Nouns Part 4

The Construct Chain

Interactive Learning Module

The Construct Chain

1. Introduction

  • This is the fourth module relating to Biblical Hebrew nouns.
  • The first module explored the gender and number of nouns, the second module discussed rules of pluralization, and the third focused on definite nouns and the definite article.
  • This unit will explore a feature of Biblical Hebrew known as the construct chain (סמיכות), where two or more nouns are linked to form a noun phrase which expresses a possessive relationship ("x" of "y") such as "מֶלֶךְ הָאָרֶץ", the king of the land.
  • Such noun phrases form an individual unit and in many respects are viewed phonetically as one word. This affects:
    • a) how one vocalizes and spells nouns in the construct state
    • b) how one makes such noun phrases definite
    • c) how one modifies them with adjectives
  • We will look into each of the above to better understand both the function and form of the construct chain.

2. The Construct Chain: Meaning

  • English – In English, one shows possession either by adding an apostrophe followed by "s" to a noun (e.g. the country's queen) or by inserting the word "of" between two nouns (e.g. the queen of the country).
  • Biblical Hebrew – In Biblical Hebrew, one instead forms a noun pair (or noun chain), juxtaposing two or more nouns to show that they are in a relationship, expressing "x" of "y".
  • Function – The first noun of the chain (known as the נסמך) is the main one and is defined by the other noun/s in the chain (the סומך or סומכים),which normally answer the question "which" or "whose".In our example, the סומך qualifies whose "דבר" is being discussed - God's word. To help remember which noun is the נסמך and which is the סומך, one can use the acronym "נס": the "נסמך" comes before the "סומך".
    • Indicator of possession – As such, often the grammatical construction conveys that one object belongs to another.
    • Adjective – Often, too, the second noun of the noun pair functions much like an adjective, modifying the first noun.
    • Superlative – At times, when the construct chain is comprised of two forms of the same base noun, it expresses a superlative relationship (the highest degree of something).
  • Rabbinic and Modern Hebrew
    • In Mishnaic and Modern Hebrew use of the construct chain to show possession is less prevalent than in Biblical Hebrew and is often replaced with use of the preposition "של", functioning much like the modern English "of".For instance, today one would generally refer to a child's mother as "האמא של הילד" rather than as "אם הילד".
    • However, the form is still widely used in an attributive sense (when the noun acts as an adjective) and to make certain compound nouns, as in: "עוגת גבינה‎" (cheesecake) or: "בית הספר", school (lit. the house of the book).

3. Form: Absolute and Construct States

  • Construct state – When forming a noun pair, the first noun of the pair (the נסמך) often takes a unique morphological form (with changes to its normal vocalization and spelling) and is said to be in the construct state.It is in construction, or combination, with the second noun; hence the grammatical term. The Hebrew term "סמיכות" can be understood similarly, referring to two words which are juxtaposed to each other, where one leans on and is supported by the other.
  • Absolute state – The second noun (the סומך) maintains its usual form and is said to be in the absolute state.
    • For example, in the noun pair "מַכַּת חֶרֶב" (a strike of a sword), the word "מַכַּת" is in the construct state (with the kamatz of the original noun מַכָּה being reduced to a patach and the "ה" switching to a "ת"), while the word "חֶרֶב" is in the absolute state.
  • In a noun chain – When there is a chain of more than two nouns, only the final noun will be in the absolute form; all the others will be in the construct state.
    • For example, in the noun phase "שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל" the word יִשְׂרָאֵל is in the absolute state, while "שְׁמוֹת" and "בְּנֵי" are in the construct state.The words are modified from the absolute forms "שֵׁמוֹת" and "בָּנִים", with the tzere and kamatz of the original being reduced.
  • Number – As seen in the examples in this and the previous slide, both the נסמך and the סומך of a word pair can be either singular or plural.In Modern Hebrew, when the construct state is used to form a compound word, only the נסמך is made plural. Thus, to make the word בית ספר plural, one would say "בתי ספר" not "בית ספרים" or "בתי ספרים"
    • Thus, one can say any of the following: a) מלך העיר b) מלכי העיר c) מלך הערים or d) מלכי הערים (king of the city, kings of the city, king of the cities or kings of the cities).

4. Vowel Reduction: Reasoning

  • In the previous slide, we noted that the initial nouns in a construct chain often take a unique form, with vowels reducing or being lost and the like. We will explore these unique forms in the coming slides, but will first attempt to explain why such changes occur.
  • Loss of stress – Many of the vocalization changes stem from the fact that a construct chain is considered a single unit. This affects the stress of the individual nouns, with the stress of the first noun of the pair becoming secondary to that of the second noun and in some cases being totally lost. This loss of stress often causes vowel reduction, as we learned in the module on Stress and Vocalization.
    • Hyphenated word pairs – For example, when a word such as "בֵּן" is connected to another noun with a makkaf, it totally loses its individual stress. Its original tzere now finds itself in a closed unstressed syllable which must take a short vowel, and so it reduces to a segol, becoming "בֵּן", as in: "בֶּן־אַבְרָהָם".See the discussion regarding the makkaf and its effect on stress and vocalization in the module Stress and Vocalization.
    • Non-hyphenated word pairs – However, even when the various nouns of a construct chain are not connected by a makkaf and retain an accent marker, they often act as if they have lost their stress, for it is secondary to the main one.It is possible that historically, at some point these words were also connected by a makkaf and were not individually stressed at all, leading to vocalization changes. The new forms were preserved even after the makkaf was lost. Support for this theory might come from the fact that even when there is no makkaf attaching the word "בֵּן" to another noun, it maintains the reduced form of "בֶּן" whenever it is found in a construct chain. See, for example, "בֶּן הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִית". This, however, is not true of many other nouns of the same pattern, which might make one argue against the theory. The words "שֵׁם" and "לֵב" reduce to "שֶׁם" or "לֶב" when attached to another noun by a makkaf but when there is no makkaf, they maintain their original form even in the construct state. Hence, vowels reduce as they would when finding themselves removed from the word's accent, with, for instance, "כָּבוֹד" becoming "כְּבוֹד", as in: "כְּבוֹד שְׁמוֹ"‎.See the discussion regarding propretonic reduction in the module on Stress and Vocalization where we learned that a kamatz which is found two stops before the stress will reduce to a sheva.

5. Rules of Vowel Reduction

  • This and the coming slides will discuss some of the rules that govern vowel reduction when nouns are in the construct state.
  • Many monosyllabic nouns and segolatesSegolates are nouns which, in their singular form, have penultimate stress (i.e. the second to last syllable is accented). They are often pointed with two segols, a tzere-segol, or a cholam-segol; hence the name. (when in the singular) do not reduce at all.This, however, is not true of segolates patterned like the words "יַיִן" and "מָוֶת" which have a unique form and do change in the construct state, as will be seen in the coming slides.
  • An open, unstressed kamatz and tzere will reduce to a sheva , or if under a guttural to a chataf.If, however, the kamatz is only present in the word because of compensatory lengthening (e.g. vowel lengthening resulting from a missing dagesh in a guttural) it does not reduce. Another exception: a tzere followed by yud will not reduce as this is an unchangeable long vowel.
  • A kamatz in a final closed syllable will reduce to a patach.
  • Many words are affected by both of the above rules, and have a double change:
  • Often there is no reduction of a tzere in a final closed syllable but this is variable:
    • In substantive participles (verbs acting as a noun, like "שופט", a judge) and in monosyllabic words the tzere usually remains unchanged (unless the two words of the chain are connected by a makkaf).
      • For example, there is no reduction in the words שֹׁפֵט, סוֹפֵר, שֵׁם, עֵץ and לֵב when in a construct chain.However, see the earlier slide that "בֵּן" does reduce even when not followed by a makkaf.
    • In many (but not all) words of the pattern "יָתֵד" (vocalized with a kamatz followed by a tzere), the tzere reduces to a patach. [The initial kamatz will also reduce, as above, to a sheva or chataf.]
    • Some words of this pattern such as: "כָּתֵף", "יָרֵךְ",and "גָּדֵר" are unusual and reduce to "כֶּתֶף", "יֶרֶךְ" and, "גֶּדֶר"‎.The word "גָּזֵל" has a slightly different form, changing to "גֵּזֶל". See also the word "כָּבֵד" which appears in two forms in the construct state, following both possibilities, as in: "כְבַד פֶּה" and "עַם כֶּבֶד עָוֺן". See "עָרֵל" as well, appearing as both "עֲרַל שְׂפָתַיִם" and "עֶרֶל לֵב".

6. Exercise

7. Singular Construct State Patterns

  • Nouns ending in segol heh – The ending changes to tzereh heh. Other vowels in the first part of the word reduce according to the rules learned in the earlier slide.
  • Feminine nouns ending in kamatz-heh – The ending is replaced by patach taf.This can be understood in light of the historical development of feminine noun-endings. In proto-Semitic, from which Hebrew eventually developed, the feminine ending was patach-taf. With time, in Hebrew the taf dropped whenever it was in a final position. This led to compensatory lengthening of the patach to a kamatz, originally represented just by the vowel letter "ה" and then by the kamatz as well. Since nouns in the construct state are considered part of the following word, the patach-taf of such words was not in a final position and thus was not dropped. [This explains why the patach-taf also "reappear" in words with pronomial suffixes, such as: "ילדתו".] Other vowels in the first part of the word reduce according to the rules learned in the earlier slide.
    • Examples: a) מַלְכָּה becomes מַלְכַּת, as in: "מַלְכַּת שְׁבָא" b) שָׁנָה becomes שְׁנַת, as in: "שְׁנַת הַיּוֹבֵל" c) בְּרָכָה becomes בִּרְכַּת, as in: "בִּרְכַּת אַבְרָהָם"ִּ.
    • Note: In the last example (ברכה), in addition to the change of ending and reduction of the kamatz under the "ר", the initial sheva changes to a chirik , as per "the rule of sheva".See the first module on vowels that Hebrew does not tolerate two consecutive vocal shevas. When a certain inflection pattern or combination of words would otherwise produce such a sequence (as in our case), the first sheva is lengthened to a chirik, and the second becomes a silent sheva.
  • Trisyllabic feminine nouns – Trisyllabic feminine nouns which begin with a closed syllable (like the word מלחמה), also switch their suffix to a taf, but often have penultimate stress in the construct form and are vocalized like segolate nouns (ending with either a double segol or double patach.)See the second module on nouns that segolates which have gutturals as the second or third root letter are often vocalized with two patachs.

8. Singular Construct State Patterns II

  • Unique segolates – Several segolates have a somewhat unique form which contracts when in the construct state:
    • The "בַּיִת" pattern (patach-yud-chirik) – In segolates with this vocalization pattern, like: "יַיִן", "זַיִת" or "לַיִל" (and similarly in words in the dual form, like: עֵינָיִם and אׇזְנָיִם) the "ayi" sound contracts to a single vowel, a tzere.It is assumed that these segolates had originally been monosyllabic diphthongs (a cluster of vowel sounds which function as a single unit) of the form zayt, yayn and layl. In the absolute form of the word, where the syllable is stressed, the diphthong was eventually broken into two syllables by adding a chirik under the yud. In the construct state, where the stress on the word is secondary, the original diphthong instead contracted, with the patach-yud being replaced by a single vowel, a tzere. [Such contraction is common in diphthongs in general.]
    • The "מָוֶת" pattern (kamatz-vav-segol) – Similarly, in segolates patterned like: "מָוֶת", "תָּוֶךְ", and "אָוֶן" the vowels also contract to a single vowel, a cholam.These words, too, are assumed to have originally been monosyllabic diphthongs, and the chnage in form is assumed to be part of the common phenomenon of diphthong contraction.
    • Examples: a) זַיִת becomes זֵית, as in: "זֵית שֶׁמֶן וּדְבָשׁ" b) לַיִל becomes לֵיל, as in: "לֵיל שִׁמֻּרִים" and c) מָוֶת becomes מוֹת, as in "מוֹת אַבְרָהָם"
  • There are several words which have somewhat exceptional forms which are hard to anticipate. Several of the more common of these include.

9. Exercise

  • Using the rules on the previous slides, write the construct state of the following nouns. Check yourself by finding the word in the linked verses.
  • Compare the phrase "בְּשָׂדֶה אַחֵר" in Ruth 2:8 with the phrase "בִּשְׂדֵה אַחֵר" in Shemot 22:4. What is the difference in meaning? [Which is in the construct state?]In Ruth, the phrase means "in another (i.e. different) field", whereas in Shemot, the word "שְׂדֵה" is in the construct state and so the phrase means "in the field of another".

10. Plural Construct State Patterns

  • Plural nouns ending in "ים" – The plural or dual ending is replaced by "tzere-yud".This is expected of the dual form; as we saw, the "ayi" sound contracts to a tzere when stress is lost in the construct state. It is not as clear why the same reduction should occur for all plurals. Other vowels in the first part of the word reduce according to the rules in the earlier slides.
  • No reduction of the kamatz
    • Geminate nounsThese are words which have a hidden doubled root letter which is absent from the singular form of the word, but which is often marked by adagesh in the plural form. For discussion, see the second module on nouns. with a guttural in the second root letter, such as הָרִים, שָׂרִים, and מָרִים change their ending as above but have no reduction of the initial kamatz, becoming: "הָרֵי", "שָׂרֵי", and "מָרֵי". See, for example, "הָרֵי אֲרָרָט"
    • This is because in these words, the kamatz is not original (not being found in the singular form), but is rather the result of compensatory lengthening, and as such is retained.See the second module on nouns that in the plural form, most geminates have a dagesh in the second consonant to mark the missing doubled root letter. However since gutturals like "ר" cannot take a dagesh, the original patach of the singular nouns (הַר etc.) each got lengthened to a kamatz to compensate.
    • The word עָרִים also becomes עָרֵי without the expected reduction of the kamatz, but this is simply an exceptional, unanticipated form.

11. Plural Construct State Patterns II

  • Plural segolates – Segolate plurals follow the pattern of the word "מְלָכִים" (vocalized with a sheva+kamatz+plural suffix) and, thus, undergo three changes in the construct state:
    • a) The "ים" ending changes to tzere-yud as above.
    • b) The kamatz reduces to a sheva as discussed earlier.
    • c) Since this produces two consecutive shevas which Hebrew does not tolerate, the sheva under the first root consonant is lengthened according to the "segolate rule of sheva". In contrast to the regular "rule of sheva", here the specific vowel the segolate takes is based on the singular form of the noun and is variable:Normally the rule of sheva mandates that the sheva be replaced with a chirik, but with segolates the sheva is instead lengthened to the first vowel of the stem noun (determined by looking at the vocalization of the singular form of the noun with possessive suffixes). As the learner might not be familiar yet with these, one can use the rules that follow.
      • Words patterned like מֶלֶךְ in the singular – The first letter of the plural takes either a patach or chirik. Thus, מְלָכִים becomes מַלְכֵי, as in: "מַלְכֵי עַמִּים" and גְּשָׁמִים becomes "גִּשְׁמֵי " as in: "גִּשְׁמֵי בְרָכָה".
      • Words patterned like סֵפֶר in the singular – The first letter of the plural takes a chirik (and sometimes a segol). Thus סְפָרִים becomes סִפְרֵי and עֲדָרִים becomes עֶדְרֵי, as in: "עֶדְרֵי צֹאן".
      • Words patterned like שֹׁרֶשׁ in the singular – The first letter of the plural takes a kamatz katan. Thus, קֳּדָשִׁים becomes קׇדְשֵׁי, as in: "קׇדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל"
  • Plural nouns ending in "ות" – The plural suffix remains unchanged. Earlier vowels reduce according to the previously learned rules. If this would result in two consecutive shevas the "rule of sheva" applies. If the plural is a feminine segolate (patterned like "מְלָכוֹת") the above mentioned "segolate rule of sheva" applies.
    • Thus, a) שֵׁמוֹת becomes שְׁמוֹת b) שֻׁלְחָנוֹת becomes שֻׁלְחֲנוֹת c) בְּרָכוֹת becomes בִּרְכוֹת d) נְפָשׁוֹת becomes נַפְשׁוֹת e) גַּגּוֹת remains as is.

12. Exercise

13. Making a Construct Chain Definite

  • The definite article – Since a construct chain is considered a single unit, the entire expression is considered either definite (marked in English by "the" and in Hebrew by a ה' הידיעה) or indefinite (marked in English by "a" and unmarked in Hebrew). As such, to express definiteness, only one word of the chain, the final one, will be so marked.Thus, if the final word of the chain is definite, either being a proper name or marked by a definite article, then the whole expression is definite. If it is indefinite, then the entire chain is indefinite..
  • Exercise – Write in Hebrew: "the cup of wine", "a cup of salvation (ישועות)" and "the cup of Paroh". Check yourself by finding the phrases in the following verses: Yirmeyahu 25:15, Tehillim 116:13, and Bereshit 40:11.

14. Modifying a Construct Chain

  • Adjectives – Adjectives may modify any noun in a construct chain, but since the phrase is a single unit, they may not interrupt the word pair and must always follow the whole chain.
  • Disambiguating – This might potentially cause ambiguity, but since adjectives must agree in number and gender with the nouns they modify, this is often enough to disambiguate.
    • See, for example, the phrase "גַּל אֲבָנִים גָּדוֹל" in Yehoshua 7:26. As the adjective is masculine and singular it cannot be modifying the feminine, plural "אֲבָנִים", but must be modifying the masculine, singular "גַּל". Thus, this means: "a large heap of stones" (and not: "a heap of large stones") .
  • Ambiguity – When both nouns of the word pair agree in number and gender, however, there can be ambiguity.
    • Thus, the phrase "יוֹם י"י הַגָּדוֹל וְהַנּוֹרָא" in Malakhi 3:23 can be translated as either: "the great and awesome day of Hashem" or "the day of the great and awesome Hashem".
  • Exercise – Compare the phrase "כְּנַף הַכְּרוּב הַשֵּׁנִית" in Melakhim I 6:24 with the similar phrase "כְנַף הַכְּרוּב הַשֵּׁנִי" in Melakhim I 6:27. Translate each and explain your translation. Check yourself by looking at the English translations on the site.In the first phrase the adjective "הַשֵּׁנִית" is feminine, and as such must modify the feminine "כָּנָף" and not the masculine "כְּרוּב" so that the phrase is rendered "the second wing of the cherub". In the second phrase, "הַשֵּׁנִי" is masculine, and as such must be modifying the masculine "כְּרוּב", with the phrase meaning: "the wing of the second cherub".

15. Advanced Exercise: Abnormal Forms

  • At times in Tanakh, one sees a phrase that appears to be a construct chain, but which veers from expectations. Two examples follow:
  • Double Definite Article – There are several exceptional cases where one will find what appears to be construct chain, but with two definite articles (or a definite article on the נסמך rather than the סומך). Compare, for example, סֵפֶר הַמִּקְנָה in Yirmeyahu 32:11 with הַסֵּפֶר הַמִּקְנָה in Yirmeyahu 32:12.
    • In some of these cases, the initial word of the chain appears in the construct state (for example: הַמִּזְבַּח הַנְּחֹשֶׁת in Melakhim II 16:14), while elsewhere it appears in the absolute form (for example: הַנָּהָר פְּרָת in Divrei HaYamim I 5:9)
    • See Ibn Ezra (first commentary and grammatical commentary) on Bereshit 2:9. How does he explain the phenomenon? Which types of cases does he not account for?
    • For discussion and an alternative explanation of the phenomenon see Extraneous Definite Article
  • Partial Construct Chain? – There are several verses where a word appears to be in the construct state, but is not part of a construct chain (as no second noun follows it).
    • See Yeshayahu 14:6. What word appears in the construct state, yet is not followed by another noun?
    • Compare Ibn Ezra and Radak on the verse. How does each explain the phenomenon?
    • For discussion, see Unusual Forms.

16. For Further Study