Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Al Silberman <alfred.silberman AT lmco.com>]

I would like to thank Bryan Rocine and Randall Buth (looks like you CC'd
b-greek rather than b-hebrew) for responding to my question.

>
>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.

Jewish grammarians classify the peh-yud verbs into two classes; the ones
that leave the yud "visible" which have a hiriq gadol for the prefix letter
and the ones which have the yud "quiescent" or "invisible" which have a
tzere for the prefix.

The "quiescent" peh-yud verbs with a "reversing vav" have the tone
retracted while the "visible" peh-yud verbs do not.

In general there are five classes of imperfects with a "reversing vav"
which have the tone retracted:

1.      Peh-aleph with a quiescent aleph - has xolem under the prefix
2.      Pe-yud with a quiescent yud - has tzere under the prefix
3.      Quiescent `ayin (`ayin-vav or `ayin-yud) - has qametz gadol
          under the prefix
4.      Lamed-he with a dropped he - has hiriq under the prefix
5.      `Ayin-`ayin - has qametz or tzere under the prefix

I should check the above more carefully but I think it is pretty complete.
I noticed that `Ayin-`ayin with a hiriq for a prefix also does not retract
- though here the hiriq is a hiriq qatan.


>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.


The verb "yatzaq" falls within the class of "visible' pe-yud verbs - no
dagesh. If Bryan is alluding to Joshua 7:23 the word there does not have
the same meaning of "pour" and may be from a different root.

The one case of tone retraction of this verb - in I Kings 22:35 has a tzere
prefix not a hiriq (the sense here is intransitive as opposed to the others
which are transitive).


>Anyhow, like a first nun root, neither the tone retracts nor the vowel
>shortens.


Agreed, but I was hoping that some linguist would explain why they resist
retraction even in the circumstance where a nasog axor would be called for.


>Notice a tell-tale sign that _Va-Yitzoq_(sic) ...

Sorry about my error - I transliterated the way I am used to pronouncing
this word (Ashkenazi; ignoring the dagesh) - without the diphtong.