Although all versions are syntactically correct, there are a few things to notice:שלום לכולם
האם מישהו יגיד לי אם אחד מהמשפטים למטה הוא נכון?
שרה טלפנה והגידה לי שהיא לא תבוא היום.
שרה טלפנה ואמרה שהיא לא תבוא היום.
שרה טלפנה וסיפרה שהיא לא תבוא היום.
תודה רבה מראש.
All languages have synonymes. My point is a different one. Let me explain with an example:Dinji - I don't have an answer to your questions, but in certain contexts, or by certain people, there are other verbs that basically synonymous (though arguably used incorrectly as such). לרשום ולכתוב and לבצע ולעשות as well as לגמור ולסיים. I am not saying these pairs are actually synonymous, but that they are sometimes used that way.
My guess is a different one. The verb 'omer/'amar behaves perfectly regularly in the present and the past but in the future it is a bit irregular. We do have the forms te'esof 'collect', te'ehov 'love' and te'echoz 'seize' as pretty regular ones but tomar 'say' (and tokhal 'eat') feels difficult. Irregularity often triggers analogy but in this case it has triggered the use of a synonymous verb. This is my guess.Dinji,
How would you explain that the split is between past and present on one side, and future, imperative and infinitive in the other side ?
My guess is that, in Qal,
- past and present pattern on CvCvC (+ optional suffixes)
Ex:QaTaL, QaTaL-ti, QoTeL, QoTeL-et...,
- future, imperative and infinitive pattern on CCvC (+ optional prefixe and suffixe).
Ex: ti-QToL, li-QToL, QToL.
In Nif'al, it's the other way round : past and present are CCvC (ni-kshar), and fut/imp/inf are CvCvC (hik-kasher).
So, are those affinities somewhere in an Hebrew speaker's head ?