Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

> >While not impossible, lmo and lamo being the same lemma is unlikely. First,
> >schwa expanding into full kamatz is too much. Normally, pausal forms see
> >expansion of either short or the reduced vowels, ...
> >
> 
> I don't think the facts support this. According to GKC 29m,n the 
> following pausal changes occur from sheva to qamats:
> 
> QF+:LFH > QF+F^LFH
> $IM:(W. > $:MF^(W.
> ):ANIY > )F^NIY
> 
> In fact what is happening in such cases is that the pausal form retains 
> the full vowel which is lost when the stress shifts off it in the 
> non-pausal form.

Exactly my point above. The reduced vowel may elongate back to kamatz in 
pausal.


> It can hardly be parsed as 
> regular l- plus a root mo, because there is no root mo.

I think it could. cmo, bmo, lmo suggest c, b, l preposition + mo. mo, in my 
opinion, is not a root, but rather the very early form of the collective 
plural suffix waw, which later became -on (helbon) and -ot (zvaot).
But lamo - I would follow Steinberg in l+hem+o.

Vadim Cherny
>From peterkirk AT qaya.org  Tue Dec 14 06:25:38 2004
Return-Path: <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 842004C005
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:25:33 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [213.162.124.237])
        by smtp.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
        id 56014414516; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:25:05 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <41BECD9E.9040704 AT qaya.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:25:18 +0000
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
        rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vadim Cherny <vadim_lv AT center-tv.net>
Subject: Re: -mw suffix (was Re: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 53:8)
References: <20041213170012.39EC0485BD AT metalab.unc.edu>
        <002101c4e164$7539adb0$0101a8c0@Vadim> <41BE2505.1010001 AT qaya.org>
        <00be01c4e1b7$9de6a620$0101a8c0@Vadim>
In-Reply-To: <00be01c4e1b7$9de6a620$0101a8c0@Vadim>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:25:38 -0000

On 14/12/2004 07:21, Vadim Cherny wrote:

> ...
> >
> > In fact what is happening in such cases is that the pausal form retains
> > the full vowel which is lost when the stress shifts off it in the
> > non-pausal form.
> Exactly my point above. The reduced vowel may elongate back to kamatz
> in pausal.
>
>
> > It can hardly be parsed as
> > regular l- plus a root mo, because there is no root mo.
> I think it could. cmo, bmo, lmo suggest c, b, l preposition + mo. mo,
> in my opinion, is not a root, but rather the very early form of the
> collective plural suffix waw, which later became -on (helbon) and -ot
> (zvaot).
> But lamo - I would follow Steinberg in l+hem+o.
>

But if "The reduced vowel may elongate back to kamatz in pausal", lamo
is simply the non-pausal variant of lmo, or vice versa. So the forms are
in fact identical, except for the regular pausal shift. So there is no
syntactical evidence for two different underlying words. That doesn't
imply that there are not two different underlying words, only that we
have to look elsewhere for evidence of this.

This is a bit like whether "a" and "an" are different words in English.
Someone who knew little English, and was looking at a limited corpus,
might try to argue that they are different words. But a quick analysis
shows that "an" is always followed by a vowel and "a" by a consonant,
with some variation before "h" etc. That strongly suggests (but does not
prove) that "a" and "an" are not in fact different words, but
phonologically conditioned variants of the same word.

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