From: "Henry Churchyard" <churchh AT crossmyt.com><SNIP>
Subject: Re: When absolutes aren't absolutes and constructs aren't constructs
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:54:06 -0500 (CDT)
the masculine and feminine numerals 2-9 basically show normal patterns >of morphological and phonological alternation in their construct and >absolute forms i.e. orthographic final _qames._ + _he_ in absolute >becomes short vowel + _taw_ in construct; vowels in pre-main-stress >open syllables which are lengthened in absolute are instead reduced to >_sh@wa_ or a _h.at.eph_ vowel in construct; etc. etc.). The only >particularly noticeable peculiarity that I see is that five and six >have absolute forms _h.amishshah_, _shishshah_, but construct forms >that look like they should go back to historically earlier forms >*_h.amisht_ and *_shisht_; however, true historical forms ending in _->iCt_ generally went to _-aCt_, so that the long _s.ere_ vowel seen in >construct _h.ameshet_ and _sheshet_ is probably due to a fairly late >analogical development (however, the same long _s.ere_ vowel is seen >in _'eshet_ as construct of _'ishshah_...).
> What I don't get is why, in certain instances, a numeral is employed
> in its absolute form and, for an identical expression, the construct
> form is employed. There must be some basis for the occasional
> variations that take place other than those of grammar, such as
> regional or period differences. Or am I to understand from what you
> are saying that the construct rules for numbers were somewhat
> ill-defined and, hence, it was left to each individual scribe to
> decide which way to go?
Individual scribes or Masoretes certainly didn't feel free to make
arbitrary changes (that's the "Kahlean fallacy").
I actually don't have any specialized knowledge about the detailed >distribution of construct vs. absolute numeral forms in the text -- >however, if this distribution should happen to show irregularities or >apparent lax usages, then this would not be particularly surprising to >me, since I know from general principles that the construct vs. >absolute distinction is not as relevant for numbers as it is for >ordinary nouns, as I explained above. (This means that the >irregularities and apparent lax usages might have been present in a >single state of the language, and don't necessarily need to be >explained by regional, diachronic, or scribal variation.) A detailed >study of the distribution of these forms might reveal more subtle >patterns and tendencies in their occurrences.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.