Translating the ancient Hebrew Alphabet

[namakele]

.

 

[yonah_mishael]

O.k. In Judges 14:12 I found a case where the 'Y' is in the midst of 'GD' 'AM HGD Th-GYD-W AWThH LY', I translate, If you can make it clear, declare it's symbology to me...: The same 'GD' appears in verse 15 'WYGD' without the 'Y' inserted.This is one of many cases I have found the 'Y' inserted in a root, and in each case it was consistent, lending either, 'make', 'that', and if Im not mistaken, 'cause(-ing)', to the context. Im looking for more cases in the Masorah where I have seen the 'Y' inserted in other roots, and appears to have the same effect on the root. Thank you for being patient with me Yonah I don't mean to be difficult.

I’m afraid I really don’t understand you at all. You mention Judges 14:12, so I guess I’ll start by quoting the text there (which would be so helpful of you to do when you bring up a verse).

Judges 14:12
וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם שִׁמְשׁוֹן אָחוּדָה־נָּא לָכֶם חִידָה אִם־הַגֵּד תַּגִּידוּ אוֹתָהּ לִי שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַמִּשְׁתֶּה וּמְצָאתֶם וְנָתַתִּי לָכֶם שְׁלֹשִׁים סְדִינִים וּשְׁלֹשִׁים חֲלִפֹת בְּגָדִים׃​

I’d translate it this way:

And Samson said to them: “Let me tell you a riddle. If you indeed explain it to me within the seven days of the feast and find [it out], then I will give you thirty linen (undergarments) and thirty changes of clothes (outer garments).”​

There is no “GD” (ג&#1491 in this verse. The verb “tell” is written with an infinitive absolute to strengthen it — הַגֵּד תַּגִּידוּ haged tagidu “you shall surely declare” (which I’ve translated as “explain” above, taking it as “declare the meaning of”). The form הַגֵּד is the infinitive absolute, as I stated. It is formed just like the regular infinitive, which we call the infinitive construct (the only infinitive we use in modern Hebrew, by the way). But, the hirek-yud (םִ&#1497 is always reduced to tsere (ם&#1461 in hiphil verbs (as we have here).

The infinitive forms are discussed in section 42 of Weingreen’s Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew. The specific forms of the Hiphil are laid out in section 55. Notice specifically how he shows that הִגְדִּיל becomes הַגְדֵּל, having the hirek-yud reduced to tsere. This is what is involved in הִגִּיד reducing to הַגֵּד in Judges 14:12.​

You need to separate between root letters and the prefixes, suffixes and infixes that added to them to form words. In this case, one of the root letters is נ (nun), and nun tends to assimilate into other letters when it appears without a vowel. Thus, the theoretical *יַנְגִּיד becomes יַגִּיד (“he will declare”), in which the dagesh in the gimel (ג&#1468 represents both the gimel itself and the assimilated nun — a doubled letter. The same happens, for example, with the verb נָפַל in the future, in which the theoretical *יִנְפֹּל becomes יִפֹּל — with the nun assimilated into the peh and represented by the dagesh chazak.

Whatever you’re doing with the Hebrew words just doesn’t make sense. It isn’t Hebrew that you’re doing. You really need to learn Hebrew and forget whatever nonsense that is. The Bible is full enough of mystery and excitement for those who actually know Hebrew. For those who play number games and substitute the Hebrew letters and try to understand them in English, it’s impossible to really make sense of the text of the Bible.

 

[Lillen]

ד?

I forgot what letter that is? daleth?

 

[Laureate]

...separate between root letters and the prefixes, suffixes and infixes that added to them to form words. In this case, one of the root letters is ? (nun), and nun tends to assimilate into other letters when it appears without a vowel. Thus, the theoretical *????????? becomes ??????? (“he will declare”), in which the dagesh in the gimel (??) represents both the gimel itself and the assimilated nun — a doubled letter. [/QUOTE]
O.K., let me see if I'm getting this straight! What appears to be a letter dropped (or missing) is actually a case of assimilation!? When we pronounce the English word 'sing', the letter 'n' is assimilated by the 'g', would this be a good example of what is occuring with the fore-mention Th(N)GYD?

 

[Laureate]

??

I forgot what letter that is? daleth?

Yes, sweetie! That is daleth! Becareful though, some fonts require you to exercise great discernment, especially between daleth and resh.

 

[Laureate]

I’m afraid I really don’t understand you at all. You mention Judges 14:12, so I guess I’ll start by quoting the text there (which would be so helpful of you to do when you bring up a verse).

Judges 14:12
????????? ????? ?????????? ????????????? ????? ?????? ?????????? ?????????? ??????? ??? ???????? ????? ???????????? ?????????? ?????????? ????? ?????????? ????????? ???????????? ??????? ??????????

I’d translate it this way:

And Samson said to them: “Let me tell you a riddle. If you indeed explain it to me within the seven days of the feast and find [it out], then I will give you thirty linen (undergarments) and thirty changes of clothes (outer garments).”

Though we both chose different words i.e., I used, 'make it clear', and you rendered, 'explain', we are both saying the same thing (here).
I too, rendered, 'clarify' in my notes.

You apparently acknowledge that the context calls for a slight modification i.e., 'clear(ly)' is usually rendered when the (yud) is not present in the 'HGD', but with the (yud) present, 'HGYD' requires an etymological modification, hence you rendered 'explain' which I think is excellent, I chose 'make clear', not because it has a special ring to the ear, but because, the word 'make' is the rudementary meaning added in these cases;
and as I mentioned before, I have seen this to be consistent with other roots throughout the Masorah.

 

[yonah_mishael]

O.K., let me see if I'm getting this straight! What appears to be a letter dropped (or missing) is actually a case of assimilation!? When we pronounce the English word 'sing', the letter 'n' is assimilated by the 'g', would this be a good example of what is occuring with the fore-mention Th(N)GYD?

No.

The prefix in- in English means "not."

Thus, we have words like inordinate and inaccurate. But, when this prefix appears in some situations, it assimilates and changes into something else.

in + p → imp
imperfect
improbable
improper

in + l → ill
illogical
illegible

in + r → irr
irreversible
irrelevant
irresponsible

Here is a presentation on assimilation in English (mostly from Latin roots).

In Hebrew, the נ (nun) tends to assimilate when it's up against another consonant.

Thus, we have the word אִשָּׁה isha that means "woman." The root of the word is actually א.נ.שׁ (alef-nun-shin), as with the word אֱנוֹשׁ enosh ("human being"). The theoretical *אִנְשָׁה insha is not found in Hebrew. The nun assimilated into the shin, and it is now represented only by the presence of the dagesh inside the shin (שּ&#1473, marking the letter as doubled. Thus,

אִנְשָׁה ← אִשְׁשָׁה ← אִשָּׁה
insha → ishsha
Root אנש
The dot in the shin means that the letter is doubled, and it's the assimilation of the nun that is marked in the doubling.

יִנְפֹּל ← יִפְּפֹּל ← יִפֹּל
yinpol → yippol ("he will fall")
Root נפל

יִנְגַּע ← יִגְּגַּע ← יִגַּע
yinga → yigga ("he will touch")
Root נגע

This is a very common phenomenon in Hebrew, and it would be learned easily enough if you would seriously engage the language.

 

[yonah_mishael]

ד?

I forgot what letter that is? daleth?

Yes, ד is dalet.

The Hebrew alphabet:

א alef
ב bet
ג gimel
ד dalet
ה heh
ו vav
ז zayin
ח chet
ט tet
י yud
כ kaf
ל lamed
מ mem
נ nun
ס samech
ע ayin
פ peh
צ tsadi
ק kuf
ר resh
ש shin/sin
ת tav

 

[namakele]

Laureate I am noticing though how the "n"when preceeding the hard "g"and "k" in English gets a diferent tongue placement than when it preceeds letters like "d"and "k"

 

[yonah_mishael]

Laureate I am noticing though how the "n"when preceeding the hard "g"and "k" in English gets a diferent tongue placement than when it preceeds letters like "d"and "k"

The [ŋ] sound produced by the combination of n and g in English is the result of a change in location of the pronunciation of the n, as you stated. This is not "assimilation." [ŋ] is simply another "allophone" of n when it appears before g or k. Notice that we make the same sound for n in the word think, but the k is distinct. If anything disappears in the word thing, it is the g, not the n.

 

[namakele]

Jeremiah 1:11-12
Moreover the word of YHWH came unto me, saying, Jeremiah, what do you see? And I said, I see a rod of an almond tree. Then said YHWH unto me, You have well seen: for I will hasten my word to perform it.

ShQD = almond {Strong's #8247}
ShQD = watch, hasten {Strong's #8245}

Each "ShQD" has different vowel pointings, however the Most High, YHWH ALHYM, commends Jeremiah when he answers him as to what he sees, showing his approval...

 

[namakele]

'

 

[namakele]

Now where is my last post?

 

[yonah_mishael]

Now where is my last post?

Do you have problems with editing your posts? This isn't the first time that you have a string of empty posts popping up.

 

[namakele]

Looks like it. And I have yet to re-try and post what I typed. And a few of the other posts...well those I just decided I did not want them on there (I mean here), and one of them I'm glad I did because as it turns out I was being presumptuos and a little hopeful.

 

[Laureate]

Well put Yonah

 

[Laureate]

The [?] sound produced by the combination of n and g in English is the result of a change in location of the pronunciation of the n, as you stated. This is not "assimilation." [?] is simply another "allophone" of n when it appears before g or k. Notice that we make the same sound for n in the word think, but the k is distinct. If anything disappears in the word thing, it is the g, not the n.

Well put Yonah