Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Hi Pere,

I thought we were discussing nominal and adjectival gender-marking and 
Isaac's contention that it is instead person-marking (ie that the 
morphemes refer to the non-speech-act participant)? You do realise that 
you've now changed the discussion here to *verbal inflections*?! Verbal 
inflections are of a different order to nominal and adjectival 
gender-marking, and is sometimes diachronically related to independent 
personal pronouns. In regards to the BH suffix verb this is quite likely 
the historical source of the inflections. There is no problem with 
analysing verbal inflectional morphemes as simultaneously indexing 
gender and person (or number, for that matter). I maintain that this is 
*not* the case with nominal and adjectival gender-number marking, which 
does *not* index person. Neither Isaac nor yourself have provided actual 
textual examples demonstrating your position, and, crucially, have not 
provided the theoretical linguistic argument explaining why the standard 
linguistic theory regarding nominal and adjectival gender-marking as it 
relates to BH is better explained as instances of person-marking.

Regards,
David Kummerow.



> ________________
>
> I may agree with you in a general way.
>
> Indeed, while a final -T may refer both to male ("amarta" Jr 45:3) and 
> female ("amart" 2Sa 6:22) second person singular...what about such words 
> as "YFR:)FH", she feared (Jr 3:8), where final -H
> is both marker of gender and of person?
> Is it something merely
> coincidental, a hazardous or chancy case?
>
> Pere Porta