<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
It is indeed an interesting question what mishqal tallit would belong to, if we were sure that that were the word. As I pointed out, there is no source for the form tallit, other than Ben Yehudah, who obviously thought it was from the root tll (not a Hebrew root) and put it in the mishqal XaYZit, where XY and Z represent the root consonants. I am not sure there is such a mishqal; none of your examples belong to such a mishqal. I, of course, think the question is moot, since I have argued (and I have seen nothing to cause me to question my arguments) that either the word is not Hebrew at all, or, at the very least, was heavily influenced and reshaped by non-Hebrew words, which are clearly attested in the sources.<br><br>Much has been made out the plural form talliyot, attested in Zavim 4:5. Such a plural would indeed indicate that HaZaL conceived of the word as the regular Hebrew plural of tallit, like haniyot (spears) from hanit. Unfortunately, that is not the form attested in the early mss. The Kaufmann mss. has the form as t'li'ot (the first " ' " representing a sh'va, the second representing an aleph). The singular form in said mss, as I noted before, is t'let. Not only does the word never have a dagesh, in any of its occurrences, but the plural is not even the Hebrew plural: it has an aleph between the vowel i and the plural suffix.<br>Explain these forms? I do not have an explanation, nor do I need one for my argument, which is that the forms were felt to be non-Hebrew ones. How does one form the plural of a non-Hebrew word? Various strategems, but not following rules of Hebrew words. I believe that the basic form was mixed with (i)stole, the final tav added as an Aramaic feminine suffix, and so t'le'ot or t'li'ot is as good a form as any.<br><br>Far be it from me to opine as to where the stess fell on this word in the time of HaZal, but I do not think we can argue from the mishqal. Nor do I have a quarrel with those who continue to believe that the word is really a Hebrew one, but they have to come up with some convincing explanation for the actual forms that are attested. Ben Yehuda is not a source as to what words in L'shon HaZaL were. He used L'shon HaZaL as a source for his lexicon, but scorned both the content and the grammar of L'shon HaZaL. Considering his attested views about the Torah sheb'al Peh, it is ironic (if not mind-boggling) that his forms are considered to have anything valid to say about L'shon HaZaL, whether in lexicography, morphology, or syntax. In this case, as with many, many others, it is clear to me that Ben Yehudah took the Yiddish form as the source and then changed it and reshaped it to meet his ideas and expectations of what Hebrew should look like. He may have accomplished a lot, but loyalty to sources and accuracy were not part of his beliefs or actions.<br><br><blockquote><hr>Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:43:35 +0200<br>To: mesorah@aishdas.org<br>From: laser@ieee.org<br>Subject: Re: [Mesorah] cholov shechalovoi goy<br><br>
<font color="#000080" size="4">At 10:38 17-09-07 -0400, Zev Sero stated the
following:<br><br>
</font><blockquote class="cite" cite="">Ira L. Jacobson
wrote:</blockquote><font color="#000080" size="4"><br>
What follows was NOT written by your faithful servant. Rather, I
took issue with it. So any implication that I wrote that statement
was not quite accurate.<br><br>
</font><blockquote class="cite" cite="">
<blockquote class="cite" cite="">At 23:53 16-09-07 -0400, Richard
Wolpoe stated the following:<br><br>
<blockquote class="cite" cite="">I concur with Micha's point.
Baruch Shkivanti becasue i have been advocating this peshat in Tallis
Katan for years, i.e. a Tallis OF a Katan.<br><br>
However, an Israelit friend of mine pointed out that
"Tallis" may indeed be masculine. His
Proof? The plural is Talisos [Talitot] and NOT
Taliyot which would correspond to Ta'anis and
Taa'niyos.</blockquote></blockquote><br>
How do you know? A scan at
<a href="http://www.mechon-mamre.org/searchgh.htm" target="_blank">
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/searchgh.htm</a> comes up with no hits for
"talitot", but two hits for "taliyot", which are
actually the same reference, a mishna in Zavim that is quoted in Gemara
Shabbat. It seems that Chazal rarely had occasion to refer to them
in the plural, so we can't be sure what the most common plural was. One
example is not statistically significant.<br><br>
<blockquote class="cite" cite="">But perhaps more to the point,
bayit and zayit are mil`eil, while talit is milra</blockquote><br>
Again, how do you know?</blockquote><font color="#000080" size="4"><br>
That I did indeed write. The answer to your question -- how do I
know this -- is that "talit" follows the pattern of all other
four-letter (or more) singular nouns I know that end in hiriq yod
tav---such as ta`anit, zavit, she-erit, zekhukhit or
raqdanit. I am aware that there are exceptions to the rule for
forming plurals, such as berit and hazit. But we assume that
"talit" is a Hebrew word and it follows the rules of Hebrew
grammar. Even foreign words used in Hebrew follow the rules of
Hebrew grammar.<br><br>
Whereas, on the other hand, bayit and zayit have only three letters
each. They are in the class of shemot mil`eli'im mishorashim
nehshalim, whereas the first group are simply mele`im besiyyum hiriq yod
tav.<br><br>
<br>
</font>
<font color="#000080" face="Verdana"><i>~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=<br>
IRA L. JACOBSON
<br>
</i>=<i>~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~<br>
</i></font><i><font face="Verdana">
<a href="mailto:laser@ieee.org">mailto:laser@ieee.org</a>
</font></i><font face="Verdana"> </font>
<BR></blockquote><br /><hr />More photos; more messages; more whatever – Get MORE with Windows Live™ Hotmail®. NOW with 5GB storage. <a href='http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_5G_0907' target='_new'>Get more!</a></body>
</html>