Biblical Hebrew Forum

["jeremy N" <jnorthct AT hotmail.com>]

> From: "Henry Churchyard" <churchh AT crossmyt.com>
> Subject: Re: When absolutes aren't absolutes and constructs aren't 
> constructs
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:54:06 -0500 (CDT)
<SNIP>
> the masculine and feminine numerals 2-9 basically show normal patterns >of 
> morphological and phonological alternation in their construct and >absolute 
> forms i.e. orthographic final _qames._ + _he_ in absolute >becomes short 
> vowel + _taw_ in construct; vowels in pre-main-stress >open syllables which 
> are lengthened in absolute are instead reduced to >_sh@wa_ or a _h.at.eph_ 
> vowel in construct; etc. etc.).  The only >particularly noticeable 
> peculiarity that I see is that five and six >have absolute forms 
> _h.amishshah_, _shishshah_, but construct forms >that look like they should 
> go back to historically earlier forms >*_h.amisht_ and *_shisht_; however, 
> true historical forms ending in _->iCt_ generally went to _-aCt_, so that 
> the long _s.ere_ vowel seen in >construct _h.ameshet_ and _sheshet_ is 
> probably due to a fairly late >analogical development (however, the same 
> long _s.ere_ vowel is seen >in _'eshet_ as construct of _'ishshah_...).

This is an interesting observation.  Also, when it comes to the ordinal form 
for the numerals five and six, we also find the absence of a daghesh for 
"shin" (e.g., himishi rather than himishshi), except in a few cases of the 
compact ordinal forms (Zech 7:3, 1K 6:31, Jer 36:9).  On the other hand, the 
plural form, like the absolute form, contains the daghesh.  If I understand 
what you are saying correctly, the original absolute form may have been 
hamisht and shisht, which would produce the construct forms hamasht and 
shasht.  If this is correct, then the absolute forms would have been later 
thinned down to hamish and shish, as all feminine nouns terminating in ‘t’ 
went to ‘h’.  (Hamesh and shesh, which came to serve as the masculine forms 
once numerals became more adjective-like, are not all that dissimilar to 
hamish and shish).  I expect that -ah was added to masculine forms hamish 
and shish (to form the current abs. fem. forms hamishshah and shishshah) in 
order to create a more feminine appearance to complement the newly created 
masculine forms.  But because hamishshah and shishshah would normally 
require the construct forms to be hamishshat and shishshat, the current 
feminine construct forms, you speculate, have stuck more with the original, 
although adopted the sere vowel by means of analogical development (from the 
masculine forms for five and six perhaps?).  I have a few questions.  Why 
would the construct forms survive as earlier forms when the absolute forms 
did not?  Why weren't more analogical changes made to the construct forms, 
such as the insertion of a daghesh for "shin" (as was attempted by a scribe 
in a few instances of the ordinal form)?  Finally, on what basis would a 
parallel exist between the numerals "five" and "six" and "woman" (eesh-shah) 
which, as you point out, undergoes exactly the same transformation in 
construct form (i.e. to eshet) as "five" and "six" do.

> > What I don't get is why, in certain instances, a numeral is employed
> > in its absolute form and, for an identical expression, the construct
> > form is employed.  There must be some basis for the occasional
> > variations that take place other than those of grammar, such as
> > regional or period differences.  Or am I to understand from what you
> > are saying that the construct rules for numbers were somewhat
> > ill-defined and, hence, it was left to each individual scribe to
> > decide which way to go?
>
> Individual scribes or Masoretes certainly didn't feel free to make
> arbitrary changes (that's the "Kahlean fallacy").

They certainly would not alter the received text in a way that would 
(consciously) do violence to that text, but there were undoubtedly countless 
editorial changes required that would have resulted in dramatic alterations, 
despite the best intentions of the scribes.  In the case of the Masoretes, 
the addition of vowel points alone has, I believe, obscured some 
inconsistencies in the original text, and also created some inconsistencies 
when there were originally none.  For example, I wonder to what degree the 
problem presented by "hameshet" and "sheshet" is simply the result of 
Masoretic meddling based on the vocalisation of the day?  After all, there 
are no problems here if we ignore the vowel points.

> I actually don't have any specialized knowledge about the detailed 
> >distribution of construct vs. absolute numeral forms in the text -- 
> >however, if this distribution should happen to show irregularities or 
> >apparent lax usages, then this would not be particularly surprising to 
> >me, since I know from general principles that the construct vs. >absolute 
> distinction is not as relevant for numbers as it is for >ordinary nouns, as 
> I explained above.  (This means that the >irregularities and apparent lax 
> usages might have been present in a >single state of the language, and 
> don't necessarily need to be >explained by regional, diachronic, or scribal 
> variation.)  A detailed >study of the distribution of these forms might 
> reveal more subtle >patterns and tendencies in their occurrences.

From a brief survey, it is the enumerated "days" that show the most 
irregular pattern.  In the main, numerals associated with "days," 
"hundreds," and "thousands" take a construct form (regardless of whether or 
not the latter are in a construct relationship with other nouns).  There are 
some instances where numerals preceding "days" take an absolute form, but 
not many.  Numerals associated with other nouns, however, generally take an 
absolute form when part of absolute expressions.  Numerals in a compound 
relationship with "ten" (i.e. "teen" compounds) take an absolute form when 
preceding a masculine noun (regardless of whether this noun is part of an 
absolute or construct expression), although these same numerals are in 
construct form when the "teen" compound numeral precedes a feminine noun 
(again, regardless of whether this noun is part of an absolute or a 
construct expression).  It seems to me that the construct form of numerals 
functioned at some stage as a kind of multiplication symbol before units of 
measure, such as, "five of hundreds" or "five of days."  Numerals preceding 
"years" probably also generally shared this form at some stage, although the 
vowel-point insertions of the Masoretes has probably obscured the extent of 
some of these forms.  Indeed, there are no construct numerals associated 
with "years" according to the vowel-inserted Masorete text (even those that 
are part of construct expressions), which is very hard to believe given the 
inconsistency found in numerals associated with other units of measure, 
where consonantal distinctions between absolute and construct forms meant 
that they could not readily become obscured.
Support for this is the way that "a hundred" (one of the few numerals whose 
construct form is consonantally distinctive when preceding a feminine noun, 
and hence, could not be obscured through the insertion of vowel points) is, 
virtually without exception, employed in the construct when preceding 
"years" and "talents," regardless of the relationship of "years" and 
"talents" to other nouns.  The “multiplication thesis” as I call it, is just 
a hypothesis at the moment, and I haven’t had time yet to properly explore 
it.  But it seems to explain the majority of inconsistencies that I have 
found so far.

Jeremy

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp