Talk:Modern Hebrew verbs

message: I had changed the word im in the example about the Conditional in modern Hebrew to the word lu, because that it is not correct to use the word im in past tens although it is a common mistake.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.59.79 (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Im and lu

message: Perhaps the k-t-n root is not such a good one for the verb conjugation chart as it ends with nun, which gets omitted in past, first person plural and in future, second and third person plural (female).  Does anyone agree and want to change it?  Yodaat 03:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be bold in making improvements. :-) —RuakhTALK 06:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Perhaps the k-t-n root is not such a good example.

message: I'm confused: While discussing past participles, this section abruptly changes to dealing with passive participles. What a volte-face! And what are passive participles anyway? BTW, the section on gerunds is written cogently, but curiously the Even-Shoshan Dictionary - which is considered the most authoritative in Hebrew - doesen't have a definition of שמות פעולה (but does define שם הפועל). It also seems there are two kinds of infinitive: שם הפועל a.k.a. as מקור נסמך, which is described in this article, and מקור מוחלט (literally: absolute source), which isn't mentioned. As an example of מקור מוחלט: the form הלוך (from הלך). This is the totally unmarked form of the verb, according to the dictionary. RCSB 23:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Past participle" mostly = "passive participle". (The ambiguity arises because in English we say both "have sunk", perfect aspect, and "be sunk", passive voice. This double use is common to many languages.) —RuakhTALK 01:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participles 

message: I have removed the following: "It is used because the true imperative mood can be considered rude." It is true that the true imperative is considered rude, but the use of the future tense is considered incorrect. For politeness, ones needs only add the exclamation בקשה ("please") as in: פתח את הדלת בקשה. RCSB 00:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imperatives 

message: The article states, "Note that unlike in English (where gerunds and present participles share the same form), Hebrew gerunds cannot be used as adjectives." This statement should be checked, as it is not completely true. One can refer, for example, to the "tsevet shmira" (guard[ing] unit), "mei shtiya" (drinking water), "shaot biqqur" (visiting hours), "rashut hehitkansut" (convening authority), or "tannur hithammemut" (warming oven). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.97.228.116 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't necessarily call those exceptions: some are in the smichut form that links two nouns. A pedantically literal translation might read, e.g. "waters of drinking". I would assume the third should more properly read "sh'ot biqqur", and I'm not sure about all the rest, though. JudahH (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're quite right. —RuakhTALK 02:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

text:  "rashut hahitkansut", I think, is non-existant. (what is a convening authority?) Perhaps he meant zhut lehitkansut, right to convene. And the last one should be "tannur himmum" which is literally a "warming oven", but translates as heater.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.144.37 (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gerunds 

message: This article was just moved, and there was no consensus at all on this. In fact, it wasn't even discussed here on the talk page (the move).  Not only that, but the people discussing the topic here (on the talk page) with the most expertise - i.e. those completely familiar with biblical Hebrew and modern Israeli Hebrew, would have been clearly against such a move. Not only that, it does not clarify, but rather confuse Wikipedia - after all, there is no "Biblical Hebrew verb conjugation" article, because that material is included in this one.Jimhoward72 (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually: this article only discusses modern Hebrew (except for a couple of short references). Biblical Hebrew, e.g., employs a different tense system, very similar in its form to the modern one but often fundamentally different in its meaning. Dan ☺ 20:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then where is the Biblical Hebrew verb conjugation article?  This article and it's position in Wikipedia always contained both topics.  The so-called "Biblical Hebrew verb conjugation" article should have been created, or split from this one, before this article was renamed. Otherwise, this article still remains the reference for Biblical Hebrew verb conjugation, so it should not be labeled "Modern Hebrew". And still, there was no consensus, either.  There was a debate on this, not a consensus. These things were the topic of my original comment.Jimhoward72 (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to "Modern Hebrew verb conjugation"

message: The main page of this article needs to explain a little bit more how the Modern Hebrew verb developed 'tense' when it didn't have 'tense' per se in the distant past.  I perhaps have been misled because, so far, from other sources, I have read that the Ancient Hebrew verb distinguished between perfection and incompleteness, or abruptness versus continuousness.   If at some time there was a conscious decision to adopt tense, somehow, who made this decision?   Or at least put a footnote in, perhaps with a reference to an essay on some other website, so we can wander away from Wikipedia, and perhaps find our answer over there, instead of here.   Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transition from Ancient Hebrew to Modern Hebrew 

message: The main article on Modern Hebrew grammar states that every verb has a conditional mood. This is compelte news to me, but my Hebrew knowledge isn't that advanced yet. Since there seem to be a number of well-versed Hebrew speakers interested in this article, I though I'd also ask around here if someonw could either correct that bit in the mentioned article or add a section on conditional mood in this one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.181.104.118 (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: —Discuss here!—Dan ☺ 20:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Conditional mood?

message: So, in particular, what these circles with dashes above them in the tables are supposed to mean?
:Please describe the problem in more detail, my browser displays no circles with dashes. Dan ☺ 22:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mine does. Specifically, it displays them in mil'el verbs, exactly where I'd expect a meteg. It seems to be an ole, which, apparently, isn't supported very well by my browser (or my system, or the fonts I have, or something). —RuakhTALK 03:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha, mine just shows squares, no dashes  How about changing the Hebrew template to a Unicode template?  → שׁוֹמֶ֫רֶת – or perhaps better, but costing a lot of work:  Dan ☺ 21:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  On my system the Unicode template is even worse: I still get the dotted circle below the ole, and on top of that, the segols look like tzeireis for some reason. (Though funnily enough, the ole actually displays perfectly in the edit window: I guess my browser's monospace font handles it better than whatever fonts the Hebrew and Unicode templates specify.) I think the best solution might be simply to leave out the accent, and just write , since we provide IPA for every single form anyway. —RuakhTALK 20:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would it be possible to introduce the explanation of the notion used?  

message: Wouldn't it be better for piel, i.e. D(oubling)-stamm to use in Latin transliteration two dd for g-d-l root?
Article on Arabic grammar does use two Latin letters in this case.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.139.88.253 (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this article handles Modern Hebrew, and since Modern Hebrew exhibits no gemination (except for very rare, extremely marked occurrences), using a double letter for transcription would be misleading. Dan ☺ 22:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcribing gemination 

message: The illustration on the Present tense conjugation chart is a very poor example...it would had been better to use only one root form and place it into all the other forms of the pa'al, pi'el, huf'al, ni'fal, etc...instead of using sh-m-r...g-d-l...q-t-n.., etc.  Just use g-d-l for all the forms of the binyanim. It makes the readers understand how the verbs are conjugated..instead of confusing them.
Plus...why is there the letter "mem" used as a prefix? That changes the verb into a noun...a 'thing' that does the verbal 'action' that is prescribed.
RekonDog (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Present tense 

message: The article says
:The ו vav and the י yod are written as part of the root, even though they are absent from many of the conjugated forms. 
but immediately deviates from this maxim with this sentence: 
:Examples of hollow roots are the following: שר /ˈʃaʁ/ (sang), גר /ˈɡaʁ/ (lived), דן /ˈdan/ (discussed), דג /ˈdaɡ/ (fished).
If the Yod and Vav are supposed to be displayed as part of the root, shouldn't we write  שיר and  גור  instead of    שר and גר  ?  
--79.180.194.215 (talk) 10:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That example is showing the past tense form of the verb, not the root. If we changed the sentence to say something like "the root שיר yields the past tense form שר /ˈʃaʁ/ (sang)", then it would be appropriate to show the middle consonant of the root. — Eru·tuon 10:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hollow root 

message: I think it might be a little easier to read if we changed the order of the conjugation charts from semi-right to left to either full right to left, or left to right. I recommend left to right as this is still an article in English and might be easier to visualize.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goalie1998 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Conjugation Chart Order

message: Why not just use the page for all Hebrew verbs, not just Modern Hebrew?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zontas (talk • contribs) 14:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this gonna be moved or what?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zontas (talk • contribs) 21:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew Verbs > Modern Hebrew Verbs 

message: You moved this page from Modern Hebrew verb conjugation to Modern Hebrew Verb Conjugation, saying you were fixing capitalization. This is incorrect: "verb conjugation" is not a proper noun and should therefore not be capitalized. "Modern Hebrew" is a proper name, and that's why it's capitalized. I've requested that the page be moved back. — Eru·tuon 20:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move back 

message: As this article is about Modern Hebrew, which is normally written without nikud, should we also include the forms without nikud, e.g. גִּדֵּל as גידל, or even use them exclusively? It's misleading to look at the table, see גִּדֵּל and assume it's written as either גִּדֵּל or גדל in most Modern Hebrew texts. Llusiduonbach (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC
I have no idea how to edit a wikipedia post but I see the pa'al imperfect feminine plural is transliterated as tiʃˈmorna but the hebrew word above it begins with a yud. That seems incorrect. It should begin with a t, no? I think the transliteration, not the Hebrew word, is correct). If I'm right could someone fix this?
:There are two separate issues:
#When writing a word without Niqqud, should we use partial spelling () or full spelling ()?
#When writing a conjugation chart, should we show Niqqud?
:I find it hard to read conjugation charts without Niqqud, and the resources I have all show the Niqqud.
:As for spelling without Niqqud, I'd opt for כתיב מלא here and כתיב חסר in articles on Biblical Hebrew, with an explicit statement of which spelling was used. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing conjugations without nikud 

message: This article isn't as condusive as it should be for explaining Hebrew verbs. I suggest we do three things: 1) mark "weak" and "irregular" conjugations in charts, 2) use the charts on a root/ meter (shoresh/ mishqal) basis- rather than use examples, and 3) use the name Hebrew verb conjugation, as Biblical Hebrew isn't distinct enough to warrant another page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zontas (talk • contribs) 21:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul 

message: Just the subject. I'll do it in a week or so if I get no response Starbeam2 (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to move to "Hebrew verbs" or "Modern Hebrew verbs" 

message: In Hebrew a verb has two infinitives, infinitive absolute and the infinitive construct, both of which can be used without a preposition; the Infinitive section is incomplete and unclear. Further, the infinitive construct is used with prepositions other than . In the Ulpan they taught me that the infinitive construct takes the prefixes , ,  and , but that was an oversimplification. While  ,  and  are inseparable prepositions,   is an abbreviation for  , and other preposition are used besides the prefixes, e.g.,  . Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 05:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually was unaware of this (I was going off of info there before I edited), I'll be sure to update it. Starbeam2 (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infinitive 

message: In Hebrew there are verbs where certain tenses are rarely used, e.g.,  is not normally used in the present tense,  is not normally used in the future tense. That doesn't justify showing a synonymous verb in the conjugation charts, although footnotes would be appropriate, e.g.  should not be listed in place of  but could be mentioned in a footnote,  should not be shown in place of  but could be mentioned in a footnote. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought amar was out and out suppletive? Starbeam2 (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there are infinitive and future forms of , but they mainly occur in formal, liturgical or literary contexts. I vaguely recall having heard constructs like לומר in informal speech. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aye. In that case, I'll remove the forms of הגיד, which is info I got off of Wiktionary. You also might want to talk to the editors there. Starbeam2 (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd recommend footnotes on the infinitive and future tenses that  is usually used in place of  in those tenses. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Chatul, I removed the footnotes as to make the article a bit more legible on mobile, but I put your message into the text. Starbeam2 (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verb with rarely used tenses 

message: A recent edit changed some transliterations to italics. It also added  the transliteration yakhol without italics. When is it appropriate to bracket transliterations in ? Also, should translations be in italics?
As a side note,  Lo yitakhen shehu` ra'ev means "It is not likely that he's hungry.", not "Maybe he's not hungry.";  Ulay hu lo ra'ev means "Maybe he's not hungry."
:I'll take the blame for the mistranslation, cause I'm used to punching up translations to capture the mood even if it's not literal. As for the translaterations, I generally put them in italics for the first use and without the other times. That said, I'm unfamiliar with any set format and am going off of rule of thumb. Starbeam2 (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: It is not always clear whether a given verb is irregular. In particular, what is the status of a verb that
#Is not defective or suppletive, but where certain tenses are rarely used
#A verb that interchanges Vav and Yod in certain tenses, e.g., the present tense  of . 
#Verbs where a grammatical rule causes an apparent irregularity, e.g., some doubled letters in the root Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Generally speaking, interchangeable Vav and Yod in the middle are vowel-2 roots, and are listed as regular due to their frequent occurence; as are ones with a morphonological rule changing consonants- because this again is a regular process or at least continues what was once one. The first one I'm unsure about listing, do you have any examples of the phenomenon? The irregular verbs I put in are either suppletive, defective, or don't follow the typical phonological changes made according to a root letter.Starbeam2 (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking in particular of  hayah, where the present tense does exist but is rarely used. However, the book  lists a whole bunch of special cases involving double letters; I don't recall the details. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The double letters thing is probably the repeating root stuff I've already listed in the article. As stated below, I've added haya's present tense forms. Starbeam2 (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are all of them really irregular? 

message: Shouldn't there be a discussion of Hitpa'el for roots beginning with, e.g., שׁ (Shin), צ (Tzade), where the ת (Thav)  interchanges with the first letter of the root, e.g.,  lhitztaref,  hizdakef. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I put mention of that briefly somewhere in the article already. Starbeam2 (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot one other letter that transforms in hiphil, ז (Zayin); I added an example above. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitpa'el for roots beginning with, e.g., שׁ (Shin) 

message: When used to denote existence, the verb הָיָה (hayah) has a rarely used present tense, and is not really defective or suppletive. Usually the adjective, e.g.,  (hu kayam) is used instead of the verb, e.g.,  (hu hoveh).
When used to express that the subject is something specific,  is defective: there is no present tense. Instead, the subject is followed by the object with no intervening verb, e.g., . Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't seen hove and other present-tense haya forms be used often, so I left them off at first. I've put them in now. Starbeam2 (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with הָיָה (hayah) 

message: None of the tables have entries for pu'al and huf'al binyanim. It is expected to be the case for the imperative, infinitive, and action noun tables—these binyanim lack such forms. The other tables, though? It's quite an unexpected gap. Fitting ones can be created based on the entries of the Hebrew version of the page. Said page does display matching forms for pu'al and huf'al. The template of consonant/vowel/number seems simple enough to imitate. —Fmpgri (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regular conjugation tables lack entries for pu'al and huf'al 

message: I have an old book called לוח הפעלים (The Table of Verbs) that contains inflection tables for all of the special cases. I have found it quite useful. Is it legitimate to cite such books when the article itself is English? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  References in Hebrew? 

message: A string of edits by JDCdS changed some letters in the tables to upper case. I couldn't find anything explaining the significance of that capitalization. I'm guessing that it is intended to indicate the accent (stress), but if that is indeed the case then there should be an explanation prior to the tables and it should be done consistently. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry. I promise to finish my editions. I will capitalize every stressed syllable, except for monosyllabic words. I think it would be very helpful for learners. JDCdS (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And I apologize for my non native English. I'm just one person and it's a lot of work, but I really love Hebrew and I'd like to make this contribution, if you let me. JDCdS (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to apologize, and your contributions are welcome. Your English is probably better than my Ivrit. תּוֹדָה רַבָּה -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits by [[user:JDCdS|JDCdS]] 

message: I've added Modern Hebrew verbs#Interchanging consonants to mention the treatment of initial ס/ש/ז/צ in Hitpa'el; it could use a better
  reference, examples and some wordsmithing. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: is this
 an acceptable source? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Yes, that looks much better, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial ס/ש/ז/צ in Hitpa'el 

message: The conjugation tables do not currently show examples of Hitpa'el when the initial letter of the shoresh (root) is one the sibilants  (),  (),  () or  (). Would it be best to pick one of them for each table, or to provide examples of each in every table in order to show the consonant shift in the metathesis for  () and  ()? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial sibilants in hitpa'el tables: one example or all of  ז (Zayin), ס (Samekh), צ (Tsade) and ש (Shin)? 

message: Edit Special:Permalink/1174037956 removed italics from some Hebrew text, which was appropriate. However, it left parentheses surrounding complete words in italics while removing italics from parentheses surrounding individual letters. Which is correct  and  or  and ? Or are the rules different for complete words and individual letters? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite honestly I think the parentheses can remain unitalicized. I'm not consulting any sort of style guide, but in my experience italicization of parentheses is always a result of the content inside being italicized. That, and I just think (א) looks plain bad compared to (א). Kyoto Grand (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: So you would have no objection to removing the italicss from, e.g., ? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Chatul Absolutely none, please go ahead. Kyoto Grand (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics? 

message: Should Modern Hebrew verbs#היה Haya (to be) mention ? While with a preposition and direct object it is equivalent to the English "to have", e.g.,  ( ), without the preposition it is a simple assertion of existence, e.g.,  ( ). -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention יֵשׁ in section היה Haya (to be)