Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

Vince wrote:

>                       qal *u          hifil *i

> long /VV/             YFQW.M          YFQIYM
> short stressed /V/    YFQOM           YFQ"M
> unstressed            WAY.FQFM        WAY.FQEM

> in this case, a three way opposition is explained as a contrast
> between /VV/ and /V/, and also in quality/length distinctions for
> /V/ under stress. vowel length is phonemic in underlying
> representations.

Henry wrote:

Well, active phonological alternations between "long" h.ireq or
h.ireq-yod and s.ere/s@ghol are not actually very frequent (perhaps
mainly relics from an earlier diachronic stage of the language), nor
are alternations between "long" shureq/qibbus. and h.olem/qames..

Peter's comment:

Am I right in understanding this as good evidence that the 
YFQW.M/YFQOM and YFQIYM/YFQ"M alternations are not phonologically 
conditioned but are likely to reflect different underlying verb forms? 
This is thus good evidence, surely, for a deep difference between 
"long" and "short" forms of YIQTOL, and that WAYYIQTOL is not simply 
WE- plus ordinary YIQTOL (though it might be WE- plus short jussive 
YIQTOL). Any further comment on this argument?

Peter Kirk