Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Vadim Cherny" <vadim_lv AT center-tv.net>]

> >>ut here is an example: yedkem, with two
> >>tseres, from yad + -kem.
> >No good. We discuss two segols, not two tzeres.
> This form has two segols. See Genesis 9:2 etc.

oops, soory, this was silly of me. Of course, two segols. But -hem is
possessive suffix, essentially a different word, so not supportive of your
argument.

>
> But most of our disagreement seems to be about speculative
> reconstructions. We have e.g.
>
> X > melek, X-i > malki
> Y > neged, Y-i > negdi
> Z > beged, Z-i > bigdi

Not really. calbi is not from celev. Both words branched out of cElv with
tzere. In the first instance, cElv transformed into celev by splitting one
tzere into two segols. In the second instance, addition of suffix i splitted
the last consonant into a separate syllable, and tzere appropriated the
second consonant to close its own syllable, cVcc - cVc.ci. Thus dagesh in
the third consonant. Next, with the accent shift to suffix, cVc.ci - cvc.cI,
and unstressed tzere shortened into patah or hirek, depending on the
environment.

> We can't be sure exactly what the vowels are in X, Y and Z. But we can
> suggest that either they were different vowels or else there must be
> some good reason why the attested suffixed forms are different.

Tzere has both patah and hirek sounds in it, so naturally it can shorten to
either. negdi, perhaps, can be explained by nasal, though it is only a
guess.