Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>]

isaac,

1. indeed, as uri hurwitz explained, root+stem.

>>>Am I right in thinking that by "origin" you mean root?

2. so many things look wrong in your BA theory that i dont know where to 
start.

a) what is the function?

i dont think BA was ever used in the OT in the sense of "came to be".
maybe in sanskrit - even there, more "be" than "came"...even in english, "came
to be" is usually followed by an adjective, not a noun. 

b) most wayiqtol units are also conjunctive, i.e. the vav is also used as
"and". but in your model there is no room for "and".

indeed, in most leading verb units the vav does not appear, and wayiqtol is
not used, although your "explanation" would predict them to have the same 
putative "came to be"-->BA-->va.

c) your BA="came to be" is what is called inceptive: the beginning of a new
state. but wayiqtol is used also on so many other situation, for example,
many transitive verbs: WYK, WY$LK, WYS) (carry) where the inceptive doesnt
make much sense.

d) what is the form?

 HU is -HI, HI is -TA, HEM is -U:

               who is who?

nir cohen

>>> De: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
Cópia: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Para: "Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>
Data: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:00:37 -0500
Assunto: Re: [b-hebrew] suffixes

2. In the form WA-YE-BK ויבך of Gen. 27:38 the "suffixed" personal  
pronoun for the
actor of the act BK is instead "infixed" (or "suffixed-prefixed"):
BA-HI-BK בא-היא-בך where WA = BA is 'came to be', as in the  
previous
WAYISA = BA-HI-SA בא-היא-שא

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Feb 27, 2012, at 1:18 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. wrote:

> 2. the word you chose is one of the most difficult and irregular. i  
> can
> provide several contradicting conjectures to its origin.  however,  
> it is clear
> that the transformation H$TXWH --> WY$TXW is the so-called "short
> form" obtained by removing the final H, just as $TH --> WY$T or
> BKH --> WYBK.