Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>]

> YIQTOL's prefixes do not have sheva, they mostly have hiriq.

All Hebrew prefixes were unvowelized, and only acquired vowels subsequently.
I believe, the typical sequence was: tcatav - t(e)catav - t(e)ctav - tictav
(on the model of two-schwas-in-the-word-beginning). This is a very common
transformation, CCVCVC - C(v)CCVC, such as in loan [dr]achma - [dar]cemon.
It was also responsible for ncanes - nicnas and similar shifts.

> And vav with sheva can be prefixed, indeed it prefixed in the WEYIQTOL
> form.

I think, weyiqtol is simply "and + FT verb," so of course waw remaines with
schwa. Verb is not morphologically connected with conjunction.

> But there is a distinct form WAYYIQTOL which has a patah, and a
> dagesh added to the initial consonant of the YIQTOL.

And here waw-reversing is morphological part of the word, so
two-schwa-in-the-word-beginning rule enters the game, and first schwa turns
patah.

> In principle the distinction could be free variation, but it is usually
safe to assume that two distinct forms like
> this must reflect an underlying semantic distinction.

Hirek and patah could be free variation, as in segholate (and even there I
can point reasons for variation). Schwa and patah cannot be variants.

Vadim Cherny