Unable to save comment (key failed)
I do not understand it either. Every Shabbos we read Vehukechoson yotzey mechuposom, which son-in law emerges from a chuppah, obviously Tanach referred to a choson as a bridegroom
While I appreciate the presentation of the strict Biblical distinction between these two sets of parallel terms, I think that their subsequent development has been unnecessarily downplayed here.
1] לשון חכמים
You note that "Even in the time of the Talmud, there were cases where the distinction was blurred". This implies that the distinction was basically maintained, with occasional exceptions.
However, in actuality, לשון חכמים demonstrates *normative* use of the חם and חמות forms for both sides of the family. The forms חותן and חותנת rarely appear in Chazal sources, aside from direct quotes and discussions of relevant Biblical verses. Instead, the terms חם and חמות replace them, as universal in-law terms. Thus, throughout tosefta, mishna, talmudim, and early midrashim, one can find hundreds of instances of both "חמיה" and "חמיו", as well as "חמותה" and "חמותו".
2] Medieval use
In the post-chazal era, the paytanim and later midrashim largely adopted chazal's stance, using the חם and חמות forms almost exclusively (again, with the notable exception of quotations of Biblical verses).
3] Modern use
I am therefore hesitant to accept your formulation that "in proper Hebrew, there are different terms the husband's parents and the wife's parents". Certainly, in Biblical Hebrew, this distinction is adhered to 100%. But as a general rule, today's Hebrew bears the very strong influence of the subsequent development of the language within לשון חכמים. [For instance, take the famous example of the mishnaic term להתרים, which was decried by all of the 18th and 19th century Biblical language purists - since the root תרם does not exist in Biblical language; rather, the Biblical term would be להרים תרומה, where the ת in תרומה is no more than a grammatical prefix. Yet, in our language, we have maintained the 'newfangled' chazali root of תרם as an upstanding member of the language. Biblical purism is no longer in fashion.]
Therefore, I am inclined to think that the use of חם and חמות to refer to the wife's parents would also be considered "proper hebrew", inasmuch as it is a direct continuation of the medieval norm.
On the other hand, the terms חותן and חותנתי do not have a historial precendent for their reversal, since they are mostly absent from the m
[My previous comment got cut off; a length restriction? (Is this a hint?) In any case, here is that last paragraph:]
On the other hand, the terms חותן and חותנתי do not have a historial precendent for their reversal, since they are mostly absent from the medieval scene, and therefore it would theoretically be tenable to preclude their use for the husband's parents in modern Hebrew.
Thank you for the interesting comments. I was unaware of the historical development of the terms.
I guess what I meant by "proper Hebrew" was how an Israeli who prided himself on using proper Hebrew (for whatever's that worth) would say, or possibly correct you.
Dear David,
Certainly, there are those who pedantically correct others on language use, but, as is often the case with pedants, such corrections are often grounded in a very narrow outlook which does not take account of all of the relevant factors.
Now, it is not easy to precisely determine the "current" or "accepted" use of a term, but the "proper" use, which indicates a prescriptive outlook, is generally well-defined by the Academy of the Hebrew Language.
Just to be sure, I went to the Academy's מילון מונחים just now (free on their website) and checked the relevant terms in their מילון למונחי המשפחה. I was gratified to find ratification of my conclusions from my post last night. That is, חם and חמות are defined as generic terms which can be used for either side of the family, while חותן and חותנת are specifically to be used for the wife's parents.
Certain pedants may continue to insist on the Biblical distinction in everyday parlance, but they are being "Biblical", not "proper".
- Avi
I strongly agree with you about those who lock down language into a particular time, as if it doesn't evolve. Maybe I'm just a little more timid in Hebrew, because it's not my native language.
I took a look on Google, and found a large number of references to חותנה and חותנתה - but they all look pretty modern. I don't have access to the Bar-Ilan or other similar software to see if it has more ancient precedent.
"So the joke about שפך חמתך (shfoch chamat'cha) being an excuse to throw your mother-in-law out of the house during the seder doesn't work."
:-D :-D :-D Which isn't going to stop me using it to entertain my family this coming Pesach...
Commenting by HaloScan
