Thread by @dtrlanz

THREAD on teaching construct state & pronoun suffixes in Biblical Hebrew:

All textbooks I was able to consult introduce construct noun morphology before pronoun suffixes on nouns. This is a logical way of proceeding since suffixed nouns are classified as construct.

This semester I decided to teach pronoun suffixes before construct for two reasons:
(1) Previous students struggled more with pronoun suffixes than with anything else, so starting them earlier would give more time to practice.

(2) It's relatively easy to introduce pronoun suffixes inductively by passing around horses, mares, dogs, and camels (to take a few different noun classes), then saying "This is my horse; that is her horse" and so on.

At the time, I didn't think much about construct morphology. But it turns out that starting with pronoun suffixes simplifies teaching construct nouns. You can generally just take the form with 2nd pl. suffix, remove the כֶם/כֶן and -shazam- there is your construct form.

Some examples:
דָּבָר > דְּבַרְכֶם > דְּבַר
דְּבָרִים > דִּבְרֵיכֶם > דִּבְרֵי
קָדוֹשׁ > קְדוֹשְׁכֶם > קְדוֹשׁ
מְלָכִים > מַלְכֵיכֶם > מַלְכֵי

This is nothing new, of course. The similarity between the construct noun and the noun with heavy suffixes is well known. But my point is a pedagogical one. By starting with pronoun suffixes, you can skip the daunting 2+ pages textbooks use to explain construct noun changes.

Some textbooks seem to imply that you need the construct form to form the plural nouns with heavy suffixes. But this is not the case.

Excepting segholates, you can form almost all suffixed forms with 3 simple rules:
1) propretonic vowel reduction
2) rule of Shewa
3) an a-vowel before כֶם/כֶן is always short
No reference to construct forms needed.

Example: דָּבָר
0) add sffx דָּבָרְכֶם
1) vowel red. דְּבָרְכֶם
3) make a-vowel short דְּבַרְכֶם
Example: דְּבָרִים
0) add sffx דְּבָרֵיכֶם
1) vowel red. דְּבְרֵיכֶם
2) rule of Shewa דִּבְרֵיכֶם

Whether it is historically accurate to invoke the rule of Shewa for the latter form is pedagogically irrelevant. But it should be added that gutterals prefer patah (eg חַכְמֵיכֶמ), and of course segholates use their characteristic vowel (eg מַלְכֵיכֶם).

TL;DR: Construct noun morphology is not a necessary prerequisite for pronoun suffixes, and knowledge of pronouns suffixes makes construct noun morphology easier (simply remove כמ/כן from the 2nd pl suffixed form; or יכם/יכן in case of f pl nouns).

I am not saying that doing pronoun suffixes before construct nouns is always better. I am merely saying it is an option that deserves consideration.

It is therefore surprising that all(?) textbooks start with construct. It may be because they want to give a very ordered account: "Nouns have gender, number, and state..." etc, which leads quickly to the construct.

It could also be due to some grammatical purism. Because suffixed nouns are technically in the construct state, teachers may want to introduce that first. But seeing how complex some textbook explanations are, I'm not sure it's worth the payoff.

Please let me know your thoughts, particularly if I've made egregious mistakes or if I've overlooked major advantages/disadvantages to either approach.

CORRECTION: I forgot to mention diphthong contraction above. Since those changes apply equally to suffixed forms and mere construct nouns, they don't change the overall argument.