"הם בעל ואישה."
Translation:They are husband and wife.
66 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
In any case, there's a tendency among progressive couples in Israel to use בן זוג (partner, literally "son of a couple") instead on בעל, because of the archaic and patriarchal origin of the latter. My husband, for example, doesn't like to be called my "owner", neither do I like to call someone my "owner". So he's not בעלי but בן זוג שלי.
it is wrong saying that בעל is lord or owner, those are two different roots, although both are ב.ע.ל (and it does come from בעילה, not בעלות), it's like there are a few different ד.ב.ר roots... either way there is also רעי the masc form or רעייתי (though really archaic and probably no one will understand you), and of course אישי. btw, according the Bible, it is much more correct to say אישּי than בעלי, as it is written "וְהָיָ֤ה בַיּוֹם־הַהוּא֙ נְאֻם־יְהֹוָ֔ה תִּקְרְאִ֖י אִישִׁ֑י וְלֹא־תִקְרְאִי־לִ֥י ע֖וֹד בַּעְלִֽי׃" ("And it shall come to pass on that day, says the Lord, you shall call [Me] Ishi, and you shall no longer call Me Baali." Hosea 2 18. Jewish Bible)
the word רעיה comes from The Song of Songs (and there are doubts whether it refers a married woman or not) either way, as there a masculine form to this word "זֶ֤ה דוֹדִי֙ וְזֶ֣ה רֵעִ֔י" (chapter 5 verse 16), and based on the fact that רעיה has taken root in the sense of married woman, it shall mean a married man. plus, when The Academy been asked to renew another word for "husband", they noted that there are indeed alternatives in the Bible - "רֵעִי" and "אִישִּי".
About whether it is more correct to say "בעל" or "אישּי", it is not reflected in the verse itself, but it is discussed in this chapter that the word "בעל" is more in the physical sense while "אישּי" directs full proximity (physical, emotional, mental, etc.) between the partners
This is interesting!
"Ba'l" (Beth/Ayin/Lamed) means "husband" or "lord", the same with Arabic "Ba'l" (Ba/Ayin/Lam).
In Hinduism, Sanskrit "swami" means "lord". In Bengali, this "swami" has dual meanings, "lord" and "husband".
In my language (Malay), "swami" transformed into "suami", meaning "husband".
In Khmer and Odiya language, "swami" is also "husband"!
This is probably how an ordinary man by tradition become corrupted to be "unintentional false god" by the later generation! That's why learning language is important! :)
I think you may have the semantic change reversed. Gods referred to as Ba'al are quite ancient. I think it most often refers to Ba'al Hadad, the lord of storms, but it was also used for El and Dagan (the fish god, related to Hebrew dg), and in Carthage referred usually to Ba'al Hammon.
I'm not sure what a corruption of language might be, but the word Belu is attested in Akkadian with the meaning "lord" and already applied to gods like Marduk. The Northwest Semitic (Hebrew, Ugaritic, Aramaic, Arabic) Ba'al is also used both for human lords and for gods from its earliest attestations.
I think you are referring to Euhemerism, the theory associated with the Hellenistic writer Euhemeros, that all gods originate in memories of great leaders of the past. I'm afraid the evidence is against Euhemerism, at least as a universal explanation. Certainly a deity here or there might at one point have been a person, but that is not the case for the majority of them.
Actually the Baal as husband and owner has a very simple explanation.
In old cultures (which I guess their authontic relics in the not far oriental world are the Hebrew, Hindies and Arabic) when a man wanted to wed a woman he had to buy her from her father, then becoming the owner of his newly wedded wife.
I believe that the god name Baal is just a coincidence.
it is not fully correct. although in Hebrew, as it is a Semetic language, there are roots-pattern of consonant that demonstrates the connection between all different forms of the same word; there are exceptions - the homonyms roots. those roots have several provisions that the instructions semantic or etymological connection between the instructions is not certain. the different provisions of the root will considered as independent roots. they have the same letters but have different meaning. ב.ע.ל is an homonym root. one of those roots is related to cohabitation (בעילה), while the other is related to owner, master (בעלות) I assume there is connection between Fertile Crescent God "בעל" as he is the god of thunder lightning and rain, in other words - earth "fertility". maybe this is also why master ("Lord") called in Hebrew בעל. given that the Fertile Crescent is the original origin of the Jews (the 1st hebrew - Abraham came from there), this influence is certainly not surprising. the same goes for Arabic. about the connection with south Asia an Oceania, I assume it is through the Indus Valley Civilisation and the strong trade relations the Portuguese Empire had with the Ottoman Empire. I would have continuing if it wasn't beyond my abilities in English... :S
In Hungarian there is "Úr" meaning "Lord" , and husband as well, but it is not used these days any more in the cities. 30 years ago my grandmother called my grandfather this way and sometimes even I call my husband like that, but modern women never call their husbands "lords " . But we use the word "urak" (lords) for "gentlemen " and "bosses".
"Lord of the flies" was translated to בעל זבוב (Beelzebub) because that's the name of the god in the Bible. It probably has to do with the meaning of בעל in Hebrew, which is either husband or someone who owns something (בעל ניסיון is someone who has experience, for example).
Anyway, בעל ואישה is so common that there really is just one way to translate it in my opinion, even if both אישה and בעל could mean other things separately.
Well, some follow Hos 3.18 in thinking this to be a more egalitarian term: והיה ביום ההוא נאם יהוה תקראי אישי ולא תקראי לי עוד בעלי And it will be in that day, says YHWH, that you will call me my husband and no longer call me my master, in which verse Rashi identifies בַּעֲלִי with אַדְנוּת authority and יִרְאָה reverence, but אִישִׁי with אַהֲבָה love and חִבָּה fondness.
It is one of the leading options for people who want to refrain from the alleged "ownership" connotation of בעל. So it is used - if I have to take a wild guess, by anything between 1 in 100 to 1 in 1000 among secular couples in their 40's or younger (and much rarer in other demographics). I think it still doesn't sound very natural to anyone, it's always a statement to use it - but maybe I'm just not in the right circles.
One thing that makes it cumbersome is that, while those who use בעל regularly say בעלי, saying אישי is a problem because אישי is also the much more common word "personal". So often they would say האיש שלי.
The competitor term בן זוגי was mentioned here. This rolls much more smoothly on the tongue, also because this has been a common term since always. The problem is, before the בעלי-aversion began a couple of decades ago, בן זוגי was often used for a non-marriage or pre-marriage romantic relationship. Using it today leaves it vague whether they are married or not. This vagueness is often desired ("What business is it of yours whether we married or not?") But for those who want to explicitly say they are married, האיש שלי is often preferred.
(Personally? Between my wife and me, we do feel the distaste in the word בעלי, and appreciate the alternatives - but not so strongly as to push us to actually use them. בעלי is still the lazy option.)
In my opinion, there is a way to use בעלי without feeling as though you’re being lazy.
Just because בעל used to mean master, why should you be hesitant to use the word when it no longer has master as the main meaning?
As a corollary, consider the word “nice”. According to dictionary.com, “Nice, it turns out, began as a negative term derived from the Latin nescius, meaning “unaware, ignorant.” This sense of “ignorant” was carried over into English when the word was first borrowed (via French) in the early 1300s. And for almost a century, nice was used to characterize a “stupid, ignorant, or foolish” person.
Starting in the late 1300s, nice began to refer to “conduct, a person, or clothing that was considered excessively luxurious or lascivious.” However, by the 1400s a new, more neutral sense of nice was emerging. At this time, nice began to refer to “a person who was finely dressed, someone who was scrupulous, or something that was precise or fussy.”
By the late 1500s, nice was further softening, describing something as “refined, culture,” especially used of polite society.
The high value placed on being coy, delicate, and reserved was instrumental in the semantic amelioration of the term nice in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.”
“Nice” now usually means pleasant or agreeable. If you don’t hesitate to use the word nice in a positive way, then you shouldn’t hesitate to use בעל in a positive way, no matter what the naysayers say.
Thanks. One problem is that the "ownership" meaning of בעל is not a thing of the past, it's still a current meaning in owning a non-person thing (בעל הבית, בעל המכונית, בעל החתול).
Even that would not have been troubling if it was just any old word that also has a negative meaning. The aversion from בעלי comes from the fact that it scratches a wound that is still sore in our society. The feminist movement made us all realize that traditionally men have had excessive power over women, in particular in matrimony. The struggle against it continues. I wrote above that using איש for "husband" makes a statement. Let me be specific what statement it makes: it says "I am a feminist. We stand for egalitarian marriage". On the flip side, I expect men and women who resent feminism to make a point of using בעל.
My wife and I are feminist. I can't help cringing, at least a bit, when we use בעל for me.
All that aside, thanks for the "nice" story! In return, consider this "gross" story. This German word made its way to English - twice. In the second time it took a currently dominant meaning of "disgusting". In the first time it became "great!".
Well, I have read that many speakers cleanly separate the meaning owner and husband, by only using it with possessive suffixes, i.e. בַּעֲלִי etc., in the latter sense, so that they are forced to use rather literary devices for expressions like בַּעֲלָהּ שֶׁל מִרְיָם Miryam's husband.
That doesn't really answer my question. I can see the similarities between the two words. However, at the start of this set of lessons, Duolingo taught the word "wife" as אישת, and here it's using the word אישה to mean wife, even though Duolingo taught early on that it's "woman."
All I'm wondering is if they're interchangeable, or are there certain contexts where a person would use one or the other?
They are not interchangeable, because wives are women but not all women are wives.
A certain context in which someone would use אישה as wife: “This is my wife” זאת אשתי Zot ishti.
In a sentence such as “I saw a woman standing on the street”, of course you wouldn’t translate אישה as wife. Context is king.
You and I are using the word “interchangeable” differently. You seem to be using the meaning of apparently identical or very similar, whereas I’m using the meaning from the Cambridge dictionary: able to be exchanged with each other without making any difference or without being noticed.
No need to apologize; your way of using the word is recognized by Oxford Languages. https://www.google.co.jp/search?q=interchangeable&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-jp&client=safari
That doesn't mean אישת on its own is in the course. ת is often added to feminine words when they're taking a possessive prefix - I don't know offhand if it's always the case, but for example ילדתו means his girl and אהובתי means my love, it doesn't follow that ילדת or אהובת are necessarily words of their own independent of being in the construct form. (Again, I don't recall offhand if these "count" as the construct form or if the similarity is coincidental, and also don't offhand know if אהובת is actually the construct form of the word, tbh, so I'm using that comparison loosely.)
In English, when you contract will not, you get won't. It doesn't follow that "wo" means will in modern English. Sometimes words change in combination with other words and with suffixes. Same happens in Hebrew.
Yes, אֲהוּבַת־ is the construct form, like in אֲהוּבַת־לִבִּי my darling (literally the loved one (f.) of my heart). For most feminine nouns their status pronominalis looks similar to their status constructus, sometimes with small adaptations (מִשְׁפַּחְתִּי my family but מִשְׁפַּ֫חַת־ family of). But אִשָּׁה is a highly irregular noun, so that אֵ֫שֶׁת־ woman of and אִשְׁתִּי my woman differ substantially in their vocalisation.