Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryan Rocine" <596547 AT ican.net>]

Dear Al, 

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. 

Shalom!
Bryan
----------
> 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)
in
> 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
it)
> 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
syllable.
> 
> 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
Associate Pastor
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13208

315-437-6744(w)
315-479-8267(h)