Hot answers tagged

9

N, yo nee t spel ou you word completel. I fina letter ar trul no a optio, yo ca us th no fina form. Fo exampl, yo ca writ: ראשונ Thi doesn' loo righ, bu shou b understandabl. Omittin th las lette completel wil loo ver ba, incompeten, an possibl incomprehensibl. In your specific case, the word "ראשון" means "first". The word "ראשו&...


9

There are several different standards, so which one you want to use will depend on your goal. For the purpose of conversing on the internet, for example, most people use ch; for linguistic purposes, ḥ is standard; for just using Hebrew words in an English context, just plain h is common. Anecdotally, I would expect most linguists to understand x (since it's ...


9

This is likely to be an unsatisfying answer, but… Historical accident. That's just the way it is. Hebrew imported various punctuation marks from various other languages of Europe fairly early, and kept their forms unchanged (Google points me to a document from 1784). Other RTL languages (e.g. Arabic) imported them later, and reversed some of them to fit ...


8

Mūs in Latin does not mean "thief", but only "mouse". (The Latin word for "thief" is fūr.) This word comes from an Indo-European word *mūs or *muHs, which is also the origin of the English word mouse. However, there may be a connection between the Indo-European word and the notion "thief": there is a reconstructed Indo-...


8

Hebrew has a plural of excellence or majesty for nouns, but not a royal we for pronouns. Some people are confused about this because the terms are not kept separated correctly. Based on what you write, Walter Martin writes about the royal we, which Biblical Hebrew does not have. However, אֱלֹהִים 'ělōhim (non-Israelite gods or the Israelite God) is a plural ...


8

The Proto-Slavic word *rěčь “speech” (Old Church Slavonic рѣчь) has its descendants in all the modern Slavic languages, mostly with the same meaning. But in Polish rzecz [ʐɛtʂ] and in Ukrainian річ (rič) [ritʂ] the main meaning of the word shifted to “thing” (cf. Polish rzeczpospolita “republic”¹, from rzecz (“thing”) +‎ pospolity (“common”), calque of ...


7

Japanese こと koto corresponds to both "(abstract) thing, matter" (written 事) and "word" (written 言), although the word for "word" in the modern language is 言葉 kotoba, a compound of 言 koto + 端 ha "extremity".


7

Draconis is correct, but I want to add an additional note. Latin did not "chop off" the final consonant. What really happened is that we start with the word albus, which is an adjective meaning "white", and add another adjectival suffix ending in -inus (-a, -um), to get albinus, essentially "pertaining to" or "relating to ...


6

It seems to be a coincidence. Latin albus comes from PIE *h₂elbhos, which has a lot of descendants: Hittite alpas, Sanskrit ṛbhú, etc. So if there was a borrowing, it would have been back in the PIE stages. There may have been contact between PIE and Proto-Semitic, but the similarity between *h₂elbhos and *L-B-N is much less striking. So I'd consider this ...


5

If we are looking for a Semitic parallel to IE *h₂elbh-o- > Lat. albus a better candidate might be the Semitic word for “milk”, Arabic ḥalab, Hebrew ḥālāḇ, Aramaic ḥalḇā, conceivably a Wanderwort or a very ancient borrowing in one direction or the other. Then, at a more speculative level, one could ask whether there is some link between Sem. ḥ-l-b “milk” ...


5

You're comparing glyphs from very different time periods. The word wāw (or vāv) looks like two vertical lines in the square script (ktav ashuri). However, scholars have a pretty good idea where this script came from, historically: it was adapted from the imperial Aramaic script, which came from the Phoenician script, which probably came from Proto-Sinaitic ...


4

Aramaic mellṯā has the same two meanings (not just in Jewish dialects, but also in Syriac etc.)


4

It is what is called a plurale tantum, a word used always in the plural form, but with a singular meaning.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible