Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Donald Vance <donaldrvance AT mac.com>]

Let me try this again. (Stupid iPhone.) What do you call the qetil  
pattern if not a Gp?

Sent from my iPhone

Donald R. Vance
donaldrvance AT mac.com

On Jun 20, 2010, at 4:17 PM, Donald Vance <donaldrvance AT mac.com> wrote:

> Aramaic DID gave internal G passives. What ate you talking about?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> Donald R. Vance
> donaldrvance AT mac.com
>
> On Jun 20, 2010, at 1:24 AM, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Randall Buth wrote:
> >
> > > The MT has retained vocalizations like luqqaH and yuqqaH
> > > לֻקַּח יֻקַּח
> > > as well as yuttan יֻתַּן and 'ennenu ukkal' איננו
> > > אֻכָּל. [Note that this
> > > last form is a participle, and thus not pu`al, nor feminine like
> > > 'fire'.]
> > > This is remarkable because Aramaic had no internal qal passive, nor
> > > even a nifal. [Aramaic did have forms built off of the passive-
> > > perfect
> > > participle with cEc-I-c vowels.] And the BH vowels don't fit the
> > > Arabic
> > > passives, *luqiHa. They do not function as pu``als, and there are no
> > > pi``els attested for them to be passives to. From comparison with
> > > other Semitic languages it is clear that an internal Qal passive  
> > > used
> > > to exist, but a qal would not have a lengthened middle consonant:
> > > either *luqaH or *luqiH. but not *luqqaH.
> > > So how can the dagesh in MT luqqaH be explained?
> > > Due to the nature of long and short vowels in unaccented syllables,
> > > the
> > > passive nature of these BH forms needed to develop a morphological/
> > > phonetic change during the biblical/post-biblical period. The
> > > phonetic
> > > lengthening of the consonant after the [u] vowel achieved this. But
> > > this resulted in a homonym with pu``al forms in the past/suffix  
> > > tense
> > > and with hof`al in the future/prefix tense.
> >
> > I would like to suggest that perhaps it is not an issue of phonetic
> > change,
> > but of morphological leveling.  As internal Qal passives were
> > increasingly
> > lost, especially under the influence of Aramaic that did not have
> > them,
> > these were viewed not as a separate class by themselves but as an
> > exceptional form of the Pual and Hophal for some roots (just like
> > yitpaqad
> > might be viewed as an exceptional form of the Hitpael).  Eventually,
> > morphological leveling had its way, and the unique forms of the Qal
> > passives were lost.
> >
> > Yitzhak Sapir
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew