Difference between revisions of "Grammar:Number/0"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
m |
m |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
<li>Ibn Ezra explains that the lack of conformity might stem from the word's prevalence,<fn>He writes: "בעבור שידברו במלה הזאת הרבה".</fn> while Shadal compares it to the Italian "impersonale" construction, often used to express a non specific subject ("one", "they" etc) which similarly does not always conform to number.</li> | <li>Ibn Ezra explains that the lack of conformity might stem from the word's prevalence,<fn>He writes: "בעבור שידברו במלה הזאת הרבה".</fn> while Shadal compares it to the Italian "impersonale" construction, often used to express a non specific subject ("one", "they" etc) which similarly does not always conform to number.</li> | ||
<li>Cf. Rashbam who agrees that the nonconformity is simply "the way of the text" but adds that if one nonetheless wanted to look for conformity, one might suggest that in all such cases there is an assumed subject which is implied by the text: "מעשה".  Thus, such verses would read as if written: "and [an event] happened, that..."</li> | <li>Cf. Rashbam who agrees that the nonconformity is simply "the way of the text" but adds that if one nonetheless wanted to look for conformity, one might suggest that in all such cases there is an assumed subject which is implied by the text: "מעשה".  Thus, such verses would read as if written: "and [an event] happened, that..."</li> | ||
| − | <li>Examples include: Bereshit 1:14 ("יְהִי מְאֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם"),‎<fn>Though the word "מְאֹרֹת" is plural, the verb "יְהִי" is singular.  Compare Rashbam, Ibn Ezra and Radak who note that this is "the way of the text" with Lekach Tov who suggests that the singular form teaches that the luminaries were created from the light of the first day.</fn>  Shemot 17:12 ( וַיְהִי יָדָיו אֱמוּנָה),<fn>See Ibn Ezra and R. D"Z Hoffmann, and compare to Rashi who adds in an assumed subject so as to create conformity: "<b>ויהי משה</b> ידיו פרושות השמים באמונה".</fn> Bemidbar 9:6 ( וַיְהִי אֲנָשִׁים), Devarim 22:23 (כִּי יִהְיֶה נַעֲרָ בְתוּלָה),<fn> | + | <li>Examples include: Bereshit 1:14 ("יְהִי מְאֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם"),‎<fn>Though the word "מְאֹרֹת" is plural, the verb "יְהִי" is singular.  Compare Rashbam, Ibn Ezra and Radak who note that this is "the way of the text" with Lekach Tov who suggests that the singular form teaches that the luminaries were created from the light of the first day.</fn>  Shemot 17:12 ( וַיְהִי יָדָיו אֱמוּנָה),<fn>See Ibn Ezra and R. D"Z Hoffmann, and compare to Rashi who adds in an assumed subject so as to create conformity: "<b>ויהי משה</b> ידיו פרושות השמים באמונה".</fn> Bemidbar 9:6 ( וַיְהִי אֲנָשִׁים), Devarim 22:23 (כִּי יִהְיֶה נַעֲרָ בְתוּלָה),<fn>For examples where the verb "היה" does not conform with gender include: Bereshit 24:43 (<b>וְהָיָה הָעַלְמָה</b> הַיֹּצֵאת לִשְׁאֹב), Kohelet 11:2 (מַה <b>יִּהְיֶה רָעָה</b>)</fn></li> |
</ul> | </ul> | ||
| − | <li> | + | <li>With other verbs, too, number and verb might not match:</li> |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
| − | <li>Bereshit 4:10</li> | + | <li>Bereshit 4:10 (קוֹל דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ צֹעֲקִים) – Though the word "" is singular, the verb "" is plural.  See R. D"Z Hoffmann that the Samaritan version of Torah therefore emends the text to read "קול דמי אחיך צועק". However, many commentators<fn>See Ibn Ezra, Radak, HaKetav VeHaKabbalah, Shadal, R. D" Z Hoffmann.</fn> explain that the perceived nonconformity stems from a misunderstanding, noting that really the referent of "צֹעֲקִים" is not the word "קוֹל" but the plural "דמי אחיך". </li> |
| − | <li>Shemot 17:2  – "וַיָּרֶב הָעָם עִם מֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמְרוּ תְּנוּ לָנוּ מַיִם".  Though the verse implies that the nation is speaking only with Moshe, | + | <li>Shemot 17:2  – "וַיָּרֶב הָעָם עִם מֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמְרוּ תְּנוּ לָנוּ מַיִם".  Though the verse implies that the nation is speaking only with Moshe, the people nonetheless address him in the plural, saying, "תְּנוּ ". This leads Ibn Ezra and Radak to suggest that the nation must have been speaking to Aharon as well, even though he is not mentioned.</li> |
<li>Devarim 30:10 – מִצְוֺתָיו וְחֻקֹּתָיו הַכְּתוּבָה. See Chizkuni and R. D"Z Hoffmann.</li> | <li>Devarim 30:10 – מִצְוֺתָיו וְחֻקֹּתָיו הַכְּתוּבָה. See Chizkuni and R. D"Z Hoffmann.</li> | ||
<li>Shemuel I 2:4</li> | <li>Shemuel I 2:4</li> | ||
Version as of 00:40, 17 April 2022
Number
Nonconformity Between Number and Verb
In Biblical Hebrew there is not always conformity between number and verb, with a plural subject sometimes taking a single verb form and vice versa. Some commentators attribute this to "דרך המקרא", the way of the text,1 and do not attempt to explain the various cases, while others try to explain the nonconformity in each case.
- Many commentators2 note that the phenomenon is especially prevalent with regards to the root "היה" when it precedes a subject.
- Ibn Ezra explains that the lack of conformity might stem from the word's prevalence,3 while Shadal compares it to the Italian "impersonale" construction, often used to express a non specific subject ("one", "they" etc) which similarly does not always conform to number.
- Cf. Rashbam who agrees that the nonconformity is simply "the way of the text" but adds that if one nonetheless wanted to look for conformity, one might suggest that in all such cases there is an assumed subject which is implied by the text: "מעשה". Thus, such verses would read as if written: "and [an event] happened, that..."
- Examples include: Bereshit 1:14 ("יְהִי מְאֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם"),4 Shemot 17:12 ( וַיְהִי יָדָיו אֱמוּנָה),5 Bemidbar 9:6 ( וַיְהִי אֲנָשִׁים), Devarim 22:23 (כִּי יִהְיֶה נַעֲרָ בְתוּלָה),6
- With other verbs, too, number and verb might not match:
- Bereshit 4:10 (קוֹל דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ צֹעֲקִים) – Though the word "" is singular, the verb "" is plural. See R. D"Z Hoffmann that the Samaritan version of Torah therefore emends the text to read "קול דמי אחיך צועק". However, many commentators7 explain that the perceived nonconformity stems from a misunderstanding, noting that really the referent of "צֹעֲקִים" is not the word "קוֹל" but the plural "דמי אחיך".
- Shemot 17:2 – "וַיָּרֶב הָעָם עִם מֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמְרוּ תְּנוּ לָנוּ מַיִם". Though the verse implies that the nation is speaking only with Moshe, the people nonetheless address him in the plural, saying, "תְּנוּ ". This leads Ibn Ezra and Radak to suggest that the nation must have been speaking to Aharon as well, even though he is not mentioned.
- Devarim 30:10 – מִצְוֺתָיו וְחֻקֹּתָיו הַכְּתוּבָה. See Chizkuni and R. D"Z Hoffmann.
- Shemuel I 2:4
Plural to mean "One of..."
- Sometimes a plural is used when a verse really means "one of ---" . For example
- Bereshit 8:4 - See Shadal and R. D"Z Hoffmann who both explain "עַל הָרֵי אֲרָרָט" to mean "on one of the mountains of Ararat"
- Shemot 17:12 "" – See Ibn Ezra
- Shofetim 12:7 – וַיִּקָּבֵר בְּעָרֵי גִלְעָד
- Shemuel I 1:1. See Radak that "יְהִי אִישׁ אֶחָד מִן הָרָמָתַיִם צוֹפִים might mean "there was a man from one of the Ramot"
- Shemuel I 18:21 - "בִּשְׁתַּיִם תִּתְחַתֵּן בִּי הַיּוֹם" – see Radak on Shemuel I 1:1 that Shaul means, ""
- Yirmeyahu 31:14 "רחל מבכה על בניה כי איננו" - See Ibn Ezra Shemot 17:12. Compare Radak who suggests that the form is singular as it refers to the nation. Cf. Abarbanel.
