1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Hebrew
  4. >
  5. "העגבניה שלו לא אדומה."

"העגבניה שלו לא אדומה."

Translation:His tomato is not red.

August 20, 2016



Ha'agvaniya shelo lo aduma


With ḥolem, adoma (cf. Dov Ben-Abba Hebrew/English dictionary) rather than šureq (aduma) as you have it. Here's an explanation from HAARETZ (2014) on the color adom: https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-word-of-the-day-adom-1.5328556


The male form is indeed /adom/, but the female form is definitely /aduma/ (with qubbutz rather than shuruk when writing with niqqud) - both in spoken Hebrew and (verified in Even Shoshan) in formal.


Something puzzles me in that Haaretz article. Gilad wrote

The Bible describes several such dyes, including shani – crimson, as well as tekhelet and argaman, both of which would be called purple nowadays. However, no word for purple made it into the Bible.

I don't know the biblical references, but if they include the names of dyes that we may now consider to be purple, why does Gilad then say that those words in the Bible are not words for purple?


Have a lingot for pointing this out. Here's my take: Each language classifies colors in its own way to such an extent that color designations are extremely difficult to pinpoint sometimes, a problem demonstrated by comparing translations of Hebrew words denoting color into Greek, Syriac, or Latin. Aside from translation, even people within the same language community vary in color designations. Gilad probably refers to the Gk lexeme πορφύρα, which was a loanword in rabbinic Hebrew and was used in the LXX to translates ארגמן at Song 3:10. That tells us that the Jews who translated that Hebrew word thought that πορφύρα approximated it. But what did πορφύρα really designate? The Romans took the Gk word as a calque, purpura. The entry for ארגמן in Dict. of Classical Hebrew (1.370) gives as primary designation "purple" but then glosses 2 Chr 3:14 תכלת וארגון with "purple and blue." Anyway, Gilad may have benefited from a footnote at "no word for purple in the Bible" to clarify to the reader that he considers "purple" to be a Greek-derived lexeme that some tannaitic-amoraic period rabbis used to approximate a color designation as a loanword when ארגמן was at their disposal.


The article on adom was interesting, but one thing it did not mention is that the name Adam comes from the red earth from which the man was formed.


That's what it says in the bible, but the bible is full of name explanations which, if read with skeptical eyes, are obviously "backward" explanations. This is most probably one of them.


Is anybody else having a hard time reading the letters without the vowels?


It takes practice. You'll get the hang of it :)


Wouldn't accept "His tomato ain't red", very disappointed


This sounds like a very wink-wink-nudge-nudge sentence to me


Yes, it feels like it's some kind of obscure innuendo, but I can't imagine what it would suggest....


Tomatoes come in a variety of colors. Heirloom tomates can be yellow, purple, etc. There are green tomatoes, for instance, called tomate verde in Mexico but tomatillos in the US. Tomate verde is not ever going to become red, which I mention because sometimes people eat a jitomate (a US tomato) green before it becomes red. In Spanish, the different terms for the different types of tomatoes can be confusing at first, such as jitomate and tomate verde, because a red US "tomato" corresponds to jitomate.


Ha agvaniya şelo HU lo adoma. Is this correct or not?


Well, עַגְבָנִיָּה tomato is a feminine noun. And like most colour adjectives אָדֹם red shifts its [o]-vowel to [u] when inflected: אֲדֻמָּה.


His tomatoes are not red.


Their sentence says it's only one tomato. Your sentence would be: העגבניות שלו לא אדומות.


( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)


Like the face, nick ziborov!


It's a Kaomoji.


That's a typo. I dictated the answer

Learn Hebrew in just 5 minutes a day. For free.