User talk:Msh210/Archive/ב־

This page is an archive of old discussion. Please don't edit this page. If you wish to communicate with me (msh210), you can do so at User talk:Msh210. Thanks!

ב־

Hi,

I don't suppose you could take a look at sense #4 of ב־ for me? In particular, I'm not sure if "b'shokhb'kha" is an example of this same grammatical pattern, since the to-infinitive of "shakhav" is "lishkav", so its bare infinitive must be "sh'khav", so I'd expect *"bish'khav'kha" or something. Do you know what's going on with this form?

—Ruakh_TALK 15:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have examples of where it introduces a bare infinitive, as claimed in the entry? It is used in b'shockb'cha, as you note, and that is, as you note, not the infinitive. It's some kind of noun-formed-from-the-verb (gerund?). Same as b'ochlo (בְּאָכְלוֹ). hence, it'd seem to me to be the same as sense 5. What do you think?—msh210℠ 17:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I believe the other three examples in that sentence all use the bare infinitive, a.k.a. gerund (I prefer the term "bare infinitive" because it seems most like English's bare infinitive to me, but Modern Hebrew: An Essential Grammar, by Lewis Glinert, the same guy who wrote the well-respected The Grammar of Modern Hebrew, uses the term "gerund" for reasons that I don't know but that are presumably quite sound): "b'shivt'kha" = b'- + shevet + -kha (compare "sefer" > "sifr'kha" as in Psalms 139:16), "uv'lekht'kha" = v'- + b'- + lekhet + -kha, "uv'kumekha" = v'- + b'- + kum + -kha (but with pausal pronunciation).

You're right that this is the same as sense 5, except for the choice of object. (Really, I made a bad move: sense 5 isn't as clearly set off as sense 4, and probably shouldn't appear the way it does at all.)

I think "b'okhlo" = b'- + okhal + -o; nowadays the full infinitive is "le'ekhol", but my dictionary says that in the Talmud one also sees "lokhal" (לוכל), which would presumably have bare infinitive "okhal".

—Ruakh_TALK 22:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, b'ochlo matches b'shochb'cha too well to not be formed the same way: I would not assume that the former is from some weird lochal bare infinitive and the latter from another form of the verb (not the bare infinitive). Here's an idea: Do you know of another sh'lemim (i.e., not ayin-vav or pe-yod or what-have-you) verb that has a form "bare infinitive" + "possessive suffix", as b'shivt'cha, b'lech'tcha, and b'kumecha seem to? If not, then I doubt that those three are actually in that form: they're probably in the same form as b'ochlo and b'shochb'cha. But that's just me speaking, and I have little training, and, obviously, little wisdom.—msh210℠ 19:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)