"אני ובן דודי אוכלים ארוחת בוקר."
Translation:My cousin and I are eating breakfast.
35 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
I agree with fdsimms. I'm a linguist, and I use "me" as a subject pronoun all the time. Using "me" as a subject pronoun is a very normal, common colloquialism in English. The structure appears to be borrowed from French, where you refer to yourself as "moi" and not "je" when using one-word responses.
Note: Often people who are strongly opposed to this structure will incorrectly use "I" as an object pronoun, which is called "overcorrection" (and not a colloquialism), for example, "on you and I."
And would you use it if the subject were not plural? i.e. " Me eats breakfast". I am not a linguist, but I would never use such a construction...commonly used does not make it correct. My family in a rural area still says, "he don't..." They all do it--strength in numbers but still not right. Take it from I, me is right here, or is that "take it from me, me is right here, or......oh heck, just stick with Chinese they use one pronoun for everything, even to the point of only having one word for both "he" and "she"---but the characters are slightly different. 他 vs 她, both pronounced tā. BTW duo has a good Chinese course.
Is it standard in Hebrew to put אני first in a list like this? In English you would put the first person pronoun last such as in: "My uncle and I" or "My uncle and me" (depending on the context). So is it the opposite rule in Hebrew?
Because it does sound a bit awkward to me to say בן דודי ואני
"Having breakfast" is a very commonly used English expression. It just isn't the most literal translation of this sentence. The problem with translating this sentence absolutely literally is that there's a convention in English, that when speaking about oneself and someone else, it's bad manners to mention self first (as if you thought you were more important). It's the sort of thing we get corrected for as children:-) So the best compromise is "My cousin and I are eating breakfast"
- The dot is called a dagesh, and the rules are complicated. in this sentence, since the bet is no longer the first letter of the word, it loses its dagesh. 2. I don't understand this question. 3. bet loses its dagesh kal (simple dagesh) whenever it's no longer at the beginning of a word or syllable.
Neither. The dagesh is the dot inside the letter. The word literally means "emphasis." There are 2 types in Hebrew:
- dagesh kal (דגש קל, "weak emphasis") may be placed inside the consonants ב bet, ג gimel, ד dalet, כ kaf, פ pe and ת tav. They each had two sounds: the original "hard" (plosive) sound, and a "soft" (fricative) sound.
2.Dagesh ḥazak (דגש חזק, "strong emphasis") may be placed in almost any letter, this indicates a gemination (doubling) of that consonant in the pronunciation of pre-modern Hebrew. This gemination is not adhered to in modern Hebrew.
Very true. It's just that to translate the exact word order from Hebrew would be considered bad English, as I explained above. The "best" way of translating this sentence is a compromise of word order which still conveys the meaning of the original statement, without appearing (to an English speaker) bad-mannered.
See AdamReisman's remark below :-)