Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Will Parsons <wbparsons AT alum.mit.edu>]

Hi Uri,

On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 10:30:07 -0700 (PDT), Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com> 
wrote:
> 
>    Since the humble (Ez and her feminine gender appeared
>  again in the discussion, I'll mention again that in this
>  case we're treading on solid ground.
> 
>    The BH word is based on an earlier PS feminine form.
>  This is clearly evident in the Arabic (Anzat ('Anzah
>  in the colloquial ). The Nun dropped out in Hebrew,
>  leaving a trace in the pronounciation of the plural and
>  and of declensions which was audible to the Masorets'
>  ears.

I would agree about the nun, less sure that the Arabic feminine form can
prove anything about the Hebrew.  My Arabic dictionary lists ﻋﻨﺰ/`anz as
the primary form, and ﻋﻨﺰﺓ/`anza(t) as a "nomen unitatis".  Even if we
take an Arabic form `anzat as primary, this doesn't necessarily mean that
the Hebrew form once had a feminine ending and subsequently lost it - it
may mean that Arabic has added a feminine termination.  Putting aside the
obvious comparison of `anz : `anza(t) with other Arabic noun pairs of the
(collective noun) : (singular noun) pattern, it would still be more likely
that the later language (Arabic) would add an explicitly feminine termination
to an already feminine noun than the earlier language (Hebrew) would drop an
explicitly feminine termination from a feminine noun.

>    Without performing any physical examination on Yael,
>  the point should be made that the root is honorably 
> Semitic. 

I think so too.

-- 
Will Parsons