No, but we do use some animals as describtion of behavior and such.. כלב/ה (dog) means ❤❤❤❤❤, חזיר/ה (pig) describe someone that eats too much, and שפן (rabbit/dassie) means "chiken" (scared of..). There are several other animals that symbolize all kinds of behaviors or characteristics, but the rest is said as a pair of words or phrases..
Well in arabic snake/scorpion means malefeciant he poisoning people with words or actions, dog means low class, pig means dirty(soul/body), rabbit/deer means fast, lion/wolf/tiger means strong, monkey means he can't stop doing bad things/rogue/foxy, easygoing/naive like a sheep, nothing can affect him like a cat with seven souls if he loses one he has 6 more, reckless/not meticulous/destroyer like a bear, idiot like a donkey/chicken, not flexible/does'nt stop what ever is going on/destroyer like a torro/train, too low class like an insect to your feet.
As you see we use them a much
Umm not exactly - you are right in your line of thought, but when I wrote the previous response I made a mistake in the wording. The words themselves were written in English, but the way I thought about them was too Hebrew.
In a sense, this type of formulating questions is very similar to present simple - and in this way it needs to be translated (at least in my opinion).
I think you are correct actually. I can't find an example of a proper question that doesn't start with a question word: who, what, why, are, do, etc. (you can also have a question word towards the end of the sentence but still at the beginning of the question: "Those boys don’t play sports, do they?" ) Although I sometimes say things like "we're going also?" (mostly when incredulous) as a question, I don't think this is technically proper: https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/english-grammar/clause-phrase-and-sentence/verb-patterns/verbs-questions-and-negatives
This appears to be ok in Hebrew though (if duolingo's Hebrew sentence here is proper)
I must say, I'm stunned. Turn out that quetions that start with no question words are proper Hebrew, though not fully the same way that it is expressed in this case (this sentence is just low -casual, slang?- register).
First thig first in Hebrew there's Interrogative He (ה"א השאלה) it is very similaer to Definite He but it used to indicate a question (though the Niqqud method is different and the He isn't doubled at construct state). E.g "השומר אחי אנוכי?" [Genesis 4:9, ha-sho-mer a-khi a-no-khi] - "Am [I] my brother's guard?" (I translated it myself, I'm not sure that the Hebrew Bible is officially translated in the same way). "השמעתם?" [ha-sh-ma-a-tem] "Have you heard?". In this particular sentence, I am not sure whether it is a Definite He or an Interrogative He.
Secondly, I have no intention of scanning the entire Bible just for this matter (though it was interesting, I must say) but there is a very well known expression from Samuel, likely that any person (in Israel) over the age of 10 know "החסר משוגעים אנוכי?" [ha-kha-sar me-shu-ga-im a-no-khi] "Do not I have enough crazy people (around me)?". Interesting thing is that this is not the way the sentence is phrased. It is phrased as follows: "חסר משוגעים אני כי הבאתם את זה להשתגע עלי?" [Samuel 1st, 21 :16, kha-sar me-shu-ga-im a-ni ki he-ve-e-tem et ze le-hi-sh-ta-ge-a a-lai] "Am I in need of mad men, that you have brought this [person] to go mad on me?". As you can see, this sentence start with no question word nor Interrogative He, and there is nothing better than the Bible to teach proper Hebrew xD
That's because Hebrew is like French, where the way you pronounce a question, which without a question mark would not make sense, turns into a question. This is very common nowadays as many would rather change their accent a bit to kick out the "הים", as it saves more time. It's not slang nowadays, and adding "הים" is just considered formal practice. If you go to Israel, nobody will say it. It's the same as asking "You okay?", with an accent to differentiate it from "You are okay.", meaning "Are you okay?" We may have borrowed it from the French or it may have evolved into this form by modern slang. French also has forms like "הים" too.
I can't reply to your last comment so I'll reply to this one. Check out the part of this commentary on Exodus 6:3 http://biblehub.com/commentaries/jfb/exodus/6.htm then check out all the other translations of Exodus 6:3 http://biblehub.com/exodus/6-3.htm I've also seen other translations that translate this as a rhetorical question (implying the exact opposite meaning of most translations). Could it be that there is ambiguity about this being a question or a statement? Could it be that other verses are like this? I don't know enough Hebrew grammar to know.
Thats's interesting! And it is a little difficult to interpret in a different language XS
There is a phrase in Hebrew that says "שבעים פנים לתורה" [shiv-ee-m pa-nim la-to-ra] "seventy aspects\faces to the Torah". The intention is that the Torah, as given by God whose wisdom is infinite, is given to a wide variety of interpretations, and all this without taking into account the subtleties of the difference between the different words. The same goes for the 72 different names of God (according to Judaism), When each name indicates certain attributes of God. So it is always possible that there is another interpretation, deeper or simply different in essence. But the way I understand the (Hebrew) sentence, which is also compatible with what I found in a quick search on the Internet is this:
the Hebrew verse is: "וָאֵרָא, אֶל-אַבְרָהָם אֶל-יִצְחָק וְאֶל-יַעֲקֹב--בְּאֵל שַׁדָּי; וּשְׁמִי יְהוָה, לֹא נוֹדַעְתִּי לָהֶם". Notice the word נודעתי [been known to]. "And my name Je-ho-va, I were not known to them" It follows that Abraham Isaac and Jacob did know God, but only certain aspects of him - God Almighty, and not God's "aspect" as God's explicit name, also known as "the name of being". These are simply different levels of knowing the God.
Yes you are correct "serpent" is not a word you hear everyday in the U.S. where I live. But what I was thinking is that the word serpent would include a snake (when I visualize all the possible serpent types) where a snake for the most part are much smaller. But I understand your point and it is well taken.