Jump to content

Hebrew cardinal numbers and the lack of chiastic concord in the tagged Biblical text.


Peter Brylov Christensen

Recommended Posts

Hi there!

 

I just discovered this by accident while reading a verse in the Hebrew Bible (HMT-W4) which happened to contain a cardinal number, שׁלשׁת. I then saw in the Instant Details that it was tagged as a masculine construct, which makes absolutely no sense as the ת-ending clearly makes it a feminine construct. I then decided to search for every single numeral, both cardinal and ordinal, and it appears that every cardinal number 3 through 10 are affected by this problem, meaning 1 and 2 aren't affected at all. Additionally, the number 10 is only somewhat affected. It is tagged correctly as masculine as long as it is a part of another numeral (עָשָׂר), but it is consistently tagged as feminine when not in conjunction with another numeral (עֶשֶׂר). The feminine versions of 10 are all tagged correctly as feminine.

 

I can only speculate as to the reason why the tagging is off, but I would assume that it has something to do with how gender works morphologically for the cardinal numbers 3-10.

 

With kind regards

 

 

Peter Christensen

Edited by Pchris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tagging is correct in this case. I think you are confusing some grammatical rules with morphological rules. First, the feminine morpheme as well as the masculine morpheme are not always indicative of the gender. For the former, masculine cardinal numbers are שלושה and feminine שלוש. When in construct, the masculine שלושת is correct. The same is true for nouns such as דרך, which is feminine. When in construct it will appear as דרכי. There are a number of examples such as these, and cardinal numbers are case in point. The same is true in Modern Hebrew.

Edited by Anon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chiastic concord for cardinal numbers 3-10 is a nearly universal Semitic phenomenon, and while a strange one at that, the system is at the very least consistent for all the Semitic languages in question. So I find that the problem is still valid. (Ugaritic, however, is an interesting exception to this rule as the masculine cardinals at times match the noun in gender, whereas the feminine numerals always show chiastic concord.)

Segolates such as דרך, which HALOT lists with both feminine and masculine endings, as well as nouns with irregular endings, such as אב or שׁנה, are a different matter.

Edited by Pchris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You misunderstood. As for your interpretation of the 3-10, you might benefit by reading the grammars. As for דרך, you missed my point entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Muraoka:

100d Numerals 3-10: The nouns for 3-10 are collective substantives. Each numeral has a double form, masculine and feminine, which one may compare with the French collectives, un sixain, une dizaine. A most remarkable peculiarity of the numerals 3-10, which goes back to Common Semitic, is that the feminine collective is used with masculine nouns and the masculine collective with feminine nouns4.

(note 4)

 

4 French is said to copy the Semitic usage in expressions such as une dizaine d’hommes and un dizain de femmes. This peculiar usage has not yet been explained satisfactorily. The phenomenon seems to have something to do with linguistic psychology, and perhaps we should see here mainly an aesthetic tendency towards dissymmetry. This is in essence the reason suggested by Schultens long ago: “non injucunda connubia”! Another explanation of reflex kind is that the language may have wished thus to lay greater emphasis on the substantival character of these numerals (cf. Joüon 1913: 134ff.). The phenomenon is sometimes described in terms of polarity: see Ternes 2002 (contra Speiser 1938).

The rule in Hebrew is meticulously observed, so that from the masculine or feminine form of the numeral one can infer the feminine or masculine gender of the noun (cf. § 89 a)! Exceptions are rare (e.g. ‏שְׁל֫שֶׁת נָשִׁים‎ Gn 7.13; ‏שְׁל֫שֶׁת כִּכְּרוֹת לֶחֶם‎ 1Sm 10.3; ‏שְׁל֫שֶׁת אַחְיֹתֵיהֶם Jb 1.4) and may be scribal errors. The principal form is the feminine form: it is this that is used, e.g. in Arabic—the reverse in Modern Hebrew—to express the number in an absolute fashion, e.g. in “3 is half of 6” (cf. § o); consequently the masculine form can be deduced from it. On the choice of the form in cases of the neuter, cf. § 152 g.

 

 
142d Numerals 3-10. For the nature of these numerals and the law of dissymmetry in their use, cf. § 100 d. They usually come before the noun, whether in the abs. state or in the cst. state; sometimes they come after [p. 493] it4. Thus the three types are: שְׁלשָׁה בָנִים three sons‏שְׁל֫שֶׁת בָּנִים, properly speaking, a trio of sons, and ‏בָּנִים שְׁלשָׁה sons three (in number). The cst. state is generally used when the noun has the article: Ex 34.28 ‏עֲשֶׂ֫רֶת הַדְּבָרִים the ten commandments; 1Kg 11.35 ‏עֲשֶׂ֫רֶת הַשְּׁבָטִים the ten tribes (but vs. 31 ‏עֲשָׂרָה); likewise when the things counted are regarded as forming a group: 2Sm 24.13 שְׁל֫שֶׁת יָמִים [a group of] three days (cp. a triduum), but || שֶׁבַ֫ע שָׁנִים .. שְׁלשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים; hence, with the numerals for multiples of 100 and 1,000, the cst. state is always5 found: ‏שְׁלשׁ מֵאוֹת 300; שְׁל֫שֶׁת אֲלָפִים 3,000. The noun which follows the numeral is almost always6 in the plural, especially in late books.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now go read GKC and you will see there is a difference. So, let me be real clear. You claim these are wrong. First, you assume there is one interpretation to the morphological nature of cardinals. Second, you have not questioned the decisions of those who have tagged the text. So, the question you really ought to ask is this: what morphological decisions have those responsible for tagging the text made in terms of cardinal numbers? If they have told you in their documentation, then your claim is invalid. If they have not, the logical step is to inquire. Morphological analysis is not apart from interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know of Gesenius' grammar from 1909, an old, but important classic. I'll admit that I tend to use the newest grammars, though, such as Muraoka, but he does not have the absolute truth - neither does Gesenius. Obviously on this matter I agree with Muraoka's interpretation. This is largely due to how numerals are interpreted in other Semitic languages and their respective grammars and dictionaries, which is consistent from what I can tell. Granted, I can't rule out that e.g. an Akkadian grammar interprets the cardinals the same way as Gesenius does, but I haven't stumbled upon any that do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I am not suggesting Gesenius is correct, nor am I am suggesting that Muraoka is correct (and nor I am convinced that new always equals the best understanding). What I am suggesting is that your interpretation of the matter has overlooked the complexity involved in how to handle the philological evidence. Both differences are still prevalent in first year grammars of Hebrew (Miles Van Pelt takes a different approach than, e.g., Holmstedt and Cook). While comparative philology can be helpful, it also has to be used with great caution. Here, I would suggest rather than imposing on Hebrew, you start from Hebrew. Akkadian is not Hebrew, Ugaritic is not Hebrew, Aramaic is not Hebrew, Syriac is not Hebrew. Typological reasoning sometimes misses the trees because of its proclivity to generalize—rarely does language fit into such nice categories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter, we don't maintain the tagging; you are free to contact the Groves Center with any questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I am not suggesting Gesenius is correct, nor am I am suggesting that Muraoka is correct (and nor I am convinced that new always equals the best understanding). What I am suggesting is that your interpretation of the matter has overlooked the complexity involved in how to handle the philological evidence. Both differences are still prevalent in first year grammars of Hebrew (Miles Van Pelt takes a different approach than, e.g., Holmstedt and Cook). While comparative philology can be helpful, it also has to be used with great caution. Here, I would suggest rather than imposing on Hebrew, you start from Hebrew. Akkadian is not Hebrew, Ugaritic is not Hebrew, Aramaic is not Hebrew, Syriac is not Hebrew. Typological reasoning sometimes misses the trees because of its proclivity to generalize—rarely does language fit into such nice categories.

 

 

In short: I agree with your reasoning - all evidence must be used with care, and I'm sorry if I seemed careless, as it was not my intention. Nor did I mean to impose the grammar of one language onto another. The ancient Semitic peoples certainly didn't know of these categories we've invented!

 

Now, as for the numbers in question: They do behave morphologically the exact same way for all Semitic languages, at least as far as I know (And as mentioned above, Ugaritic is the odd one out due to being slightly inconsistent with the "masculine forms" of the numbers). Even nearly all the roots are identical, too. This rare case of uniformity has, of course, been noted in a good deal of both comparative Semitic grammars and the specialized ones that tend to interpret the numbers in the same way - i.e. that all cardinals from 3 through 10 show chiastic concord as I've advocated for.

 

But while I have studied most of the dead Semitic languages by now with Biblical Hebrew being my first, I have not yet gotten around to the modern Semitic languages such as Modern Hebrew, Neo-Aramaic, Modern Standard Arabic, Amharic, Tigrinya and so on, so I won't dare say that I've covered everything. Not that I ever will, anyway. In the end, I do agree that very, very few things fit in nicely within our anachronistic categories, but if there ever were such a case, I'd say the cardinal numbers would be one of those - with this being the main reason for my perhaps overly assertive choice of words in the original post.

 

Peter, we don't maintain the tagging; you are free to contact the Groves Center with any questions.

 

Thanks, Rick! I'll send them a mail one of these days.

Edited by Pchris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok at the risk of swimming way out of my depth (1st year floaties still firmly attached :) ) but in the interest of learning something, I read both Gesenius and Muraoka (and Van Pelt) on this. Unless I missed something G and M don't disagree that feminine forms are used for masculine things and vice-versa. (Have I missed something ? G is not the easiest read) But they seem to present different reasoning for the way things are. G in particular describes Reckendorf's theory at some length though not without leaving (at least for me) a little unsaid that might have helped. In any case that's theory as to cause.

 

As to tagging is this just a case of having said these numbers are tagged as to use, rather than as to spelling (form) ? My question could be worded differently - perhaps saying that in the cardinals 3-10 use this form in the masculine and this other form in the feminine use, and it happens that the reverse usage obtains for other cardinals. I think Anon, you were close to saying this in one of your posts above, but I may easily have misunderstood.

 

But of the four grammars I've looked at GKC, Muraoka, Van Pelt and Ross. Ok I checked Waltke too. They all basically introduce the issue as one of opposition of gender form of the number and the thing numbered. They don't seem to take the approach of saying these are masculine and this is the form of masculine numbers in the range 3-10 and these are feminine and this is how feminine is rendered for numbers 3-10.

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Daniel

Thanks for chipping in! I'll try to explain it as good as I'm able. The way I see it, the main problem is this:

 

Gesenius

 

"1. The formation of the cardinal numbers from 3 to 10 (on 1 and 2 see below) has this peculiarity, that numerals connected with a masculine substantive take the feminine form, and those with a feminine substantive take the masculine form.

The common explanation of this strange phenomenon used to be that the primary form of the numeral was an abstract noun in the feminine (cf. § 122 p). This was originally attached in the constr. st. to the word qualified, then came to be also used in apposition to it, and finally was placed after it like an adjective. The consequence of the appositional, and finally adjectival, construction was, that for numerals connected with feminine nouns a special shorter form came to be used, whilst the original forms, with the abstract feminine ending, were used in connexion with masculine nouns, after as well as before them.

 

...

 

A different and much more intelligible explanation of the striking disagreement between the gender of the numeral and that of the word numbered has recently been given by Reckendorf, Die syntaktischen Verhältnisse des Arabischen, pt. ii, Leiden, 1898, p. 265 ff. He also considers that the earliest forms were abstract numerals which were placed in the constr. st. before the noun numbered, the latter depending on them in the genitive. The original form, however, of the abstract numerals from 3 to 9 is not the feminine, but the masculine, used for both genders, as it still is in the tens, 20, 30, &c. The feminine abstract numeral was first distinguished by a special form in the numbers from 13 to 19 (see further, below) when connected with masculines, and this distinction was afterwards extended to the numbers from 3 to 10. This explanation does not affect the view stated above that the appositional and adjectival use of the abstract numerals was only adopted later in addition to their use in the genitive construction."

 

...
 

"The differentiation of the numerals (originally of common gender) into masculine and feminine forms in the second decade, was occasioned, according to Reckendorf, by the use of the abstract feminine ‏עֶשְׂרֵה‎ in compounds. So long as it was felt that ‏עשְׂרֵה‎, ‏שְׁלשׁ‎ simply meant the three of the decade, the gender of the noun numbered made no diffference. When, however, the consciousness of this meaning became weakened and the combination of units and tens came to be felt as a copulative rather than a genitive relation, it seemed suitable to connect only feminine nouns with the feminine form ‏עֶשְׂרֵה. New forms were therefore invented, both of the units and the tens, for use with masculine nouns. The former, however, no longer had the form of the constr. but of the absolute state, clearly showing that the consciousness of the original syntactical relation in ‏עשְׂרֵהשְׁלשׁ, &c., was lost. On the other hand, after the extension of these new formations to the first decade, the new feminine forms readily came to be used also in the genitive construction (and therefore in the constr. st.) on the analogy of the earlier masculine forms."
 

This basically means that Reckendorf as well as Gesenius rejects the notion that there originally was any gender polarity between the noun and number - chiastic concord, as I call it - but rather a later convention/invention. Muraoka and others do not follow this interpretation, but merely state that the morphological genders of noun and number are polarised. 

Muraoka

 

"A most remarkable peculiarity of the numerals 3-10, which goes back to Common Semitic, is that the feminine collective is used with masculine nouns and the masculine collective with feminine nouns4."

 

This is the main reason why I don't buy into Gesenius/Reckendorf's theory: The morphological gender polarity is the same for all Semitic languages. This hasn't changed one bit since Akkadian, the oldest Semitic language attested, as some sort of later development. For instance:

erbet isušu - four fingers. "Four" is in the feminine singular absolute state (masc. abs sg.: erbe), while "isušu" is in the masculine nominative plural. (Note that Akkadian absolute state does not equal the Hebrew absolute state which merely is the basic state of the noun. The absolute state in Akkadian is a special case-less form with no ending for masculine and -at for feminine. The form occurs in god names, certain fixed expressions, distributives and numerals, the latter which stand in apposition to the noun. While the numbers in the absolute state semantically work the same way and also look like the construct state, there is no dependent genitive, meaning that the following noun should've been in the genitive case if it were an actual construct state. This lack of genitive is unlike Hebrew numbers where the number may be in the construct state, or apposition. At any rate, the gender polarity is the same.)

 

Walte & O'Connor
 

"The cardinal substantives ‘three-ten’ do not simply agree with the noun enumerated but, following a rule of opposition, have the morphological gender contrary to that noun.

(note 10)

"This patterning has aroused a great deal of commentary, most of it useless. The general idea that the Semitic languages rely on certain patterns of polarity has been rejected by E. A. Speiser, who essays his own explanation for the cardinal number and gender problem; see “The Pitfalls of Polarity,” Language 14 (1938) 187–202, reprinted in his Oriental and Biblical Studies, ed. J. J. Finkelstein and Moshe Greenberg (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1967) 433–54. For a recent explanation using polarity, see Robert Hetzron, “Agaw Numerals and In congruence in Semitic,” Journal of Semitic Studies 12 (1967) 169–97; he alleges that the plural of a masculine noun was feminine and vice versa."

 

Ross

 

"But whereas numbers 1 and 2 show agreement in gender between the number and the noun, numbers 3 through 10 do not. Rather, feminine forms modify masculine nouns, and masculine forms modify feminine nouns."

 

Van Pelt

 

"With numbers three through ten, there is no change in spelling, except to indicate gender and state. Like number two, these numbers are classified as nouns but they do not agree in gender with the other nouns to which they are related. In other words, masculine numbers can be used with feminine nouns and feminine numbers can be used with masculine nouns. Note also that while the numbers are singular in form, the nouns are plural."

 

As for comparative Semitic grammars as well as the specialized ones for other Semitic languages, I have not found Gesenius'/Reckendorf's explanation anywhere. They all treat the cardinals and nouns as morphological gender opposites. Nevertheless, Muraoka does mention that one may choose to look at the more complex cardinal constructions as one compound, meaning that the gender in one sense is the same, at least semantically - but not morphologically, mind you:

" One can say that the total number, e.g. 13, is masc. or fem., depending on whether the second component is masc. עָשָׂר or fem. עֶשְׂרֵה."

 

I believe this was what Anon wanted to point out as well as for the numbers 3 through 10, depending on the gender of the noun in question - And I don't disagree that one may look at it that way semantically, but my original agenda with this thread was of a morphological nature, especially seeing that the Biblical text is morphologically tagged. Still, my flaw in this was that I completely ignored the morphological theory of Reckendorf/Gesenius due to the conformity of the other grammars on this subject. (And there are others who also reject chiastic concord, as mentioned in the note by Walte & O'Connor.) While this is a no-brainer to me due to the morphological uniformity of cardinals for all Semitic languages, it is still true there is a strong element of interpretation to these things, and as such, one, several or all the scholars mentioned above may be completely wrong about this.

Edited by Pchris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Peter. I read those last night or at least scanned them. Gesenius though I believe I am missing something you guys are not. The explanation of Reckendorf does not in my reading explain why a feminine number is used with a masculine form (in 3-10) in quite enough clarity. I can understand how for feminine nouns you would have a masculine number if the original abstract form of the cardinals was masculine. It is not clear though why the reverse would occur rather than simply having masculine numbers for noun of either gender. The fact (if it is so, I am not in any way equipped to judge) that a feminine form entered into the numbers 11-19 and then later extended to 3-10 doesn't explain why they became attached to nouns of the opposite gender.

 

What have I missed ? I realize that G is probably only presenting a summary of Reckendorf (and R's paper would appear to be concerned with Arabic going by the title) but it feels like he left out something important. (Of course I could just simply not have the requisite background knowledge yet and that it will all make more sense later on.)

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Daniel, I'm terribly sorry about the late reply. Plenty of things to do at the moment, I'm afraid.

 

Basically, the numbers consisted of common/neuter gender forms originally, according to Gesenius/Reckendorf, which morphologically look like the masculine. The feminine ה- and ת-forms of the numbers were later inventions. Originally, the neuter numbers and abstract feminine noun unit for ten, עשׂרה, were bound together through a genitive construction, and as such, the gender of the number itself didn't matter. 

But eventually this neuter reading disappeared, and the relationship between number and noun, e.g. עשׂרה, were eventually viewed as a copula with the genders being seemingly polarised, because the neuter form looks like the masculine - although it originally wasn't the case. Nevertheless, new feminine numbers in their ה-forms were invented for masculine nouns to balance things out, so to speak. We see this with the numbers 13-19. But unlike the original neuter number forms which eventually were viewed as masculine, the newer feminine ones were still able to be in a genitive relationship, which eventually spread to the numbers 3-9, thus explaining the construct ת-forms.

 

As mentioned before, I don't accept this theory at all as it does not correspond very well with the cardinals in other Semitic languages. Most of the other Semitic cardinals behave the exact same way with the genders being polarised all the way from Akkadian to Syriac. Again, Ugaritic is an exception where it used less consistently. Same thing with Classical Ethiopic, now that I think about it.

 

I hope it clarifies things a bit.

 

With kind regards

 

Peter

 

*Addendum*

As noted by Waltke & O'Connor and Muraoka, the reason as to why the Semitic cardinals show chiastic concord remains to be solved. Now that I've looked so much into it lately, I'm very tempted to do even more research on it (maybe even write an article) as it concerns all Semitic numerals. :)

Edited by Pchris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem Peter, thanx for taking the time.

 

My problem is exactly at this bit : "Nevertheless, new feminine numbers in their ה-forms were invented for masculine nouns to balance things out, so to speak.". This just seems a bit weak to me, as arguments go. It doesn't of course mean that it's not the case, though the argument wants for a fuller explanation. But perhaps the evidence is not sufficient and the relevant details are lost to dust of the ages at this point.

 

On the other description that most Semitic languages show chiastic concord as you point out is not an explanation, merely a statement of the phenomenon as it were.

 

Anyhow, many thanx for this. If you do the research sometime I'd love to read it.

 

Thx

D

Edited by Daniel Semler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, the fact that other Semitic languages show chiastic concord does not explain how/why the phenomenon came to be, but it does weaken the theory of Gesenius/Reckendorf severely. Akkadian, for instance, has a literary history that spans a period from around 2600 B.C.E. to 500 B.C.E. and in that time, the numbers have not "evolved" according to that theory. They stay the same. Newer feminine forms did not appear to balance out older forms. Both were always there. I can't see why this should not be the case for Hebrew or any other Semitic language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...