Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Paul Zellmer <zellmer AT cag.pworld.net.ph>]

Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG wrote:

> Galia's response drew me back to the following, to support her
> suggestion that WAYYIQTOL can be analysed as W-AY-YIQTOL.
>
> Look more closely: the forms ARE close. Galia wrote the morpheme in
> question as AY, but really it is A+dagesh as we see from the first and
> second person wayyiqtol forms. The Hebrew article is regularly
> HA+dagesh, but this is reduced to A+dagesh after the prefixed B-, K-
> and L-. Admittedly the article is not reduced after the copula W-, but
> the difference is reduced from "not even close" to a minor
> irregularity like "H is elided after W in verb forms but not in noun
> forms". This would be easily explained if there is any mileage in
> Galia's suggestion of two homophone W- prefixes (one perhaps
> originally P- as Arabic F- ??), one of which elides the H and the
> other does not. But there could be an explanation even without this
> approach.
>
> Peter Kirk.

Thanks, Peter, for pointing out this possible relationship between the 
definite
article and the suggested verbal morpheme.  It does make more sense, although 
I'm not
yet quite ready to buy into the proposal completely.

Galia, if you were thinking this same way, I fear you skipped too many steps 
for this
simple mind to follow.  Sorry for the unwarranted questioning of a work which 
was
stated to be in its initial stages.

Paul

[NOTE: the "not even close" was a quote from one of my postings, which I 
omitted in
this response. PRZ]

--
Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey Beltran
Ibanag Translation Project
Cabagan, Philippines

zellmer AT faith.edu.ph