Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

All languages have irregular forms, I see no reason that Hebrew would not.
That this pattern appears only with this verb says to me that we are
dealing with an irregular verb.

This is the difference between a scientific study, which is descriptive,
and a model that is predictive. Oh yes, models may be used to try to
understand observed phenomena, as a tool, but they must give way to
observations if the observations contradict the models. (Mathematicians
love models, they are so clean. But real life, especially human life, and
languages, are often not neat and clean, so we must just accept those
irregularities, and live with them.)

I don’t try to say other than what is observable.

Karl W. Randolph.

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>   Good Point. Whether the root here is XWH ,
>  and the Binyan is ISTF(L as attested Ugaritic,
>  and still existing in  Arabic, or $XH, it is simply
> a variation of verbal endings in the 3rd pl.
>  perfect in the case of L"H  roots.
>
>    Uri Hurwitz
>
>
>
>
> 2. the word you chose is one of the most difficult and irregular. i can
> provide several contradicting conjectures to its origin.  however, it is
> clear
> that the transformation H$TXWH --> WY$TXW is the so-called "short
> form" obtained by removing the final H, just as $TH --> WY$T or
> BKH --> WYBK.
>
> conclusion: the -U is not a suffix here. it appears to be
> a root letter of an irregular root.
>
> nir cohen
>