I was just talking about this with my son on the way to school yesterday and we couldn't think of other examples.
The ones you list are all used in the Hiph`il, right? Are there any other than תרם that form a verb in the Qal?
According to Klein both תנב and תרע have Qal forms, but I admit they're not used too often in modern Hebrew.
An empty, noncommittal, evasive, term like "grammatical prefix" belongs in languages where the meaning of such additions to words is lost, but not in Hebrew where every letter is meaningful. The letter ת of תרומה is a contracted form of the pronoun את or אתה referring to the thing (the donation)itself and turning (העצמה) thereby the root רום into the (שם עצם) noun תרומה=את-רום-היא. Only the pronouns הוא, היא (interchangeably and with indifference to gender) are allowed between the radical letters in order to avoid the confusion of radical letters and pronomial markers. Later the ת was included in the root to form תרם, and there is nothing wrong with it. Such is also the fate of the letter ת in תפקיד=אתה-פק-היא-ד which became by omitting the internal היא the root תפקד etc. etc. Such was also the fate of the מ in מחסן=מה-חסן and מסעדה=מי-סעד-היא where the initial מי refers to the eating establishment itself. In the word פחית=פח-היא-את the feminine ending is responsible for the conception of tender size.
פריד יצחק
Interesting. I had just read in Horowitz's book about how what we commonly view as prefixes in Hebrew are actually abbreviations of words as you mention.
1] Simon – other examples of the phenomenon can be found in medieval piyyutim, where many new language forms arise based upon the incorporation of introductory letters. Beyond the תפילה/תרומה forms which were described here at length, there is also the form תִּכְלָה, which leads to forms such as יַתְכִּילוּ (meaning ‘when they finish’, playing with the parallel to יתחילו). Another case is where the ‘נ’ prefix from the nifal becomes incorporated into the root מור, to form the phrase וְלֹא הִנְמִיר רֵיח in a piyyut by ר' שמעון בר מגס. Admittedly, though, these forms did not take hold among modern speakers of the language. (For a survey of similar language developments within piyyut, see Yahalom’s book ‘שפת השיר’, especially pp. 20-23). In any case, your point still holds regarding the affinity of בנין הפעיל for such expanded roots.
2] Regarding the assertion that Hebrew does not use ‘empty prefixes’ but rather ‘meaningful’ letter additions: Certainly, such a position is warranted in an ultimate diachronic sense. Yet, from the synchronic perspective of those speaking – and expanding – the language today, I firmly believe that the initial ‘ת’ is entirely devoid of semantic content, and serves only as a nominal prefix. Take, for example, the modern invention of the word ‘תמריץ’ (incentive); its creation was not based on the contraction of the pronoun את, but rather based on the application of a known nominal paradigm to an existing root.
The "prefix" ני in the niphal construct is the persoal pronoun אני in the general sense of 'oneself' (which gives niphal its actual sense)in the same way that the "suffix" נו in the qal form שמרנו=שמר-אנו is a brief 'we'. The "prefix" הי in the hiphil construct is a full היא standing for the person committing the act described by the verb (there is another היא in hiphil inserted as an "infix" and standing for the recipient of the action.) In the attached form the pronoun הוא may be a portent of 'they' as in שמרו=שמר-הוא Also,נו in שמרנו is a "suffix" only in writing where it is being put close to the word. Yet, if you listen carefully you will clearly hear שמר(א)נו as two distinct words. Regrettably, now it is all "paradigmatic" becuause language is such, and because people do not think any more of what they say. Stating that the ת in תמריץ-אתה-מר-היא-ץ is no more than a "prefix" is a mere polite, "scietific," (actually evasive, sorry to say)way of saying "I do not know what it means." Hebrew was not built up of abstract "afixes" and this understanding is valid today as it was at the age it was only spoken.
יצחק פריד
Can you translate the Rambam for the unlettered? Thx.
Isaac -
As intriguing as your word breakdowns may be, I do not find any a priori reason compelling us to infuse language prefixes with semantic content. You are welcome to disagree on this point, but that does not in any way turn my basic claim regarding the nature of language prefixes into an "evasive" statement. Your accusation presupposes that prefixes must have semantic content; but our disagreement is about that presupposition in the first place.
Incidentally, you lament the fact that the common man on the street uses his words without being aware of their full meaning. Yet, I struggle to imagine how his language precision would be in any way improved by the awareness of the linguistic units 'אתה' and 'היא' within every utterance of the noun תמריץ = incentive. In fact, it seems to me that the opposite effect would be far more likely.
Avi,
Our discussion can go forever, and in circles. I just want to summarize my arguments:
1. Language was built up by consensus and understanding and therefore it is incoceivable that any part thereof is devoid of semantic meaning---is just clicking sound.
2. It is impossible that a component of the language (such as the ת in תרומה or תנופה) had meaning in the past but does not have it in the present. All one can say is that the component has meaning but we do not know any more what it is.
3. It is imperative that we know that the ת in תרומה is the personal pronoun את-אתה, standing for the gift itself, in order to eliminate other possibilities, Since this ת MUST HAVE A SEMANTIC VALUE (which is the essence of our מחלוקת.)
4. So why is it not so that every reasonable person says: "of course the ת in תפקיד is the personal pronoun אתה?" because he was never taught this. All the grammar teachers preach is "paradigm."
Dear Isaac,
Thank you for the clarifications.
As should be clear at this point, we disagree regarding the second part of point (1). That is, from my perspective, it *is* conceivable that a given letter/sound within the language does not have any discrete semantic content; it is sufficient that the item participates in a known paradigm, as long as it is accepted by the "consensus" which you mentioned at the beginning of the same point.
Nevertheless, I am still intrigued to understand how these extra linguistic units are to be understood within your system. Specifically, you mentioned that the word תרביץ contains within the semantic units of אתה and היא. In what way do these units participate in the formation of the word symbolizing "incentive"?
[Sorry, I meant תמריץ, not תרביץ]
Avi (or any other dear reader),
The semantic kernel of תמריץ is contained in the root מרץ. The minimal meaning of the root may be gleaned from its components (see for this my book האטימולוגיה האנליטית והסינטטית של הלשון העברית which has also an English inroduction. If you did not see the book I will be glad to send you (meaning any interested reader of this blog)a gift copy. just write me: if@math.bu.edu. But I warn you that the book is ultimately compact and is not for the faint hearted)and from its immediate relatives מרס, מרש, מרט, מרד (from מרד we have מרדכי or מרדוך)etc. What I mean by "minimal" is this: from the root נוף (nuf) we have תנופה. The minimal, or nearly minimal, meaning of נוף is "to lift" no more. Rashi says that the ritual of תנופה involved moving the gift in the direction of the four corners of the earth, but this embelishment of the act is not derived from the root and it would be indeed risky to drow any Halachic conclusions from some imaginary interpretations of a root. In fact נוף (nof, landscape) has no dynamic connotation at all. The semantic content (field) of a root is constantly and subtly shifted according to usage. Now נפנף came to mean move a cloth object, such as a flag or handkerchief, to and fro. For other objects we use נענע or זעזע (the roots בעבע, געגע, קעקע, שעשע are actually the same.)
I have to stop here but I will continue
פריד יצחק
I continue.
Now we come to the personal pronouns. A root becomes a verb by referring it to the actors. In the Qal form the actors are referred to separately as in הוא פחד. In the Hiphil form the pronouns are inserted into the root: הפחיד=היא-פח-היא-ד and we recognise this construct paradigmatically. A root is likewise turned into a noun, an adjective, or an adverb by the addition of pronomials that refer to the OBJECT itself.
אנוש is 'man,'
אנושי=אנוש-היא is somthing (היא)that possesses this property.
אנושית=אנוש-היא-את, she (היא)is such.
אנושות=אנוש-הוא-את, is 'mankind.'
אנושיות=אנוש=היא-הוא-את, 'humanity.'
Just stacking up personal pronouns. I just heard that the Hebrew Academy pronounced 'gadget' to be חפיץ from the root חפץ 'to desire' and the noun חפץ=חפצים A new noun can be had with an additional את to create תחפיץor מחפיץ if you will. And what is a tiny תחפיץ? of course it is a תחפיצון=את-חפ-היא-צ-הוא-הן And how about תחפיצוניות?
פריד יצחק
Isaac et al.,
Thank you very much for posting this; this is absolutely fascinating. I had no idea the Hebrew affixes derived that way. It ties in with what I know (not much!) of the mechanism of how, in their cycling between inflectional and non-inflectional forms, languages accrete inflections.
The Romani language is a fascinating example of that process currently in progress. Some of the web pages I've seen on it list nouns as having just two forms, the nominative and oblique, onto which various postpositions are added; whereas others, considering the postpositions inflections, list eight different cases instead.
But as regards the likes of תפקיד = אתה-פק-היא-ד, I was under the impression—and excuse my ignorance if I have got this wrong—that all Hebrew verbs have three-letter roots. There are verbs which appear to have two; this is explained by one of the letters being a weak letter which gets dropped; but here you seem to be doing the opposite: removing letters from an apparently reputable three-letter stem (פקד)!
Or is it simply the case that stems being universally triliteral is merely a phenomenon of Biblical Hebrew, and if you dig in the pre-Biblical etymology of them, that is not necessarily the case?
Oh, duh, ignore my question about תפקיד above; I didn't properly read your point about היא being an infix.
Though it does still leave the (probably academic) question of how roots came to be triliteral in the first place, and whether philology can reveal anything of the process that led to that.
I'll leave this to the experts, but there's also a theory that in fact, all Hebrew words have a two-letter root. Horowitz discusses this in his book, and perhaps I'll bring examples of it in the future.
Many Hebrew words consist of one consonat only. For example, גג (roof)which is a compact form of the repetition גאה=גאה (elevated-elevated). Even חכך consists of only one consonant (assuming ח=כ). Hebrew would have been a poor (poor-poor) language if its roots consisted of only one consonant, even repeated. So it resorts to combinations such as גב=גאה+עבה and גל=גאה+עלה. Yet, גבand גל have the same basic meaning: 'an elevation.' A finer differentiation is achieved with an etra consonant (actually a fundamental concept) such as the root גבל=גאה+עבה+עלה, which can be looked upon as incorporating גב and גל. With 22 letters and three combinations Hebrew has all the roots (some 3500) it needs. Quadriliterals are combinations: חרמש=חר+מש, סרפד=סר+פד etc. Variability is also achieved by the insertion (afixation) of the pronomial היא הוא as the vowels /I/ (/E/) and /U/ (/O/). For example כיס (kis, pocket)and כוס (kos, drinking glass.) The root כוס (kus) is conshdered vulgar. See my book for more on all the roots.
Isaac Fried (פריד יצחק)
Commenting by HaloScan
