Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

Samaritan Hebrew did not maintain a difference between yiqtol /
yiqtal, and in that
tradition, the verbs coalesced into one, with a qamats in the second
vowel.  I think
the case of yi$putu is better seen as a vestige of an analogical process.  The
original vowel was [u].  In some conjugations other than this particular case
(stressed vowels?), a phonological sound change led to its conversion
to [o].  Later,
the [o] was leveled to other forms, including yi$potu.  This [o] was
dropped in a
standard later sound change that made it into a mobile schewa.  However, the
displaced forms analogical processes may remain in limited contexts, 
especially
"archaic" speech.  The retained forms of the o displacement survived the 
mobile
schewa change (or at least, those we know about survived...) and remain in 
these
anomalous forms in Ex 18:26, Ruth 2:8, and Proverbs 14:3.  These forms occur
alongside other anomalous forms that could also be viewed as archaic vestiges
of analogical processes, such as tidbaqin of Ruth 2:8 or yaviun of Ex 18:26.  
In
any case, because the Samaritan tradition coalesced the forms of the Qal
verb, finding a Qumran manuscript that does not have a vav would not say a
thing.  Even had the Samaritan tradition not coalesced the forms, finding a
Qumran manuscript without the vav would still leave open the possibility that
at that point the -u- or -o- were short vowels and so had no representation in
the consonantal text.

Yitzhak Sapir