Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Origins of the definite article of BHebrew

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
  • To: Herman Meester <crazymulgogi AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Origins of the definite article of BHebrew
  • Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:30:05 +0000

On 19/12/2005 15:50, Herman Meester wrote:

...

No, I'm sorry for not having showed some examples more elaborately,
but the stems I refer to are *not* cognate to the Hebrew hif`il, etc.
So this is getting confusing. The "Arabic hif`il" is the stem iv:
'af`ala, with real hamz, and I didn't use this example. That alif
never disappears either in the perfect. The stems vii, viii, ix and x
(I mention a few more now, I've been a little lazy before), however,
totally different stems, have only prefixed -n- and infixed -t-, srd
cons. gemination (which is, I repeat, productive in Arabic!), and
prefixed sta-.

fa`ala, stem vii: nfa`ala
fa`ala, stem viii: fta`ala
hamara, stem ix: hmarra (usually for colours, etc.)
fa`ala, stem x: staf`ala

So that's why we need, only in pausa: (i)nfa`ala, (i)fta`ala,
(i)marra, (i)staf`ala.


Thanks for the clarification and the off-list chart (I had one of those somewhere, not sure where), and for reducing my level of confusion.

It seems to me now that Hebrew hiphil is cognate with Arabic stem iv 'af`ala. The only one of the Arabic stems you list which has a clear cognate in Hebrew is vii (i)nfa`ala, which seems to be cognate with Hebrew niph`al. But Hebrew resolves the consonant cluster by inserting a letter rather than preposing one, cf. Hebrew "ben" vs. Arabic "ibn".

According to some people the Hebrew form hishtaxaweh is a hishtaphe`el form from the stem XWH. If so, this would be a Hebrew cognate of Arabic stem x (i)staf`ala, with h in place of silent alef. And there does seem to be an ishtaph`al form in biblical Aramaic, cognate with (i)staf`ala, although the only attested form seems to be yishtaklelun in Ezra 4:13,16 and so the reconstruction of the basic form as ishtaph`al rather than perhaps shetaph`el would seem to be a bit speculative.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page