596547 at ican.net
Wed Sep 9 08:25:21 EDT 1998
The root _ycq_ is alledged to be a third class first yod root...kinda(see
Gesenius section 71). Usually, the yod of the third class first yod root
assimilates in the prefixed forms like the nun of a first nun root. The
root _yc(_ is a good example. The only thing is, with _ycq_, the second
root letter is only once attested as having the dagesh forte as a proper
first nun root once. It doesn't have the dagesh forte in Gen 28:18. I
don't know why, but would like to if someone can help. Anyhow, like a
first nun root, neither the tone retracts nor the vowel shortens.
Notice a tell-tale sign that _Va-Yitzoq_(sic) is not a regular first yod
root--the lack of tsere under the prefixed pronoun.
> From: Al Silberman <alfred.silberman at lmco.com>
> To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Subject: Genesis 28:18
> Date: Tuesday, September 08, 1998 10:19 AM
> My question is:
> Why isn't there a tone retraction on the word Va-Yitzoq (and he poured)
> Genesis 28:18 (the question is on this word - not just for this
> occurrence). There are two reasons why the tone here should be retracted:
> 1. The word comes with a "reversing vav" (or whatever you want to call
> which normally causes a retraction of the tone - the xolem would then
> change to a qametz qatan.
> 2. It has a conjunctive accent to a word whose tone is on the first
> This word only has one occurrence of a retraction and apparently has an
> intransitive meaning when it occurs (also, the xolem goes to a seghol not
> to a qametz qatan).
B. M. Rocine
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13208
More information about the b-hebrew