Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Israel Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: A language curiousity
jastayme3    12/5/2007 7:46:42 PM
This has nothing to do with military matters and is a minor curiousity. I am curious about a Jewish language format: what is the etymology of the suffixes "im" as in Hassidim, or "niks" as in Kibbutzniks. They are always used in a Jewish context in a collective form to refer to groups of people-in the way which in English the suffixes "men"(I.E. "Englishmen)or "ian"(I.E. Italian)would be used.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
swhitebull       12/5/2007 9:19:45 PM

This has nothing to do with military matters and is a minor curiousity. I am curious about a Jewish language format:

what is the etymology of the suffixes "im" as in Hassidim, or "niks" as in Kibbutzniks. They are always used in a Jewish context in a collective form to refer to groups of people-in the way which in English the suffixes "men"(I.E. "Englishmen)or "ian"(I.E. Italian)would be used.
 
In Hebrew, the suffix -im  (pronounced "eem"), is a plural.

So let's take it a bit further and REALLY rock your boat:
 
Brayshit bora elokim  v'aytz hashamyim  vaytz haaretz.
 
In bibles,  this is translated as :  In the beginning,  God created the heavens and the earth.
 
The HEBREW word for God is highlighted in RED.   Draw your own conclusions.
 
swhitebull - i have been accused of being a heretic for even daring to mention this in certain religious circles. I compound my heresy by referring to the Enuma Elish, the Sumerian creation epic. MY BAD!!!
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       12/5/2007 11:05:37 PM
Well I can see why. On the one hand it imply polytheism. On the other it can imply trinitarianism. On the third hand(ok, but you know what I mean) one can just say it's a "royal we" and more is read into it then is meant. Another possibility is that the word was simply taken from one language to another without the bother of changing it and has no implications. That actually may be quite probable though that would ruin some interesting arguments as our old friend Occam always seems to.
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull       12/5/2007 11:45:34 PM

Well I can see why. On the one hand it imply polytheism. On the other it can imply trinitarianism. On the third hand(ok, but you know what I mean) one can just say it's a "royal we" and more is read into it then is meant. Another possibility is that the word was simply taken from one language to another without the bother of changing it and has no implications. That actually may be quite probable though that would ruin some interesting arguments as our old friend Occam always seems to.

Shirrush  may have a different take on this,  but the Torah uses manywords to designate God:  Adonai, the tetragrammation  YHVH, etc,  and if you read the first several chapters of Genesis -  in Hebrew - you will find that different portions of the text use differentwords for the same deity - but most English translations use "god" or "the Lord". And of course,  we know from internal translations that there are parallel creation stories, parallel Noah stories,  etc.  and that different groups wrote portions at different times, and that they were later joined by some clever redactors.
 I taught a course in comparative mythology for a number of years, concentrating on Bliblical mythology and the origins of the stories. The jews were in captivity in Babylonia for 100s of years, and the similarities betwwen the ancient hebrew stories and their sumerian and babylonian predecessors is amazing. Tehom (void) in Hebrew compares to Tiamut (the cosmic chaos dragon) in the Sumerian, Behemoth is the same word, etc.  We have the Sumerian Noah, we have the Sumerian gaurdian of the tree of knowledge (a woman who can turn into a serpent), killed by Gilgamesh (Adam). 
 
 
The Enumah Elish is the Sumerian creation story, and details how the GODs, led by Enki, created the universe,  defeated the Darkness Dragon (tiamat), and then from its body brought forth the heavens and the earth.   Amazing parallels, which would be naive to believe that the ancient Hebrews didnt pick up those stories, and modify them for their own uses.
 
 
swhitebull
 
Quote    Reply

BrittleSteel       12/6/2007 12:30:00 AM
"im"  is Hebrew for the plural
"nik" is descriptive slang, I believe borrowed from Russian
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       12/6/2007 1:03:39 AM
Interesting...in my family's Bible (which was published just after Vatican II, and you can tell the publishers were less than enthusiastic about the reforms), God's name is also highlighted in red.  In my own personal Bible, the word LORD (referring to God, of course) is capitalized, but only in the Old Testament; God is not highlighted.  And for a recently published Bible, Jesus is also depicted as a guy who looks rather Central European (i.e. blue eyes) than someone who lived in Roman-era Israel.  (At least they don't show the Blessed Mother--Mary to you heathens --as a blonde.)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       12/6/2007 1:20:43 PM



Well I can see why. On the one hand it imply polytheism. On the other it can imply trinitarianism. On the third hand(ok, but you know what I mean) one can just say it's a "royal we" and more is read into it then is meant. Another possibility is that the word was simply taken from one language to another without the bother of changing it and has no implications. That actually may be quite probable though that would ruin some interesting arguments as our old friend Occam always seems to.


Shirrush  may have a different take on this,  but the Torah uses manywords to designate God:  Adonai, the tetragrammation  YHVH, etc,  and if you read the first several chapters of Genesis -  in Hebrew - you will find that different portions of the text use differentwords for the same deity - but most English translations use "god" or "the Lord". And of course,  we know from internal translations that there are parallel creation stories, parallel Noah stories,  etc.  and that different groups wrote portions at different times, and that they were later joined by some clever redactors.

 I taught a course in comparative mythology for a number of years, concentrating on Bliblical mythology and the origins of the stories. The jews were in captivity in Babylonia for 100s of years, and the similarities betwwen the ancient hebrew stories and their sumerian and babylonian predecessors is amazing. Tehom (void) in Hebrew compares to Tiamut (the cosmic chaos dragon) in the Sumerian, Behemoth is the same word, etc.  We have the Sumerian Noah, we have the Sumerian gaurdian of the tree of knowledge (a woman who can turn into a serpent), killed by Gilgamesh (Adam). 

 

 

The Enumah Elish is the Sumerian creation story, and details how the GODs, led by Enki, created the universe,  defeated the Darkness Dragon (tiamat), and then from its body brought forth the heavens and the earth.   Amazing parallels, which would be naive to believe that the ancient Hebrews didnt pick up those stories, and modify them for their own uses.

 

 

swhitebull


Actually what would be naive would be to assume there is no connection. It does not follow that the Hebrews "picked the stories up". It could have been the reverse or both could come from an even earlier source.
But I didn't really expect this kerfluffle. I mainly wanted word orgins for the suffixes "im"(which I have) and "niks"(which I don't).
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       12/6/2007 1:46:03 PM

Interesting...in my family's Bible (which was published just after Vatican II, and you can tell the publishers were less than enthusiastic about the reforms), God's name is also highlighted in red.  In my own personal Bible, the word LORD (referring to God, of course) is capitalized, but only in the Old Testament; God is not highlighted.  And for a recently published Bible, Jesus is also depicted as a guy who looks rather Central European (i.e. blue eyes) than someone who lived in Roman-era Israel.  (At least they don't show the Blessed Mother--Mary to you heathens --as a blonde.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's because the Bible you read is the descendant of Bibles published by and for people who lived in a constrained geographical environment. In point of fact I doubt they thought that it mattered what Jesus looked like: they were more sophisticated then is given credit and sometimes more sophisticated then their decendants.
In point of fact, it seems obvious to me that he would have looked Levantine.
Which brings up an interesting story. There was one fellow at our Church who played Jesus every Easter play. He has a natural knack for appearing dignified(which was very scary when I was a student and he was principal!). And in a weird way it seemed like "sacrilege" when he was replaced. His replacement was a small man who looked very Western European, with light hair and all-not how I pictured Jesus. And interestingly my "nemesis-principal" did in fact look rather Levantine and looked perfect as Jesus. And you know what: his name was Rhodes. Now I think names are romantic, carrying history with them and all, and I like to imagine that his ancestor was a (hopefully!)lay-brother with the Hospitalers. Of course it is probably something more mundane. Perhaps his ancestor was the London agent of some Meditteranean trading company and he was born in Rhodes(place names are marks of migration-nobody thinks it remarkable that a homebody is from his own village). Which come to think of it is interesting enough for background. In any case our church did have the good luck to have an actor that could play Jesus and look like Jesus.
 
Quote    Reply

Shirrush    C'mon guys!   12/7/2007 4:52:08 AM
We all know how Jesus the Nazarene looked.
After all, we have a pretty good 3-D photo of Him, don't we?

OK, it's kinda "brown and tan", so I can freely theorize about the colors, can't I?
http://www.gita-society.com/images/krishna-christ.jpg">

Pick your choice!
 
Quote    Reply

Shirrush    Neek, willah tasstaneek!   12/7/2007 5:38:04 AM
My title is Arabic, and does not sit well with the language rules of this forum, but I couldn't resist!
It means: "do" it, but don't let it "done" to you.

"Nik" is a Russian attribution suffix. It's very polyvalent and convenient, and widely used, as a format converter for any word in Hebrew or in Yinglish.
Hebrew slang examples: a miluimnik is a reservist, i.e., a guy that does miluim (syn.: frier.)
                                            a jobnik is a combat support/non-combatant trooper, one with a day job in                                                         the army.
                                            a kibbutznik is a kibbutz dweller/member. A disappearing breed, especially on                                                 this board: aceofw, ayeka (where are you)?
                                            a shippootznik is the guy that makes a living of shippootzim: a repairman. If he                                                 does everything, or asserts he's qualified for everything, then he's a kolboynik                                                 (jack-of-all-trades), but that's rather Yiddish IMO.
                                            a nudnik is just a nudnik.
Yinglish example:               Ned Flanders is Homer's nextdoornik.




 
Quote    Reply

Shirrush    To complete:   12/7/2007 5:53:05 AM
plural and feminine forms:

- Some miluimnikim have had enough of being frierim (suckers).
- My sister can be a real nudnikit. But then, aren't most Jewish women nudnikioth sometimes?
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics