"כלביהם של הגברים שותים מים."
Translation:The men's dogs are drinking water.
55 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that this double possessive usage is how to emphasize that something is one's own. In English we say "my own car" or "their own business," etc. So, I feel inclined to translate this exercise to: The men's own dogs are drinking water (perhaps as opposed to someone else's dogs who might be at the same lake at the same time).
Am I right, my guys?
Nice, but as a native, the double possession doesn't feel to me any more emphatic than the common way. Maybe it is when the 2nd possessive structure is just the inclined של with no additional noun: כלבי שלי שותה מים. Here it's definitely more emphatic, like "my own", probably because שלי is otherwise completely redundant.
Nice try. Another (similar) possibility is stressing the ownership of "the men" in opposition to " other men". Like this: "Their dogs, (the ones) of the men (the men here, the men we were talking about etc.) are drinking water." It does include the option of a "high register" mentioned by Theresa because stresses someone's possession eg. shows respect for the person.
Not exactly, although I see why it looks like that. You can say כלביהם or הכלבים שלהם, these are the two forms, so far you are right. But if you want to specify whose dogs particularly, you need to add של הגברים. If you used הכלבים שלהם, it would become הכלבים של הגברים. If you used כלביהם, you could say, כלבי הגברים, that's formally correct but not in daily use. Or you could say כלביהם של הגברים.
I'm not a linguist, nor do I know many languages, but I remember coming across the ne+pas combination in French and thinking: why do we need to negations? And when you say "I am", why do you need the "I"? "Am going" would be a perfectly unambiguous sentence if it were considered grammatical. In Hebrew where the verb is unambiguous we can drop the pronoun, for example, הלכתי. What's with the redundancy, English? :-)
There is a German dialect (not hochdeutsch=standard German, though) where instead of "das Buch des Mannes" (the man's book) or "das Buch von dem Mann" (the book of the man , the dative with preposition is often used as a substitute for the genitive in spoken German) one would say "dem Mann sein Buch" (of the man his book).
The exact same construction is found in Syriac, which May point to an aramaic influence on Hebrew. In classical syriac you can write:
Kalb= dog Hon=their D= hebrew shel Ga(n)bre= men
As you can see even the single words are very similar.
Redundancy is actually a critical componant of all languages. children use it to learn without explicit instruction through a process called bootstrapping, where they infer the meaning or grammar of a new element based on the familiar elements in the rest of the utterance. It also makes it easier for adult speakers to comprehend what someone is saying, even if some of the words are undiscernible or if part of the utterance is cut off, as happens frequently when people speak to each other in real time. This is probably why inherently redundant things like agreement and double negation are common among the world's languages :)
DL introduces us to an important feature of Hebrew--the redundant or anticipatory pronoun. It's common to Semitic languages (Arabic, Aramaic, Syriac) and is found in late classical Hebrew (Can 3:7). It was common in rabbinic Hebrew. Thus, when Hebrew was being revived, it would be odd to not have it be a feature of modern Hebrew. It's good to get used to it out of respect for the deep tradition and to be able to spot it when you see or hear it. E.g., אמה של הילדה, "the mother of the girl." Anticipatory pronoun is a feature of modern Greek. Spanish redundant indirect object pronoun has some similarity.
Redundancy is very common in languages, often for emphasis. Added bonus Bright sunny day Cease and desist Each and every End result Free gift Honest truth Never ever ever New innovations Null and void Past history Plan ahead Regular routine Rough estimation Sum total Beck and call Unexpected surprise
It's a good point about emphasis in some languages and "often" is an impressive nuance. My understanding is that Spanish requires redundant indirect object pronoun and so it's not really redundant for a Spanish speaker and is not emphatic, emphasis would be done through intonation, whereas Italian (to my knowledge) does not employ the anticipatory pronoun, and so when it occurs in Italian it is for emphasis. E.g., with 'Le traje el refresco a tu madre' one cannot omit 'le,' but in the equivalent Italian sentence, there is nothing equivalent to Spanish 'le' but Italian must have 'a tua madre.'
Please would you explain "כלבי הגברים" (your penultimate example). I thought that would mean "My dog the men".
Do you know if "כלביהם של הגברים" would be used in normal speech or communication. "הכלבים של הגברים" seems much more elegant to me but then my brain thinks in English not Hebrew!
It's actually kalvey (and most native speakers would use kalbey).
As for what is used in normal speech, הכלבים של הגברים is the most common in this case.
ll כלבי הגברים is not great, would rarely be used if at all.
ll כלביהם של הגברים could be used, it's very common in newspapers, books, speeches, etc. when you want to sound more formal.
I'm OK with it, because anticipatory pronoun is common to a lot of languages, as we've discussed above, and because it's OK to introduce people to important concepts inductively. But I'm not a beginner and so maybe it's something DL Hebrew might delay until later. Not sure.
University professors, lawyers, scholars...many professions have people who love to use unusually complex or obscure words and you might think they do so in order to seem especially intelligent. But often their speech is switched into this higher stratosphere merely because it’s expected. A college student uses this kind of vocabulary when he’s writing his term paper and that’s proper; it gives his writing a dignified ring, less like the speech of a high schooler. Would you think that “Fourscore and seven years ago” is unneeded complexity? When Lincoln gave his Gettysburg address in 1865, this way of counting was not in common use, but his words evocative of a former age gave his speech just the right level of grandeur. Yes I know that a speech is not quite comparable to regular talking, but sometimes people just like to make their words a little fancier than usual.