> no more interested in studying and disproving one work of fiction over another. Jesus, Muhamad, Hari Krishna, Pastafarian, whatever

@MonicaCellio You left out Alice. :-(

@msh210 you seemed more interested in talking about Alice than about those other guys. I didn't want to imply equivalency.

@MonicaCellio Right, I shoulda said "You left out, l'havdil, Alice. :-)"

Is anyone familiar with a he hay'dia (definite he) before an asid (imperfect-future) verb?

@msh210 "The he will do"? That doesn't seem to make sense.

@IsaacMoses Well, in present it translates as "the one who does". In future then I guess it'd be "the one who'll do".

Like habocher b'amo Yisrael b'ahava.

et many alia

The reason I ask... I was at a shalom zachar the other night (I'll leave you to figure out which night) and the father said something about the rach hayimol. He formed the phrase from rach hanimol, a phrase from liturgy meaning "young circumcised one", by switching it to future: "young one who will be circumcised". And it struck me that I don't know of any other future (impf.) with a he hay'dia.

... And if there is no such thing as a he hay'dia + future (impf.), then I guess you'd have to interpret rach hayimol as a he hash'ela (as in hasishpot) so it'd mean "young one -- will he be circumcised??".

(Anyway, he was, this morning, so no worries.)

@DoubleAA This sounds like something up your alley. Any ideas?

@msh210 I don't think such a construct exists.

@msh210 It's more like a participle/adjective than a present tense verb. (הוא רץ He [is] running) Biblical Hebrew doesn't really have a present tense.

@msh210 I think that would be, in Biblical Hebrew at least, harach sheyimol

@DoubleAA, yeah, figured; thanks. Do you agree that the only (or most) reasonable interpretation, assuming the speaker was speaking grammatically, is as he hash'ela? (Obviously, he wasn't speaking grammatically, but we can ignore that, right? :-))

@IsaacMoses Yeah, that makes sense. (Well, late Biblical Hebrew, I guess. Earlier would be harach asher yimol more typically.)

@msh210 et. al. Yesterday you said the Jews have had enough attention from the Christians; and I said, "I know?" But, I don't really know, do I...or, I would not ask such questions at all...I would not need to. I am sorry...

@Sarah Well, I was being a little snide. What I had in mind was along the lines of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_antisemitism

@msh210 Well, did he say it with a Hataf-Patah or a full Patah?

@msh210 That, I understand; and that is why I am at the place I am in my journey. It is not easy to untangle it all; but, why do I need to untangle anything? God is enthroned in the praises of Israel (Psalm 22:3). Israel is where He chose to put His name forever, not Rome. Jerusalem is His holy city, not the vatican. Isreal is his nation of priests, not any other nation. To no other nation did he entrust His laws.

@DoubleAA Even if he differentiates them (which I doubt), I doubt I'd be able to tell from a two-word phrase (even with another patach) how.