Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On 9/24/07, Pere Porta wrote:

> YS - > The -t is a feminine marker to which the n of *bn assimilates (*bntu
>  >
> > *bittu > *bitt > bat).
> > It all depends what you call a "root letter," but I think in most
> > examples, the -t wouldn't be considered a root letter.
>
> PP - Every letter that is a part of the usual base/basic word, namely the
> most elemental form of the word, is it not a root letter?
> So, in bn, son, both letters, b and n, are root letters.
> The same, I think, would be for bt, daughter, wouldn't it? Both letters, b
> and t, are root letters.
>
> Now, as regards the -t as feminine marker: do you mean that -t is a feminine
> marker for every type of Hebrew (ex. today Israeli Hebrew) or only for
> biblical Hebrew?
> Are there no exceptions to this, namely aren't there nouns ending in -t (in
> their absolute form) that are of masculine gender instead?

I generally do not discuss Modern Hebrew on this list.

-t (*-tu or *-atu) was a feminine marker in Semitic languages.  In Hebrew, 
most
of the -atu became -ah.  However, in some cases, especially in the case of
-tu endings (with no vowel between the word and the marker), the -t remained.
Thus, we have *dalt ("door") or *axadt > *)axatt ("one").  But while the -t 
has
become an integral part of the word, the relationship between dal and dalt or
)axad and )axatt is unmistakable.  The same goes for *bn and *bnt, especially
in light of the plurals *banim and *banot.  You define a root letter
as part of the
basic word.  But in this case, the basic word is not "daughter" but "son."

Consider the suffixed forms of the word for king/queen:
malko, *malkato
*malkɔv, *malkotɔv

vs: the suffixed forms of the word for son/daughter:
bano, bitto
bɔnɔv, banotɔv.

While "bitto" might seem slightly irregular in this scheme, it is
still a part of the
entire scheme, another inflection of the word "son."

Yitzhak Sapir