"הילד שלךָ קורא לךָ."
Translation:Your boy calls you.
70 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
If I read the sentence I do not have any problem to understand. But it is spoken in such a hurry and the words are drawn together , like one word...There is no chance for me to understand .For beginners like me it would be great to hear the phrase once more...slowly. I am German and try to learn Hebrew over the bridge of English.Very difficult. But..nevertheless... enjoy it !
Many of the other languages have a fast and slow speed for audio. Hebrew audio is lacking in many respects, including this.
Also, I've found that listening and comprehending is a skill in itself. It took a while, but I can keep up with Spanish somewhat decently now. I wouldn't get your hopes up for much listening comprehension until you're intermediate level or so.
There are words that sound the same but are written differently (the most common example is probably את, עט, עת all pronounced et). There can also be some words with multiple meanings depending on context e.g. משקה can be also the noun "a drink" (n.(m)) and also the verb "watering [the plants]". נורה can be the noun "a light bulb" (pronounced nu-ra) and also someone who was shot (pronounced no-ra), while spelt as נורא (also pronounced no-ra) meaning "terrible" or "terribly" (as in terribly big = גדול נורא).
This happens all the time, in all languages. Sometimes it's because meanings shift. In sufficiently ancient Hebrew, "קורא" must have meant "say aloud". You can imagine how it evolved to "call" on one hand and "read" on the other hand.
Then, it also happens in all languages that two words turn out identical in writing, or pronuciation, or both, with no semantic relation (e.g. they evolve from two different words). Example in English: "bear" - the verb on one hand (several meanings in itself, but probably related) and the animal (probably not related).
The etymology makes good sense. Not specific to Hebrew, but in days of yore elsewhere in the world, reading was typically done aloud and those who were even able to read silently were viewed with suspicion as practitioners of the "Dark Arts." Or perhaps in other parts of the world as some form of genius. I think one of the "miracles" of some of the early Christians was that they could read books without mouthing the words out loud. Rarity of printed materials had a lot to do with this. I guess as more people started to reading, people figured out that being able to read silently wasn't pure evil, genius, or evil genius after all.
It is said that St Augustine was the first person to read silently. I do not know if this is accurate, and if so whether he was first in the world to read silently or only the first to read Latin silently. --- Since languages were spoken for many millennia before they were written down, it is to be expected that when the practice of writing was in its infancy and for a few centuries afterward, that "real" communication was oral, and writing was just seen as a reminder of the "real" oral language. Ancient Greek epic and of course drama were meant to be performed rather than read silently. Does anyone know if this was true of the historians like Herodotus? How about anceint Greek lyric poetry? -- In ancient Hebrew, written lgg was largely liturgical and meant to be performed rather than read silently. This tradition continues to a certain degree into the contemporary synagogue where silent prayer is a small portion of the entire service. In addition to prayer, the Hebrew Bible is read out loud, one portion per week, in an annual cycle. In Yeshiva study, the Talmud is read and discussed (debated) in groups of two. Can anyone give more details about this? Do they read the Talmud portion aloud before discussing it, or is the reading done silently?
You can't implement rules of one language onto another language! A direct object in one language does not automatically mean it will be that way in other languages. In English they might be the same, but in Hebrew they are not the same. You will encounter many such examples in this course. How will you know when to use which? By memorizing each verb. I'm afraid there is no other way. You observe them, write them down in a notebook and then review them, until you think you've mastered them.
This is also a problem for learners of other languages, for example French and Yiddish. Just like in Hebrew, a verb in Fr or Y which is transitive may have to be translated by an intransitive verb in English, and vice-versa. (Note transitive means it takes a direct object "I see you", intransitive means it takes an indirect object "I give you [something}" or "I give something to you". In Fr, for example, in Je te telephone" (I phone you) te is an indirect object, whereas in the synonymous "Je t'appelle" (I call you) te is a direct object. This can be easily seen in French if you use a 3rd-person pronoun as object "Je LUI telephone" but Je L'appelle." Sometimes the same verb can be transitive in one local dialect and intransitive elsewhere, for example the Y איך האב דיך ליב was in other parts of Eastern Europe איך האב דיר ליב -- as a previous commenter stated, the student must learn what kind of object is possible with each verb, and cannot assume it will be the same in the target lgg and in his native lgg.
No, it's not a direct object, otherwise it would have been אותך.
Yes, that is the case - different verbs require specific prepositions. But they are not exceptions - that's how verbs are.
Actually, קורא can also be followed by a direct object, but in that case, it means "read". אני קורא את הספר שלו. I am reading his book. אני קורא לילד שלו. I am calling his boy.
This the way to use the possessive pronouns in Hebrew. When it's "split/isolated" you need the definite article (something like "the son of yours") , when it's "connected" you don't need it. Anyway it's "מיודע", and if you need to add adjective it should be with ה
הַיֶלֶד שֶלְךָ - יַלְדֵךָ
הַבַּית הַצָבוּעַ שלך - בֵּיתְךָ הצבוע
Gender of, for which the you? Or read? How is it read vs call. This confused me in new subliminal song to it says קרא ל. סאבלימינל סאבלימינל סאבלימינל So I thought that's weird..why would they be reading him?
But then noticed subtitles said said "call for" Subliminal subliminal....
Maqri, maqri’a, maqri’im are the transliterations for reading aloud to someone. (I skip feminine plural because I never remember seeing a verb where the present tense feminine plural didn’t exactly match masculine plural except for -ot at the end instead of -im).
Actually in the sense of to call, the verb can also take a direct and/or indirect object. For example אני קורא ״שלום״ לך -- shalom is the direct object (what you are saying or shouting) and lekha the indirect object (to whom you are speaking). [Please correct me if my example is not good Hebrew]
I don't think your example works that way. I would guess your example translates to "I call you shalom", as in "shalom" is the name of the person.
I am not sure if that is something that was a thing in Biblical Hebrew, but as far as modern Hebrew is concerned, I've only come across the explanation that קורא ל implies calling and קורא את (or without את if the object is indefinite) implies reading.
Wouldn't אני אומר לך שלום be a better choice than קורא?
Thank you, danny91, for your response. I was thinking of a situation where you are calling to someone across the street, say. Your sentence would apply to a face-to-face conversation, like in English 'I say "shalom" to you'. Could it also be used for calling to someone from a distance? Could קורא be used in that situation? Or how would one say that?