Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 27/09/2004 12:08, VC wrote:

> > > Recently, a student inquired me of the origin of segollate words (kelev).
> > >      
> I have never particularly dwelled on the problem, and a quick search both in
> the library and Internet did not produce much suggestions.
>  
>
> > >      
> > See Gesenius et al section 84a part I, which gives a clear explanation
> > of the origin of segholates from originally monosyllabic forms, based on
> > evidence from Arabic etc. Gesenius' explanation is quite different from
> > your speculative one.
> >    
>
> Well, Gesenius simply presumes the kitl form. Its presence in modern Arabic
> does not prove in any way its antiquity. Such form is extremely atypical for
> Hebrew, and unless someone demonstrates where the kitl came from, this is
> not an explanation, but rephrasing of a problem.
>
>  
Gesenius also links it with Akkadian (which he calls Assyrian) and 
thereby demonstrates clearly that the proto-Semitic form is like qitl-u 
or qatl-u. Any attempt to get further back than proto-Semitic can be no 
more than speculation.

It seems very clear to me as a linguist that surface forms like MELEK 
are a recent phonological development from underlying MALK etc. Just as 
Russian inserts e or o in difficult final consonant clusters, when there 
is no suffix in the nominative singular or genitive plural, so also 
Hebrew inserts a vowel and makes a compensatory change to the preceding 
vowel, which is not found in inflected forms.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/