1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Hebrew
  4. >
  5. "אחרי שהכלב רואֶה את החתול הו…

"אחרי שהכלב רואֶה את החתול הוא נובח."

Translation:After the dog sees the cat it barks.

September 8, 2016



Why does "After the dog sees the the cat he barks" not work, clearly it is a masculine noun, even has הוא as "it".


That answer is accepted now.


Could you also you אחר instead of אחרי


thank you -- I am obviously from a different millennium.


Well, there is מֵאַחַר שֶׁ־, but it means since, because.


It's similar to "the dog sees the cat and then it barks" Brunno.


Why is there a ש by כלב


Well, because אַחֲרֵי שֶׁ־ introduces a clause with a verb, רוֹאֶה, it is here a subordinating conjunctions, not a preposition, and these usually have this שֶׁ־ element, like מִפְּנֵי שֶׁ־ because


What is the difference between אחר ש and אחרי ש?


Bg8aa, this question is the same as What is the difference between ‏אקראי and ‏ ‏אקרא and that question was already answered by Yarden above.

If you’re asking why there is a ש after אקראי, the Hebrew sentence follows the pattern of “After that (the fact that) the dog sees the cat...”


I really didn't understand this (English) sentence (but I am not a native speaker...) Can someone expain me it, please?


The disagreement is why didn't duo accept "he" for dog, as in he barks, and only accepted "it."

If you are referring to the sentence, the dog sees a cat and then he/it (the dog) barks.

In English, some people use "he" or "she" for pets, others use "it". Some people will only use "it" if it is a pet (cat, dog, etc.) that they don't know if it is a boy or a girl (like fish or snakes, or if it's not their pet...they are more likely to be called "it") Either is ok.


Did you noticed the interesting pronunciation? ACHARESH ...HAKELEV


Well, if one listens carefully, you hear in אַחֲרֵי שֶׁ־ the constructus ending [-ey] before the relative particle.


why not: "After that the dog sees the cat it barks"


That would be "אַחֲרֵי זֶה". But אַחֲרֵי שֶׁ־ is a conjunction.


So, in English you may mix present with past like this? To me it would sound better to say: After the dog saw the cat he/it barked, or, if present: When the dog sees the cat he/it barks.


Yes the sentence is fine, because you a describing events in an order. But I wouldn't say that they were past mixed with present, I don't remember the tense names to be honest, but the sentence is perfectly fine in English.
(Both of your examples are fine too).


I understand the sentence, in both languages, to describe an ongoing habit of the dog.


“After” can be understood to mean “in the event that”. Here it is used to describe an ongoing habit of dogs.


For the last word, נובח, after repeated listenings, I hear a very soft ḥet: "noveah." Muraoka (Modern Hebrew for Biblical Scholars, xix) writes: "There are two main modes of pronunciation currently practised in Israel, known as General Israeli and Oriental Israeli respectively. The hallmark of the latter is the Arabicized ח /ḥ/ and ע /ˁ/, whereas in the former both are unknown, the first being replaced by /ḫ/ (i.e. כ without dagesh lene) and the second by /ˀ/ (Alef)." I was therefore expecting something along the lines of noveak (ֶGeneral Israeli), but not noveah. It's interesting that a Sephardic pronunciation (Oriental Israeli) of נובח would seem to resemble more closely what I would expect of the ḥet as people today are typically taught to pronounce it when learning biblical (classical) Hebrew. However, there is evidence in the Dead Sea Scrolls that alef, ˁayin, ḥet, and he were not pronounced in the late second Temple period. For instance, heh and ḥet interchange in Mur 44-45. See Michael Wise, Language and Literacy in Roman Judaea: A Study of the Bar Kokhba Documents (Yale, 2015) 260-63, relying on the seminal 1996 study of Joseph Naveh "On Formal and Informal Spelling of Unpronounced Gutterals" in Scripta Classical Israelica, 263-67.


Well, yes Rudolf Meyer too in his Hebräische Grammatik argues that Hebrew lost its laryngals ("Laryngalschwund"), but the masorets restituted them artifically ("Larygalrestitution"). He writes (p. 93) "The laryngeals have been preserved by and large until the time of the Septuagint. Later, they largely lose their consonant value. Apparently inspired by a linguistic ideal after the manner of the Qur'an pronunciation they were restituted. The חֲטָף sounds and the patach furtivum stem from this endeavor, but also the jumble of compensatory lenghtening and virtual duplication" (roughly translated). Concerning this sentence I simply suppose the audio was clipped at the end and נוֹבֵחַ had here originally the usual pronunciation as [x] or /ḫ/, in the way it is pronounced at Forvo.


Thanks. That's all helpful, including the Forvo pronunciation.


Finding it difficult to match the sound with the writing. I hear achacher, yet I'd read אחרי achachi


If you would say חכלר רואה את החתול ואחרכך הוא נובח, would that be a proper Hebrew? I mean, would you still know that its a dog barking and not the cat or would you rather be unsure?


Agree with Ingeborg, and to give more details: let's chnage the verb to something which can apply to both the dog and the cat: הכלב רואה את החתול ואחר כך הוא בורח. It would definitely be understood that the dog flees and not the cat. However, הכלב רואה את החתולה ואחר כך היא בורחת would sound a little off, but it would be understood that the cat flees.


Well, in both sentences it is not grammar but your experience of nature that the dog is the subject of נוֹבֵחַ, although a change of subject to the cat would be less natural. Correction (I suppose) הַכֶּ֫לֶב … וְאַחַר־כָּךְ


The Hebrew may be ok,but, the English is not clear. Does the cat bark, or does the dog bark? You English translation does not tell you who barks.


Grammatically speaking, both English and Hebrew sentences are ambiguous, because "it" or הוא can refer to either one.

But logically... a cat barking? Seriously? Why would this even be a issue? Of course the dog is barking.

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