BH: indicative nunation?
churchh at usa.net
Tue Apr 3 21:05:39 EDT 2001
> Date: 3 Apr 2001 13:49:23 MDT
> From: Henry Churchyard <churchh at usa.net>
> In certain subject endings the presence of _n_ was originally a
> marker of "indicative" (or whatever one wishes to call it), such as
> original YAQTULUUNA indicative vs. YAQTULUU jussive. But the
> original _n_ (often asimilated in Hebrew) before object endings is
> "energic" in comparative terms. It might be an interesting research
> project to see if there was any correlation between the use of
> _yiqt at luun_ forms in Hebrew (as opposed to _yiqt at luu_ forms) and the
> use of _yiqtolekka_ forms in Hebrew (as opposed to non-"energic"
> forms), but I doubt that you could _a priori_ reasonably assume that
> forms without original _n_ are all somehow "non-indicative".
P.S. In Arabic "indicative" nunation and "energic" nunation are independent:
jussive YAQTULUU, indicative YAQTULUUNA, energic YAQTULUNNA, etc.
Also, the pausal alternation _yiqtolkha_ (ultimate stressed) vs. _yiqtolekha_
(penultimate stressed) has no direct relationship to _yiqtolekka_ (which is
not subject to pausal alternation).
Oh, and if you want mysterious verbal _nun_s, then I was never quite sure what
do do with these...
Hos 5.15 y.SaH.arun.niy;
Ps 50.23 y.kab:.dAn.niy w.$Am
Pro 1.28 y.SaH.arun.niy w.lo'
Pro 1.28 yim.cA'un.niy;
Pro 8.17 yim.cA'un.niy;
Henry Churchyard churchh at usa.net http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/
More information about the b-hebrew