[b-hebrew] -HM vs -MW suffix

[Joel C. Salomon]

I've been off-list a while, but I just came across this question
<http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/14259> and figured folks
here might have some approach.

In short: Usually the suffix “הם” HM is used to indicate “them” or
“their”, as in “אליהם” )LYHM or “כליהם” KLYHM. Sometimes, though, the
suffix used is “מו” MW, e.g., Deut 33:2 “וזרח משעיר למו”.

Is there any known grammatical difference between the two forms, or is
the -MW form usually taken to be simply a poetic style?

—Joel

[Joel C. Salomon]

Usually the suffix “הם” HM is used to indicate “them” or “their”, as in “אליהם” )LYHM
or “כליהם” KLYHM. Sometimes, though, the suffix used is “מו” MW, e.g., Deut 33:2
“וזרח משעיר למו”.
Is there any known grammatical difference between the two forms, or is
the -MW form usually taken to be simply a poetic style?

The suffix הם-  -HM always refers to the plural third person, however the
מו-  -MW suffix, while usually used as a plural, sometimes refers to the
singular subject, e.g. Genesis 9:26–27, Isaiah 44:15.

I’m not sure which is the possibly-singular subject & which the
object; do you mean it can mean “his” as well as “their”, or that it
can apply to “their” object (s.) as well as “their” objects (pl.)?

(E.g., does ידיו = ידימו, both meaning “his hands” or do you mean ארצם
= *ארצמו, both meaning “their land” rather than ארצותיהם = *ארצותימו
“their lands”?)

In Genesis 9:26–27, Noah blesses Shem & Japheth individually, each
time adding “ויהי כנען עבד למו”; “let Canaan be a servant to them” —
would you translate these as “to him”?

The use of the מו-  -MW suffix sometimes seems the same as an emphatic with
a different meaning than הם-  -HM suffix, e.g. Exodus 15:5, Isaiah 44:16,
19.

“למו” as in Deut 33:2 or Isaiah 44:15 is the most familiar occurrence
of the -MW suffix. And although I say it every day, I never noticed
that form in Exodus 15:5 “יכסימו”; thanks for pointing it out!

What makes it difficult for us English speakers is that there is no
equivalent to the מו-  -MW suffix in English, therefore we struggle to
understand it, the הם-  -HM suffix is almost always understood the same as
“their” when used as a possessive, or as “them” when used as an object.

Hence the question.

I look forward to reading your notes on the subject, if & when they turn up.

—Joel

[Isaac Fried]

It appears to me that MO מו is a quaint variant of
MIY מי and MAH מה
It comes combined with B K L :

BMO
Is. 43:2 כִּי תֵלֵךְ בְּמוֹ אֵשׁ לֹא
תִכָּוֶה וְלֶהָבָה לֹא תִבְעַר בָּךְ
Job 19:16 לְעַבְדִּי קָרָאתִי וְלֹא
יַעֲנֶה בְּמוֹ פִי אֶתְחַנֶּן לוֹ

KMO
Ex. 15:5 תְּהֹמֹת יְכַסְיֻמוּ יָרְדוּ
בִמְצוֹלֹת כְּמוֹ אָבֶן
Gen. 19:15 וּכְמוֹ הַשַּׁחַר עָלָה
Is. 26:18 הָרִינוּ חַלְנוּ כְּמוֹ
יָלַדְנוּ רוּחַ

LMO
Job 27:14 אִם יִרְבּוּ בָנָיו לְמוֹ חָרֶב

LAMO = LA-HEM
Is. 43:8 עַם עִוֵּר וְעֵינַיִם יֵשׁ
וְחֵרְשִׁים וְאָזְנַיִם לָמוֹ
Ps. 2:3-5
נְנַתְּקָה אֶת מוֹסְרוֹתֵימוֹ
וְנַשְׁלִיכָה מִמֶּנּוּ עֲבֹתֵימוֹ
יוֹשֵׁב בַּשָּׁמַיִם יִשְׂחָק
אֲדֹנָי יִלְעַג לָמוֹ
אָז יְדַבֵּר אֵלֵימוֹ בְאַפּוֹ
וּבַחֲרוֹנוֹ יְבַהֲלֵמוֹ

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Post by Joel C. Salomon
“ויהי כנען עבד למו”; “let Canaan be a serv

[K Randolph]

Post by Joel C. Salomon

wrote, forwarding from <http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/14259

Usually the suffix “הם” HM is used to indicate “them” or “their”, as in

“אליהם” )LYHM

or “כליהם” KLYHM. Sometimes, though, the suffix used is “מו” MW, e.g.,

Deut 33:2

“וזרח משעיר למו”.
Is there any known grammatical difference between the two forms, or is
the -MW form usually taken to be simply a poetic style?

The suffix הם- -HM always refers to the plural third person, however the
מו- -MW suffix, while usually used as a plural, sometimes refers to the
singular subject, e.g. Genesis 9:26–27, Isaiah 44:15.

I’m not sure which is the possibly-singular subject & which the
object; do you mean it can mean “his” as well as “their”, or that it
can apply to “their” object (s.) as well as “their” objects (pl.)?

These were referenced individually, hence singular.

Post by Joel C. Salomon
(E.g., does ידיו = ידימו, both meaning “his hands” or do you mean ארצם
= *ארצמו, both meaning “their land” rather than ארצותיהם = *ארצותימו
“their lands”?)

As far as I remember, the מו- -MW suffix is never used in the possessive
sense, as you speculate here. While the most common use is as a suffix
following a -ל L- prefix, it is found in other contexts as well, as you
note below.

Post by Joel C. Salomon
In Genesis 9:26–27, Noah blesses Shem & Japheth individually, each
time adding “ויהי כנען עבד למו”; “let Canaan be a servant to them” —
would you translate these as “to him”?

Yes.

Post by Joel C. Salomon

The use of the מו- -MW suffix sometimes seems the same as an emphatic

with

a different meaning than הם- -HM suffix, e.g. Exodus 15:5, Isaiah 44:16,
19.

“למו” as in Deut 33:2 or Isaiah 44:15 is the most familiar occurrence
of the -MW suffix. And although I say it every day, I never noticed
that form in Exodus 15:5 “יכסימו”; thanks for pointing it out!

I had a list once of all the times I found the מו- -MW suffix used, but
that’s on that older computer as well.

Apparently the most controversial occurrence is found in Isaiah 53:8—if the
מו- -MW suffix can be used for the singular, then “God’s slave” can be a
single individual, not necessarily a group. That the מו- -MW suffix is
used sometimes for a single individual leaves the single individual option
for this verse open.

Post by Joel C. Salomon

What makes it difficult for us English speakers is that there is no
equivalent to the מו- -MW suffix in English, therefore we struggle to
understand it, the הם- -HM suffix is almost always understood the same

as

“their” when used as a possessive, or as “them” when used as an object.

Hence the question.
I look forward to reading your notes on the subject, if & when they turn up.
—Joel

Karl W. Randolph.

[K Randolph]

Joel:

I did a study on this question some years ago and wrote up some
notes—unfortunately they are on an older computer to which I will not have
access until next month. That is, if they still exist.

However, there are a couple things I can say from memory:

The suffix הם- -HM always refers to the plural third person, however the
מו- -MW suffix, while usually used as a plural, sometimes refers to the
singular subject, e.g. Genesis 9:26–27, Isaiah 44:15.

The use of the מו- -MW suffix sometimes seems the same as an emphatic with
a different meaning than הם- -HM suffix, e.g. Exodus 15:5, Isaiah 44:16,
19.

What makes it difficult for us English speakers is that there is no
equivalent to the מו- -MW suffix in English, therefore we struggle to
understand it, the הם- -HM suffix is almost always understood the same as
“their” when used as a possessive, or as “them” when used as an object.

Karl W. Randolph.

Post by Joel C. Salomon
I've been off-list a while, but I just came across this question
<http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/14259> and figured folks
here might have some approach.
In short: Usually the suffix “הם” HM is used to indicate “them” or
“their”, as in “אליהם” )LYHM or “כליהם” KLYHM. Sometimes, though, the
suffix used is “מו” MW, e.g., Deut 33:2 “וזרח משעיר למו”.
Is there any known grammatical difference between the two forms, or is
the -MW form usually taken to be simply a poetic style?
—Joel

[George Athas]

Joel,

The theoretical predecessor of the preposition ל was probably למו. This is preserved only in Job a few times (e.g. Job 27.14). However, elsewhere the context seems to demand that למו be a preposition with pronominal suffix. Again, it may be an archaic style, but of the suffix rather than the preposition. Phoenician wrote the 3mp suffix with the preposition as לם and may have pronounced a vowel after the mem. It's most likely that למו is along the same lines.

Karl suggests that in some contexts the suffix appears to be singular. While I can see where he's coming from on this, it could just as easily be 3mp, rather than 3ms. It's hard to tell sometimes. There's lots of textual uncertainty in many of the instances of this word, which doesn't help things very much.


GEORGE ATHAS
Director of Postgraduate Studies,
Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)
Sydney, Australia

[Isaac Fried]

1. You are right, except that I would refrain from using
"predecessor", as it could imply an assertion for a linear
development of the Hebrew language, whereas we see internal evidence
(say in the equivalent verbal forms piel and hifil) that Hebrew
expanded in parallel strains.

2. I see the preposition L as a contracted adhered EL אל or AL על

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Post by George Athas
The theoretical predecessor of the preposition ל was probably למו.

[Nir cohen - Prof. Mat.]

we have to separate karl's -MW from issac's MW as they come from different
constructions.

karl's MW come as an added -W in mostly pausal poetic situations, representing
an archaic vowel suffix. it just represents a variant of LHM
in the form LMW.

although karl interprets this as possibly singular, i agree with george that
plural is at least as likely. an all-plural, no-singular etymology is to be
preferred, being the simpler among the two assumptions. there is no example
as far as i know where singular is the ONLY reading.

isaac's MW is a -MW-morpheme associated with MAH-what, i.e. a substantive
in the genitive translated as "the very...". it has nothing to do with an
-W suffix, it is not pausal, its case is different (genitive).

nir cohen

Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
You can reach the person managing the list at
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..."

--
Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)

[Isaac Fried]

In the word *$EL-O שלו (as in $EL-IY שלי of Songs 1:6, or $EL-
ANU שלנו of 2Ki 6:11),
is the O a mere "vowel suffix", or is it the contracted personal
pronoun HU, 'he'? I don't think that Hebrew is made up of "vowel
suffixes".

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Post by Nir cohen - Prof. Mat.
an added -W in mostly pausal poetic situations, representing
an archaic vowel suffix.

[Uzi Silber]

Isaac:

Many years ago I watched the linguist Avshalom Kor on Israeli TV expound on
the word 'shel'. He explained that 'shel' is a contraction of the more
archaic expression 'asher leh', as in 'shir hashirim asher le Shlomo' which
would be shir hashirim shel Shlomo'.

If follows then that 'shelo' and 'shelanu' would be short for 'asher lo'
and 'asher lanu'.

Uzi Silber

Post by Isaac Fried
In the word *$EL-O שלו (as in $EL-IY שלי of Songs 1:6, or $EL-
ANU שלנו of 2Ki 6:11),
is the O a mere "vowel suffix", or is it the contracted personal
pronoun HU, 'he'? I don't think that Hebrew is made up of "vowel
suffixes".
Isaac Fried, Boston University

Post by Nir cohen - Prof. Mat.
an added -W in mostly pausal poetic situations, representing
an archaic vowel suffix.

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

[Isaac Fried]

We touched upon it here on several occasions, on which I expressed my
belief that the
prefixed (or pre-hitched or pre-adhered) $E ֶש is but a curtailed
(which is the price of hitching)
ZEH זֶה or ZEH: (notice the colon). I believe the letter L in $EL
is a single-consonant root
meaning AL עַל or EL אֵל 'on'. $EL also appears to me to be a
variant of ECEL אֵצֶל 'by'.

Thus, $ELO = $EL-HU, $ELIY = $EL-ANIY, $ELANU = $EL-ANU, etc.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Post by Uzi Silber
Many years ago I watched the linguist Avshalom Kor on Israeli TV
expound on the word 'shel'. He explained that 'shel' is a
contraction of the more archaic expression 'asher leh', as in 'shir
hashirim asher le Shlomo' which would be shir hashirim shel Shlomo'.
If follows then that 'shelo' and 'shelanu' would be short for
'asher lo' and 'asher lanu'.
Uzi Silber
In the word *$EL-O שלו (as in $EL-IY שלי of Songs 1:6, or $EL-
ANU שלנו of 2Ki 6:11),
is the O a mere "vowel suffix", or is it the contracted personal
pronoun HU, 'he'? I don't think that Hebrew is made up of "vowel
suffixes".
Isaac Fried, Boston University

Post by Nir cohen - Prof. Mat.
an added -W in mostly pausal poetic situations, representing
an archaic vowel suffix.

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

[Uzi Silber]

Isaac,

During a brief speech at my son's brit mila on Taanit Esther 2003 at the
Eldridge Street Synagogue on the Lower East Side, I raised that very issue:
the distinct possibility (and I suspect probability) that Asher was the
masculine counterpart of Canaanite Ashera (Ashtoret/Ishtar/Esther). It's
certainly interesting that the traditional symbol of the Tribe of Asher is
a tree.

What made it especially fun is that members of my very frum family in the
pews stared at me aghast as if I'd just landed from Mars.

Uzi Silber

You are right about the possibly ultimate irony of Purim on which day the
followers of YAH were delivered by the wily Morduk and the seductive
Ashtor(et) (E$-AT-OR-AT, the feminine counterpart of A$ER?)
Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Nir cohen - Prof. Mat.]

isaac,

i was not emphasizing VOWEL vs CONSONANT, this distinction is modern. nor was i saying this is the stuff
standard BH was made of. but yes, i claimed the -W suffix occurs in the OT in some poetic verses. this only
shows that poetic language is more flexible than narrative. it doesnt mean that -W exists in BH narrative.

more generally, there are many cases where an AHWY letter is added as an affix in a specialized use, where
it does not occur in general. the most common is the H-suffix:

HM -->HMH (Jer 1:11), ShM-->ShMH, NRD-->NRDH, LK-->LKH, KLN-->KLNH, YHMU-->YHMYUN (two separate affixes!) 

not to mention place names where the last H-suffix is directional.

you also have double versions of names like CDQYH/CSQYHW etc where one can argue with some reason that the extra W is a simple suffix.

in names like AXYQM, AXYM(C one can similarly argue that the Y is a suffix for the first word. though in others it may refer to first person genitive.

we also mentioned MN-->MNY, (L-->(LY, (D-->(DY before where Y is a suffix.

in XYTW-Y(R  (ps 50:10) is a clear w-suffix. i imagine there are similar places.

the pausal construction seems to be used in order to guarantee MILEL on the last word of the phrase. this is what the extra vav
does in LAHEM (milra) --> LAMO (milel). YEKASUM--> YEKASYUMO (Ex 15:5 two irregular affixes in one word! let us not steer
the issue again to "tashlum dagesh"...), Y)KLM-->Y)KLMW (Ex 15:7)
 etc. Ex 15 is considered one of the oldest chapters in the OT and is full of those w-suffixes!!!
see also Ps 2:3,5, 22:5, 58:7 etc etc where the use is not always pausal but is equally poetic.
some of the suffixed forms should, in fact, be considered older forms used when the newer form is MILRA.

many other letters are used as suffixes, as in YSSWN. so, why not -W? and why not PR)-->PRH as in Jer 2:24?after all,
language is a creative process.

in jeremiah there are many words where past feminine singular ends with Yin QRY, then removed KTYV. this might be genuine original BH.

job 4:12: MMNW-->MNHW equally applies an older form to achieve the pausal.

job 5:16 (AWLAH-->(OLATAH: a T-suffix possibly returning to an older form. see Ps 3:3.

etc etc.

conclusion: there are single-letter suffixes, including vowel lettwer suffixes, all over the place!!!

of course, you can always join the vowel to the consonant before it and claim the consonant is also part of the suffix.
but in the cases i cite, this is often quite far-fetched as the consonant is a grammatical phoneme which is part of the
word before. such as final MEM.

nir cohen

In the word *$EL-O שלו (as in $EL-IY שלי of Songs 1:6, or $EL-ANU שלנו of 2Ki 6:11), 
is the  O a mere "vowel suffix", or is it the contracted personal pronoun HU, 'he'? I don't think that Hebrew is made up of "vowel suffixes".
Isaac Fried, Boston University
an added -W in mostly pausal poetic situations, representing
an archaic vowel suffix. 

[Isaac Fried]

1. I don't know if Y$UATAH ישועתה of Ps. 3:3 is an older form, a
"poetic" form, or merely a alternate grammatical form that was in use
somewhere among the Israelites. What I am convinced of is that it is
not a mere T-suffix", but rather the personal pronoun ATAH אתה
referring to salvation itself. Otherwise, it is the shorter Y$UAH
ישועה ending in HI היא

2. In Ps. 6:5 we find the "irregular" form XALCAH חלצה '(please)
extricate', instead of the "regular" piel form XALEC חַלֵּץ In
this construction, the internal personal pronoun E for the actor is
placed at the end as AH היא

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Post by Nir cohen - Prof. Mat.
job 5:16 (AWLAH-->(OLATAH: a T-suffix possibly returning to an
older form. see Ps 3:3.

[Nir cohen - Prof. Mat.]

isaac,

i gave you many examples of suffixes. in your answer you only object to one of them, YE$U(ATAH. so, i take it you
accept the general picture i describe...

now, to the point: you are correct about YE$U(ATAh and i retract my words: it is not a T-suffix. but it is a suffix nonetheless!

more precisely, it is an H-suffix (added to the SMIXUT-form YE$UAT). it isthe same construction as UT$UVATO HARAMATAH (2Sam??),
where the use is justified as directive. the same smixut+H occurs whenever the original word ends with an H by itself,
so as to avoid two consecutive H. HAGIV(ATAH, HABIQ(ATAH, HAQIRYATAH etc.

so, the construction is a known construction in BH. in Ps 3:3 i believe the same form was used out ofcontext (i.e. not as a
directive), just for poetic reasons.

-------------------------------------

XALCAH: the volitive H-ending in BH, whatever you call it, is factually an H-suffix. the rest is either speculation
or phantasy (see below for the difference). some scholars (following, i think, rainey and moran, based on amarna letters)
think that this is a descendant of the canaanite QATALA form, also used as volitive, which preserves the same final -A.
but they at least base their theory on some evidence.  this does not NECESSARILY contradict your explanation, but would push
it at least one thousand years backwards. this is relevant to the rest of my answer below.

-------------------------

let us once and for all end this running-around-the-bush on your "theory of suffixes".
there is a limit to what one can take as legitimate argument. we are not here to build palaces
in the sand but to find some sense in an old script.

i really support your theory that at some extremely remote moment in the formation of early BH, or beyond,
all the affixes and suffixes had personal pronouns as their origin.

i think most of us in b-hebrew share the same conviction. we see similar constructions in practically every language in
the world, including english.of course, it is mere speculation, because it has no evidence in history. at best, it goes back to
pre-historic times, i.e. before the written word. maybe not in english, certainly in hebrew.

so, the question is when one leaves speculation and enters phantasy.

------------------------------------------------

here is when it becomes phantasy: when the same equation (suffix=pronoun) is taken out of context and time.

it is certainly a gross anachronism to continue using the same primitivity argument indefinitely after the language had
been given its more or less developed form, which is what you insist of doing. things got a long way off; for example,
nobody would nowadays (not even in isaiah's time) associate HALKAH with H.L.K + HI), HALKU with H.L.K + HEM, HALAK
with H.L.K. + HU). the suffix became very different from the pronoun (or vice versa)!

nor would isaiah have had any way of associating YE$U(ATAH with YW$UAH + ATAH.

things changed! nobody knows anymore your magic formula ... but you go on using it!!!

this is what i call phantasy.

--------------------------------

also, at this particular phrase, with all due respect, the pronoun ATAH is also completely out of text:

                                                 רַבִּים, אֹמְרִים לְנַפְשִׁי:    אֵין יְשׁוּעָתָה לּוֹ בֵאלֹהִים סֶלָה.

should we translate it as:

                Many there are that say of my soul:    "There is no salvation you for him in God"?????

i call this gibberish. also observe that soul NEFE$ is feminine, so ATAHmakes no sense. but even assuming YE$U(ATAH = YE$U(AH + AT,
it is equally gibberish to me.

nir cohen

1. I don't know if Y$UATAH ישועתה of Ps. 3:3 is an older form, a "poetic" form, or merely a alternate grammatical form that was in use somewhere among the Israelites. What I am convinced of is that it is not a mere T-suffix", but rather the personal pronoun ATAH אתה referring to salvation itself. Otherwise, it is the shorter Y$UAH ישועה ending in HI היא
2. In Ps. 6:5 we find the "irregular" form XALCAH חלצה '(please) extricate', instead of the "regular" piel form XALEC חַלֵּץ In this construction, the internal personal pronoun E for the actor is placed at the end as AH היא
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Feb 17, 2012, at 3:29 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. wrote:job 5:16 (AWLAH-->(OLATAH: a T-suffix possibly returning to an older form. see Ps 3:3. 

--
Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)

1. I don't know if Y$UATAH ישועתה of Ps. 3:3 is an older form, a "poetic" form, or merely a alternate grammatical form that was in use somewhere among the Israelites. What I am convinced of is that it is not a mere T-suffix", but rather the personal pronoun ATAH אתה referring to salvation itself. Otherwise, it is the shorter Y$UAH ישועה ending in HI היא
2. In Ps. 6:5 we find the "irregular" form XALCAH חלצה '(please) extricate', instead of the "regular" piel form XALEC חַלֵּץ In this construction, the internal personal pronoun E for the actor is placed at the end as AH היא
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Feb 17, 2012, at 3:29 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. wrote:job 5:16 (AWLAH-->(OLATAH: a T-suffix possibly returning to an older form. see Ps 3:3. 

[Isaac Fried]

Different forms, previously current, for the personal pronouns are
now preserved only in
attachment, as the -UN for HEM הם in ISAUNKA ישאונך HI-SA-UN-
AKAH, 'they (shall) bear thee',
of Ps. 91:12.

Another example is TA$LIKUN = TA-$L-I-K-UN תשליכון 'ye (shall)
cast it' of Ex. 22:30.

And "why not -W?". Now it is, indeed, shortened to a mere U.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Post by Nir cohen - Prof. Mat.
many other letters are used as suffixes, as in YSSWN. so, why not -W?

[Nir cohen - Prof. Mat.]

isaac,

remember, the subject is BIBLICAL hebrew.

nir cohen

Different forms, previously current, for the personal pronouns are now preserved only in 
attachment, as the -UN for HEM הם in ISAUNKA ישאונך HI-SA-UN-AKAH, 'they (shall) bear thee', 
of Ps. 91:12. 
Another example is TA$LIKUN = TA-$L-I-K-UN תשליכון 'ye (shall) cast it' of Ex. 22:30.  
And "why not -W?". Now it is, indeed, shortened to a mere U.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Feb 17, 2012, at 3:29 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. wrote:many other letters are used as suffixes, as in YSSWN. so, why not -W?

[Isaac Fried]

It is all Biblical Hebrew, but the HB contains different parallel
grammatical forms and constructions. The commonly suffixed personal
pronoun is -U as in TA-$UB-U (containing three personal pronouns)
תשובו of Jos. 23:12, but also, more rarely, -UN as in T$UBUN of
1Ki. 9:6. What prompted the editor to use -UN instead of -U is not
clear to me, the same way it is not clear to me why he prefers to use
in Ex. 9:25 $IBER שִבֵּר instead of $ABAR (I don't believe, not
even for a moment that piel represents a "strong" action.)

In the spoken Hebrew of today -UN is out.

When you say that, say, -IY is a suffix you are only implying that it
is not radical. For example, BIY as in BIY ADONIY of Nu. 12:11. If -
IY is here a suffix, then the word (or macro-word) is of the single-
consonant root B, corresponding to the English 'be', with something
attached to it. But what is this something, is it the same thing as
in BIY, 'in me', of 2Sam. 14:33?

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Post by Nir cohen - Prof. Mat.
isaac,
remember, the subject is BIBLICAL hebrew.
nir cohen

Post by Isaac Fried
Different forms, previously current, for the personal pronouns

are now preserved only in

Post by Isaac Fried
attachment, as the -UN for HEM הם in ISAUNKA ישאונך HI-SA-

UN-AKAH, 'they (shall) bear thee',

Post by Isaac Fried
of Ps. 91:12.
Another example is TA$LIKUN = TA-$L-I-K-UN תשליכון 'ye

(shall) cast it' of Ex. 22:30.

Post by Isaac Fried
And "why not -W?". Now it is, indeed, shortened to a mere U.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
many other letters are used as suffixes, as in YSSWN. so, why not -W?

--
Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)

[Sevillano Hispalis]

Shalom,
whats the meaning of the name Asher?

Does it mean "happy" as I have read?

Thank you very much
David Sevilla
Spain.


Isaac,

During a brief speech at my son's brit mila on Taanit Esther 2003 at the
Eldridge Street Synagogue on the Lower East Side, I raised that very issue:
the distinct possibility (and I suspect probability) that Asher was the
masculine counterpart of Canaanite Ashera (Ashtoret/Ishtar/Esther). It's
certainly interesting that the traditional symbol of the Tribe of Asher is
a tree.

What made it especially fun is that members of my very frum family in the
pews stared at me aghast as if I'd just landed from Mars.

Uzi Silber

[j***@aol.com]

David Sevilla:

The traditional analysis of the meaning of "Asher", based on the explicit pun set forth at Genesis 30: 13, is correct. The early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives had no interest whatsoever in the pagan goddess Ashera, and had no reason to name one of Jacob's sons after a pagan goddess, nor was Ashera important in Naharim, where Asher is portrayed as being born.

Since Asher is born in the heart of Hurrianland, there may be a secondary pun in Hurrian. )$-xu means "high, upward" in Hurrian, and in Hurrian,instead of the suffix -xu, which literally means "coming from", one could substitute the comitative suffix -ra, which means "together with". The Hurrian meaning of )$-ra is somewhat similar to the meaning of the Hebrew common word )$R. Many of the names of Jacob's sons born in Naharim in the heart of Hurrianland can be viewed as having certain secondary elements that are redolent of the Hurrian locale of their birth. Although Nahor's descendants are not ethnic Hurrians, Leah and Rachel likely had native proficiency speaking Hurrian, since most of their neighbors spoke Hurrian.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois


Shalom,
hats the meaning of the name Asher?
Does it mean "happy" as I have read?
Thank you very much
avid Sevilla
pain.





-----Original Message-----
From: Sevillano Hispalis <***@yahoo.com>
To: b-hebrew <b-***@lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Fri, Mar 16, 2012 6:09 am
Subject: [b-hebrew] Purim


Shalom,
hats the meaning of the name Asher?
Does it mean "happy" as I have read?
Thank you very much
avid Sevilla
pain.

saac,
During a brief speech at my son's brit mila on Taanit Esther 2003 at the
ldridge Street Synagogue on the Lower East Side, I raised that very issue:
he distinct possibility (and I suspect probability) that Asher was the
asculine counterpart of Canaanite Ashera (Ashtoret/Ishtar/Esther). It's
ertainly interesting that the traditional symbol of the Tribe of Asher is
tree.
What made it especially fun is that members of my very frum family in the
ews stared at me aghast as if I'd just landed from Mars.
Uzi Silber

[Sevillano Hispalis]

But what is the name of the ancient caananite goddess?

I see you all indentify the word "ashera" with

Ashtaret/Ashtarot/Ashtarté/Astart/Athirat/Ishtar ...

Has the word "ashera" been found anywhere out of the

hebraic bible?

Thank you for your responses
David Sevilla
Spain



________________________________
From: "***@aol.com" <***@aol.com>
To: ***@yahoo.com; b-***@lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 7:44 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Purim


David Sevilla:
 
The traditional analysis of the meaning of "Asher", based on the explicit pun set forth at Genesis 30: 13, is correct.  The early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives had no interest whatsoever in the pagan goddess Ashera, and had no reason to name one of Jacob's sons after a pagan goddess, nor was Ashera important in Naharim, where Asher is portrayed as being born.
 
Since Asher is born in the heart of Hurrianland, there may be a secondary pun in Hurrian.  )$-xu means "high, upward" in Hurrian, and in Hurrian,instead of the suffix -xu, which literally means "coming from", one could substitute the comitative suffix -ra, which means "together with".  The Hurrian meaning of )$-ra is somewhat similar to the meaning of the Hebrew common word )$R.  Many of the names of Jacob's sons born in Naharim in the heart of Hurrianland can be viewed as having certain secondary elements that are redolent of the Hurrian locale of their birth.  Although Nahor's descendants are not ethnic Hurrians, Leah and Rachel likely had native proficiency speaking Hurrian, since most of their neighbors spoke Hurrian.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois 

Shalom,
whats the meaning of the name Asher? Does it mean "happy" as I have read? Thank you very much
David Sevilla
Spain.



-----Original Message-----
From: Sevillano Hispalis <***@yahoo.com>
To: b-hebrew <b-***@lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Fri, Mar 16, 2012 6:09 am
Subject: [b-hebrew] Purim


Shalom,
whats the meaning of the name Asher? Does it mean "happy" as I have read? Thank you very much
David Sevilla
Spain. Isaac, During a brief speech at my son's brit mila on Taanit Esther 2003 at the
Eldridge Street Synagogue on the Lower East Side, I raised that very issue:
the distinct possibility (and I suspect probability) that Asher was the
masculine counterpart of Canaanite Ashera (Ashtoret/Ishtar/Esther). It's
certainly interesting that the traditional symbol of the Tribe of Asher is
a tree. What made it especially fun is that members of my very frum family in the
pews stared at me aghast as if I'd just landed from Mars. Uzi Silber
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list b-***@lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

[George Athas]

No match between Asher and Ashtoreth. The latter is spelt with initial ayin: עשׁתרת. Totally unrelated.


GEORGE ATHAS
Director of Postgraduate Studies,
Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)
Sydney, Australia