Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk" <Peter_Kirk AT sil.org>]

These noun forms are closely analogous to the common Arabic MAQTAL
pattern which is also used for places; the change of the first consonant
from A to I is a regular (and quite late, post-LXX) shift in Hebrew. So
any derivation from MIY or MIN- must be very ancient, back in
proto-Semitic times or earlier, which really takes us into the realm of
pointless speculation. As the M- preformative is regularly used for
participles in other conjugations in both Arabic and Hebrew, it seems
more likely that this form was originally a participle whose meaning
became frozen.

Peter Kirk

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Polycarp66 AT aol.com [mailto:Polycarp66 AT aol.com]
> Sent: 26 March 2002 17:57
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: Re: MiQ:TaL formative
> 
> In a message dated 3/26/2002 1:15:22 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> language_lover64801 AT yahoo.com writes:
> 
> My curiosity is about the symantic [semantic] function of words
> representing PLACE NOUNS that are formed with am Mi-
> preformative.
> _______________
> 
> I was wondering if some such matter was your concern.  It was,
however,
> late
> so I dashed off a reply thinking you would reply again should that not
be
> what you wanted (and you did say you didn't have references
available).
> 
> I think there are three things (at least) that need to be considered
no
> matter how far-fetched they may seem.
> 
> 1. Some stems form the participle with M.  The part. combination MiXXX
is
> not
> 
>      attested (though MiTXXX appears in the Hithpa'el).  M: in the
pi'el
> might be
>      considered.
> 2. MiY (interrog. pron.) is sometimes used of things.  E.g., Gn 33.8
> 
>      WaY.o)MeR MiY L:Kf K.fL_HaM.aX:aNeH HaZ.eH
> 
> 3. MiN usually appears as Mi. (i.e., with a dagesh in following
letter) or
> M"
> before
>     gutterals and R THOUGH IT DOES OCCUR AS **  Mi **.  Since this can
> have a
>      locative meaning, it appears attractive.
> 
> GfSomsel
>