זה היה מספיק
is very funny—I will propose it as an alternative to Dayennu at our next Passover meal: it will definitely crack people up.
Modern colloquial Hebrew has many fine qualities, but poetic metre isn’t one of them.
So that’s one reason why we don’t use that phrase here — but the second reason is that the true meaning of Dayennu is not “That would’ve been enough”, but rather: “We would have been content with that.”
Thanks for the chuckle, though…
ADDENDUM, March 31, 2018: We tried it at last night’s seder, and it was indeed hilarious…
—such as I’m going to+verb, or more+<adverb/adjective> instead of <adverb/adjective>+more?
Answer: Actually, I would argue that modern Hebrew is fairly resistant to English grammatical forms—mainly because its grammar is much simpler (comprising the equivalent of past simple, present simple, and simple future), with no mechanisms for emulating tenses such as present perfect (e.g. I have gone) or present continuous (e.g. going) or conditional (would go).
As a result, the sample constructions that you suggest — e.g. going to <verb> and more <adjective> (instead of <adjective> more) are not only uncommon, but indicative of poor Hebrew usage.
Post-Exile (First Exile, that is—in Babylon), Hebrew was flooded with Aramaic words and expressions, as the returning Judeans sought to introduce the sophistication of the prestigious and cosmopolitan Babylon, where they had lived for over three generations, into the provincial backwater of their ancestral land, where only poor and barely literate Judeans (“none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land”—II Kings 24:14) had remained after the Babylonian conquest some 75 years before.
[A2A] Because He was putting on a show, to demonstrate to the Hebrews* and other nations that He is the greatest—nay, the only—God.
This was, if you like, God’s comeback performance (His first since the Flood), so he was intent on making a big impression. And what greater impression could there be than to beat up and humiliate the most powerful kingdom in the known world at that time?
Typically, it doesn’t: by and large, there is just one way to spell any given word. There are three types of exception, though:
Because Canadian employers are particularly fearful of accepting the qualifications of anyone trained overseas (with the possible exception of medical doctors trained in the US or the UK).
This makes a mockery of the federal government’s professed interest in attracting highly-skilled immigrants, and means that experienced heart surgeons work as nursing assistants, or professors of economics work as taxi drivers.
And once copies are disseminated, it’s increasingly hard to make additions or changes without consent of the supermajority
Interesting question—to which the answer is:
- Yes, the Torah might be said to be record of a covenant (agreement), and
- Yes, it is widely disseminated and cannot be unilaterally changed by anyone—but
- No, for the simple reason that a blockchain is a record that is continuously added to by its users—whereas the Torah was authored once (be it by Moses—per traditional belief—or rabbinical sages in the early Second Temple), and has since been immutable.