Hebrew Grammar for Dummies

[This is a basic crib sheet I designed for myself. There is some repetition because I use some of the information in my writing, so this allows me to cut and paste things which I need]

ADJECTIVES

For an adjective (mighty) to describe a noun (hand), they must agree in gender, number and definiteness (i.e., they both have or they both lack the definite article). In this case, mighty is an adjective in the attributive form, agreeing completely with the noun.

CONDITIONAL SENTENCES

The standard form for a conditional sentence begins with the conditional particle îm (ם ̣א) [pronounced eem], which means if. Strong's #518 BDB #49. Generally speaking, the following verb is an imperfect. There is no word in the Hebrew for then so a wâw consecutive is generally used followed by a verb in the perfect tense. See 1Sam. 12:14 for more information.

CONJUNCTIONS

When we find the wâw consecutive linking a host of Qal imperfects, the sense is not a continued action in the verbs, but a continued, chronological, logical action of the action of the verbs. That is, there is a continued action, but it is all of the verbs together which give us a continued action, rather than the verbs taken individually (in fact, it was from constructions like this that the wâw consecutive first was called a wâw conversative, which is an incorrect designation and function).

The DEFINITE ARTICLE

A noun in the construct state does not take on a definite article. The noun following it will have the definite article, which means, in the English translation, they will both have a definite article (or, they will begin with a definite article). I don’t see proper nouns with definite articles very often; one of the exceptions is the adjective gentis Dan in Judges 18:11. Several exceptions in Judges 19:13.

NEGATIONS

A negative particle used with the perfect verb would indicate a state of action which has never occurred.

NOUNS

Gender: The masculine gender of an adjective might refer to the moral or philosophical ramifications and the feminine gender might refer to the consequences of the word.

Construct state: it is allowable to insert within a construct chain the hê directive, a preposition or the suffixion of a pronoun.

There are some nouns and verbs (when in the participle form) which exhibit no difference between the absolute and the construct state (see various forms in Seow pp. 118–121)

PARTICLES

When we have two sentences, the first introduced by the disjunctive particle ha ( ַה ) [pronounced hah] (Strong’s #none BDB #209) and the second by the hypothetical particle ’îm (ם  ̣א ) [pronounced eem] (Strong’s #518 BDB #49), this is a disjunctive question. A disjunctive question may express a real alternative or the same thought may be repeated in a different form as two parallel clauses. In the latter case, the answer no is expected. This is why many translations have the word or in the second clause.

PREPOSITIONS

See Kelley pp. 68–71 for prepositions plus irregular suffixes.

See Davidson for meanings.

Lâmed with an infinitive connotes shall or must.

PRONUNCIATIONS

Consonants: The Hebrew letter ‛ayin (ע) probably had two distinct sounds as does the corresponding Arabic letter. The harsher sound was probably close to a hard g sound, which was lost completely to later Hebrew pronunciation. The Septuagint in several places renders the ‛ayin as a gamma when it transliterates such proper nouns as Zoar.

Let me mention something about the dagesh [pronounced DAW-geesh] found here and elsewhere. When found with the letters ב , ג , ד , כ , פ , ת , it sometimes has an affect on the pronunciation. There is not universal agreement on this, although this does affect the pronunciation in modern Hebrew. This table might help:

This is called a dagesh lene [pronounced LEN-nee?]. These letters can be memorized with the words BiG DucK FaT. We also have what is called a dagesh forte [pronounced four-TAY?]. This doubles a consonant when used with any other consonant (it is never found with א , ה , ח , ע , or ר ). The rules are as follows: (1) a dagesh found in any letter other than ב , ג , ד , כ , פ , ת  is a dagesh forte. (2) If a dagesh is found in one of those six letters and it is not preceded by a vowel, it is a dagesh lene. (3) When any of the six letters from BiG DucK FaT have a dagesh and are preceded by a vowel, it is a dagesh forte. Here, because the vêyth is preceded by a silent sheva, it acts as a dagesh lene.

Vowel Points: The vowel point Qâmêts is pronounced like the a in all. I perhaps overdo this, rendering it as aw. There is also the Short Qâmêts (which, to me, is indistinguishable from Qâmêts), which is pronounced o as in nor.

When a word is immediately followed by a Maqqêph (ֿ ) [pronounced mak-KAYF], which looks like a hyphen and is not pronounced, it unites two words for the purpose of pronunciation. The pronunciation is moved to the last syllable of the next word.

PUNCTUATION

A pausal is a word denoted either by an atnâh or a sillûg (as well as certain other strong disjunctive accents). These are similar to vowel points which were added long after Scripture was written and they indicate that there is a break in speaking at this point. To us, that simply means the insertion of a comma or a semi-colon. Interestingly enough, this is one of the few marks of punctuation to be found in the Massoretic text.

SUFFIXES

The hê locale: However, this word, after a verb of motion, has the locale âh [ָה] ending. This is called the directive hê or the he locale, which often indicates direction and puts somewhat of an adverbial spin on the noun. Essentially, it answers the question where? The pronunciation of the word does not change. The directional hê indicates the direction in which something moves. It is often used with the noun heaven and the most literal rendering in the English would be heavenward. We can also indicate the existence of the hê directional by supplying the prepositions to or toward.

The voluntative hê; that is, it ends with âh, not to indicate a feminine ending (although the meaning is similar), but this indicates that with the verb in the 1^st person, we should have the additional words let me, allow me to. The 1^st person Niphal may require the additional word may, might, ought, should. In the second person, we should have the additional word might; or, in any person we might add the word may, might. Surprisingly enough, I have found nothing concerning the voluntative hê in any of my reference books (Gibson, Mansoor, Zodhiates or Kelley), but Owen points it out again and again, and the many translators of Scripture go along with this. This appears to be tacked onto imperatives to smooth them out and to recognize the volition of the person being spoken to.

VERBS

A finite verb in the Hebrew is a verb in the perfect, imperfect or imperative tense; this is because the verb has person and number (it is confined, you might say). However, infinite verbs, those which are participles or infinitives, do not have person and number. Zodhiates says it can have gender and number.

Verb Stems:

The Hiphil is the causative stem, but it is often used to declare something is something. That is, the Qal stem might mean to twist; the Hiphil can mean to declare one as being twisted. See Strong’s #6140 BDB #786.

The Hithpael is the reflexive of the Piel. The Hithpael conveys the idea that one puts himself into the state or the action of the verb, which is an achieved state. Seow gives several uses: (1) Its primary use is reflexive—the verb describes action on or for oneself. That is, the subject of the verb is also the object of the verb. However, this does not completely convey the reflexive use, as there are examples where the verb takes on another object. These verbs are known as tolerative—the subject allows an action to affect himself or herself. (2) Reciprocal use: Occasionally, the Hithpael denotes reciprocity; that is, they worked with one another, they looked at one another. (3) The third use is known as iterative, which means that the Hithpael suggests repeated activity (he walked about, he walked to and fro, and turned back and forth). (4) The fourth use is known as estimative: the verb indicates how one shows himself or regards himself, whether in truth or by pretense (he pretended to be sick, they professed to be Jews). (5) This can occasionally be understood to be more of a passive than a reflexive (Gen. 22:18, for instance). It is intensive (and sometimes seen as an accomplished state) and it is something that one does to oneself. A related form is the Hithpolel (not found in Zodhiates, Mansoor’s Biblical Hebrew, Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies or in Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar~Syntax, but in The New Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance and in Kelley’s Biblical Hebrew). The difference is that the endings are different, but it apparently still means the same thing as the Hithpael. This also appears to be equivalent to the Hithpalal, mentioned by Owen in 1Sam. 1:3.

The Hophal is the passive of the Hiphil (causative stem). It is the rarest of the seven stems. There is never a hint of reflexive in this stem and the agent of the verb is often not given in the immediate context. Zodhiates writes: The Hophal stem conveys at once both an active and passive sense, active with respect to the action being done, passive with respect to the object being made to do so. I do not follow that exactly. Most grammar books call it simply the causative passive stem.

The Niphal is the passive of the Qal stem, but it can also refer to an action in a state of progress or development; therefore we add in the word being. It can express adjectival ideas and it can, in plural forms, stress the individual effect upon each member of the group.

Although the Piel stem is taken as the intensive stem, it can also refer to an accomplished or established state of being without regard to the process or to the events which brought it about. It is used to refer to verbal facts and results. The object of the verb is passively transformed so that there is an idea of causation inherent in the meaning, although this causative aspect is not the point of emphasis. The Piel imperfect is the imperfect achievement of a result or state, viewed as part of a whole event or situation. a Piel participle is sometimes used to describe an occupation (depending upon the verb, of course).

The Pilpel stem is equivalent in meaning to the Piel, but there is a different pattern.

The Poalal is a form of the Piel passive.

The Poel is essentially the Piel but in a different form. See Seow’s grammar.

The Polal (BDB) seems to be equivalent to the Pulal (New Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance) and apparently is equivalent in usage to the Pual, which is the passive intensive (passive Piel). Both are mentioned in Seow, but only the Polal is given a meaning.

The Polel is not acknowledged in Mansoor’s book nor in Zodhiates; it comes from Owen’s book and the New Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance of the Old Testament. It is essentially the same as the Piel (intensive) stem with a different conjugation. It appears to be called the Pilel in Gesenius and BDB.

The Qal active participle is often used as a noun, describing a person by what he does or has done. When preceded by a definite article, it refers to a particular person involved in the activity of the verb. Without the definite article, this can be any person involved in the activity of the verb or a reference to simply the activity of the verb alone. The Qal active participle is used in several different ways in the Hebrew: When preceded by a definite article, it acts as a noun whose function is described by the verb, e.g., the occupation of a person;  It acts as a relative pronoun and verbal description, describing actions which can be attributed to the preceding noun (e.g., in the presence of the witnesses who were subscribing the book of the purchase in Jer. 32:12);  It behaves as an adjective describing a noun in context (e.g., sinful nation in Isa. 1:4); and,  it acts as a descriptive verbal phrase. I need to go back to Zech. 12 and finish this up properly.

The 2^nd person, Qal imperfect often acts like an imperative. This is essentially the format for the Ten Commandments. It is a command which recognizes volition.

Verb States (or Verb Forms):

The absolute is the normal, unqualified state of a noun or of the nominative form. This tells us that we are dealing with our subject. The absolute often distinguishes the noun from its construct. A verb can be in the absolute state.

Apocopated means that the verb has been shortened. Generally, this means that the final hê (ה) and the vowel which precedes it are dropped. Apocopation is used when the verb functions as a jussive or when the verb is affixed to a wâw consecutive (here, it is affixed to a wâw conjunction).

A jussive expresses the speaker’s desire, wish or command. We often add into the translation may or let. The jussive involves only the imperfect form of a verb and may be used in the 2^nd or 3^rd persons (although the latter is the most common). A strong verb is identified as a jussive by context, as it is no different than the imperfect form. A weak verb as a jussive is generally a shortened form of the imperfect.

The cohortative expresses volition. In the English, we often render this with let or may; in the plural, this can be let us. The cohortative is designed for the 1^st person, it can express a wish or a desire or purpose or an intent. It is found in conditional statements. Generally there is the hê suffix to indicate this. This might be called apocopated in Owen’s Analytical Keys to the Old Testament.

The Hiphil infinitive absolute presents a verb in the active voice with causative action, used as a verbal noun, generally used as a complement of affirmation. I wonder if this can act like a title (?).

The infinitive absolute can act as a noun, a verb or an adverb. It takes the part of a noun, but with another verb (which may or may not be in the same stem), and it intensifies the verb’s meaning, where it functions either as a complement of affirmation, and therefore translated surely or indeed; or it may act as a complement of condition, and therefore be translated at all, freely or indeed. It’s primary use when found before its verb is to strengthen or emphasize. Its use does not simply intensify the meaning of a verb, as would a Piel, but applies an intensification to the entire phrase. Therefore, the infinitive absolute strengthens the note of certain in affirmations and in promises or threats, and of contrast in adversative or concessionary statements, while it reinforces any sense of supposition or doubt or volition present in conditional clauses or questions or wishes. For this reason, it is a characteristic of grammar generally not found in the narrative. This would be used in speech and in letters in order to make a point. The use of the English adverbs indeed, surely, of course, even, really, at all or by the addition of the modals should, could, must, may might catch the nuance, but actually are often unnecessarily strong.

Zodhiates says that an infinitive construct of a verb can accept a subject and an object. The subject is identified by a pronominal suffix. This is why many translators render my soul as the subject of the sentence. Gibson writes that the infinitive construct can act just like a verb prior to the object. That is, the substantive which follows is the object of the verb. A construct generally acts as a genitive of relation and we often place between it and the following substantive the word of to indicate that. However, the infinitive construct can serve in any nominal capacity: subject, predicate, object of a preposition. The infinitive construct is one of the two infinitives found in the Hebrew language without reference to person, gender or number. The short explanation is that the lâmed plus the infinitive construct can introduce a purpose clause, a result clause or a temporal clause. It can act as a noun or a gerund in any syntactic position. The subject or agent will generally follow an infinitive construct. The subject can be separated from the infinitive by the object or by other intervening words, breaking the construct relation and the infinitive construct acts primarily as a verb. When placed before an object, an infinitive construct generally acts like a verb, particularly when preceded by lâmed. The lâmed with an infinitive construct generally expresses purpose or result, although it can have three other common uses with the infinitive: (1) It can have a gerundial or adverbial sense to explain the circumstances of a previous action; (2) it can act as a periphrastic future in nominal clauses; and, (3)  it can behave as a gerund, in the sense of is to be, must be, ought to be. (4) Lâmed with the infinitive can connote shall or must.

When combined with a bêyth preposition, the infinitive construct often takes on a temporal meaning and may be rendered when [such and such happens]. With the bêyth preposition, the Qal infinitive construct serve as a temporal marker which denotes an event which occurs simultaneously with the action of the main verb.

The kaph preposition, or k^e (׃) [pronounced k^e], which means like, as, according to, when this is combined with an infinitive, it can also take on the meaning as, often, when, as soon as. It carries with it a temporal connotation.

The preposition ׳ad (דַע) [pronounced ģahd], with an infinitive construct, appears to mean until, till, as far as, even to.

The jussive expresses volition in the third person and its ideas are dependent upon the relationship between the parties involved. When it is a superior to an underling, it may represent a command, instruction or the granting of permission. In the other direction, the jussive would be a request, a prayer or a request for permission. With the negative, the jussive expresses prohibition or denial. Unfortunately, there is generally nothing which distinguishes a jussive in the imperfect tense (there are a few verbs which are exceptions.

The voluntative is alluded to in Owen’s, but I can’t find this terminology in any of my Hebrew grammar books, nor in Zodhiates or any other Hebrew source whatsoever. I am guessing that maybe this is related to the jussive? What we have is the letter hê as a suffix to the verb. The translators who do not acknowledge any sort of difference are The Amplified Bible, Keil and Delitzsch, KJV, Noyes (this depends upon the verse)—in fact, the only place where we find any sort of difference in translation is with The Emphasized Bible, with Owen, and, with, of all places, Today’s English Version. I am going to tentatively go with the idea of being compelled by oneself and use the words I must. Perhaps the verb would be accompanied by let or I could, I would.

VERB TENSE

The traditional view of the imperfect tense is that it is a reference to an incomplete or to a future action. This is true, to some extent. Sometimes the imperfect tense views a portion of an event—i.e., it focuses in on a specific portion of an event and does not concern itself with the event having already occurred or not. This is often used for on-going action, contingent action, and it can be used to convey capability, possibility and obligation, making it similar to the subjunctive and optative moods in the Greek. There are events in the past and in the future which the Hebrews would describes as though they were in the middle of the events—therefore, they would use the imperfect (or, future) tense. The imperfect tense can refer to a part of an event or situation. Therefore, we are not necessarily looking forward to this event occurring, nor is what occurred the entire event.

The imperfect tense does not always indicate continued action. My hypothesis here is, the imperfect tense when following the wâw consecutive can simply refer to the next action which occurs. So the duration of the verb is not the key factor but the succession of events is what is being developed.

The traditional view of the perfect tense is that it is a completed action. However, the perfect looks at the action of the verb as a whole, without an thought to the duration of the events or to their completeness. Zodhiates says that the perfect tense can stand for some action which has begun in the past (or the present) and continues into the present (or the future). It is a tense which examines the action of the verb as a whole, whether the action is still ongoing or not. Context tells us whether we are viewing the action of the verb from its inception, progression or completion. A perfect tense can be action which has not even been begun yet and will occur in the future (the verb give in Judges 15:13). The perfect tense can look back on a completed event; it can view an ongoing event from the standpoint of its entire action; and it can even be used of a future event (many prophecies are in the perfect tense—a use often referred to as the prophetic perfect). The past tense (the perfect) indicated an event which was certain. So, an event which was in the future, but certain, would call for the use of the perfect tense.

MISCELLANEOUS

The Hebrew does not have a special form of an adjective which is a comparative; this does not mean that it lacks a comparative—it simply uses adjectives or a particular sentence structure to denote a comparative (e.g., Judges 18:19).

The superlative