Talk:Modern Hebrew grammar
 | Modern Hebrew grammar is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
your recent rv; and a more general subject: Piel Verbs
editI don't think I've seen a construction like "Hatkhil ata" ever used in Biblical/classical Hebrew, but I believe you that it's used.
About piel verbs such as "diber" I half-concede your point. You're right that words like diber or izen don't have direct objects. On the other hand, they do have implicit objects--one is speaking or listening to something. You cannot be m'daber to the empty air. I believe that this is, in fact, related to the relative "strength" of pi'el verbs. Still, I'll accept that that is too vague to put in a short aside.
More generally about pi'el verbs, and po'el omed vs. po'el yotzei: I think that something should be added about the "pa'al/pi'el/hitpa'el triangle". The details can be phrased differently, but the point that pi'el often takes the place of hif'il should be mentioned. --Judah
Gerund for nif'al
editThe nif'al binyan does have a gerund (שם פעולה--shem pe'ulah). For example:
נִכְנַע = surrender הִכָּנְעוּת = surrendering
נִשְׁאַר = remain הִשָּׁאֲרוּת = remaining
נֶאֱכַל = be eaten הֵאָכְלוּת = being eaten
Sentences without verbs
editI have removed: "(A more English-like ordering, [ze mu'zaʁ ʃe-hu a'maʁ kaχa], literally "it strange that-he said thus", is also possible.)", which is made redundant by changes I have made. I have corrected examples which did not represent well-structured Hebrew sentences. RCSB
Broken plurals?
editQuote: Some forms, like אחות ← אחיות (sister) or חמות ← חמיות (mother-in-law) reflect the historical broken plurals of Proto-Semitic, which have been preserved in other Semitic languages (most notably Arabic).
--> Could someone capable check this please?! These forms don't look like Arabic broken plurals at all, but rather like Arabic regular plurals: Those Arabic words ending in -ât take the regular ("sound") plural -ayât, e.g. fatât -> fatayât ("girl[s]"). The Hebrew akhôt -> akhayôt seems to be exactly the same pattern, since Arabic â = Hebrew ô. So I'm positive that these forms have nothing to do with Arabic broken plurals!
Personal pronouns
editI expected a section on personal pronouns here, either inside "nouns" or next to it. -- pne (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)