From: gaujxl@samhain.fnma.com (Jacob Lifshitz)
Subject: Re: Who are the Haredi?
Organization: Fannie Mae, Washington, DC
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:02:28 GMT

I know it was a few days since the article was posted, but I did not want to follow-up until I got my old (really old, 1962) grammer book out.  
Although I thought myself to be very good at the time of high school,
it has been very  long ago (but not as long as 1962!).  Also being in the US
for a long time takes its toll.  Anyway, I was not thrilled with some of the
responses, so I decided to do a little investigation of my own.

Let's start with some gramatical definition:
1.  shem-to'ar - adjective, can be of different types, quantitive, qualitive 
    		 an relational.
		 e.g. quantitative: rav (many)
                      qualitative: naki (clean)
                      relational: ivri (of the Hebrew people)

2.  bei'no'ni - a form that describe the object's action or state. The first is
		bei'no'ni po'el (which erroneously is called present tense) and
		the second is called bei'no'ni pa'ul.
		e.g. bei'no'ni po'el: ani shomer (I gaurd)
		     bei'no'ni pa'ul: sha'on sha'vur (broken watch)

As the comment for bei'no'ni indicates, I mayself always considered it present,
tense but as can be seen from the definition, the bei'no'ni is actually is
a form of an adjective.  So in our discussion, HARED (or the way I would type
it cha'red) is an qualitative adjective describing the action as in: ani
cha'red le'go'rali (I fear for my fate)

However there is also a relational adjective which describe an association
to a group.  While the book I have does not give the rule how to form the
relational adjective all the examples indicate the addition of the yud for
the singular bei'no'ni.  That is how we get cha're'di.  Some more examples
of the relational adjective are: i'ro'ni (urban, of group of people who live
in the city), ye'ru'shal'mi, iv'ri a'ra'vi, etc.

So in conclusion, cha'red is correct if you refer to the state of fear one is
in, however you shoud say cha're'di in order to indicate that a man belong to
the group that makes up the cha're'dim.


In article <92202.130102F66204@BARILVM.BITNET> Shaul Wallach <F66204@BARILVM.BITNET> writes:
>In article <4026@bimacs.BITNET>, ehrlich@bimacs.BITNET (Gideon Ehrlich)
>writes:
>
>>In article <92197.142004F66204@BARILVM.BITNET> F66204@BARILVM.BITNET
>>(Shaul Wallach) writes:
>>
>>>  .....
>>> Grammatically speaking, the word "haredi" is incorrect and should be
>>> replaced by "hared". The root means literally "to tremble",
>>
>>The word HAREDI is actually the singular form of the plural form of
>>HARED.
>> HARED is the correct  singular  form -> HAREDIM as a plural form
>>( up to this point everything is legal ) and from that plural form
>>the funny singular word HAREDI . It may be the case that the
>>mistake arose among Yidish speakers.
>
>      This may be true. As Jaaqov Goldberg has correctly hinted,
>the use of the term "haredim" to refer to the traditional Orthodox
>arose around 1920, when those elements of the Ashkenazim in Jerusalem
>who opposed the appointment of Rabbi Kook Ztz"l to the rabbinate
>reorganized their congregations into a new, separate "Eidah Haredit".
>It seems natural, then, that their members would be called "haredim",
>from whence the singular "haredi".
>
>     It could also be that people did not like the sound of the
>singular "hared" and therefore added a final yod. We see this

nonsense

>usage in other words as well. For example, "painter" in Hebrew
>is correctly "sabba`" (s is sadi and ` is `ayin), exactly the
>same form as "naggar" ("carpenter"), but everyone says today
>"sabba`i". Similarly,

Although it may be hard for me to convey it in eglish, the above book make a
clear distinction between chak'lay (the last syl. rymes with the english word
my) which is the which is the noun: ha'chak'lay o'ved ka'she (the farmer works
hard), and chak'la'ee (like in employee) which is the adjective: mar cohen
chak'la'ee (Mr. Cohen is a farmer). 

>the adjective "hison" ("outside") has
>evolved into "hisoni", and the feminine form "hisona" has evolved
>into "hisonit". The "-it" ending is quite popular today. For
>example, how often do you hear today the Mishnaic form "piqahat"
>("intelligent") instead of the colloquial "piqhit", even though
>the masculine is still "piqeah" and not "piqhi"?
>
>     My ignorant guess is that those who add the final "-i" or
>"-it" aren't satisfied with the title as is and want a more
>"personal" feeling to it. In the case of "hared", it could be
>that the title "hared" as is didn't sound specific enough and the
>yod was added to distinguish the word from the more general sense
>of "one who trembles".
>
>Shalom,
>
>Shaul

I hope that hte above lengthy explanation showed that things are not choosen
by chance but has a real grammer behind it.

kobi