Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

karl,

i personally see nothing in that sentence which indicates 
that $KN="dwell" does not fit the context, or that 
$KK="calm down" makes more sense.

moreover, if the root were $KK then i imagine the correct -WN 
form would be Y$KKWN and not Y$KWN as written. furthermore, it 
will be NECESSARILY third plural, which i suspect is not what 
you had in mind.

>>> If it adds nothing to the meaning, then why do we find verses where there
is a mixture—a verb with a “paragogic” nun and in the same verse a verb
without? E.g. Genesis 3:3, Exodus 3:21, etc.?

the -WN ending, within a canaanite context, has been debated by 
many researchers, including moran, niccacci, shulman, gentry, but without
a clear conclusion. most opinions corroborate george's suggestions 
(obsolete form, volitive/subjunctive) and agree that the suffix
indeed does not change the general meaning of the word. it 
may have had a minor grammatical or phonetical purpose which has 
escaped us today. i also agree with pere's 
observation that it mostly appears in KAL. 

let me add that paragogic -WN is most frequently the last word of a verse 
or a clause, and so usually not followed by a (grammatical) object. 
this may indicate that one of its roles may have been in
creating a stress shift GOING BOTH WAYS and indicating END OF A CLAUSE. 
for example, in the verse you provided, ex 3:21, TLKW (milra) was changed 
to TLKWN (milel, as astutely dotted by masorah) at the end of a clause.
the same observation is also consistent with gen 1-4 TMWTW (milel) 
changes to TMTWN (milra) at the end of the verse.

in other places like gen 43:32 the subjunctive/volitive element 
seems more appropriate. 

nir cohen