Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2018 March 14

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 14

Biblical Hebrew questions: geminates

I have two questions regarding geminates in Biblical Hebrew.

The first one is about the name יִשָּׂשכָר: How was the name יששכר originally pronounced? Originally, that is when the consonant text was established, which was more than a thousand years before it was vocalized.

The second question is: Are there any places in the consonant text of the Bible where a double letter (that is two identical consonant letters in a row) in fact indicated a geminate or at least a case where the first letter of the two had a shva nakh? I'm only making this distinction to be extra careful since I know of no language where a double consonant would be articulated twice rather than articulated as a geminate, that is as a long consonant with only one attack and one release. In any case, if gemination was indicated with double letters in some places, that practice would of course be extremely unusual, which would require an explanation, since normally gemination was not indicated in the consonant text, which is why in the vocalized text the gemination had to be indicated with a special sign, the dagesh hazaq.

Thanks. Basemetal 17:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The vocalisation tells you how it was pronounced just before that was added. I don't believe there is any way of knowing how long that particular pronunciation might have been used, or what any earlier pronunciation might have been. Wymspen (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

In Modern Hebrew, additional examples of such words with a double consonant instead of a dagesh are אללה, obviously an Arabic loanword, plus a couple of interjections containing it: ואללה, יאללה --91.135.102.165 (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Basemetal:, Hi, a Hebrew speaker is here.

As for your first question: The oldest testimony is that in the Septuagint: ᾿Ισσάχαρ, so it seems to have been pronounced that way in Biblical Hebrew as well, as it's pronounced also in Modern Hebrew.

As for your second question: Yes, the Hebrew Bible contains few extraordinary words of that kind. See (1) Psalms 9 14 חָנְנֵנִי (with a penultimate accent, meaning: "please have mercy on me"), with gemination indicated by a double letter, as opposed to: ibid. 4 2, 6 3, 31 10, 41 5, 41 11, 51 3, 56 2, 57 2, 86 3, 119 29, 119 58: חָנֵּנִי (pronounced and meaning as above), with gemination indicated by a dagesh. See also: (2) ibid 50 23: יְכַבְּדָנְנִי (again with a penultimate accent, meaning: "will respect me", Third Person, Sing., Masc.), with gemination indicated by a double letter, as opposed to: Genesis 27 19 and ibid. 31: תְּבָרְכַנִּי (again with a penultimate accent, meaning: "will bless me", Third Person, Sing., Fem.), with gemination indicated by a dagesh. See also: (3) Hosea 5 15, and Proverbs 1 28: יְשַׁחֲרֻנְנִי (again with a penultimate accent, meaning: "will look for me", Third Person, Plu.), and (4) ibid. יִקְרָאֻנְנִי (again with a penultimate accent, meaning: "will call me", Third Person, Plu.), and (5) ibid. and ibid. 8 17: יִמְצָאֻנְנִי (again with a penultimate accent, meaning: "will find me", Third Person, Plu.). See also: (6) Song of Songs 7 3: שָׁרְרֵך (with an ultima accent, meaning "your navel", Second Person, Sing., Fem.). 185.46.77.38 (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

185.46.77.38 -- according to some interpretations of the shewa diacritic, such forms would actually be pronounced with a schwa sound [ə] between the two identical consonants. Your approach would seem to predict that בתוככם "In the middle of you (plural)" (7 times in Leviticus etc.) would be pronounced with [k] instead of [x], but according to the pointing, it isn't... AnonMoos (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The vowel following the first "כ" of בתוככם is a schwa sound [ə], indicated by a ħataf pataħ in the best ancient manuscripts (e.g. Aleppo Codex, and Leningrad Codex and likewise). However, חָנְנֵנִי (Psalms 9 14) being morphologically equivalent to חָנֵּנִי (ibid. 4 2, 6 3, 31 10, 41 5, 41 11, 51 3, 56 2, 57 2, 86 3, 119 29, 119 58), as well as the other words I have mentioned above (יְכַבְּדָנְנִי יְשַׁחֲרֻנְנִי יִמְצָאֻנְנִי יִקְרָאֻנְנִי שָׁרְרֵך), undoubtedly have a shewa naħ (as an exception of the rule you've mentioned about a shewa between two consonants). For more details, see Abraham ibn Ezra's interpretation (written 900 centuries ago) on Exodus 1 9, about the word יְכַבְּדָנְנִי (Psalms 50 23) of which the double "n" indicates a geminate, because this word is of the form shared also by תְּבָרְכַנִּי (Genesis 27 19 and ibid. 31) of which the "n" has a dagesh instead of being doubled; He added that the same was true for יְשַׁחֲרֻנְנִי יִמְצָאֻנְנִי. Anyway, all of the authoritative scholars I know hold that the six words I've mentioned have a double letter indicating a geminate, and I will be glad to know about any scholar who thinks the opposite (regarding those six words). 185.46.77.38 (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

185.46.77.38 -- Some or much of what you say may be true, but I still find it suspicious that when ככ or תת come together in circumstances similar to your examples of ננ above, the pronunciation is always "weak" or fricative ([x] or [θ]), but never "strong" or stop ([k] or [t]), though the geminate pronunciation you claim for נ would require such a stop pronunciation if applied to כ or ת. Here's a listing which it's not convenient to convert to Hebrew letters:  ?.brk.k Gen22:17, Ps63:5; w?.brk.k Gen12:2; w?.brk.kh Gen27:7; b:.ht.hl:k.k Pro6:22; b:.twk.km Exo12:49, Eze6:7, Eze47:22, Eze47:22, Gen23:9, Hag2:5, Lev16:29, Lev17:12, Lev18:26, Lev20:14, Lev26:11, Lev26:12, Lev26:25; ?Sr-b:.twk.km Num15:14; b.tk.km Num32:30; b:.tk.km Gen35:2; b:rk.k Deu2:7, Deu12:7, Deu15:6, Deu15:14, Ps45:3; wbrk.k Deu7:13, Deu15:18, Deu28:8, Deu30:16; l?-mwt.tny Jer20:17; mt:wk.k Eze28:18, Isa58:9; mt:wk.km 1Sa7:3; sk.kym Exo25:20, Exo37:9; w.sk.kym 1Ch28:18; t:.brk.k Gen27:4, Gen27:25; t:.hwt.tw Ps62:4; t:.sk.kny Job10:11; twk.k Eze28:16; w?.mt.thw 2Sa1:10; wk.kl 1Ch17:15, 2Sa7:17, Jer42:20; wk.kl-k:xy 1Ch29:2; wk.kl-mS.p:Tyw Num9:3; wk.kl:wt 2Ch7:1, 2Ch29:29, 2Ch31:1, Dan12:7, Ezr9:1; wk.kl:wtm 2Ch20:23, 2Ch24:14; wk.kr.ml Jer46:18; wk.kxy Jos14:11; wmt.tny 2Sa1:9; wmwt.tny Jud9:54; wy.mt.thw 1Sa17:51; y.brk.k Deu14:24, Deu14:29, Deu15:4, Deu15:10, Deu16:10, Deu16:15, Deu23:21, Deu24:19, Gen27:10, Jer31:23, Num6:24, Ps128:5, Ps134:3, Rut2:4; w.ky-y.brk.k 2Kg4:29 -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Why only "Some or much of what" I say may be true, and not all of it? Please notice that I was talking about facts only: Its a fact, that the first "כ" of בתוככם is indicated by a ħataf pataħ in the best ancient manuscripts (e.g. Aleppo Codex, and Leningrad Codex and likewise). It's a fact that the "shewa naʕ" was pronounced like ħataf pataħ by the people who wrote those manuscripts mentioned above, and so forth.

As for your suspicion: You don't have to be that suspicious. Surprisingly, you seem to consider the grammar while disregarding its historical background. Historically speaking, please notice that stops became fricatives after a vowel, but not vice versa, i.e. if a vowel followed by a fricative - disappeared in a later period, that fricative didn't become a stop!! For example, let's examine one of your examples: וככלותם. In the beginning, e.g. in Pre-Biblical Hebrew (and actually even later), it was pronounced /wakakallo:ta:m/. Some centuries later, every stop following a vowel became a fricative, so /wakakallo:ta:m/ became /waxaxallo:θa:m/. Some centuries later, every short vowel - not followed by two consecutive consonants (nor by a consonant ending the word) - disappeared, so /waxaxallo:θa:m/ became /wxxallo:θa:m/ - pronounced like /uxxallo:θa:m/. This stage became the final one, with all fricatives remaining fricatives, because - as I've already pointed out - Hebrew never lets its fricatives become stops, even though it had let some of its stops become fricatives. 185.27.105.135 (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

185.27.105.135 -- Your [xx] (or [xː]) hypothesis is ingenious, but it assumes that Biblical Hebrew was still a living, normally evolving language after 500 AD. I strongly doubt that the masoretes intended any pointing to indicate a geminate fricative... AnonMoos (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not my theory. It's the accepted theory among linguists, about the history of Hebrew. /wakakallo:ta:m/ (in Pre-Biblical Hebrew) became /waxaxallo:θa:m/, that became /wxxallo:θa:m/ - pronounced like /uxxallo:θa:m/. That's how people pronounced this word at the final stage, whether in their living language, or (if it had already been a dead language then) in religious spirituals when they were reading the Bible in their synagogues. As for your comment about the masoretes: In my view, they have nothing to do with our issue. I'm not talking about their intention, but rather - about how the word וככלותם was pronounced at the final stage - and about why the כ in that word remained a fricative despite its pronunciation with a geminate. 185.46.78.31 (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

(This is a question addressed to IP 185.46.77.38, not a reaction to AnonMoos's contribution just above; it came chronologically right after and is a reaction to IP 185.46.77.38's contribution; it only looks like I'm responding to AnonMoos because AnonMoos changed the sequence) Why, isn't then יִשָּׂשכָר also an example where a double consonant indicates a geminate consonant? Why didn't you include it too in the examples in response to my second question? Incidentally, why would you say the Masoretic text vocalizes the way it does instead of using a shva nah: יִשְׂשָׂכָר (which is what it does in all other examples)? The example שָׁרְרֵך is particularly interesting (in that case obviously it was impossible to vocalize any other way since resh does not take a dagesh hazaq) because a geminate resh is impossible in the Masoretic dialect. Yet here you're saying that it is a geminate resh? The shva is a shva nah and the qamats is a qamats qatan, correct? If so this must be a unique example of a geminate resh in the Masoretic text? Incidentally, that seems to show that a geminate resh was allowed in Hebrew at the time the consonant text was established. How about geminate ayin, het, heh? More generally one should note there are two questions here which should not be confused, namely, one, whether a double letter represented a geminate at the time the consonant text was established and, two, whether it still does in the Masoretic text. Finally when did the shva na (the vocalic shva ə) appear in Hebrew? Was it already part of the phonology of Hebrew when the consonant text was established? Thanks. Basemetal 10:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Basemetal -- I think my answer had an edit conflict with yours (though the software didn't alert me to it). Anyway, in the normal pointing of the name Issachar, the second letter ש has no masoretic diacritics at all, which means that it's a kind of dead letter which has no influence at all on the word's pronunciation, as far as the masoretic orthography is concerned. AnonMoos (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm asking: why did they treat it this way when they could have treated it the other way. Didn't you notice the dagesh hazaq in יִשָּׂשכָר. The vocalization יִשְׂשָׂכָר would be exactly equivalent and my question is why did they choose to vocalize this way when they could have done it the other way (which is what they do in all other instances). Btw, I changed the sequence of our previous contributions to correspond to what is shown in the history. (Mine comes before yours in the history). Basemetal 11:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Two consonant letters side-by-side is really not an ordinary or normal way of writing a geminate in Biblical Hebrew, which is why myself and 185.46.77.38 are arguing back and forth over a few rather obscure and difficult forms which occur very sporadically in the Bible. My answer was chronologically after yours, but I think it needs to occur before yours to have clear threading, since my message of "11:01, 16 March 2018" is very closely tied to 185.46.77.38's message of "22:53, 15 March 2018", while your message of "10:52, 16 March 2018" is more free-floating (a response to the conversation in general)... AnonMoos (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

At least you have admit that all data (Septuagint, Masoretic text) point (no pun intended) to יששכר being precisely a case where two consonant letters side by side is indeed meant to indicate a geminate, unless you think that the second s(h)in is nothing but a typo in the consonant text. That this is not the normal way to write a geminate is indeed very true but I never questioned that (in fact I wrote from the start "that practice would of course be extremely unusual") and neither did the IP contributor ("[a] few extraordinary words of that kind"). But obviously, when something is so true, it bears repeating. The fact that it is so unusual was precisely the whole point of my query. Basemetal 12:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

As for your questions:

1. A geminate ayin/ħet/heh is impossible in Hebrew. However, Biblical Hebrew does have (very rare) instances of a geminate aleph as well as a geminate resh. Here are two typical examples: Job 33 21: רֻאּוּ (read: /ruʔʔu:/ with an ultima accent, root r.ʔ.y, Binyan Puʕal, Past tense, Third Person, Plu.), Song of Songs 5 2: שֶׁרֹּאשִׁי (read /ʃerro:ʃi:/, i.e, "that my head").

2. Yes, the word שָׁרְרֵך is pronounced /ʃorre:x/ (with an ultima accent).

3. Yes, the spelling יששכר had originally been intended to point at the pronunciation /yissaxar/. However, since it was decided that gemination could no longer be indicated by a double letter, a dagesh was added to the first ש, the other ש remaining redundant. It was not deleted though, just as we don't delete the "d" of the English word "add", nor the "b" of "lamb", nor the "k" of "knee", nor the "s" of "island", nor the "t" of "castle", and the like. Hope this helps. 185.27.105.135 (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I would assume the main reason that s(h)in was not deleted was not because of a concern for etymological spelling or inertia (as in English) but because the consonant text was sacred. It was a given. You just didn't mess with it. For example in the Biblical text Jerusalem is spelled ירושלם (without the yud between lamed and mem sofit) but in Masoretic times the pronunciation was ירושלַיִם. Nevertheless the Masoretes never allowed themselves to insert a yud and instead invented a special way to indicate that pronunciation by inserting a special patah + hiriq between the lamed and the mem sofit. I believe this is the only word that takes that combination? Now the patah gnuva is something analogous, isn't it? That is רוח 'wind' for example was by Masoretic times pronounced רואַח but, again, the Masoretes could not allow themselves to mess with the sacred consonant text and so invented the device of the patah gnuva. All this to argue that possibly the main reason why consonants were never dropped (or added) was the sacredness of the consonant text. Basemetal 16:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

(1) Yes, ירושלם is the only word that takes that combination of pataħ + ħiriq, provided that we disregard some forms of Qere and ketiv - having similar combinations (when a letter is missing in the Qere form), and please notice that also the way ירושלם is spelled can be considered to be a sort of Qere form. (2) Yes, the pataħ gnuva is something analogous. (3) Yes, the main reason why consonants were never dropped (or added) was the sacredness of the consonant text. 185.46.78.31 (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Basemetal and/or 185.27.105.135 (this is not necessarily in reply to one specific message above) -- I don't know that שש in the spelling of Issachar was originally intended to write a geminate consonant when the spelling was established or "fixed" (decided on in way which would not be altered in the future), somewhere in the 500 BC to 1000 BC period; the name might have originally had a different pronunciation to which the שש spelling was suitable. I also doubt whether the masoretes developed any theory of what שש meant when they operated after 500 A.D. -- for them the matter was simple: the consonantal text as it had been handed down to them was sacred and unalterable, so they fitted the diacritics of the pronunciation they preferred to the inviolable letters of the consonantal text as best they could. There are a whole list of strategies which they used in such cases, as you can read at Qere and Ketiv; in the particular case of Issachar, the simplest strategy was to make one of the ש letters into a "dead" letter, without any influence on the word's pronunciation in masoretic recitation... AnonMoos (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. The name Issachar with "dead" letter ש is technically a "Q're perpetuum" in the text of the Bible, since it's not usually accompanied by a marginal note. AnonMoos (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a matter of dispute whether יששכר was originally pronounced /jissa'xa:r/ when it was first spelled. If it was originally pronounced /jissa'xa:r/ (i.e. as it was pronounced also by the masoretes), then the way it was spelled indicated a geminate /s/.

As for what you've claimed about the masoretes: That's exactly what I'd claimed. 185.46.78.31 (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Biblical Hebrew question: roots with identical first and second radical (פ = ע)?

While there are roots in Hebrew (and Arabic) where ע = ל I've never encountered a Hebrew word of Semitic origin with פ = ע. (There is for example שושן, שושנה but I doubt these are originally Semitic words). Do such roots exist in Hebrew? How about in other Semitic languages? Thanks. Basemetal 18:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Roots with consonant 2 the same as consonant 3 are often called "Double Ayin" roots in English. A root with consonant 1 the same as consonant 2 could be called a "Double Pe" root by analogy, but it is not a common or usual Semitic root pattern, and it's not clear to me how such a root would even be inflected as a verb at all in Biblical Hebrew (the requirements on nouns and adjectives are less rigorous). A place name is בבל, but of course that's not a "Double Pe" root in the original source language from which it's borrowed... AnonMoos (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Right, as far as I know בבל comes from באב אל ('El's gate' or 'God's gate'). Biblical writers may not have recognized that etymology (does באב 'gate' even have a reflex in Hebrew?) because if I remember correctly they connected it to the 4 consonant root בלבל (the story of mixing up the languages, etc.) but maybe I'm misremembering the Biblical text here. In any case a 4 consonant root בלבל would have to be connected to a "Double Ayin" root בלל (cf. גלגל and גלל) but I don't believe the root בלל occurs as such in Hebrew. "Double ayin" roots are often themselves connected to "Ayin yud" and "Ayin vav" roots, but that's a story for another day... Basemetal 19:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Basemetal -- In Biblical Hebrew, and presumably all or almost all older Semitic languages, a verb always has to be analyzed into root consonants, or you can't even begin to inflect it. However, the same is not really true of nouns -- there have always been some nouns in Semitic languages with unclear root status (or if a consonantal root has come to exist, it was derived from the noun at a relatively late stage of the language), such as אב, יד etc., and speakers of a language didn't necessarily try to make a root analysis of proper names taken from foreign languages. For verbs, having an analysis into root consonants is absolutely necessary to even begin using the word, but for other parts of speech, a root analysis shows relationships between words, but is not necessarily essential to deriving inflected forms (with some limited partial exceptions for Arabic broken plurals, etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Basemetal 23:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Brown–Driver–Briggs has two possible candidates, as far as I can see: דדה (Strongs H1718) and שׁשׁא (Strongs H8338). Both are very rare roots however, and BDB notes that שׁשׁא might derive from a root שׁאא. There are cognates of דדה in Aramaic and Arabic, so it might well have a Semitic origin. Both roots are also listed in Holladay's CHALOT, but that has no etymological information. - Lindert (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Basemetal:, Hi, a Hebrew speaker is here. Yep ! See Isaiah 15 5: יְעֹעֵרוּ. Hope this helps. 185.46.77.38 (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

What is the meaning of those roots? I've just remembered another word that might be a candidate, maybe with better Semitic credentials: ששון (meaning 'joy') Basemetal 19:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Oops. I've just noticed the links to Strong's and could check the meanings myself. Thanks. Basemetal 19:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

So this is a form from a root עער? (Whew, achieving a historically correct indentation is getting harder and harder...) Basemetal 11:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

While there: what about ממון and ממש? They don't look like loanwords to me. --91.135.102.165 (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Do Arabic باب, Aramaic בבא 'gate' (Aramaic also 'chapter') have a cognate in Hebrew? Basemetal 23:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

PS: Does Aramaic בבא mean 'gate' or 'the gate'? If the former then what is the form with the definite article? Basemetal<n/span> 23:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

As for your first question: No. As for your second question: The addition of the suffix א in Biblical Aramaic, is not intended to make the distinction between "an X" and "the X" (Pre-Biblical Aramaic did use the suffix א for that distinction though, so "a gate" was probably בב). 185.46.77.38 (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Basemetal, I don't know about Aramaic בבא because the only form of Aramaic that I know about in detail, or have reference works available for, is Biblical Aramaic, and that word doesn't occur in the Bible.

185.46.77.38 -- It's not correct that Biblical Aramaic doesn't distinguish definiteness. Rather, the Aramaic definite article was a suffix (while the Hebrew definite article is of course a prefix). In Biblical Aramaic, the article usually takes the form of a letter א at the end of a word, and in fact the easiest way to tell apart the small Aramaic-language parts of the Bible from the Hebrew-language parts is the high number of words ending in א. This is sometimes called the "emphatic" in traditional grammar, but its meaning is basically the same as the definite article. However, I couldn't say with certainty whether בבא is definite, because that word doesn't occur in the Bible. AnonMoos (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Your claim is true for Pre-Biblical Aramaic, as I have already pointed out in my previous post. In Biblical Aramaic, though, the suffix א - which indeed originated from Pre-Biblical Aramaic, couldn't be a sign of definiteness, because Biblical Aramaic used that suffix for indefiniteness as well. For example, see Daniel 6 3: "above them, [there are] three ministers who...give them advice...", and so forth. 185.46.77.38 (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

185.46.77.38 -- I really don't know what you think is the function of the definite (or "determinate" or "emphatic" if you prefer) suffix in Biblical Aramaic is at all, or why so many Biblical Aramaic words end in א?? -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out, the suffix א originated from Pre-Biblical Aramaic, in which this suffix did indicate definiteness. However, in Biblical Aramaic, the function of this suffix changed a bit. If one wanted to indicate definiteness, one added that suffix. If one wanted to indicate a semikhut, one couldn't add this suffix (to the first word). 185.27.105.135 (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I did have the feeling a noun in smikhut would be different and not add א but I hesitated to assume that exception since I don't really know Aramaic. In other other words you (IP 185.46.77.38) are saying my statement must be corrected to "all nouns not in smikhut take the א form"? And you (again IP 185.46.77.38) are saying that in Biblical Aramaic the function of the א suffix is to distinguish words in smikhut from words not in smikhut? Correct? So you can say either דִּינָא דְּמַלְכוּתָא or דִּין מַלְכוּתָא? (This is post-Biblical but ok). Basemetal 16:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

In Biblical Aramaic, all nouns not in smikhut can take the א form, and they must take the א form if they would take the definite article in English. Let's put it this way:

"the king" = /malka/ (Both in Biblical Aramaic and in Pre-Biblical Aramaic).

"a king" = /melex/ or /malka/ (The second form is only possible in Biblical Aramaic, yet not in Pre-Biblical Aramaic).

"the king of the kings" = /melex malxajja:/ (In a semikhut form, in both Biblical Aramaic and Pre-Biblical Aramaic).

"the king of kings" = /melex malxin/ or /melex malxajja:/ (Both are in a semikhut form, but the second form is only possible in Biblical Aramaic - yet not in Pre-Biblical Aramaic).

"a king of the kings" = /melex de-malxajja:/ or /malka de-malxajja:/ (The second form is only possible in Biblical Aramaic, yet not in Pre-Biblical Aramaic).

"a king of kings" = /melex malxin/ or /melex de-malxin/ or /malka de-malxin/ or /malka de-malxajja:/ (The first form being a semikhut form. The second pair of forms is only possible in Biblical Aramaic, yet not in Pre-Biblical Aramaic).

185.46.78.31 (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

So in other words, if I understand what you're saying, in Biblical Aramaic all nouns have the א form, whether they are definite and not definite? Is this the same in post-Biblical Aramaic (at least Jewish Aramaic)? I know almost no Aramaic but I kind of guess that חַד גַדְיָא must mean "one goat kid", i.e. be indefinite, while בָּבָא מְצִיעָא must mean "the middle gate", i.e. be definite. In some cases the א form can apparently be ambiguous for definiteness, e.g. דִּינָא דְּמַלְכוּתָא דִּינָא, could be "a kingdom" or "the kingdom"? Basemetal 11:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Basemetal -- it's definitely not the case that all noun forms in Biblical Aramaic end in א. The anonymous IP seems to be claiming that the Biblical Aramaic א suffix has no purpose or meaning, but I'm rather skeptical of that. AnonMoos (talk)

Ok. I'll let you guys sort it out. As I said I can only watch and learn as I have not studied Aramaic and my Hebrew Bible is "somewhere around here" but not really within reach. When I get to it I'll try to check the statements you guys are making and try to understand what you guys are saying. Incidentally I again changed to order of our contibutions to correspond to the historical sequence. Since the indentation is identical it is clear you're responding above to the anonymous contributor and not to me, but that preserves the sequence of contributions for clarity, or such clarity as can be achieved with this primitive system of threading. Basemetal 11:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your strictly rigidly inflexible chronological order obfuscates the threading, and gives a very clear impression that I replied to myself, which did NOT happen! Sometimes chronology has to bend slightly in the service of clarity of threading. AnonMoos (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Well the proper solution would have been to insert your answer to me right after my contribution with a deeper indentation, like so:

(IPer) Your claim is true for pre-Biblical Aramaic...

(Basemetal's response to IPer) So in other words, if I understand what you're saying...

(AnonMoos's response to Basemetal's response to IPer) It's definitely not the case that all noun forms...

(AnonMoos's response to IPer) I really don't know what you think is the function...

This would have made it very clear you were not responding to yourself. Historical sequencing should apply within levels, not across levels. But ok, I didn't change it back, as it doesn't really matter much, and I don't want to get into an argument. Like I said the system is already so primitive that it is hopeless to try and achieve perfect consistency. But that's what I would have done. Basemetal 11:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the convention you mention, and use it only infrequently. In any case, it's mainly for someone who was not part of the original conversation replying to one specific message in it at a later date -- it's NOT particularly appropriate for marking that one message by an active participant is a mere six minutes later than another message by another active participant (11:09 vs. 11:15) when neither message depends on the other one... AnonMoos (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)