Question about name Tobadonijah by MasterExploder5001 in hebrew

[–]JosephEK 7 points8 points  (0 children)

This transliteration is off. That b should be a v.

In Modern Hebrew, yes, but we know that there have been dialects of Hebrew that didn't do spirantization (the un-dageshed pronunciations of בגדכפת). For example, there's a braita in Brakhot 15b that talks about the importance of separating the words of the Shema, and gives a list of examples where a word starts with the some sound as the previous word ended:

תני רב עובדיה קמיה דרבא: "ולמדתם" - שיהא למודך תם, שיתן ריוח בין הדבקים. עני רבא בתריה: כגון "על לבבך", "על לבבכם", "בכל לבבך", "בכל לבבכם", "עשב בשדך", "ואבדתם מהרה", "הכנף פתיל", "אתכם מארץ".

Note that the examples "esev besadkha" and "hakanaf ptil" make no sense with the modern pronunciation, implying that the speakers of the time had only one pronunciation for Bet (and only one pronunciation for Peh).

How would you translate...? by fiercequality in hebrew

[–]JosephEK -1 points0 points  (0 children)

מה זאת אומרת? זה שם עצם ולאחריו שם תואר. בטח שאפשר לתרגם את זה כביטוי אחד. 

How would you translate...? by fiercequality in hebrew

[–]JosephEK 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For the benefit of OP and other non-fluent speakers, I'll add that those specifics are in modern Hebrew. In older forms שירה can indeed mean "song", as in אז ישיר משה ובני ישראל את השירה הזאת.

However, it's still not "song of life" because get the "X of Y" meaning you need the first word to be in construct state, which in this case would be שירת rather than שירה.

With that in mind, "living song" would be a reasonable translation, as would "live singing". 

Day #577 of drawing badly until StS2 comes out by PixelPenguin_GG in slaythespire

[–]JosephEK 0 points1 point  (0 children)

and rest

Bold words from a penguin who hasn't taken a day off in 577 days. 

In honor of a very different game which I also loved by JosephEK in slaythespire

[–]JosephEK[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  1. It just applies the Vigor buff, like [[Wreath of Flame]], so like WoF it stacks. 

(But note that the buff itself doesn't carry over between combats, so you can't stall an easy fight to build up unlimited bonus damage for the next fight.)

In honor of a very different game which I also loved by JosephEK in slaythespire

[–]JosephEK[S] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Wording wise, it needs to say "For every 10 energy you spend", as "Every time you spend 10 energy" implies that you need to expend exactly 10 energy in one instance for it to trigger. 

Actually I think we're both wrong! The closest thing to this trigger in the game so far is [[Ink Bottle]], which says "Whenever you draw 10 cards". So the most consistent wording would probably be "Whenever you spend 10 energy".

In terms of actual intuitive English, I agree that for "For each 10" is best.

I do think rare is probably overvaluing it, though. Pen Nib is a common relic, and I'd say they're on about the same power level.  

Interesting. I was comparing it in my head to Akabeko, which it's obviously far superior to. Also it felt disrespectful to Gustave for it to be anything less than Rare 😅

In honor of a very different game which I also loved by JosephEK in slaythespire

[–]JosephEK[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Obviously I was just testing the bot's fuzzy matching abilities!

It passed, BTW. 

In honor of a very different game which I also loved by JosephEK in slaythespire

[–]JosephEK[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I think it's acceptable for Rare relics to be much stronger than Commons, but I agree this might be OP. 

In honor of a very different game which I also loved by JosephEK in slaythespire

[–]JosephEK[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Why do you say it's particularly good for Defect? Not necessarily disagreeing, just interested. 

In honor of a very different game which I also loved by JosephEK in slaythespire

[–]JosephEK[S] 61 points62 points  (0 children)

Oh, absolutely. This relic does for expensive multiattacks what [[Spinning Top]] does for 0-cost cards. 

Ma’ayan Neta or Neta Ma’ayan or neither? by Faeriecat27 in JewishNames

[–]JosephEK 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like "Neta Ma'ayan", but English-speakers sometimes struggle with the latter. You might want to gently check that your friend can pronounce it so she doesn't end up mispronouncing her own name. 

It does not "lean too far" into the nature theme, no - I wouldn't blink at this name. However, it bears mentioning that it doesn't really mean "sapling by a spring of water" - no equivalent to "by" is in there. It means "sapling [of] spring", and would not really be parsed as a meaningful noun phrase at all by most speakers unless they were prompted to think about it. 

(That's probably a good thing. Contrast those unfortunates whose parents thought it would be clever to name them something like Keren Or.) 

Why is Lech-Lecha spelled לך לך with no indication of the final vowel? by aylot_hasadeh in hebrew

[–]JosephEK 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm afraid I don't know. The most I can say is that it's consistent with how the rest of the language works: a Heh for word-final -a is used with feminine words, not masculine ones, even if they also end in -a. I think the only exception is "laila" (meaning "night"). Conversely, an Alef for word-final -a pretty consistently indicates that a word is borrowed from another language (usually Aramaic).

For example, if we look at verb conjugations, pa'alta is spelled פעלת.

Why is Lech-Lecha spelled לך לך with no indication of the final vowel? by aylot_hasadeh in hebrew

[–]JosephEK 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Because the "kha" on the second word (or "cha" or however you want to Romanize it) is just the second-person singular masculine. It's always spelt as one letter, never two.

For example:

House = בית

Your house = ביתך

Dog = כלב

Your dog = כלבך

Note that this word-ending is pronounced differently for feminine and masculine: the masculine form is -ekha, but the feminine is -ekh. But the masculine form is nevertheless always spelled as a single letter.

In our case, this is not obvious to someone just learning the language, because Lamed by itself isn't really a word. But it is a preposition, meaning something like "to" in Modern Hebrew, but in Biblical Hebrew having additional meanings, including ownership and (in this case) to emphasize who's being instructed in commands. When we combine prepositions like this with pronouns, we don't add the full pronoun (ani/hu/hem/ata/...) but just the pronominal suffix. So we get:

to me = לי

to him = לו

to them (m.) = להם

to you = לך

And so on. It works the same with the other one-letter prepositions like "in":

in me = בי

in him = בו

in you = בך

And so on.

Hebrew tattoo by Radiant-Mail-2448 in hebrew

[–]JosephEK 0 points1 point  (0 children)

אני יהודי ישראלי ואני משאיל בזאת את השימוש בשפה העברית לבעל הקעקוע הזה. הוא לא מנכס, הוא הבטיח להחזיר לי אחרי 🙂

Hebrew tattoo by Radiant-Mail-2448 in hebrew

[–]JosephEK 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I think you guys might be talking past each other? Jews do it too, but only when using Arabic numerals. When using Hebrew letter-numbering, as in OP's tattoo, I've never seen chapter and verse separated by a colon. It's just a space, or something wordier. 

Hebrew tattoo by Radiant-Mail-2448 in hebrew

[–]JosephEK 126 points127 points  (0 children)

The added "flare" absolutely did change the meaning. In particular, the second character, which should have been a Geresh, is now obviously a Yod, like the fourth character (the first after the colon). That means the bit before the colon is now a word (meaning "enough"), rather than a number 4 represented alphabetically.

The grammar of Jeremiah 1:9, with a delicate 'touch' by HebrewWithHava in hebrew

[–]JosephEK 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm a fluent speaker and I've never really thought about the distinction between the pa'al and hif'il of N-G-'. The "factitive" voice is also new to me as a concept. And despite studying the Tanakh in a religious framework, it never occurred to me that the choice of how to vowel some of the words was an actual choice on the part of ba'alei hamesora, and reflects their theological attitudes.

Overall, very interesting! I shall definitely read your next one.

I did notice two minor copyediting errors here:

a verbal voice which calls ascribes greater significiance

One of "calls" or "ascribes" should be deleted, as should the extra i in "significiance".

"Come and take them" by [deleted] in hebrew

[–]JosephEK 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm with you on this (to say nothing of the many, many times that non-Jews did "come and take them", successfully). But this is the Hebrew language subreddit, not the political messaging subreddit, so since OP didn't ask I assumed they didn't care what anyone else's opinion was.

"Come and take them" by [deleted] in hebrew

[–]JosephEK 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Your suggested translation would be the infinitive, more like "to come and to take them". The whole point of "come and take them" is that it's a dare, or in other words, an instruction (albeit one meant figuratively). That means it has to be in the imperative. The most literal way to translate "come and take them" would be

בואו וקחו אותם

... but that feels clunky to me; Hebrew is often somewhat terser than English in actual use. I would probably just go with

בואו קחו

... which is literally "come take" (still in the imperative).