Talk:Israelian Hebrew

Gile`adim?
Gile`adim? Not Gil`adim? In Modern Hebrew the shva would be considered naḥ. Dan ☺ 07:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Shalom! And thank you very much. My mistake, the same is true of biblical Hebrew. I'm misled by my ingrained English bad habits regarding Gilead here ... and a lack of care. I'll correct it directly. Nice to have an expert looking over my shoulder. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ain't no expert (if I were I'd have corrected it myself) but thanx all the same and you're welcome anytime – Dan ☺ 16:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well then, two non-experts appear to be doing better than having nothing here at all: lucky for readers! ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(Sort of on the same subject -- Gil`adim -- so I've not created a new section...)

Regarding the following statements:


 * [T]here are a number of cases in the Bible, where the plural form of either nomen regens or nomen rectum is adopted to echo its partner, irrespective of whether it is intended to denote a singular referent. A clear example comes from 2 Kings 15:25 where the form of the toponymic nomen rectum Gilead is plural in the construction bəne Gil`adim (בני גלעדים, "sons of Gilead"), but clearly intends singular reference, not "*sons of Gileads". An example of the SBH form of exactly the same phrase bəne Gil`ad (בני גלעד) can be found in Numbers 26:30, without the masculine plural suffix –im (as in cherub/–im, seraph/–im, kibbutz/–im).

Respectfully, I do not find this to be a clear example of the alleged phenomenon. The translation "Gileads" for גלעדים Gil`adîm strikes me as unnatural -- I think one would be hard-pressed to find clear BH references to the genuine plural of any recurring name, even though there are, for example, two or more Lamechs, Ishmaels, Hadads, possibly Hilkiahs, definitely Azariahs, and even Gileads (I am referring here to individuals named Gilead, not places); but I don't think any of these documented recurring names are ever lumped together in a plural. The rendering "Gileadites", on the other hand, follows, as you'll know, a common pattern denoting a population associated with a particular toponym, and/or a family, clan, tribe, or nation considered to be the children of a common eponymous ancestor (e.g. "Ishmaelites", ישמעאלים Yishma`'elîm, from "Ishmael" ישמעאל Yishma`'el). Hence there is a redundancy in בני גלעדים bənê Gil`adîm, but it is in the double mention of ancestry/origin via two separate formal devices, corresponding to "sons/children of" and "-ites" respectively, and not in spurious plural agreement between the grammatical forms. I submit that the natural rendering is "sons of the Gileadites"; and that if such a construction is hard to find in preexilic Hebrew texts, its absence is probably not good evidence for a separate dialect (though other cited items may well be).

Would you be so kind as to supply an inline citation for your example (and, forgive me for asking, but while you're at it, the phenomenon itself)? -- Since there are books and articles out there to support almost any assertion about alleged quirks in variant dialects of Biblical Hebrew (both of which I agree exist...), well, it would be very nice, at least, to have a couple of primary sources which are reasonably independent from one another. Also, if there turn out to be scholarly disagreements about the given example -- or the phenomenon in general -- that are not hard to find, imho their existence should be noted too.

Your friendly neighbourhood armchair critic :~) IfYouDoIfYouDon&#39;t (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Reconstruction
This article seems to use *ḍ for the Proto-Semitic phoneme corresponding to Arabic ḍ, and (incorrectly) *z for the PS phoneme corresponding to Arabic ẓ. Right?

Our PS article however uses for these the symbols *ṣ́ and *ṱ, so I propose this be updated for consistency. -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 16:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Corrected those two you mentioned, plus ts > ṣ ; đ > ḏ ; and θ > ṯ — al-Shimoni  (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Israelian Hebrew. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720041518/http://jewishstudies.rutgers.edu/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=97&Itemid=158 to http://jewishstudies.rutgers.edu/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=97&Itemid=158

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)