Spinoza's Compendium of Hebrew Grammar (1677, posthumous, unfinished) contains a claim that scholars have been misreading for centuries. He says that all Hebrew words, except a few particles, are nouns. The standard scholarly reaction is that this is either a metaphysical imposition (projecting his monistic ontology onto grammar) or a terminological trick (defining "noun" so broadly it's vacuous). Both reactions are wrong, and they're wrong for the same reason: they import Greek and Latin grammatical categories and then treat those categories as the neutral baseline.

What Spinoza actually said

From Chapter 5 of the Compendium (Bloom translation, 1962):

"By a noun I understand a word by which we signify or indicate something that is understood. However, among things that are understood there can be either things and attributes of things, modes and relationships, or actions, and modes and relationships of actions."

And:

"For all Hebrew words, except for a few interjections and conjunctions and one or two particles, have the force and properties of nouns. Because the grammarians did not understand this they considered many words to be irregular which according to the usage of language are most regular."

The word "noun" here [...]

---

Outline:

(00:45) What Spinoza actually said

(01:57) The objection that doesnt work

(02:30) How Hebrew actually works

(04:15) Where the noun/verb distinction comes from

(06:15) The structural difference between Greek and Hebrew

(08:00) Spinoza wasnt projecting his metaphysics

The original text contained 6 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.

---

First published:
March 19th, 2026

Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/e8XnJFw9noBXoXFWr/does-hebrew-have-verbs

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

“Does Hebrew Have Verbs?” by Benquo

LessWrong (30+ Karma)

“Does Hebrew Have Verbs?” by Benquo