Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Qal passives

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Donald Vance <donaldrvance AT mac.com>
  • To: Donald Vance <donaldrvance AT mac.com>
  • Cc: Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Qal passives
  • Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:23:45 -0500

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page