Skip to main content
Open Book Publishers

7. 1CPL ונ ְ חַנ versus ונ ְ חַנ ֲ א

  • Aaron D. Hornkohl (author)
Chapter of: Diachronic Diversity in Classical Biblical Hebrew(pp. 139–142)

Export Metadata

  • ONIX 3.1
  • ONIX 3.0
    • Thoth
    • Project MUSE
      Cannot generate record: No BIC or BISAC subject code
    • OAPEN
    • JSTOR
      Cannot generate record: No BISAC subject code
    • Google Books
      Cannot generate record: No BIC, BISAC or LCC subject code
    • OverDrive
      Cannot generate record: No priced EPUB or PDF URL
  • ONIX 2.1
  • CSV
  • JSON
  • OCLC KBART
  • BibTeX
  • CrossRef DOI deposit
    Cannot generate record: This work does not have any ISBNs
  • MARC 21 Record
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
  • MARC 21 Markup
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
  • MARC 21 XML
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
Metadata
Title7. 1CPL ונ ְ חַנ versus ונ ְ חַנ ֲ א
ContributorAaron D. Hornkohl (author)
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0433.07
Landing pagehttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0433/chapters/10.11647/obp.0433.07
Licensehttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
CopyrightAaron D. Hornkohl
PublisherOpen Book Publishers
Published on2024-11-11
Long abstractIn Biblical Hebrew (BH), there are three notable forms of the first-person plural independent subject pronoun: standard אֲנַחְנוּ and non-standard נַחְנוּ and אנו. Each of the forms finds support beyond BH, whether in other forms of ancient Hebrew or cognate languages. Additionally, the development of two of these forms is the subject of an interesting linguistic debate, with differing opinions on whether אֲנַחְנוּ or נַחְנוּ is the more archaic form, reflecting varying theories on their historical usage and evolution. The evidence suggests that while נַחְנוּ may be older, אֲנַחְנוּ became established as the standard form in Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH). The fact that the Tiberian Pentateuch preserves minority cases of נַחְנוּ (in quoted speech), matching the only form found in Iron Age II Hebrew epigraphy, whereas the rest of CBH, along with the Samaritan Pentateuch, consistently resorts to אֲנַחְנוּ is taken here as evidence of sub-chronolects. Analysis of the purported sources of the Pentateuch indicates that all sources primarily employ the standard form, with instances of נַחְנוּ appearing mostly in the J and P sources.
Page rangepp. 139–142
Print length4 pages
LanguageEnglish (Original)
Contributors

Aaron D. Hornkohl

(author)
Associate Professor in Hebrew at University of Cambridge
https://www.ames.cam.ac.uk/people/dr-aaron-d-hornkohl

Aaron D. Hornkohl (PhD, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2012) is University Associate Professor in Hebrew, Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, University of Cambridge. His research focuses on ancient Hebrew philology and linguistics, especially historical linguistics and ancient Hebrew periodisation; the components of the standard Tiberian Masoretic biblical tradition; and that tradition’s profile in the context of other biblical traditions and extrabiblical sources. This is his third single-author monograph after The Historical Depth of the Tiberian Reading Tradition of Biblical Hebrew (Cambridge: Open Book Publishers, 2023) and Ancient Hebrew Periodization and the Book of Jeremiah (Leiden: Brill 2014). He has also co-edited several volumes and written numerous articles.