[b-hebrew] someone knows? HMT

Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. nir at ccet.ufrn.br
Thu Apr 21 10:54:21 EDT 2011


isaac,

in the root MWT you have 3 root letters. the middle one is a vowel,
hence mutable. in LEHAMIYT (hifil) it changes to yod. although it is
"shorshit", it may be dropped (in words like MET). you might say that
MET is TZERE to remind us of the yod, but this explanation is post-BH.

conclusion: the yod/waw shorshit in MYT/MWT may drop in BH. (in fact,
history may have been the other word around: MT may be the original
and MYT/MWT are derivatives).

now, declension gives HAMIYT+TEM where the suffix is shorthand for
"atem" and starts with a T. euphony rejects two joint T, and shortens
them to a single T.

the nakdanim/dagshanim added the dagesh. nobody known if this 
dagesh is BH or was added later on. but it is there now.
whether this T-dagesh construction is general in the tanakh or 
not, i cannot say as i have no access to heavy machinery. but one 
should look for roots like

    $T, NXT, (hifil: HYNXYT), KRT, (hifil: HYKhRYT), KFT, 
    KTT, (piel: KYTET), $TT, STT, (WT (hiil)

that end with T, in past tense, before 

    -TY (first person) or -TA/T (secnd sing) or -TEM/TEN (second plural)

and see whether the dagesh always appears and one T is dropped. 

i think the answer is yes, and then euphony would be the only plausible 
reason.

anyway, once the T is DGUSHA, i guess, the nakdanim recommend that the 
preceding vowel should be short, hence the yod drops. xiriq before 
dagesh like in diber, dibur, niqed, milim, shibolet, xisur, imah,
libo, xibur, etc.

---------------

MOREOVER: the dropping of yod in this, and other, words corroborates 
the assumption that the dagesh was used in masoretic times (and maybe
even in old and classical hebrew). otherwise, one should find an
ALTERNATIE EXPLANATION why the yod is dropped in BH before EXACTLY
those places which bear the dagesh today, give that the original 
text was not MENUQAD and had no dagesh in the letters.

especially in the rare cases where a dagesh would expres the ACUAL 
FUSION of two equal letters, like here. and not the "fictitious 
doubling" of an otherwise single letter, like in the 
construction DAVAR-->DIBER. 

---------------

pere, correct me if i'm wrong.

nir


On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 20:41:36 -0400, Isaac Fried wrote
> 1. You should explain to us, and possibly also to yourself, what you 
>  mean by "yod drops".
> 
> 2. You should explain to us, and possibly also to yourself, what you 
>  mean by the symbol --> in the relationship HMYT-TEM  --> HMTEM.
> 
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
> 
> On Apr 18, 2011, at 9:04 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. wrote:
> 
> >
> > Nu 17:6:
> >
> > MWT (hifil, past) + suffix -TEM  -->  HMYT-TEM  --> HMTEM
> > with dagesh.
> >
> > i see this as completely regular for this case. T is doubled, so  
> > the dagesh is
> > forced, hence yod drops.
> >
> > modern hebrew would have HEMAT(E)TEM (as alternative to HARAGTEM),  
> > but HAMITEM
> > is completely within BH grammar.
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------
> >
> > 1 sam 2:25:
> >
> > MWT (hifil, infinitive) + suffix -AM   -->   L-HMYT-AM
> > (no dagesh).
> >
> > this too is completely regular for this case! T is not doubled, so no
> > dagesh is necessary, so yod does not drop.
> >
> > -----------------------------
> >
> > nir cohen
> >





More information about the b-hebrew mailing list