Grammar
The grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew displays various changes from Biblical Hebrew, of which some appear already in the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some, but not all, are retained in Modern Hebrew.
For the expression of possession, Mishnaic Hebrew mostly replaces the Biblical Hebrew status constructus with analytic constructions involving של 'of'.
Missing in Mishnaic Hebrew is the conversive vav.
Past is expressed using the same form as in Modern Hebrew. For example (Pirkei Avoth 1:1): "משה קיבל תורה מסיני". ("Moses received the Torah from Sinai".)
Continuous past is expressed using
Present is expressed using the same form as in Modern Hebrew, i.e. using the participle (בינוני). For example (Pirkei Avoth 1:2): "על שלושה דברים העולם עומד". ("The world is sustained by three things", lit. "On three things the world stands")
Future can be expressed using עתיד + infinitive. For example (Pirkei Avoth 3:1): "ולפני מי אתה עתיד ליתן דין וחשבון". However, unlike Modern Hebrew, but like contemporary Aramaic, the present active participle can also express the future. It mostly replaces the imperfect (prefixed) form in that function.
The imperfect (prefixed) form, which is used for the future in modern Hebrew, expresses an imperative (order), volition or similar meanings in Mishnaic Hebrew. For example, (Pirkei Avoth 1:3): "הוא היה אומר, אל תהיו כעבדים המשמשין את הרב" ("He would say, don't be like slaves serving the master...", lit. "...you will not be..."). In a sense, one could say that the form pertains to the future in Mishnaic Hebrew as well, but it invariably has a modal (imperative, volitional, etc.) aspect in the main clause.
Read more about this topic: Mishnaic Hebrew
Famous quotes containing the word grammar:
“Grammar is a tricky, inconsistent thing. Being the backbone of speech and writing, it should, we think, be eminently logical, make perfect sense, like the human skeleton. But, of course, the skeleton is arbitrary, too. Why twelve pairs of ribs rather than eleven or thirteen? Why thirty-two teeth? It has something to do with evolution and functionalism—but only sometimes, not always. So there are aspects of grammar that make good, logical sense, and others that do not.”
—John Simon (b. 1925)
“The new grammar of race is constructed in a way that George Orwell would have appreciated, because its rules make some ideas impossible to express—unless, of course, one wants to be called a racist.”
—Stephen Carter (b. 1954)
“The syntactic component of a grammar must specify, for each sentence, a deep structure that determines its semantic interpretation and a surface structure that determines its phonetic interpretation.”
—Noam Chomsky (b. 1928)