"He should have said that."

Translation:הוא היה צריך להגיד את זה.

September 13, 2016

This discussion is locked.


hu hayah tzarikh lehagíd et zeh


So why doesn't Zot take the et?


Biblical Hebrew את wasn't obligatory. While in Modern Hebrew it is almost always obligatory, in this case (before זאת meaning "this" in general), it is formal Hebrew, so for some reason it sounds better to Hebrew speakers without את.


Okay, so it is a colloquial thing.


Quite the opposite, it's formal language.


I mean it came about because people thought it sounded better. according to Hebrew grammar it should have an et.


הנה שני המשפטים המאושרים:

הוא היה צריך לומר את זה הוא היה צריך לומר זאת

אלה היו האפשריות שהיו מוצגים לי.


Is the הוא obligatory in this sentence or would the sentence be grammatically correct without it? If it is obligatory - why? I don't quite understand because in many other sentences with this structure the personal pronoun is left out. But this was marked wrong here.


So, these two sentences came one after another, with the same English translation: הוא היה צריך לומר זאת and הוא היה צריך להגיד את זה. If they both mean the same thing, does it matter which one I use? All I really want is to be understood. No one is grading me. That's way in my past.


Well, I would say לוֹמַר זֹאת is a higher register than לְהַגִּיד אֶת זֶה.


למה לא "לאמר?"


Well, the Biblical form אֶמֹר (if combined with לְ־, the laryngal was lost: לֵאמֹר) was replaced in Mishnaic Hebrew analogous to the future form יֹאמַר he will say by the form לוֹמַר. Although modern Hebrew usually prefers the Biblical forms of the infinitive (compare לָקַ֫חַת to take and לָלֶ֫כֶת to go with the Mishnaic forms לִיקַּח and לֵילֵךְ), לוֹמַר was exceptional in prevailing in Modern Hebrew, probably because of its sheer omnipresence in Middle Hebrew texts. The Biblical form לֵאמֹר is very restricted in use and is mainly used nowadays as a quotation marker for the opening of direct speech (similar to many Biblical passages) in high registers, especially in a legal context: בַּסָּעִיף אַרְבַּע לַחֹק נִקְבַּע לֵאמוֹר in paragraph four of the law it is stated that...


My father explained leymor לאמר to me as "quotation marks" in all those biblical lines that begin The Lord spoke to Moses saying.... = The Lord said to Moses, "...


Is לאמור pronounced le-emor or le-mor? If it is the latter, is the א silent/


Well, Biblical Hebrew had the simple infinitive אֱמֹר (in Ez 25.8 אֲמֹר), but prefixed with לְ־, it always contracted to לֵאמֹר. Like in לֵאלֹהִים to G-d, it must be quiescent, because you could not close an unstressed syllable after a long vowel with a consonant. Silent etymological אs are not rare, think of רֹאשׁ and לֹא not, even in cases like יֶאְסוֹר he will tie up, were א closes a short syllable, I would not swear that it was still pronounced yęʔˈsôr


I'm surprised that Duolingo does't allow the verb להצטרך for the past tense of צריך. That is the verb that I learned in my ulpan, many years ago.


Well, I suppose there is a tendency to mould the two verbs into one conjugation, with suppletion of one or the other in the different verb forms. So it is אֲנִי צָרִיך for the present and אֶצְטָרֵךְ for the future. In the past הִצְטָרַ֫כְתִּי and הָיִ֫יתִי צָרִיךְ competed. Of all possible forms I suppose only present אֲנִי מִצְטָרֵךְ is totally unused.


I’d have to ask a native Israeli whether or not they use להצטרך in the present at all, though I suspect you’re right. As far as the rest of what you explained, it reminds me of the English verbs can and to be able. You can’t use “can” in the future, only “be able (to).”


why not לומר rather than להגיד?


Well, לוֹמַר should work here too.


it is the hardest part of the course, UNTIL i realized my Arabic privilege (LOL)! if i translate the sentence to Arabic and then to Hebrew it becomes much easier. So the way it goes is to treat "היה" as "كان" in Arabic...

"If I were...." = " ... לו הייתי..." = "لو كنت"

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