Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Henry Churchyard <churchyh AT ccwf.cc.utexas.edu>]

> From: peter_kirk AT sil.org
> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 00:57:25 -0400

> 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?

Well, the yaaquum / yaaqoom difference follows from rather early
(pre-Hebrew) phonology and morphology.  The *yaqtul "preterite" did
not have a final short verb mood vowel (as the *yaqtulu "imperfect"
did), and CVVC syllables were not allowed to exist at that stage of
the language, so that in `ayin-waw and `ayin-yodh preterites (and
jussives) *yaquum was simplified to *yaqum with a short vowel, while
the vowel in imperfect *yaquumu remained long.  Then by regular
historical changes *yaqum would become Tiberian wayyaaqoom in pause
(with h.olem), or wayyaaqom (with qames. qat.an) if the stress is
retained on the penultimate syllable, and *yaquumu would become
Tiberian yaaquum (with shureq).  (Similarly, in the regular Hiph`il,
the vowel in *hiqtiiltii would shorten in a CVVC syllable, giving rise
to Tiberian hiqtaltii.)  It is doubtful whether this diachronic
CVVC-syllable shortening explanation has relevance for the synchronic
phonology of Tiberian Hebrew, but it's not a simple matter of separate
morphological stems either (i.e. /wayyaqom/ vs. /yaquum/), since the
wayyiqtol also has -uu- (shureq) forms in its paradigm.

The general answer is that diachronically the preterite and imperfect
were basically completely separate verbal conjugations; but that
synchronically from the point of view of phonological form in Tiberian
Hebrew, the distinctness of these two has been eroded somewhat, and
in some respects (such as stress), the regular yiqtol seems to be
taken as a base from which the wayyiqtol is derived -- however the
wayyiqtol still shows some peculiarities (such as the difference in
vowels between yaaquum and wayyaaqom) which could make one slightly
reluctant to say that yiqtol and wayyiqtol were entirely the "same"
conjugation.  Were you expecting anything to do with the Hebrew verbal
system to be entirely simple and straightforward?  ;-)

--
         --Henry Churchyard     churchyh AT ccwf.cc.utexas.edu