Composition for Text I Sentence 8

[mplioplis]

Here's my 8. It took nearly 4 hours (not in one sitting). This is waaaay too long. How could I work faster?

וְהָיָה אמ עָבְדוּ אֵתִי בֶּאֱמֶת וָשָׁמְרוּ אֶת מִצּוֹתַי אֲשֶׁר צַוְּתִי לָהֶם וְאָשׂוּ אֶת אֲשֶׁר אֶת הַתֹּב בְּעֵנַיִּיִם וְשָׁלַחְתִּי עַל הֵם וְעַל־פְּרִי אַדְמָתָם וְיָדְעוּ כִּי אֲנִי יְהוָה אֶלְהֶה אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִי מִן־הָאָרֶץ מִצְרַיִם וַאֲשֶׁר הֵבֵאתִי בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן וַאֲשֶׁר נִלְחַמְתִּי לָהֶם בּאוֹיֶבְהַמְ׃

[Jason]

I split this to a new thread. Don't be afraid to open the threads!

[Jason]

Here's my 8. It took nearly 4 hours (not in one sitting). This is waaaay too long. How could I work faster?

I think that if we had done more English-to-Hebrew work before this, it would have come along a bit more easily. It's like trying to do exercises for the first time. If you've never lifted weights, it's gonna be ungraceful and difficult. However, the more you do it, the easier it gets. These are new muscles that you're starting to us.

וְהָיָה אמ עָבְדוּ אֵתִי בֶּאֱמֶת וָשָׁמְרוּ אֶת מִצּוֹתַי אֲשֶׁר צַוְּתִי לָהֶם וְאָשׂוּ אֶת אֲשֶׁר אֶת הַתֹּב בְּעֵנַיִּיִם וְשָׁלַחְתִּי עַל הֵם וְעַל־פְּרִי אַדְמָתָם וְיָדְעוּ כִּי אֲנִי יְהוָה אֶלְהֶה אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִי מִן־הָאָרֶץ מִצְרַיִם וַאֲשֶׁר הֵבֵאתִי בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן וַאֲשֶׁר נִלְחַמְתִּי לָהֶם בּאוֹיֶבְהַמְ׃

I added the [​he] tag to the above.

You wrote: וְהָיָה אמ עָבְדוּ אֵתִי בֶּאֱמֶת

The first thing that I notice is the inconsistent use of final mem (ם), like in the word אִם (ʾim), which you have written as אמ above.

The setup is in the right tense. וְהָיָה sets this up as a statement about the future. Interestingly, Hebrew real (not counterfactual) conditionals that deal with the future actually use the yiqtol. So, it should be יַעַבְדוּ yaʿaḇəḏû rather than עָֽבְדוּ ʿāḇəḏû. If you use the qatal, it sets up a conditional to ask if it has/had happened or not. But the yiqtol sets it up to ask if it should happen in the future or not.

Remember that two things happen with אֵת ʾēṯ: (1) if it means "with," then it becomes אִתִּי ʾittî (etc.), but (2) if it is marking the direct object, it becomes אֹתִי ʾōṯî (etc.). So, אִם יַעַבְדוּ אֹתִי "if they (should) serve me."

You wrote: וָשָׁמְרוּ אֶת מִצּוֹתַי אֲשֶׁר צַוְּתִי לָהֶם

The verb form is going in the right direction. However, whereas the vayyiqtol has a full vowel in the first syllable, the veqatal doesn't. It should be sheva (וְשָֽׁמְרוּ).

The phrase את מצותי would need to be joined with a makaf (אֶת־מִצְוֺתַי) or to have a long vowel if left separated (אֵת מִצְוֺתַי). I don't know if you can see the difference between וֹ ô (cholam-vav) and וֺ vō (consonantal vav with cholam), but there is a difference there, too, in the placement of the cholam dot.

Compare מַצּוֹת maṣṣôṯ to מִצְוֺת miṣvōṯ. Do you see the placement of the dot on the vav? In miṣvōṯ ("commandments"), the vav is a consonant and has the dot a bit to the left. In maṣṣôṯ ("unleavened breads"), the vav is a vowel and has the dot directly above its stem. These are also different keystrokes. It's not all that important, but it is a distinction. Not all typists make the distinction, obviously.

Since "I commanded" is a piel with a third-heh root, it will obviously drop the heh, which is replaced with yod before the personal ending (צוה > צוי־ > צויתי). The first vowel in the piel perfect is i with a doubled middle radical (צִוּיתי). In such a verb, the vowel before the sufformative can be either ê or î. Even the Academy of the Hebrew Language gives both forms צִוֵּ֫יתִי and צִוִּ֫יתִי as possibilities. I don't even know which one I prefer when I speak. Both are valid. I think I prefer î for active verbs and ê for passive (like in the pual perfect). That's really a preference, but it isn't necessary.

The verb "command" takes a direct object. That means that it uses אֵת rather than לְ־, so you say צִוֵּ֫יתִי אֹתָם "I commanded them."

You wrote: וְאָשׂוּ אֶת אֲשֶׁר אֶת הַתֹּב בְּעֵנַיִּיִם

The verb "to do" uses ayin rather than alef (וְעָשׂוּ). I know it sounds the same to us, but the alef-ayin distinction in roots is part of the language.

For whatever reason, the phrase הַטּוֹב (notice again the tet-tav distinction, like the alef-ayin distinction) is translated as "what is good" or "what is pleasing." The phrase עָשׂוּ אֶת־הַטּוֹב בְּעֵינַי (or even without אֵת as עָשׂוּ הַטּוֹב בְּעֵינַי) means "they did what was pleasing in my sight." It is literally, "they did the good in my eyes."

Notice that the yod in עַ֫יִן is part of the root. This is a segolate with medial yod! That yod doesn't drop out in any of the forms (except by accident, perhaps). Therefore, you have to keep it in there: עַ֫יִן > עֵינַ֫יִם > עֵינַי. Also, the "my" part of it is in the suffix -ay. More coming...

[Jason]

You wrote: וְשָׁלַחְתִּי עַל הֵם וְעַל־פְּרִי אַדְמָתָם

Yes... See that the conditional uses if with the future (imperfect) for the protasis and then the vav-consecutive perfect for the apodosis. Perfect! אִם יַעַבְדוּ... וְעָשׂוּ... וְשָׁלַחְתִּי — "If they serve... and do... then I will send." Just right!

Notice that עַל needs to be joined with a suffix to mean הֵם. With personal pronouns, it's an inseparable preposition. We should see עֲלֵיהֶם "upon them."

Ah, and we're missing what God would send upon them. It says "my plagues," which could be either מַכּוֹתַי makkôṯay or מַגֵּפוֹתַי maggēp̄ôṯay. Normally, the word used for the plagues in Egypt is מַכּוֹת makkôṯ, the singular of which is מַכָּה makkâ. It comes from the verb לְהַכּוֹת ləhakkôṯ "to hit" (past tense: הִכָּה hikkâ from the root נכ״ה or, more properly, נכ״י).

וְיָדְעוּ כִּי אֲנִי יְהוָה אֶלְהֶה

This knowing is still a consequent of the conditional ("if they serve me... and do... then I will send... and they will know..."). You've chosen absolutely correctly to use the veqatal form here. The entire thing is perfect except that אֱלֹהִים takes the suffix like this:

אֱלֹהִים > אֱלֹהֵי > אֱלֹהֵי + הֵם > אֱלֹהֵיהֶם — ʾĕlōhêhem "their God"

Notice the similarity between עֲלֵיהֶם "upon them" and אֱלֹהֵיהֶם "their God." That's intentional.

אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִי מִן־הָאָרֶץ מִצְרַיִם

The verb form here is perfect. However, "land of Egypt" is a construct phrase. "Egypt" is definite, and anything before that in the chain needs to NOT have the article. So, the phrase "the land of Egypt" is אֶ֫רֶץ מִצְרַ֫יִם ʾéreṣ Miṣráyim, never *הָאָ֫רֶץ מִצְרַ֫יִם. The same with all other construct phrases. Only the noun at the end of the phrase will carry the article — well, that and any adjective that modifies the phrase.

What's missing here is the word אֹתָם, because it says "I brought them out."

וַאֲשֶׁר הֵבֵאתִי בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן

Almost perfect. I notice that you used ʾéreṣ Kənáʿan here instead of hāʾā́reṣ. That's already great! But, we're missing אֹתָם here, too. I'd also use אֶל־ instead of בְּ־ as the preposition (אֶל־אֶ֫רֶץ כְּנַ֫עַן).

וַאֲשֶׁר נִלְחַמְתִּי לָהֶם בּאוֹיֶבְהַמְ

Perfect in all points except for the ending on "enemies."

אֹיֵב > אֹיְבִים > אֹיְבֵי > אֹיְבֵיהֶם — ʾōyəḇêhem "their enemies"

Feedback: I know that this was a hard assignment for you, and I'm glad that you trudged through it. Soon expressions like אֱלֹהֵיכֶם and אֱלֹהֵיהֶם will be so common to you that you won't even think twice about the endings. It occurs a million times in the Bible, and you'll get used to it. The problem is that this is the first time that you've written in Hebrew since learning the endings and stuff. You'll get stronger as you go along, and it won't take you four hours to do one paragraph. Good job overall.