Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Galia Hatav wrote:

Paul Zellmer wrote:

>Galia Hatav wrote:
>
>>         I like Peter's suggestion very much. It shows further the
>> similarity between NPs with a determiner article (H in Hebrew) and the
>> wayyiqtol.  What are the problems you see with Peter's suggestion, Paul?
>
>My hesitations hinge on the two proposed features that have hitherto been
>unnoticed in
>Hebrew studies: the allophonic "waw" morphemes, and the phonological
>reduction of the
>definite article (or let's be more general, a heh or guttural) after a
>purely supposed
>"P" (corresponding to an Arabic "F").  And then that "P" would have to
>become a waw???
>
>I have no problem with allophonic morphemes in general, but aren't these
>normally
>found in completely different locations in clauses?  I think, for example,
>of the
>Greek "kai."  When used clause initially, it is a conjuction.  When clause
>medial, it
>is adverbial, "also."  I choose this example because "kai" keeps a lot of
>the same
>meaning between it's two usages, which would be required by your two
>"waw"'s.  Yet
>there is enough distinction that I suppose "kai" could be considered a
>different
>phoneme depending on it's position in the clause.
>
>I guess I'm a bit conservative, so I'm withholding my embrace from the
>hypothesis at
>present.
>
>Paul

        I am not sure what you mean by "allophonic morphemes".

Sorry.  My tongue was over my eyeteeth again.  I meant "homophonic
morphemes"!  (Yes, I really do have enough of a grasp on the Greek
language to know the difference between the prefixes "homo" and "allo". 
I even recognize the distinction of "hetero"!)Does this make my hesitations
clearer?

<snip, in interest of bandwidth>

>         Re your
> comment about the origin of the waw.  I did not suggest
> that it was something else, and I did not understand Peter to suggest
> that
> either. But with your question, Paul, you seem to have opened a real
> exciting road. What I am going to say about this road, however, should
> be
> taken not with a grain, but with a BAG of salt.
I was referring to Peter's statement in his 02 March posting, so any credit
should go to him.  He in turn gives it back to you.

Peter Kirk wrote:
 

> 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.
 
Paul

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

zellmer AT faith.edu.ph