Biblical Hebrew earlier is because of the fact that I knew people were going to have problems with my phonemic inventory. Basically, because of my religious beliefs, the way I understand the status of the phonemes is different from Linguistic Orthodoxy.
However, I have heard people use the pronunciation that you have labled "Artificial"; it is current among American Non-Chasidic Orthodox Ashkenazim; It may not have been the pronunciation used in Pre-war Europe; it may have become accepted because of certain transcription methods; though there is one book I read that quotes a Pre-War European rabbi indicating that the pronounciation I presented was seen as standard, and was used for the Torah reading and by Chazzanim, even if other people did have vowel reduction. There are still people elide the Shva Na when doing so will produce a cluster that is valid in English or Yiddish, but this is not done often when reading from the Torah or Haftorah.
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
User avatar
k1234567890y
runic
runic
Posts: 2953
Joined: Sat 04 Jan 2014, 04:47
Contact:

Re: Biblical Hebrew

Post by k1234567890y » Thu 22 Sep 2016, 15:44

Shemtov wrote:To be honest, the reason I didn't post about Biblical Hebrew earlier is because of the fact that I knew people were going to have problems with my phonemic inventory. Basically, because of my religious beliefs, the way I understand the status of the phonemes is different from Linguistic Orthodoxy.
However, I have heard people use the pronunciation that you have labled "Artificial"; it is current among American Non-Chasidic Orthodox Ashkenazim; It may not have been the pronunciation used in Pre-war Europe; it may have become accepted because of certain transcription methods; though there is one book I read that quotes a Pre-War European rabbi indicating that the pronounciation I presented was seen as standard, and was used for the Torah reading and by Chazzanim, even if other people did have vowel reduction. There are still people elide the Shva Na when doing so will produce a cluster that is valid in English or Yiddish, but this is not done often when reading from the Torah or Haftorah.
sorry if I am a reason that deters you, but still thank you for sharing your knowledge about Biblical Hebrew (:
私のアツい人工言語活動!言カツ!始まります!!
User avatar
DesEsseintes
cleardarkness
cleardarkness
Posts: 4604
Joined: Sun 31 Mar 2013, 12:16

Re: Biblical Hebrew

Post by DesEsseintes » Mon 26 Sep 2016, 02:49

So basically, the thread is now doomed because people couldn't just let Shemtov get on with it?

I would be interested in a simple introduction to Biblical Hebrew without hearing endless debates about whether this, that or other group of people are correct in analysing or using this, that or other interpretation of the vowel system. :roll:
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4399
Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27

Re: Biblical Hebrew

Post by qwed117 » Mon 26 Sep 2016, 03:49

DesEsseintes wrote:So basically, the thread is now doomed because people couldn't just let Shemtov get on with it?

I would be interested in a simple introduction to Biblical Hebrew without hearing endless debates about whether this, that or other group of people are correct in analysing or using this, that or other interpretation of the vowel system. :roll:
Well, seeing as to how he made it a religious issue, I would definitely not put him blameless. It's like a evangelical minister with a degree in Bible Science trying to teach a biology course. The students will realize that there's a political/religious motive underneath.
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2654
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 03:06

Re: Biblical Hebrew

Post by Shemtov » Mon 26 Sep 2016, 08:35

DesEsseintes wrote:So basically, the thread is now doomed because people couldn't just let Shemtov get on with it?

I would be interested in a simple introduction to Biblical Hebrew without hearing endless debates about whether this, that or other group of people are correct in analysing or using this, that or other interpretation of the vowel system. :roll:
It's not doomed; Me and Astraios agreed to disagree regarding the phonetics via PM; as for the morphosyntax, religious and secular sources agree, though the difference in language used may imply a theoretical divide, there is nothing that is generally disagreed on regarding the function of the grammar in regard to the language by itself.

On That note: Lesson one:
I. Gender:
Biblical Hebrew has two genders, masculine and feminine. In general, nouns ending in "oh" or "t̠" are feminine, and all other nouns are masculine. However, there are some common irregular feminines, such as "Loshōn" "tongue; speech" which despite looking masculine,is feminine. In addition, all proper place names are feminine, as are some generic words for places, such as "ʔeres̟""country; land", and all paired body parts: "Yod" "Hand" is feminine. There are also a few masculine nouns with feminine endings such as "Layə̥loh" "Night", and few nouns that can be treated as both; eg. "derek̠" "way; path". I will mark irregularly-gendered nouns with a m. or f. in the vocabulary.
Exercise:
Mark these nouns with regular endings as Masc or Fem:
Keleb̠
Delet̠
Təmuwnoh
ʔōr
Mil:oh
Moqōm
Šonoh

II. Plurals
Regular Masculine plurals form by adding the suffix "iym" to the end of the noun. Regular feminine nouns add the suffix "ōt̠" to the end; if they are regular in singular form "oh" or "t̠" are dropped before the suffix is added.
There are the following irregular forms:
A. Masculine nouns that have a feminine plural; (I will designate these words with abbreviation plr: f..)
B. Feminine nouns with a masculine plural(remember to drop the "oh" or "t̠") (I will designate these words with abbreviation plr: m.)
C. Words that form plural by suppletion (their plural will follow them in parenthesis.)
D. Broken plurals; ie. plurals with vowel shift in the root. Most of these are Masculine and those encountered in this lesson all switch to the pattern CəCoC. (this, for now will be noted as brk.)
C. Nouns that stay the same for sigular and plural.
Biblical Hebrew also has a dual; but this will be discussed in a later lesson.

III: The definite article
The Definite article in Biblical Hebrew is "Ha" followed by gemination of the first consonant or the realization of /p b t d k g/ as plosives, when normally they would be fricatives, given the fact that the article makes them intervocalic.
The exceptions are:
A. Before ʕo H̟o or Ho in an open syllable only, the article is "He".
B Before R, ʕ or ʔ, the article is "Ho"


Vocabulary:
Keleb̠ brk.: "Dog"
Təmuwnoh: "Form; Image"
Gag̠ plr: f.: "Roof"
Mil:oh plr: m "Word"
Kōs f. "Cup"
H̟al:ōn plr: f.: "Window"
ʔiš:oh (Nošiym): "Woman"
ʔiyš (ʔonošiym): "Man"
Beg̠ed̠ brk.: "Garment"


Exercise:
Translate the following into Biblical Hebrew:
1. "The roof"
2. "The man"
3."Cups"
4. "The women"
5. "Dogs"
6."The images"
7. "The window"
Last edited by Shemtov on Fri 04 Nov 2016, 22:26, edited 2 times in total.
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
User avatar
Davush
greek
greek
Posts: 481
Joined: Sat 10 Jan 2015, 14:10

Re: Biblical Hebrew

Post by Davush » Mon 26 Sep 2016, 11:51

DesEsseintes wrote:So basically, the thread is now doomed because people couldn't just let Shemtov get on with it?

I would be interested in a simple introduction to Biblical Hebrew without hearing endless debates about whether this, that or other group of people are correct in analysing or using this, that or other interpretation of the vowel system. :roll:
I don't think there's any problem asking for more information or sources regarding a point that I (and Astraios) were unsure of. Neither of us have heard the Ashkenazi reading pronunciation mentioned by ShemTov as the UK Orthodox community still uses what ShemTov calls the 'pre-war' Ashkenazi reading pronunciation (including cholam as /oj/ consistently). This has been cleared up as the pronunciation mentioned is apparently based on the ArtScroll Ashkenazi transliteration and a rabbi.

As an aside (and in case anybody wants to hear what has been discussed), both Ashkenazi readers on this site use what you call the pre-war pronunciation:
http://torahreading.dafyomireview.com/
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2654
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 03:06

Re: Biblical Hebrew

Post by Shemtov » Sun 02 Oct 2016, 03:22

Davush wrote:
as the UK Orthodox community still uses what ShemTov calls the 'pre-war' Ashkenazi reading pronunciation
This has been cleared up as the pronunciation mentioned is apparently based on the ArtScroll Ashkenazi transliteration and a rabbi.
I never said that and it has not been cleared up in that way.. What I said was that it's possible that those who didn't use Ungris Pre-War actually had two pronunciations, with the one with /oj/ for cholam being more commonly used in the UK and the one with /o/ for cholam being more common in America possibly under the influence of Artscroll. I still feel, based on a story about one of the Chabad Rebbes (who would not have accepted anything from Ben Yehudah), that /o/ for cholam was used in pre-war Europe, though given the context of the story,it's likely he was being prescriptive, or was targeting Ungris users, the actual pronunciation may have been /oj/, but I feel it was always recognized as a "mistake" at least by some people. In any event,in America,the /oj/ pronounciation seems to be a transitional reading between those that use /o/ and those that use Ungris (u/>/i/), though it is to be noted that even what I call Ungris isn't one set of rules, but varies, ie. some only differ from my pronunciation with Cholam as /oj/ and Shuruk as /i/, other also pronounce Kamatz as /u/ and Tzere as /ai/. I have always considered those who pronounce cholam as /oj/as using a transitional pronunciation between what I use and Ungris.
In any case, I'll be posting more grammar information after Rosh Hashanah.
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2654
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 03:06

Re: Biblical Hebrew

Post by Shemtov » Fri 07 Oct 2016, 21:47

Lesson 2:
Lesson one only considered the absolute state of the Hebrew noun. This lesson will consider the second state, the construct state or səmiyk̠uwt̠.
The construct state is used to indicate a possessive relationship. Unlike in languages with a Genitive case, the noun in the construct state is the possessed noun, while the possesor is n the absolute state. The noun in the construct state is followed immediately by the possessor, and multiple nouns in a contruct state are allowed to occur one after the other to indicate possession of a possession. Thus, as an extreme case, in Job 12:24 "The heart of the chiefs of the nation of the land" the Hebrew words meaning "heart" "chiefs" and "Nation" are all in the construct state, while "the land is in the absolute state. It is of note that construct state nouns cannot occur with the definite article, and if the the last noun in the chain, the one in the absolute state has the article, al nouns in the chain are definite.

The construct state of Masculine singular nouns:
Masculine singular nouns form their construct state by:
a. changing any open syllable who's vowel is not a high vowel or ōw, so its vowel is schwa.
b. Changing the vowel of any closed syllable who's vowel is not high vowel or ōw in the following way:
o>a
ē>e
ō>o
e>ĕ (ĕ being an allophone of schwa)
a>ă (ă being an allophone of schwa)


Example:
Absolute state dob̠or "word; "thing"
Construct state: dəb̠ar

The Contruct state of masculine plural Nouns:
This also applies to feminine nouns that form the plural in iym
The iym ending is switched to ēy, and then the same rules as the singular noun are apllied.
thus the plural dəb̠oriym "words; things" is dəb̠ə̥rēy.

Construct state of Feminine singular nouns:
Nouns ending in oh have that ending replaced by at̠, and the same rules that apply to masculine singular nouns are applied:
suwsoh "mare"> suwsat̠

The Construct state of Feminine plural nouns will be considered next lesson, along with irregular construct states.

Exercises:
Translate the following into Hebrew:
1. The image of the dog
2. an Image of a man
3. The garments of a woman
4. The dog of the man
5. a dog of a woman
6. the window of the man
7. the words of the woman
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2654
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 03:06

Re: Biblical Hebrew

Post by Shemtov » Sun 13 Nov 2016, 01:28

I'm sorry I haven't posted any new lessons; I will post one in the next week, hopefully. This is not doomed or finished, I was just busy in meatspace.
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
User avatar
Isfendil
greek
greek
Posts: 680
Joined: Fri 19 Feb 2016, 03:47

Re: Biblical Hebrew

Post by Isfendil » Fri 18 Nov 2016, 07:37

Shemtov wrote:I'm sorry I haven't posted any new lessons; I will post one in the next week, hopefully. This is not doomed or finished, I was just busy in meatspace.
Lord do I understand being busy in meatspace now more than ever before...
Post Reply