Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel AT exc.com>]

>clause, and in this clause, the verb was most likely to come first,
>Wa- is the perfect auxiliary consonant to help *ayyiqtol. Wa- can be
>used so often, that it is not surpising it precedes also *(a)yyiqtol.

If so, you have a particular problem with AZ YASHIR.  Most theories
assume that AZ/V/etc. YIQTOL --> "past tense" is one phenomenon.
YASHIR occurs right at the beginning of the clause, in VSO order.  But
it doesn't get dagesh.  

>However, the noun does not come first in the sentence usually.
>*Wammelek in stead of hammelekh would signal something syntactic that
>isn't there. The [hey] is just a "zero"-consonant, basically.

As you correctly point out, you expect that at least once you'd get
hayyiqtol, which you do not.

>> >2.: MI- forces dagesh, because it is MIN and the Nun assimilates, so
>> >it has no relevance. SHE-, MA-, and possible some other words do
>> >"force dagesh", however they don't have the same vowel as WA-, and MA-
>> >doesn't even always have a geminated consonant following.
>>
>> My understanding is that MA- (which *does* have the same vowel as VA-)
>> correlates with DAGESH in exaclty the same places as VA-.
>
>However, MA- has patach only *after* the gemination, qametz without
>it. WA- does not derive of WAA with qametz, in my opinion; all WA/WE
>derives of the same Wa- with a short vowel.

No.  (You mean *before* gemination, right?  But still, no.)

MA and VA- both get PATACH before a consonant that can take DAGESH,
KAMATZ before a consonant that cannot:

VAYYIQTOL (PATACH) / MA TOVU (PATACH)

VAAVIEM (KAMATZ) / MA E'ESEH (KAMATZ)

They pattern exactly identically.

BTW, regarding your suggestion that Arabic AL is dissimilation, when
you ask Arabic speakers how to say, "the," don't they answer "AL," not
"A"?  It doesn't seem like dissimilation.

>What do you do with Phoenician )BBNM and (MMQM? It is proof that Ha-
>doesn't exist as a real word with a real consonant. Or we would have
>to do with people who spell very bad?

I assume that Phoenician (c. 1000 BCE) is different than Masoretic
Hebrew, about 1800 years later.

Finally, why doesn't simply QATAL get a DAGESH?  BRESHIT BARA....
Isn't that anchored in time?

>However, I promiss I'll let go of the theory I you give me even more
>convincing evidence that primary gemination in wayyiqtol and hammelek
>isn't plausible, and that there are other theories that make more
>sense.

What do you think is the drawback of:

1.  MA, SHE-, MI-, HA- all must be part of heavy syllables (inducing,
    therefore, DAGESH or compensatory lengthening aka TASHLUM DAGESH).

2.  YIQTOL is the default narrative tense (so, AZ YASHIR, VAYOMER,
    etc.)  [Note: AZ is more widespread than you seem to think.  AZ
    YASHIR, AZ YAVDIL {Deut 4:41}, AZ YIVNEH {Joshua 8:30} and many
    more.]

3.  Because V+YIQTOL in Pi'el would yield VIQATEL (not V'YIQATEL), and
    because the Y marks the tense to begin with, the inital consonant
    as doubled consistently.  It's not a great explanation, but
    neither is it entirely implausible.

These three cover all of your data, plus all of the prefixes, plus
AZ+YIQTOL; and they don't wrongly predict any forms that don't exist.

Really, I like the idea that HA and VA have something in common.  I
just don't see how it can work.

-Joel M. Hoffman
 http://www.exc.com/JoelHoffman