1492:-You mean, ? That doesn't make sense taken literally ("like the mouth of that I said"), and I've never heard it before. Do you perhaps mean ("to the mouth of what that I said", i.e. "according to what I said")? If so, then there's a definite difference in meaning, which I think is easier to see in the third person; means "as he said, there's nothing to do" (i.e., "he said there's nothing to do, and he was correct"), while means "according to what he said, there's nothing to do" or "judging from what he said, there's nothing to do" (i.e., "he said there's nothing to do", perhaps "he's the one who said there's nothing to do, don't blame me if it turns out he was wrong"). I'd infer from the former, but not necessarily from the latter, that the speaker agrees with the statement and believes it to be correct. If is indeed considered incorrect, then I'll have to think a while to figure out what the correct version would be.
181:. (A noun in the construct state always appears with a noun in the genitive case and vice versa.) But that's Arabic; Hebrew, by contrast, doesn't have case markings, so the first noun's being in the construct state is what makes it clear that the second noun is acting as a possessor. (For that matter, Hebrew doesn't mark the indefinite state, and marks the construct state for only about half of nouns, so it's often the mere juxtaposition of two nouns that makes it clear that the first is in the construct state and the second would be in the genitive case if Hebrew marked cases.)
31:
1482:-I think the description in the article ("The singular of a masculine noun typically does not change form." "There are many words (usually ancient ones) that have changes in vocalization in the construct form. For example, the construct form of (house) is .") is accurate. "Accurate" does not mean "perfect", though, and if you think it would improve the article to mention nouns like these, then by all means, please do so.
1733:
how to pronounce a word. (Perhaps you are familiar with it, but I think most readers will not be). If the article was about Hebrew phonology, there would be more of a case to use as precise a notation as possible, but it's an article about grammar. The really fine details of pronunciation are simply not essential to the article, all the more so as there's no consensus among Hebrew-speakers re pronunciation.
233:
construct state in a situation like this: , the meaning is clear by considering and implied "of" between the two. In fact, it is not merely an analogy, but is in fact more or less true, since the word "shel" in Hebrew essentially means "of". So I don't think that saying "ha-ish beit" is really a possibility for someone who knows this relationship.
1288:(Other speakers may have different impressions, though, and it's possible that a pedantic elementary-school teacher would feel differently.) In this case, since the is really helpful for conveying the English-like-ness, I'd prefer that we keep it, but if you can find a source that says it should be omitted, I wouldn't object to dropping it.
648:
seven verbs that are related in meaning but differ in implicit valency and voice, and verbs in certain binyanim tend to have certain relationships to other verbs with the same shoresh. I think the latter way is a more helpful way to present it to an
English speaker, since in English the voice relationship is much more rigid and consistent (
622:. Although you say that the two languages belong to two different language families, and I would certainly agree about that, this is more a matter of putting the horse before the cart, than making a specific conclusion based on the facts at hand. Are there any other Afro-asiatic languages that use a demonstrative pronoun that sounds like
1100:
are even represented the same way as shva na'). It's true that some things differ between IPA and common ad-hoc transcription schemes, but I don't think that's a huge deal; heck, IPA transcription for
English isn't necessarily readable to an English speaker who doesn't know IPA (what with usually corresponding to English <y: -->
562:
demonstrated with current techniques. As such, it's really hard for me to believe that Latin and Hebrew could have inherited their demonstratives from a recognizably common source. Now, this doesn't rule out the possibility of a loanword, but from what I understand, borrowing of basic grammatical words is fairly rare. Also, I don't
1455:-, at least, is a very ancient word; it appears in Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible. Your other examples don't seem to be used in the Bible (at least, not in their third-person-masculine-singular-suffix-conjugation forms), but I'm not convinced that they really support your claim, anyway; it seems to me that
1684:
letters that really have no
English equivalent: wouldn't it be simpler to use IPA symbols only for those, if at all? Better still would be to use the old conventions like "kh" or "ch". The IPA symbols could be used in defining what those represent, at the start of the article. What do you think? --Judah
1099:
to see how little agreement there is on what non-IPA system to use in places where IPA is inappropriate), and typically isn't much more helpful at identifying roots (since the same grapheme is generally used for vav as for vet, for khaf as for khet, for alef as for ayin, etc.; and often alef and ayin
712:
I agree with your interpretation. Different binyanim form verbs of different meaning, whether or not they're related by subject matter – and sometimes barely are at all (e.g. לספור and לספר). I think by most linguistic understandings each one would be a separate verb, considering that more than voice
236:
And by the way, Modern Hebrew commonly uses the construct state in order to describe direct relationships and sometimes compound nouns with a single meaning (such as "beit-sefer", which means "school"), but it RARELY uses the construct to indicate possession or a very simple relationship. To indicate
194:
a genitive case. (The genitive case is a feature of language in general; different languages mark it differently, using any combination of morphology, word order, adpositions, and adpositional clitics.) Also, it really must be made clear that the two nouns are juxtaposed, with the possessor following
1101:
and so on). If you take a minute or two to familiarize yourself with the IPA symbols used in the article, it's really not so confusing. (Incidentally, I'm not terribly happy with the IPA symbols myself; as I went through and IPA-itized the article, there were a lot of places where I really wanted to
999:. We can still have a section at the top explaining exactly which IPA symbols are being used in the article. Hebrew's sound inventory differs sufficiently from English's that it's not like the English transliterations are much more transparent, even to those who don't know the IPA yet. Any thoughts?
276:
I think I misunderstood "it really must be made clear that the two nouns are juxtaposed", thinking that you think it has to be made clear in the article, rather than to the reader of your comment. So I was merely pointing out the easiest way to visualize this is by considering the word "of" (implied
1732:
There may be some disagreement for letters like khes that don't have
English equivalents, but for the most part, everyone agrees about the basic things, like "sh" and not "ʃ" for shin. The problem with IPA notation is that it forces the casual reader to go research the IPA system just to understand
1287:
My experience with Hebrew being mostly spoken, I asked my father (who was born and raised in Israel and lived there until his thirties), and he was very surprised by the question; his impression is that the two are completely interchangeable, with no difference in correctness, formality, tone, etc.
1258:
as a native speaker i would like to help you, in general "she" is used but it is not true to say that asher is only for very formal use but it is more formal than "she" in some areas like law it is very rare to see "she" ferther more you can ad prifixes like k- "kshe" or "kasher" to mention time or
1214:
The section on relative clauses down at the bottom of the page actually didn't say anything about them, but talked about other kinds of dependent clauses. Since relative clauses are formed in a similar manner, I added an example of how they work and changed the section heading to be more general.
1816:
notation. Whom is an encyclopedia written for if not the casual reader? 3) IPA notation gives an impression of accuracy which is simply not true: there are several variations in the way different speakers pronounce the language. For all these reasons, but particularly for the reason of readability
1815:
IPA is a very useful thing. However, I question its necessity in this article. 1) The subject of the article is not phonology but grammar. Pronunciation is only incidental to this subject, and exhaustive detail is not needed. 2) For better or for worse, the casual reader will probably not know IPA
1683:
I know you guys have invested time into putting all of the transliteration into IPA form, but to the average encyclopedia reader (like myself) who is not familiar with the IPA system, this is much less readable than simple
English transliteration, and rather irritating. There are only two or three
1529:
As for "street" versus "official" grammar, in Hebrew it seems to me this is far tougher than in most languages. You don't want an official source like
Knowledge to teach anything too "street," nor do you want it to imply that you might hear someone actually say , which I have only seen written and
1509:
I'm not a native speaker either, hence the lack of boldness in most of my claims--but I can be pretty sure of the last one. I'm sure you're right that the expression makes no sense "literally," but neither does , which is not what I meant at all. and are identical in meaning, and they translate
332:
I apologize for dredging this issue up, but the section on constructs uses accurate examples now but the explanation is still confusing. It says the genitive case is expressed through constructs, and then explains that possession is not. In other languages, wouldn't the genitive be used to explain
302:
Oh, I see. I did mean that it needs to be made clear in the article, but I don't think it's any particular problem; it can just be stated normally. (If my wording — "it really must be made clear that " — seems overly strong, it's simply because the current text does make it clear, and the proposed
358:
Can we say that the construct is (usually) used to create compound nouns and של is used to indicate possession, as
EngineeringCat says? You know, until he mentioned it, I wouldn't have noticed, but he's right that in this way Hebrew has actually sort of come to resemble English. You'd say "soccer
647:
The article currently has each shoresh as corresponding to one verb, and views the different binyanim as different voices of the same verb. That's a valid way to look at it, but there's another way as well: each binyan of a shoresh corresponds to one verb, and a shoresh produces a group of up to
561:
Well, Hebrew is an Afro-Asiatic language, while Latin is an Indo-European one; while there might be some genetic relationship between the two families, they split so long ago that no one's been able to demonstrate this relationship, and seems pretty clear that no relationship between them can be
1688:
I don't want to get into an edit war over this, but if no one even responds here, I guess I'll just have to be bold and edit the page myself. 'Twould be better if we could discuss this first, though. My contention is that the IPA format makes the page far less readable. A simple transliteration
792:
D'oh. That was a stupid comment I made. I just glanced at the page, saw verb conjugations was a new subpage, and that you had mentioned on the featured-article-nomination page that you were thinking of shortening the main article by changing it to summaries and subsections, and I just stupidly
770:
At this point, I think there are too many subpages. You have to click separately for every separate subtopic, none of which is all that big. I find that a bit tiresome. IMO, this was better when it is was all one article. The table of contents made it sufficiently navigable. The article length
232:
Responding to the last paragraph in the previous post - I think that using the analogy of the
English word "of" solves this problem. In English, like in Hebrew, when using the "of" construct the possessor follows the possessed. It is not at all as complicated as it may appear to be - using the
1789:
Stick with IPA. The point about IPA is that, once you have cracked it, you can use it when it is applied to any language. Yes, it takes some effort to learn, but some things are worth the effort. Any new romanization scheme that is developed will need explanation – they always do. IPA is a
1450:. I think I'm one of the biggest contributors to this article (though of course it's impossible to gauge with any definitiveness), and I welcome any changes you can make to improve the article. After all, that's the whole point of a wiki. That said, let me try to respond to your questions:
237:
possession, which is technically a more specific example of the more general genitive case, we use "shel" almost exclusively. To say "the man's house", a Hebrew speaker would use "ha-bait shel ha-ish" almost in all situations, unless there is some kind of idiomatic expression involved. --
976:
Hmm, you're right. I think that's a mistake that should be fixed, though, as there are plenty of reasons to have two standards: one for translating Hebrew and
Israeli names, and one for full-fledged transliteration in articles on the Hebrew language. Regardless, even if we want to use
1487:-You're right. It's worth discussing here to what kind of grammar we want this article to reflect; it currently wavers somewhat between "correct" grammar and street grammar. We've discussed certain specific examples here (e.g. vs. , but I think it's worth having a general discussion.
916:
Second of all, we want readers to be able to see what transliteration scheme we're using (since otherwise they'll have to guess at what our transliterations mean), and to do that, we need to explain it somewhere within the article, or in another article in the main namespace (such as
1746:
I agree that there should be Hebrew text as well. I'm not sure why you're against nikud: if we need to indicate the vowelization, that's what nikud is for. In an article about Hebrew grammar, nikud is surely more appropriate than ungrammatical yuds and vavs to take its
254:
I don't understand what you're responding to; what is "this problem" that you refer to in your first sentence? While I agree with all your specific points (except that I don't know what you mean by "direct relationships"), I really don't see what your overall point is.
1053:
Standard transcriptions for Hebrew use symbols in a way that directly conflicts with their use in IPA, most notably the apostrophe (aleph in Hebrew vs. primary stress in IPA). This makes the article extremely confusing for people who are actually familiar with the
1298:
i have to agree it sounds very "wrong" to sey "ze" in the beagening of the sentence and מוזר שהוא אמר כך can also be said מוזר שזה מה שהוא אמר may be a little difference in maenning but all the same a valid form. any way the origanal sounds like a children talk..
1706:; feel free to join in the discussion there. Until there's some consensus, though, I think we should stick with IPA here. (I think we should include Hebrew text as well — without nikud, just the way you'd see it in a newspaper — but not romanized Hebrew.) —
1066:, which I think does a far better job of maintaining the spirit of the language in the discussion of its grammar than this article does. Discussions of how the structures are rendered in actual speech should probably be reserved for the article on
959:. " It seems inconsistent to use a different transliteration scheme for every article on Hebrew. There are policies on how to format pages; I don't see how this is different. I agree with some of what you've said, but there has to be some standard.
802:
It's true that the verb page is long in screenwidth, but that's almost all from charts--contentwise, it's pretty small, at least as it is now. I would still prefer not to separate it from the main article, but I don't guess I'll fight you over it.
277:
or otherwise), in which case there is no need to carefully explain and remember the possessor follows the possessed and of course using the erroroneous combinations you presented in your examples. Anyway, I just misunderstood that comment.--
143:
Isn't the construct state in Hebrew (and Arabic) a kind of definiteness marking, not a case? And since the head word rather than the dependent is marked, it's distinct from the genitive case of Latin, Greek, etc. So maybe it should read:
1519:
It's just that is more "colloquial" (and probably far more common) and I was confused because in other parts of the article you were careful to use very "correct" grammar. Try
Googling if you don't believe it exists and means the same
1320:
it mentions that nidbak has no pa'al counterpart. I think this is not so much because davak is out of use, but because in modern Hebrew huf'al is dying and many hif'il verbs have appropriated nif'al for their passive. Other examples:
384:
There's also the use of the construct in adjectives, which is also usually kind of high style but I think I could describe someone as טוב–לב or a drink as נטול–קופאין without sounding like a pedant. Again, if I am wrong, I
911:); in this article, since we give transliterations and translations side-by-side, it would make sense to follow the general rules in the transliterations and to use the common English spellings only in the translations.
779:, which first of all is not all that short (on my computer, it's almost four screen-lengths long), and second of all is only a start — a lot more needs to be added. Are there any other subpages, or are you saying that
1471:
tends to imply the presence of one. That's just my impression, though, and I'm not exactly an expert; I grew up in a Hebrew-speaking family in the U.S., so my impressions aren't based on a very diverse range of
414:
Hello all. I'm working on an Arabic grammar-related article, and a question has come up there about the etymology of the definite articles in the Semitic languages. Any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks!
672:) — and in the English parallels, the two forms are considered separate verbs. (To be sure, there are many cases where an individual English verb can have different implicit valencies or voices — consider
938:; it's a work in progress. So, even if we end up deciding to use it for this article's transliteration scheme once it's become an official policy, we still need to have some convention to use until then.
1277:(זה) at the beginning of that sentence, even if often used colloquially, would be incorrect, would it not? Isn't the proper way to say that sentence simply, "מוזר שהוא אמר כך" without a subject at all?
359:
game," "parking spot," and "travel agent" just like you'd say משחק כדורגל, מקום חנייה, סוכן נסיעות. But I think you might get a smile if you asked for a סוכן של נסיעות. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
1273:
The text contains this note in the "sentences without verbs" section: "(A more English-like ordering, , literally "it strange that-he said thus", is also possible.)" Correct me if I'm wrong, but the
1642:
the link to gesenius' grammar isn´t opening a valid page. please, try to fix it and contact me at raimundo_viana(at)hotmail(dot)com with the subject Retornaire (my nick at pt-wiki) . Thanks
148:
Hebrew does not have a genitive case, as in Latin (where the possessor is marked), but rather shows possession by marking the possessed noun as being in the construct state. .........
855:
is only about article titles, and the article on Hebrew grammar might benefit from a more precise transliteration scheme than that (e.g. we might consider it important to distinguish
687:
So, does anyone object to my rewording parts of the article to change from the one-verb-equals-one-shoresh approach to the one-verb-equals-one-binyan-of-one-shoresh approach?
1148:
I think my issue is that they've found a perfectly good way to do it for Arabic, so why not for Hebrew? In fact, there's a completely unambiguous transcription scheme here:
1764:
very familiar with it: it's an extreme hindrance to readability, and I can't see the need for it. Why not do our best to romanize it in a simple way, and incorporate
1057:
The IPA used in the article reflects only one dialect of modern Hebrew; using a solid transliteration rather than phonetic transcription would eliminate this problem.
475:
I can't say for sure — I'm not an expert or anything — but I'm assuming not, because I'm assuming that if there were, then people would mention it when they discuss *
1173:
Also, why worry about the shva sound at all - it's just a pronunciation aid in Modern Hebrew anyway. Leave it out. Just my 2 cents. 17:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
483:
discussed in multiple places, with various explanations and justifications, and I've never seen someone mention "and such-and-such language even still has
1096:
1215:
Since the text referred to the example sentences as "compound," I used that term, although I think the term used in English grammar would be "complex".
1188:
By the way, shouldn't this page also contain Hebrew script? Although it may not be useful to non-Hebrew speakers, it's much more easy to read for us.
1050:
Hebrew is a Semitic language, so roots are important; using IPA obscures the roots to the point where the grammatical constructs often become unclear
1185:
Since the transliteration system is just a preface, perhaps it should be at the beginning of the article, or better, farmed out to a subpage--Judah
1406:, it says that the definite article is always placed before the second noun. Historically this is true, but today I think it's quite common to say
1645:
724:
1244:
is only used in very formal speech and writing and in a few fixed constructions, I don't think it's a big deal to simplify and say that they use
303:
text didn't say it at all, and I wanted to emphasize that it's a key point that can't be overlooked in any rewrite. Sorry about the confusion!)
1765:
1703:
1669:
It seems that in this article, the actual written Hebrew is heavily dropped in favor of IPA pronunciation transliteration. Gotta fix that. --
978:
931:
922:
876:
868:
852:
838:
1649:
71:
59:
1259:
use a difrent pronoun "ki" to mention cose. i do beg your forgivenes if i make any croud mistakes, after all my native toung is hebrew. --
1603:
84:
996:
837:
It appears that this article has its own transliteration system. It would make more sense to just use the standard here -
195:
the possessed, as I think that's really the key factor; I think that if someone is trying to say "the man's house", then
1375:, it mentions that the masculine singular noun generally does not change. Actually, many of them drop an initial vowel:
425:
I think the most widely accepted explanation is some proto-Semitic language had a demonstrative determiner pronounced *
995:
Actually, having thought a bit further, I think this article should use the world- and Knowledge-wide standard of the
1689:
system along the one outlined in the "Naming conventions" page would be much easier for the casual reader to follow.
1197:
I hope that is of any help to you but there are rules made by the academy of the hberew language here is their PDF:
1102:
use a or a to represent what seemed to me to be the normal pronunciations, but I decided from the outset to trust
1436:
I didn't correct any of these myself because I thought I'd let the people who did most of the work vet them first.
955:
I quote: "This page is designed to create an official policy regarding the translation of Hebrew and Israeli names
47:
38:
17:
1510:"as" in the sense of "as I said..." or "as you know, Ruakh.." or "as we discussed last Thursday..." and the like.
736:
1653:
1607:
1218:
Admittedly, though, I'm not a native speaker, so I wouldn't be surprised if I've made a mistake somewhere.
1044:
776:
566:
the proto-Latins would have had any contact with contemporary Semitic peoples, though I'm really not sure. —
1152:- just use the Roman characters under the column labeled "Hebrew", (leaving out ḡ for intervocalic gimmel).
135:
Based on what I've read elsewhere, I think this is inaccurate or at least nonstandard in its terminology:
1760:
However, the main thing I'm concerned about is the IPA notation. Take my word for it as a reader who is
1092:
627:
537:
167:
171:
1599:
1596:
I changed "As in English most sentences have subjects" because all English sentences have subjects.
1219:
895:) use those spellings, even when this conflicts with the general rules (which would probably produce
1300:
1260:
1201:
433:, depending on the noun's gender and/or number), which evolved in prehistoric times into the Hebrew
1577:
278:
238:
162:
Your understanding is mostly correct. From what I understand of Arabic, a noun is marked for case
1531:
1437:
925:, because it's a project page, and therefore not necessarily (or ever?) included in mirror sites.
386:
175:
1791:
454:
Out of curiosity, are there any Semitic languages which preserve the (presumed) proto-Semitic *
1824:
1794:
1772:
1719:
1693:
1673:
1657:
1631:
1611:
1580:
1559:
1555:. I must always have just mentally translated the former to the latter without even noticing.
1534:
1500:
1440:
1303:
1292:
1281:
1263:
1252:
1222:
1204:
1192:
1127:
1074:
1030:
1017:
1003:
985:
963:
946:
845:
822:
787:
755:
703:
693:
630:
579:
540:
491:
462:
445:
419:
389:
307:
281:
259:
241:
223:
156:
125:
119:
Please feel free to revive any of these discussions by moving it back to the main talk-page.
1107:
1103:
1067:
1010:
981:
for both, we really can't start using it until it's become policy and is relatively stable.
604:
152:
Someone who actually knows Hebrew should vet this before it goes in the article though... --
1713:
1670:
1627:
1121:
1091:"Standard transcription" is not so standard (every system has its idiosyncracies; and see
1071:
918:
867:
is used in marking for definiteness and in various parts of various binyanim, even though
618:
tends to obscure the connection by employing the rough-breathing character for the letter
573:
416:
1820:, I strongly feel the IPA should be scrapped in favor of something more reader-friendly.
1702:
Hi, sorry for not replying earlier. We're currently working on a romanization scheme at
1198:
186:
So, you have the right idea, though I'd quibble with your statement that Hebrew doesn't
1619:
1447:
1063:
153:
818:
it — it lengthens the article significantly while adding relative little information.
1149:
732:
879:
will almost certainly end up recommending that words with common English spellings (
1043:
I found the article confusing because of its use of IPA - the separate article on
1821:
1769:
1690:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1009:
I almost completely agree, but it would probably be better to just link to the
1707:
1623:
1556:
1497:
1289:
1249:
1189:
1115:
1027:
1014:
1000:
982:
960:
943:
842:
819:
784:
752:
700:
690:
684:— but in these cases, there's no change in form analogous to that in Hebrew.)
567:
488:
459:
442:
304:
256:
220:
122:
1248:. That section still needs work, but your edit was a good start. Thank you!
1150:
Proto-Semitic#Sound_changes_between_Proto-Semitic_and_the_daughter_languages
656:). Further, English has some parallels to Hebrew's binyan system — consider
139:
Hebrew's genitive case is achieved by placing two nouns next to each other.
1576:
Yes, just to reaffirm, כפי שאמרתי is a very common expression in Hebrew.--
1360:
means "article" (as in magazine article). "Speech" would more properly be
190:
a genitive case; I think it would be more accurate to say that it doesn't
1278:
1110:'s IPA-itizations, then I think that should be addressed and fixed there
728:
615:
814:
You're right that it's content-light, but I see that as an argument for
1013:
article than to have a describe the IPA transcription of Hebrew again.
1551:
does indeed get a lot of Google-hits — more than one-third as many as
441:, and the definite articles in at least some other Semitic languages.
721:
verbs are almost always in the active voice (e.g. לחשוב and לחשב).
87:
contains discussions that haven't been touched since 12 June 2006:
771:
guidelines are only guidelines; I move for reintegration. --Judah
601:
1313:
This is a very impressive article. I had a few minor questions:
1236:— there also exists the standalone relative pronoun/relativizer
25:
793:
assumed that you had done that to all categories. My mistake.
215:
is the correct form. Maybe not everyone would agree, though.
516:? In proto-Latin, the attachment of the enclitic suffix
512:
enjoys a connection with the Latin demonstrative pronoun
614:
seems to be a matter of concern too, even if the Greek
1356:
as "speech." I could be wrong about this, but I think
775:
I'm confused by your comment; I only see one subpage,
1199:
http://hebrew-academy.huji.ac.il/PDF/taatik2006.pdf--
643:
One verb = one shoresh, or one binyan of one shoresh?
1228:
Your edit was good. Relative clauses don't actually
1114:, and then the results can be brought over here.) —
1047:is much better. The problems I have with IPA are:
199:would be understandable if confusing, even though
1790:long-established standard, in the public domain.
957:and Hebrew transliteration for Knowledge articles
871:is currently leaning toward transcribing both as
626:? Or is this a peculiarity unique to Hebrew?
1433:is common but I don't know if it's "correct."
536:makes it look like the roots were in common.
8:
1467:tends to imply the lack of an agent, while
487:". But again, I really can't say for sure.
1679:Rethinking the transliteration system here
1097:Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (Hebrew)
699:I'll take that as a "No, no one objects."
103:The section divisions make no sense to me.
1337:. In fact, under hif'il you also mention
429:(possibly with different forms, such as *
1414:. It's still "wrong," though, I guess.
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
1766:Knowledge:Naming conventions (Hebrew)
1704:Knowledge:Naming conventions (Hebrew)
979:Knowledge:Naming conventions (Hebrew)
932:Knowledge:Naming conventions (Hebrew)
923:Knowledge:Naming conventions (Hebrew)
877:Knowledge:Naming conventions (Hebrew)
869:Knowledge:Naming conventions (Hebrew)
853:Knowledge:Naming conventions (Hebrew)
839:Knowledge:Naming_conventions_(Hebrew)
7:
1399:(watch). Maybe this is being picky.
1062:To compare, look at the article on
109:Something important that is missing
713:changes between them... e.g. both
24:
203:is completely the wrong form (or
131:Genitive case or construct state?
751:Thanks for the reässurance. :-)
532:and so on) to the root syllable
29:
1768:as consensus is reached there?
1417:-and now to be pedantic: under
997:International Phonetic Alphabet
1293:21:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
1282:15:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
756:04:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
704:21:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
520:(as is found in such words as
1:
1658:18:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
1581:02:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
1128:06:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1106:. If there are problems with
1075:05:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1560:18:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
1535:17:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
1501:21:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
1441:18:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
1304:05:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
1264:05:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
1205:05:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
1193:15:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
508:Does anybody know if Hebrew
390:04:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
1477:-You're quite right about .
1429:, I think. Like the above,
1383:(commentary on the Torah),
1253:01:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
1223:20:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
1031:16:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
1018:15:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
1004:13:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
986:11:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
964:03:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
947:03:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
846:00:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
823:15:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
788:11:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
492:04:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
463:02:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
211:is really not, even though
1849:
631:23:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
580:01:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
541:23:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
18:Talk:Modern Hebrew grammar
1825:04:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
1795:23:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
1773:22:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
1720:17:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
1694:17:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
1632:23:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
1612:22:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
1425:...more correct would be
694:14:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
680:has a similar meaning to
446:18:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
420:17:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
308:22:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
282:03:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
260:11:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
242:05:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
126:01:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
1674:11:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
224:15:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
157:13:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
1665:Why the overuse of IPA?
1638:external link is broken
1269:Sentences without verbs
1045:Hebrew verb conjugation
777:Hebrew verb conjugation
1818:to the average reader
1648:comment was added by
1093:Knowledge talk:Hebrew
783:subpage is too many?
766:All these subsections
727:comment was added by
178:); so you might have
94:other parts of speech
42:of past discussions.
1026:Ooh, good call. :-)
921:). We can't link to
682:the door was opened
91:Clean-up and editing
863:, especially since
1530:then very rarely.
930:And third of all,
1717:
1661:
1602:comment added by
1125:
934:isn't a standard
740:
600:The arise of the
577:
207:is missing), but
77:
76:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1840:
1711:
1643:
1618:Would you count
1614:
1554:
1550:
1419:relative clauses
1391:(parking spot),
1333:(conceal) gives
1210:Relative clauses
1119:
1108:Hebrew phonology
1104:Hebrew phonology
1068:Hebrew phonology
1011:Hebrew phonology
722:
605:definite article
571:
106:Periodbot output
68:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
1848:
1847:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1718:
1681:
1667:
1644:—The preceding
1640:
1597:
1552:
1548:
1427:kefi she-amarti
1311:
1309:Small questions
1271:
1212:
1126:
919:Hebrew language
841:- wouldn't it?
835:
833:Transliteration
768:
723:—The preceding
678:the door opened
645:
578:
412:
197:ha-bayit ha-ish
133:
100:Archaic endings
82:
64:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1846:
1844:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1780:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1710:
1697:
1696:
1680:
1677:
1666:
1663:
1650:201.32.215.132
1639:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1620:sentence words
1594:
1592:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1578:EngineeringCat
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1504:
1503:
1494:
1493:
1489:
1488:
1484:
1483:
1479:
1478:
1474:
1473:
1452:
1451:
1448:please be bold
1446:First of all,
1423:kmo she-amarti
1352:you translate
1310:
1307:
1296:
1295:
1270:
1267:
1256:
1255:
1211:
1208:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1118:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1064:Arabic grammar
1060:
1059:
1058:
1055:
1051:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1021:
1020:
993:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
969:
968:
967:
966:
950:
949:
940:
939:
927:
926:
913:
912:
851:First of all,
834:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
807:
806:
805:
804:
797:
796:
795:
794:
767:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
744:
743:
742:
741:
707:
706:
644:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
570:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
514:hic, haec, hoc
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
468:
467:
466:
465:
449:
448:
411:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
279:EngineeringCat
267:
266:
265:
264:
263:
262:
247:
246:
245:
244:
239:EngineeringCat
234:
227:
226:
217:
216:
192:mark nouns for
183:
182:
165:
150:
149:
141:
140:
132:
129:
117:
116:
113:
110:
107:
104:
101:
98:
95:
92:
81:
78:
75:
74:
69:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1845:
1826:
1823:
1819:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1796:
1793:
1788:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1774:
1771:
1767:
1763:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1721:
1716:
1715:
1709:
1705:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1695:
1692:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1678:
1676:
1675:
1672:
1664:
1662:
1659:
1655:
1651:
1647:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1625:
1621:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1613:
1609:
1605:
1604:84.60.250.255
1601:
1593:
1582:
1579:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1561:
1558:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1536:
1533:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1502:
1499:
1496:
1495:
1491:
1490:
1486:
1485:
1481:
1480:
1476:
1475:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1459:differs from
1458:
1454:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1439:
1434:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1415:
1413:
1412:ha-tsumat lev
1409:
1408:ha-beit sefer
1405:
1400:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1369:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1346:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1319:
1314:
1308:
1306:
1305:
1302:
1294:
1291:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1280:
1276:
1268:
1266:
1265:
1262:
1254:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1221:
1216:
1209:
1207:
1206:
1203:
1200:
1195:
1194:
1191:
1186:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1151:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1129:
1124:
1123:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1076:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1056:
1052:
1049:
1048:
1046:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1032:
1029:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1019:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1002:
998:
987:
984:
980:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
965:
962:
958:
954:
953:
952:
951:
948:
945:
942:
941:
937:
933:
929:
928:
924:
920:
915:
914:
910:
906:
902:
898:
894:
890:
886:
882:
878:
874:
870:
866:
862:
858:
854:
850:
849:
848:
847:
844:
840:
832:
824:
821:
817:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
801:
800:
799:
798:
791:
790:
789:
786:
782:
778:
774:
773:
772:
765:
757:
754:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
738:
734:
730:
726:
720:
716:
711:
710:
709:
708:
705:
702:
698:
697:
696:
695:
692:
688:
685:
683:
679:
675:
671:
667:
663:
659:
655:
651:
642:
632:
629:
628:198.177.27.12
625:
621:
617:
613:
609:
606:
603:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
581:
576:
575:
569:
565:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
542:
539:
538:198.177.27.26
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
493:
490:
486:
482:
479:. I've seen *
478:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
464:
461:
457:
453:
452:
451:
450:
447:
444:
440:
437:, the Arabic
436:
432:
428:
424:
423:
422:
421:
418:
410:
407:Etymology of
406:
391:
388:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
309:
306:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
283:
280:
275:
274:
273:
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
261:
258:
253:
252:
251:
250:
249:
248:
243:
240:
235:
231:
230:
229:
228:
225:
222:
219:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
193:
189:
185:
184:
180:
177:
173:
169:
163:
161:
160:
159:
158:
155:
147:
146:
145:
138:
137:
136:
130:
128:
127:
124:
120:
114:
111:
108:
105:
102:
99:
96:
93:
90:
89:
88:
86:
79:
73:
70:
67:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1817:
1761:
1712:
1682:
1668:
1641:
1595:
1591:
1553:"כמו שאמרתי"
1549:"כפי שאמרתי"
1468:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1435:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1416:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1402:-also under
1401:
1396:
1392:
1389:mkom chaniya
1388:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1370:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1347:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1325:(wet) gives
1322:
1317:
1315:
1312:
1297:
1274:
1272:
1257:
1245:
1241:
1240:— but since
1237:
1233:
1229:
1217:
1213:
1196:
1187:
1184:
1120:
1111:
994:
956:
935:
908:
904:
900:
896:
892:
888:
884:
880:
875:). Further,
872:
864:
860:
856:
836:
815:
780:
769:
718:
714:
689:
686:
681:
677:
673:
669:
665:
661:
657:
653:
649:
646:
623:
619:
611:
607:
572:
563:
533:
529:
525:
521:
517:
513:
509:
484:
480:
476:
455:
438:
434:
430:
426:
413:
408:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
191:
187:
179:
151:
142:
134:
121:
118:
83:
65:
43:
37:
1598:—Preceding
333:possession?
209:ha-ish beit
166:for state (
36:This is an
1671:OneTopJob6
1404:constructs
1381:dvar Torah
1373:constructs
1220:Masily box
816:separating
654:B is done
417:Fsotrain09
385:apologize.
172:indefinite
164:as well as
112:Word Order
85:/Archive 1
1397:sh'on yad
1364:or maybe
1301:Erezbinot
1261:Erezbinot
1202:Erezbinot
1054:language.
176:construct
154:Jim Henry
72:Archive 3
66:Archive 2
60:Archive 1
1646:unsigned
1600:unsigned
1463:in that
1431:kmo she-
1421:you say
1366:hartza'a
885:Hanukkah
737:contribs
725:unsigned
676:, where
670:l'hashiv
666:lashevet
650:A does B
616:alphabet
201:ha-bayit
168:definite
1472:inputs.
1371:-under
1358:ma'amar
1354:ma'amar
1348:-under
1316:-under
905:hhanuka
803:--Judah
674:to open
662:to seat
80:Archive
39:archive
1822:JudahH
1770:JudahH
1747:place.
1691:JudahH
1532:Mlevie
1520:thing.
1469:huf'al
1465:nif'al
1461:huf'al
1457:nif'al
1438:Mlevie
1395:gives
1393:sha'on
1387:gives
1379:gives
1350:hif'il
1343:nidlak
1339:hidlik
1335:nistar
1331:histir
1327:nirtav
1323:hirtiv
1318:nif'al
1230:always
907:, and
901:hanuka
658:to sit
387:Mlevie
97:Error?
1708:Ruakh
1624:Mo-Al
1557:Ruakh
1547:Wow,
1498:Ruakh
1385:makom
1377:davar
1362:ne'um
1290:Ruakh
1250:Ruakh
1242:asher
1238:asher
1190:Mo-Al
1116:Ruakh
1112:first
1028:Ruakh
1015:Mo-Al
1001:Ruakh
983:Ruakh
961:Mo-Al
944:Ruakh
881:Torah
859:from
843:Mo-Al
820:Ruakh
785:Ruakh
753:Ruakh
719:pi'el
715:pa'al
701:Ruakh
691:Ruakh
602:Greek
568:Ruakh
564:think
530:illuc
522:hisce
489:Ruakh
460:Mo-Al
443:Ruakh
305:Ruakh
257:Ruakh
221:Ruakh
123:Ruakh
115:יתכתב
16:<
1792:EEye
1714:TALK
1654:talk
1628:talk
1608:talk
1341:and
1232:use
1122:TALK
1095:and
1072:Dave
897:tora
893:Acre
889:Akko
861:khet
733:talk
717:and
668:and
660:and
610:and
574:TALK
392:ּּּּ
213:beit
205:shel
188:have
1762:not
1279:J21
1246:she
1234:she
1070:.
936:yet
909:ako
903:or
891:or
865:hei
857:hei
781:one
739:) .
729:J21
624:han
526:huc
518:-ce
510:hal
485:hal
481:hal
477:hal
456:hal
439:al-
435:ha-
431:han
427:hal
1656:)
1630:)
1622:?
1610:)
1410:,
1368:.
1345:.
1329:,
1299:--
1275:ze
899:,
887:,
883:,
735:•
652:→
612:ha
608:ho
534:ha
528:,
524:,
458:?
409:Ha
1660:.
1652:(
1626:(
1606:(
873:h
731:(
664:(
620:h
415:-
174:/
170:/
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.