Verb roots in Hebrew?
Z
infinitives, the ten most used in English (from lemmatised British
National corpus). It's to practice Declining them.
to be
to have
to do
to say
to go
to get
to make
to see
to know
to take
I understand there is no Hebrew equivalent of to have or that it is not
regular.
--
Z
Remove Zeds in e-mail address to reply.
Henry Churchyard
Z <po...@imaZZZZris.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I am looking for the nearest Hebrew roots of the following ten verb
> infinitives, the ten most used in English (from lemmatised British
> National corpus). It's to practice Declining them.
Well, here goes -- but you should understand that an abstract
consonantal root doesn't really have meaning in itself (but only as
it's embedded in a particular conjugation or _binyan_). Also, many of
these common verbs have "weak" consonants, and so have more difficult
conjugational patterns (or, as in the case of H-L-K and L-Q-H., these
verbs show "weak" conjugational patterns even though they don't have
weak consonants).
> to be : H-Y-H
> to have - no common Hebrew finite-inflected verb which corresponds
to the English auxiliary or possession meanings of English "have".
> to do : `-S'-H (`ayin-sin-he). However, there is nothing
corresponding to English auxiliary "do".
> to say : '-M-R
> to go : if you had to pick one root, it would be H-L-K (which
carries connotations of walking on foot, however). Biblical Hebrew
has specific roots for to walk, to ride, to travel, to go in, to go
out, to go up, to go down, to cross (i.e. go over), but not really one
vague cover-word meaning "to go" in general.
> to get : in sense "to obtain", R-K-Sh perhaps. In sense "to become"
or "to undergo", many different constructions would be used in
translation.
> to make : `-S'-H (`ayin-sin-he) as stand-alone verb. As English
causativizer, would not be translated as a separate word.
> to see : R-'-H
> to know : Y-D-` (actually W-D-` , but listed under yodh in
dictionaries).
> to take : L-Q-H.
--%!PS
10 10 scale/M{rmoveto}def/R{rlineto}def 12 45 moveto 0 5 R 4 -1 M 5.5 0 R
currentpoint 3 sub 3 90 0 arcn 0 -6 R 7.54 10.28 M 2.7067 -9.28 R -5.6333
2 setlinewidth 0 R 9.8867 8 M 7 0 R 0 -9 R -6 4 M 0 -4 R stroke showpage
% Henry Churchyard chu...@crossmyt.com http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/
Peter T. Daniels
>
> I am looking for the nearest Hebrew roots of the following ten verb
> infinitives, the ten most used in English (from lemmatised British
> National corpus). It's to practice Declining them.
Verbs are conjugated, nouns are declined.
Highly recommended: *501 Hebrew Verbs Fully Conjugated in All the
Tenses* by Shmuel Bolozky (not to be confused with the earlier *201
Hebrew Verbs ...*), which treats the modern, not the biblical, language
and includes far more information than the typical volume in the 201/501
Verbs series published in the US by Barron's.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
mike
@worldnet.att.net:
conjugation is just a conceit upon the notion that verbs have something to
do with time. declension is perfect for the act, since the names are placed
rather than adjusted.
Harlan Messinger
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3D6F05...@worldnet.att.net...
> Z wrote:
> >
> > I am looking for the nearest Hebrew roots of the following ten verb
> > infinitives, the ten most used in English (from lemmatised British
> > National corpus). It's to practice Declining them.
>
> Verbs are conjugated, nouns are declined.
Come to think of it, why is that? The general idea is the same; I wonder why
two different words came to be used to describe inflection paradigms for
nouns and for verbs.
Harlan Messinger
"mike" <orang...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9279C9750A14D...@66.75.162.196...
Would you care to explain why this isn't a self-contained non-sequitur?
Wherein lies the "conceit"? Where in the word "conjugation" is there any
implicit reference to time?
> declension is perfect for the act, since the names are placed
> rather than adjusted.
If you had said, "since the names are knitted rather than sewn", would your
sentence have been any less meaningful?
Avi Jacobson
"Henry Churchyard" <chu...@crossmyt.com> wrote in message
news:akmm2q$o...@moe.cc.utexas.edu...
> > to get : in sense "to obtain", R-K-Sh perhaps.
or Q-B-L, typically used in the pi`el conjugation.
Z
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>Z wrote:
>>
>> I am looking for the nearest Hebrew roots of the following ten verb
>> infinitives, the ten most used in English (from lemmatised British
>> National corpus). It's to practice Declining them.
>
>Verbs are conjugated, nouns are declined.
Thanks. I couldn't remember the word.
I'm not a linguist just amateur learner so am not familiar with the
linguistic terminology. Maybe my posting the words 'roots',
'infinitives' and 'lemmatised' gives the wrong impression.
>
>Highly recommended: *501 Hebrew Verbs Fully Conjugated in All the
>Tenses* by Shmuel Bolozky (not to be confused with the earlier *201
>Hebrew Verbs ...*), which treats the modern, not the biblical, language
>and includes far more information than the typical volume in the 201/501
>Verbs series published in the US by Barron's.
That's the book I have and will be working from. I haven't successfully
used it yet for the following reasons. The body of the book seems quite
good but I find the index is not what it could be and makes it difficult
to look up. For instance I was looking for 'to be' and half the entries
start 'to be' so it was starting to look like alphabet soup. Also the
lack of the English infinitives at the head of the roots and index does
not make it easy to browse the book.
I'd rather not go into the roots level just now and just want to start
at present tense infinitives (I am, you are, he is, she is, it is we are
they are for (a bad) example) and start learning to conjugate at that
level. However that is how the book is constructed.
When I was learning Polish I used the "501 Polish Verbs ..." book which
was easy to look up and was a lot less hefty. It was all neatly
tabulated though in small print. I don't know enough of Hebrew to know
if that construction is possible with Hebrew.
Z
<chu...@crossmyt.com> writes
>In article <BVCB9nBx...@imaris.demon.co.uk>,
>Z <po...@imaZZZZris.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I am looking for the nearest Hebrew roots of the following ten verb
>> infinitives, the ten most used in English (from lemmatised British
>> National corpus). It's to practice Declining them.
>
>Well, here goes -- but you should understand that an abstract
>consonantal root doesn't really have meaning in itself (but only as
>it's embedded in a particular conjugation or _binyan_).
You've lost me there.
> Also, many of
>these common verbs have "weak" consonants, and so have more difficult
>conjugational patterns (or, as in the case of H-L-K and L-Q-H., these
>verbs show "weak" conjugational patterns even though they don't have
>weak consonants).
I think I understand that.
>
>> to be : H-Y-H
>
>> to have - no common Hebrew finite-inflected verb which corresponds
>to the English auxiliary or possession meanings of English "have".
>
>> to do : `-S'-H (`ayin-sin-he). However, there is nothing
>corresponding to English auxiliary "do".
>
>> to say : '-M-R
This is going to be a hard slog then. The most used three infinitives in
English have no Hebrew equivalent!
>
>> to go : if you had to pick one root, it would be H-L-K (which
>carries connotations of walking on foot, however).
I found the same when I was learning Polish and saying "Ja Jechac do
<somewhere a couple of hundred miles>" provided amusement for the native
speakers. :-)
>Biblical Hebrew
>has specific roots for to walk, to ride, to travel, to go in, to go
>out, to go up, to go down, to cross (i.e. go over), but not really one
>vague cover-word meaning "to go" in general.
>
>> to get : in sense "to obtain", R-K-Sh perhaps. In sense "to become"
>or "to undergo", many different constructions would be used in
>translation.
>
>> to make : `-S'-H (`ayin-sin-he) as stand-alone verb. As English
>causativizer, would not be translated as a separate word.
>
>> to see : R-'-H
>
>> to know : Y-D-` (actually W-D-` , but listed under yodh in
>dictionaries).
>
>> to take : L-Q-H.
>
>
Thanks.
>--%!PS
>10 10 scale/M{rmoveto}def/R{rlineto}def 12 45 moveto 0 5 R 4 -1 M 5.5 0 R
>currentpoint 3 sub 3 90 0 arcn 0 -6 R 7.54 10.28 M 2.7067 -9.28 R -5.6333
>2 setlinewidth 0 R 9.8867 8 M 7 0 R 0 -9 R -6 4 M 0 -4 R stroke showpage
> % Henry Churchyard chu...@crossmyt.com http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/
Keith G
Messinger" <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3D6F05...@worldnet.att.net...
>>
> > Verbs are conjugated, nouns are declined.
>
> Come to think of it, why is that? The general idea is the same; I wonder
> why
> two different words came to be used to describe inflection paradigms for
> nouns and for verbs.
I've always imagined it was because a conjugated verb is linked (=yoked,
like the Latin JUGUM) to a specific person/gender/number (take your pick
depending on the language). Declension I think stems from the view of
classic grammarians that oblique forms "fall away" from the purity (or
whatever) of the NOM or citation form. I read something about this a
while ago, but it was pretty damn fuzzy then, and even more so now.
Regards,
Keith
Peter T. Daniels
Why are cases called "cases"? The etymological notion is 'falling', to
which "decline" pertains.
Henry Churchyard
Z <po...@imaZZZZris.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <akmm2q$o...@moe.cc.utexas.edu>, Henry Churchyard
><chu...@crossmyt.com> writes
>>In article <BVCB9nBx...@imaris.demon.co.uk>,
>>Z <po...@imaZZZZris.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I am looking for the nearest Hebrew roots of the following ten
>>> verb infinitives, the ten most used in English
>>> to have
>> no common Hebrew finite-inflected verb which corresponds to the
>> English auxiliary or possession meanings of English "have".
> This is going to be a hard slog then. The most used three [verbs] in
> English have no Hebrew equivalent!
Hebrew is just not big on non-modal auxiliaries; English does things
like "He will have been being treated", but Hebrew tends not to
(modern Hebrew pretty much only has the _hu haya kotev_ construction,
while Biblical Hebrew doesn't even have that as a regular verb tense).
Therefore "to be" as passive auxiliary, "to be" as progressive
auxiliary, "have" as perfect auxiliary, "do" as emphatic auxiliary,
"do" as empty negative/interrogative verb, "go" as futurizer, "make"
as causativizer, "get" as middle voice (or whatever you want to call
it) -- none of these will usually be translated into Hebrew as
separate finite-inflected verbs. When this is combined with the fact
that possession is not normally expressed verbally, this means that
most of the English-language uses of the words "have" and "got" (which
make them frequent) aren't translated as separate verbs in Hebrew.
--
Harlan Messinger
Ah! "Casus" is the participle of Latin "cadere". I didn't know that
before.
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> In article <nlmIxyBj...@imaris.demon.co.uk>,
> Z <po...@imaZZZZris.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <akmm2q$o...@moe.cc.utexas.edu>, Henry Churchyard
> ><chu...@crossmyt.com> writes
> >>In article <BVCB9nBx...@imaris.demon.co.uk>,
> >>Z <po...@imaZZZZris.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>> I am looking for the nearest Hebrew roots of the following ten
> >>> verb infinitives, the ten most used in English
>
> >>> to have
>
> >> no common Hebrew finite-inflected verb which corresponds to the
> >> English auxiliary or possession meanings of English "have".
>
> > This is going to be a hard slog then. The most used three [verbs] in
> > English have no Hebrew equivalent!
>
> Hebrew is just not big on non-modal auxiliaries; English does things
> like "He will have been being treated", but Hebrew tends not to
> (modern Hebrew pretty much only has the _hu haya kotev_ construction,
> while Biblical Hebrew doesn't even have that as a regular verb tense).
Syriac is so nice!
> Therefore "to be" as passive auxiliary, "to be" as progressive
> auxiliary, "have" as perfect auxiliary, "do" as emphatic auxiliary,
> "do" as empty negative/interrogative verb, "go" as futurizer, "make"
> as causativizer, "get" as middle voice (or whatever you want to call
> it) -- none of these will usually be translated into Hebrew as
> separate finite-inflected verbs. When this is combined with the fact
> that possession is not normally expressed verbally, this means that
> most of the English-language uses of the words "have" and "got" (which
> make them frequent) aren't translated as separate verbs in Hebrew.
>
> --
> Henry Churchyard chu...@crossmyt.com http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Rich Alderson
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Why are cases called "cases"? The etymological notion is 'falling', to which
>> "decline" pertains.
> Ah! "Casus" is the participle of Latin "cadere". I didn't know that before.
And the Latin terms are loan-translations from the Greek grammarians of Alexan-
dria.
--
Rich Alderson alders...@panix.com
"You get what anybody gets. You get a lifetime." --Death, of the Endless