Gesenius also links it with Akkadian (which he calls Assyrian) and thereby demonstrates clearly that the proto-Semitic form is like qitl-u or qatl-u. Any attempt to get further back than proto-Semitic can be no more than speculation.I have never particularly dwelled on the problem, and a quick search both inRecently, a student inquired me of the origin of segollate words (kelev).
the library and Internet did not produce much suggestions.
See Gesenius et al section 84a part I, which gives a clear explanation
of the origin of segholates from originally monosyllabic forms, based on
evidence from Arabic etc. Gesenius' explanation is quite different from
your speculative one.
Well, Gesenius simply presumes the kitl form. Its presence in modern Arabic
does not prove in any way its antiquity. Such form is extremely atypical for
Hebrew, and unless someone demonstrates where the kitl came from, this is
not an explanation, but rephrasing of a problem.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.