I think this sentence is somewhat confusing. I know the word "emphasis" gets used a lot, but I don't think it is a very helpful term that can lead to misunderstanding. My opinion is that we should only deal with word order that affects chunking and leave the rest of it alone.

Include more examples of special cases of gender disagreement? GEN 7:13, 1SA 10:3, and JOB 1:4

It seems like these should be listed under "affirmation particle" instead of adverbs (as with אַף).

It seems like these should be listed under "negative particle" instead of adverbs.

It seems like these should be listed under "interrogative particle" instead of adverbs.

It seems like the "circumstantial" use is a subset of the "copulative" and therefore both redundant and potentially confusing. I suggest eliminating it.

Should stipulate that these are conjunctions "in English." Should we also list the more common Hebrew conjunctions in the glossary?

This seems somewhat confusing, because "stressed" can be taken to mean the same as "emphasized." Perhaps we should stipulate the kind of stress intended, or simply identify the variant form as an alternate spelling?

There are other interrogatives, such as מָה and מִי and לָמָה. These should probably be included also.

Should we include the notion of emphasis here?

I think we need to describe what the demonstrative particle does, i.e. it draws attention to what comes immediately after the particle. Also, perhaps we should discuss whether to translate or not, because often demonstrative particles are not translated and could be confusing.

Since the users of the translationCore will be chunking text, it seems to me that we should have a section in this article on discourse particles (i.e. particles that occur prior to the verb that link chunks of text together, such as וְעַתָּה). Maybe have a conversation with the parsing team whether discourse particles are being labeled as such in the parsing information?

First review/edit completed and implemented on 18 May 2017.

First review/edit completed and implemented on 18 May 2017.

First review/edit completed and implemented on 18 May 2017.

First review/edit completed and implemented on 18 May 2017.

First review/edit completed and implemented on 18 May 2017.

First review/edit completed and implemented on 18 May 2017.

First review/edit completed and implement on 18 May 2017.

First review/edit completed and implement on 18 May 2017.

First review/edit completed and implement on 18 May 2017.

First review/edit completed and implement on 18 May 2017.

First review/edit completed and implement on 18 May 2017.

First review/edit completed and implement on 18 May 2017.

First review/edit completed and implement on 18 May 2017.

First review/edit completed and implemented on 18 May 2017.

First review/edit completed and implemented on 21 Apr 2017.

First review completed and implemented on 15 May 2017.

First reviewed completed and implemented on 8 May 2017.

I think we should have something on this page about how Hebrew can take a double object. So even if there is a D.O. that is marked, there could also be an unmarked indirect object. And although it might seem unnecessary, maybe include a sentence saying that it should not be translated unless the target language also has a similar functioning grammatical entity?

Although when taking a suffix, the preposition usually has a "i" vowel and the D.O. marker has an "o" vowel (it's not an absolute rule, but is true generally from my experience). Might be worth including?

It seems to me that each of these headings should include a one or two sentence description/explanation. The naked headings could be understood in several different ways when the grammar is being translated into other languages. Being more specific is better, I think, especially concerning a particle is frequently used as the definite article.

Maybe should specifically explain that this is a prefix?

It makes more intuitive sense to me to list לא and אל here as negation particles rather than as adverbs of negation, but I don't feel strongly about it. My suggestion would be to have a note in the adverb article linking here. This fits with the general philosophy of classifying particles according to the particle itself rather than molding them to fit a broader functional schema. But this issue is pretty subjective, I think.

Is it just used to negate verbless clauses? Does it not also function as a negated copula with an impersonal subject, "There is no..." or "There is not..."?

Is this really accurate? This is new to me. The example given doesn't seem to indicate emphasis but is rather part of the actual sense of the sentence. Maybe we need to look into this...any other thoughts here?!?

I think we need to explain the difference between the interrogative particle and the definite article. Also, we should describe what the interrogative particle does, i.e. it makes the clause a question. Also, we should probably include other interrogative particles such as מִי and מָה, for example.

I like the structure of this section fine, although I recommend changing the headings. I think the headings should describe the operation of the word in Hebrew rather than simply listing the English translation value. In the end, I think we're better off that way, because I think it will translate into other languages easier rather than using "the way English works" as a means of explaining "the way Hebrew works." I hope that makes sense. But I'm fine with the categories suggested, only using description-based headings rather than translation-based headings.

I think we should also add that it takes pronominal suffixes which can function as grammatical entities (usually as the subject of a verbal participle). Also include an example where this happens.

Also, I think we should include that these two particles ALWAYS "point" to what comes immediately after them in the text.

This is true, but it also occurs in the middle of a clause sometimes (usually with the conjunction) and serves a similar function of inviting the reader (or a person being spoken to) to see and/or understand what is to come.

I think we should add a note recommending to consult the lexicon for particles. Also, should we include that אף tends to have a limiting function, whereas גּם tends to have a adding function?

First review/edit completed and implemented on 21 Apr 2017.

First review/edit completed and implemented on 21 Apr 2017.

First review/edit completed and implemented on 21 Apr 2017.

First review/edit completed and implemented on 21 Apr 2017.

First review/edit completed and implemented on 21 Apr 2017.

Article has been edited for comments (10 Apr 17).

First review/edit completed and implemented on 21 Apr 2017.

First review/edit completed and implemented on 21 Apr 2017.

First review/edit completed and implemented on 24 Apr 2017.

First review/edit completed and implemented on 24 Apr 2017.

First review/edit completed and implemented on 25 Apr 2017.

First review/edit completed and implemented on 25 Apr 2017.

First review/edit completed and implemented on 26 Apr 2017.

First review/edit completed and implemented on 27 Apr 2017.

First review/edit completed and implemented on 27 Apr 2017.

I think it is important to keep this sentence in the article. The perfect form need not always convey a completed action in Hebrew; without this sentence, this sense of flexibility is lost to the reader.

Should the term "root" be defined here? I'm afraid that it might be confusing.

Perhaps we should explain that Pual is the passive of the Piel, and that it shares a similar relationship to the Qal as does the Piel (simple action, intensive, resultative, causative), only with passive meaning? Also, I'm wondering if we should include a note encouraging the reader to consult the lexicon for Pual verbs, because the semantics of the Pual in each instance is often dependent on its distribution among the various stems. [That is, a verb that appears only in the Piel/Pual (but not other stems) in Biblical Hebrew could be simple action. Similarly, if there is no Hiphil form, the Piel/Pual can function as causative in place of the Hiphil. And so on.]