1575061295

00-Blau.
book Page i Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM
Phonology and Morphology

of Biblical Hebrew
00-Blau.book Page ii Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM
Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic

edited by
M. OConnor and Cynthia L. Miller
1. The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches, edited

by Cynthia L. Miller
2. Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew: An Introduction, by
Joshua Blau
3. A Manual of Ugaritic, by Pierre Bordreuil and Dennis Pardee
4. Word Order in the Biblical Hebrew Finite Clause: A Syntactic and
Pragmatic Analysis of Preposing, by Adina Moshavi
00-Blau.book Page iii Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM
Phonology and Morphology

of Biblical Hebrew
An Introduction
Joshua Blau
Winona Lake, Indiana

Eisenbrauns
2010
00-Blau.book Page iv Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM
Copyright 2010 by Eisenbrauns.

All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
www.eisenbrauns.com
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Blau, Joshua, 1919
[Torat ha-hegeh veha-tsurot. English]
Phonology and morphology of Biblical Hebrew : an introduction / Joshua
Blau.
p. cm. (Linguistic studies in Ancient West Semitic ; 2)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-57506-129-0 (hardback : alk. paper)
1. Hebrew languagePhonetics. 2. Hebrew languagePhonology.
3. Hebrew languageMorphology. I. Title.
PJ4576.B5513 2010
492.4u15dc22
2010008908
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American
National Standard for Information SciencesPermanence of Paper for Printed
Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.
00-Blau.book Page v Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM
Contents
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Publishers Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1. Linguistics: Historical, Comparative, Synchronic . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2. A Short Description of Biblical Hebrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3. Dialect Diversity in Biblical Hebrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4. The Later History of Hebrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.5. Biblical Hebrew and Semitic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.6. A Family-Tree Model for Semitic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.7. A Wave Model for Semitic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.8. Afro-Asiatic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.9. Sound Shifts and Relative Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.10. Etymology and Sound Shifts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1.10.1. Introduction 28
1.10.2. Etymology and Regular Sound Shifts 30
1.10.3. Etymology and Weak Sound Shifts 37
1.11. Change in Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
1.12. Reconstruction of Proto-Semitic Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
1.13. Internal Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
1.14. Exceptions to Sound Shifts, Real and Apparent . . . . . . . . . . 47
1.15. Analogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
1.16. Sound Shifts, Analogy, and Exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
1.17. Loan Words, Weak Phonetic Change,
and Pseudo-Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
1.18. Conicts of Function and Language Change . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
1.19. Assimilation, Dissimilation, Metathesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
1.20. Divisions of the Study of Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
2. Phonetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
2.2. Consonants and Vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
2.3. Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
2.4. Place of Articulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
2.5. Resonance Chamber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
00-Blau.book Page vi Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM
Contents
vi
2.6. Voiced and Unvoiced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

2.7. Emphatics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
2.8. Summary of the Consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
2.9. Stress and Syllabication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3. Phonology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.2. Hebrew and the Proto-Semitic Consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.2.1. Hebrew Script 73
3.2.2. An Example of Polyphony: in 73
3.2.3. The Origins of Polyphonic Sin 74
3.2.4. Other Cases of Polyphony 75
3.2.5. Hebrew and Proto-Semitic Consonants 76
3.3. The Consonants of Hebrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
3.3.1. Classication of the Consonants 76
3.3.2. The BGDKPT Consonants 78
3.3.2.1. Stop-Spirant Contrast 78
3.3.2.2. The History of the Process 79
3.3.3. Laryngeals and Pharyngeals 81
3.3.3.1. Non-Gemination 81
3.3.3.2. Furtive pata 83
3.3.3.3. Inuence on Neighboring Vowels 84
3.3.3.4. A Historical Question 86
3.3.4. Aleph (Glottal Stop) 86
3.3.4.1. In the Writing System 86
3.3.4.2. Elision 87
3.3.4.3. Associated Vowel Shifts 88
3.3.4.4. Non-Radical Aleph 89
3.3.5. He (Laryngeal Fricative) 89
3.3.5.1. In the Writing System 89
3.3.5.2. History of Use in the Writing System 90
3.3.5.3. Elision 92
3.3.5.4. Assimilation 93
3.3.5.5. I-h Verbs 94
3.4. The Semi-Consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
3.4.1. Introduction 96
3.4.2. Diphthongs in aw, ay 96
3.4.3. Other Diphthongs in w/y 97
3.4.4. Triphthongs 97
3.4.5. Word-Final -aw, -ay 99
3.4.6. Word-Final -Cw, -Cy 102
3.4.7. Semi-Consonants and Weak Verbs 102
00-Blau.book Page vii Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM
vii
Contents
3.4.8. The Semi-Consonant w 103

3.4.9. The Semi-Consonant y 105
3.5. The Vowels of Hebrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
3.5.1. Introduction: Vowel Systems 105
3.5.2. Tiberian Vocalization 106
3.5.3. Sephardic Pronunciation 108
3.5.4. Tiberian Vowels Once Again 110
3.5.5. Vowels: The Semitic Background 111
3.5.6. Vowels: The Hebrew Phonemes 112
3.5.6.1. The Basic System 112
3.5.6.2. The Problem of segol 112
3.5.6.3. The Problem of swa 113
3.5.6.4. Pronunciation of swa 116
3.5.6.5. The Problem of swa Again 117
3.5.6.6. The Transitional Character of Tiberian Hebrew 118
3.5.6.7. Other Vocalization Systems 118
3.5.7. The History of the Vowels 119
3.5.7.1. Short Vowels in Closed Syllables 119
3.5.7.2. Lengthening of Final a 121
3.5.7.3. Vowels in Open Penultimate Syllables 123
3.5.7.4. The Problem of Pretonic Lengthening 123
3.5.7.5. Explanations for Pretonic Lengthening 125
3.5.7.6. Pretonic Lengthening and Vowel Processes
Related to a 129
3.5.8. The i and e Class Vowels (iriq, ere, segol ) 132
3.5.9. The u and o Class Vowels (qibbu, suruq,
olam, qama) 136
3.5.10. The Tiberian Vowels 137
3.5.11. On dages, mappiq, meteg, and maqqaf 138
3.5.12. Stress 143
3.5.12.1. Introduction 143
3.5.12.2. The History of Hebrew Stress 144
3.5.13. Pausal Forms 154
4. Morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
4.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
4.1.1. Morphemes, Free and Bound 156
4.1.2. Parts of Speech 157
4.2. Pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
4.2.1. The Basics of Pronouns 158
4.2.2. Independent Personal Pronouns 159
00-Blau.book Page viii Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM
Contents
4.2.2.2. First-Person Singular Independent Pronouns 159

4.2.2.3. Second-Person Singular Independent Pronouns 161
4.2.2.4. Third-Person Singular Independent Pronouns 162
4.2.2.5. Dual Independent Pronouns 164
4.2.2.6. First-Person Plural Independent Pronouns 165
4.2.2.7. Second-Person Plural Independent Pronouns 166
4.2.2.8. Third-Person Plural Independent Pronouns 168
4.2.3. Sufxed Personal Pronouns 168
4.2.3.2. First-Person Singular Sufxes 168
4.2.3.3. Second-Person Singular Sufxes 169
4.2.3.4. Third-Person Masculine-Singular Sufxes 171
4.2.3.5. Third-Person Feminine-Singular Sufxes 172
4.2.3.6. First-Person Plural Sufxes 173
4.2.3.7. Second-Person Plural Sufxes 174
4.2.3.8. Third-Person Plural Sufxes 174
4.2.4. Demonstrative Pronouns 176
4.2.4.1. Deictic and Anaphoric Functions 176
4.2.4.2. Near and Far Demonstratives 176
4.2.4.3. Adjectival Function 177
4.2.4.4. Local, Temporal, Presentative Senses 178
4.2.4.5. Comparative Analysis 179
4.2.5. The Denite Article 179
4.2.6. Relative Pronouns 181
4.2.6.1. Syntactic Features 181
4.2.6.2. Origins of the Relative Pronouns 183
4.2.6.3. Interrogative Pronouns as Relatives 185
4.2.7. Interrogative Pronouns 186
4.3. Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
4.3.1. Biradicalism and Triradicalism 187
4.3.2. Tenses 189
4.3.2.2. Tense Approach 189
4.3.2.3. Bauers Approach 199
4.3.2.4. Aspectual Approaches 201
4.3.3. The Marking of Persons in the Imperative,
the Prex-Tense, and the Sufx-Tense 203
4.3.3.1. Person-Marking on Imperative 203
4.3.3.2. Person-Marking on the Prex-Tense 204
4.3.3.3. Three Moods of the Prex-Tense 206
4.3.3.4. Person-Marking of the Sufx-Tense 208
viii
00-Blau.book Page ix Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM
ix
Contents
4.3.4. The Innitive 212

4.3.4.1. Two Varieties of Innitive 212
4.3.4.2. The Construct Innitive 213
4.3.4.3. Absolute Innitive 214
4.3.5. Verbal Themes 216
4.3.5.2. Qal 219
4.3.5.2.1. Introduction 219
4.3.5.2.2. Sufx-Tense 220
4.3.5.2.3. Prex-Tense 221
4.3.5.2.4. The Imperative 224
4.3.5.2.5. The Participles 225
4.3.5.2.6. The Innitives 226
4.3.5.3. Nif al 227
4.3.5.4. Piel 229
4.3.5.5. Pual 232
4.3.5.6. Hitpael 232
4.3.5.7. Hif il 234
4.3.5.8. Hof al 236
4.3.6. Rare Verbal Themes 237
4.3.7. Phonological Variations 237
4.3.7.1. I-Laryngeals/Pharyngeals 237
4.3.7.2. II-Laryngeals/Pharyngeals 238
4.3.7.3. III-Laryngeals/Pharyngeals 239
4.3.8. The Weak Verbs 240
4.3.8.2. Weak I-aleph Verbs 240
4.3.8.3. I-n Verbs 241
4.3.8.4. I-y(w) Verbs 243
4.3.8.5. III-aleph Verbs 248
4.3.8.6. III-y Verbs 248
4.3.8.7. II-w/y Verbs 252
4.3.8.7.1. Historical Derivation 252
4.3.8.7.2. Qal 252
4.3.8.7.3. Nif al 255
4.3.8.7.4. Hif il and Hof al 256
4.3.8.7.5. Piel, Pual, Hitpael 256
4.3.8.8. Mediae Geminatae Verbs 258
4.4. The Noun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
4.4.1. A Synopsis 260
4.4.2. Gender 263
00-Blau.book Page x Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM
Contents
4.4.3. Statuses: Absolute, Construct, Pronominal 265

4.4.4. The Cases 266
4.4.5. Dual and Plural 270
4.4.6. Nominal Patterns 274
4.5. Remarks on the Numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
4.5.1. The Cardinal Numbers 279
4.5.2. The Ordinal Numbers 282
5.1. Remarks on Prepositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

5.2. Remarks on Connective and Conversive Waw . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
Paradigms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
Index of Scripture Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
Index of Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
00-Blau.book Page xi Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM
Abbreviations
1cs
2fp
2ms
3cd
Akk
Arab
Aram
BHeb
D
ET
Heb
PS
Ug
rst-person common singular

second-person feminine plural, etc.
second-person masculine singular, etc.
third-person common dual
Akkadian
(Classical) Arabic
Aramaic
Biblical Hebrew
The theme with doubled second radical (piel, pual, hitpael)
English translation
Hebrew
Proto-Semitic
Ugaritic
Bibliographical Abbreviations
BDB = Brown, Driver, and Briggs 1907
Bergstrsser = Bergstrsser 191829
CAT = Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartn 1995
Grammar = Blau, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew 2, 1993
Middle Arabic = Blau, Studies in Middle Arabic and Its Judaeo-Arabic
Variety (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988)
Studies = Blau, Studies in Hebrew Linguistics (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1996; in
Hebrew)
Topics = J. Blau, Topics in Hebrew and Semitic Linguistics (Jerusalem:
Magnes, 1998)
UT = Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook (Rome: Pontical Biblical Institute, 1965)
Phonetic Symbols
a
b2
C
d6
(pata ") open front vowel, unrounded

(aaf pata ) ultra-short open unrounded front vowel, etc.
the fricative counterpart of b, phonetically identical to v
(any) consonant
the conventional sign for Arabic , originally an emphatic fricative
lateral (3)
xi
00-Blau.book Page xii Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM
Abbreviations
q
q5
e
g
g%
h
k
o
p
q
t
V
x
*
O
O*
u
*
*
.
yyy
xii
voiced th; also the fricative counterpart of d

voiced emphatic th, 3, in Arabic | (which is conventionally transcribed
by z5)
(ere E) a half-closed unrounded front vowel
(g ) the fricative counterpart of g, phonetically identical to g%
voiced fricative velar (Arabic ), phonetically identical to g
j, voiceless fricative pharyngeal
see x
the fricative counterpart of k, phonetically identical to x
(olam o; in Sephardic tradition, this is the pronunciation of qama
qaan as well) rounded half-closed back vowel
the fricative counterpart of p, phonetically identical to f
uvular voiceless plosive
c, originally voiceless lateral sibilant, today pronounced as s (BHeb c)
voiceless th; also the fricative counterpart of t
(any) vowel
voiceless fricative velar (Arabic , also transcribed h), phonetically
identical to k
(segol <) half-open front vowel without lip-rounding
(aaf segol ) ultra-short half-open front vowel without lip-rounding
(qama :) rounded half-open back vowel (or perhaps it was spread?),
according to the Tiberian pronunciation (a according to the Sephardic
pronunciation)
(aaf qama ) ultra-short half-closed rounded back vowel
central vowel (mobile swa, which, however, in the Tiberian tradition is
usually pronounced )
a, a pharyngeal voiceless fricative (glottal stop)
[, a pharyngeal voiced fricative
indicates that the vowel is stressed; it has been consistently applied to
mark penult stress
marks a reconstructed form
over a letter marking a vowel indicates that the vowel is long; over
t p k d g b it (optionally) marks their spirant pronunciation; over h/a it
(optionally) denotes its use as vowel letter
over a vowel indicates that the vowel is ultra-short
dot under a consonant indicates its emphatic pronunciation
under bgdkpt marks their spirant pronunciation; for typographical
reasons, this line is put above g p: g p.
in quotations of the Hebrew text denotes the Tetragrammaton
00-Blau.book Page xiii Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM
Publishers Foreword
This book has been in development over an extraordinarily long time. In a
conversation in Jerusalem in 2002, Prof. Michael P. OConnor and Prof. Richard C. Steiner originated the idea of publishing an English translation of Prof.
Joshua Blaus study on the phonology and morphology of Biblical Hebrew.
This discussion occurred while Prof. OConnor was participating in an international research group on the subject of Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting (the papers that this group presented were eventually published
as Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting, ed. Steven Fassberg and
Avi Hurvitz; Jerusalem: Magnes / Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006). Prof.
OConnor suggested that the English translation of Prof. Blaus work appear
in the Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic series he co-edited with
Prof. Cynthia L. Miller, and Prof. Blau was most agreeable to this proposal.
The manuscript of the English translation arrived in late 2002, and it was
apparent that some editorial and bibliographical work was needed to achieve
what both Prof. Blau and Prof. OConnor believed the book could accomplish. Prof. OConnor himself undertook this work and, in addition to his
other duties in the Dept. of Semitics at the Catholic University of America,
completely reworked the bibliography, reorganized major sections of the discussion, and otherwise personally oversaw the entire project. This took no
small amount of time, and other responsibilities often delayed his work. The
rst portions of the book were sent in proof to Prof. Blau in 2005, and work on
the remainder proceeded in ts and starts.
Then, in June 2007, Michael OConnor died after a short illness, a death
that shocked all of us who knew him. At that point, his editorial work was
only perhaps half completed. Picking up the pieces was no minor task; much
of the work had to be completed by OConnors series co-editor, Prof. Miller.
Various staff members at Eisenbrauns and I also read the manuscript and
proofs for consistency and organization, prepared the paradigms and indexes,
and managed much trans-Atlantic correspondence. The net effect of OConnors tragic death, however, was that there were still more delays. Prof. Blau,
throughout all of this, has been unfailingly patient and kind; it has been a pleasure to work with him.
xiii
00-Blau.book Page xiv Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM
Publishers Foreword
xiv
Now that the work is complete, we all feel certain that the nished work is
an appropriate testimony to the distillation of a lifes work in Biblical Hebrew
(on the part of Prof. Blau) and the memory of a dearly beloved friend (Prof.
OConnor).
Jim Eisenbraun,
Publisher, Eisenbrauns
March 2010
00-Blau.book Page 1 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM
1. Introduction
1.1. Linguistics: Historical, Comparative, Synchronic
1.1.1. Change is one of the intrinsic qualities of any living or spoken language. Historical linguistics, today often called diachronic, attempts to describe the rules behind these changes. In the nineteenth century, a century
whose interests were rst and foremost historical, general linguistics was simply identied with historical linguistics. Indeed, it was during that century that
a standard model of language change was devised and the regularity of sound
change convincingly established.
1.1.2. As a matter of fact, even dead languages, that is, languages used
only in writing, exhibit change. A case in point is Hebrew itself: during the
centuries when it was used only for cultural purposes (from about 200 to 1900
c.e.), it underwent continual change, reecting varied mixtures of the forms
of the language used in earlier periods as well as exhibiting the inuence of
non-Hebrew vernaculars.
1.1.3. Comparative linguistics, which, to a great extent, forms the subject
of this book, is also historically oriented. It treats genetically related languages and attempts, by comparing them, to reconstruct their previous stages.
1.1.4. In contrast, synchronic linguistics is interested in the state of a language at a given time rather than language change. Its rise is connected with
the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (18571913), who, in his Cours de
linguistique gnral (posthumously published in Paris in 1922; see de Saussure 1959, 1967), disparaged historical linguistics as atomistic; he believed
that it focused on mere details and neglected what really matters. He extolled
a synchronic approach as capable of discovering the system of a language,
which he saw as the goal of genuine linguistics. In his opinion, a language
makes up a closely knit system, comparable to a chessboard. A small change
in the position of one chess piece, even one of inferior rank, may completely
change the relations between all the pieces and thus the whole system. In a
language as well, the change of one small item may alter the relation between
various features of the language and thus give rise to a different system.
1.1.5. The following examples, taken from various elds of Hebrew, will
elucidate the contrast of historical-comparative and synchronic approaches to
language.
1.1.6. Phonetics. The historically long o in ob2 good and in op bird
have different historical (diachronic) origins. In ob2 the o developed from long
1
1.1.7. Historical and Synchronic Linguistics
stressed a (cf. Aram ab2 , with the same sense), while in op the o arose by
monophthongization of the diphthong aw (cf. Aram awp). In these cases, historical linguistics employs the comparative method, adducing material from a
related language (Aramaic) in order to describe the different backgrounds of o
in these words.
1.1.7. Synchronic linguistics, on the other hand, does not differentiate between the o of ob2 and that of op. Their different origins do not concern such
an approach; it is their equivalent behavior that is relevant. In the system of
Biblical Hebrew both os remain without change, e.g., in inection. Thus, for
instance, the plurals of these words preserve the o, although it loses the stress:
ob2 im good ones and opot birds.
1.1.8. Now consider the historically short o in dob2 bear, which arose from
original u. In the Tiberian vowel system length has ceased to play a phonemic
role (see 3.5.2.1, p. 106), and thus ob2 , op, and dob2 have the same vowel.
However even in synchronic terms the o of dob2 does not belong in the same
category as the vowel of ob2 and op, because it changes to u in dubbim
bears, in contradistinction to ob2 im and opot.
1.1.8n. In accordance with the Tiberian vocalization system, in which length plays no phonemic role, vowel length is not marked here: the rst vowel of ob2 im and of opot is identical to the o of dob2 . We do not concern ourselves with the question of the level on which
the o of dob2 has to be set off; it may be a matter of phonemics or of morpho-phonemics.
1.1.9. The main concern of synchronic linguistics is to show how the o

marks a different meaning (i.e., constitutes a different phoneme), viz., to show
that the replacement of the o by another vowel gives rise to a different word.
This is the case with op bird, which may be opposed to u in up y! and a
in ap he ew. These oppositions demonstrate that in Biblical Hebrew o is a
part of the vowel system. It is the system that concerns synchronic linguistics.
1.1.10. Morphology. The approach of historical linguistics, e.g., to the
nominal patterns seen in the nouns thom abyss and ktab2 writing is quite
different from that of synchronic linguistics. In historical terms, both words
are reections of the original historical pattern qial. A historical account attempts to discover why these two words, built on the same original pattern,
have different shapes. It treats them together, because of their common original pattern. It separates thom from bros juniper(?), despite their identical
synchronic pattern, since the latter, being a loan word from (or at least corresponding to) Akk buras(um), originally belongs to the pattern qual.
1.1.11. Synchronic linguistics analyzes words according to their shape
without regard to their historical origin. Here the concern would be with their
appearance in Biblical Hebrew according to the Tiberian vocalization. Therefore, such an approach, on the one hand, groups thom and bros together, although their historical patterns differ; on the other hand, it separates thom
and ktab2 , although their historical pattern is identical, because in the synchronic system of Biblical Hebrew they are distinct.
spread is 12 points long
Historical and Synchronic Linguistics 1.1.15.
1.1.12. Syntax. Syntax is the linguistic domain in which the systematic

character of language is especially conspicuous, as it deals with the systematic arrangement of words and sentences. Nevertheless, even in this eld, historical linguistics is more prone to treat isolated items, rather than the system.
Let us illustrate this by the analysis of the function of the active participle in
Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew.
1.1.12n. Some linguists attribute the function of the verbal forms to morphology rather
than to syntax. On this conception, morphology deals not only with the growth and shape
of forms but also with their meaning and usage. See Ries (1st ed. 1894, 2nd ed. 1927) and,
in his wake, Bergstrsser 2.6 and throughout his second volume.
1.1.13. A historical treatment of the Biblical Hebrew active participle

would stress that it has, to a great extent, preserved its nominal character and
has not been fully absorbed into the system of tenses. In analyzing Rabbinic
Hebrew, where the participle marks present and future, such a treatment
would emphasize the greater absorption of the participle into the tense system.
In Modern Hebrew, where the participle refers mainly to the present, it remains part of the tense system.
1.1.14. Historical linguistics (at least as practiced at the beginning of the
twentieth century) is concerned with bringing into full relief the changes affecting the participle during the various periods of the Hebrew language; it
pays only limited attention to the whole of the tense system at every period.
Synchronic linguistics, in contrast, aims at determining the function of the
participle in the tense system of any given period. For Biblical Hebrew prose,
a synchronic account would state that the system of tenses is primarily based
on two verbal forms, each of them occurring both without and with prepositive w/wa. One simple form, ql, marks past, the other, yql, marks present/
future (and durative/iterative past); when preceded by w-, it is ql that refers to
present/future (and durative/iterative past), and yql to the past (see 4.3.2.2.1,
pp. 189ff.). The participle, to a great extent, stands outside this system. As to
Rabbinic Hebrew, synchronic linguistics would characterize its tense system,
more or less, by the opposition ql past : participle present/future; yql expresses a subjective view of the facts and is used in modal and subjunctive
senses (Mishor 1983). In Modern Hebrew, the synchronic approach would
consider the participle to be a part of a ternary system in which ql marks the
past, the participle the present, and yql the future. Such an approach would
not concern itself with the participle alone and its changes during the various
periods of Hebrew but with the whole tense system at a given period and the
role of the participle in it.
1.1.15. Though historical(-comparative) linguistics is, as a rule, atomistic,
this need not be the case. In principle, it may compare the linguistic systems
of different languages or of one language at different periods. Thus the tense
system of Biblical Hebrew, in which the participle does not constitute an integral part of the tense system, may be compared with that of Rabbinic Hebrew,
1.1.16. Generative Linguistics; Philology
in which the participle has been, to a great extent, absorbed into the tense system. Thus historical and synchronic approaches may be united.
1.1.16. A word may be said about generative linguistics. In the United
States, and in its wake in other countries as well, this new school of linguistics
emerged during the 1960s. Founded by Noam Chomsky, the school has focused on syntax; even generative phonology is more dependent on syntax than
the phonology of other linguistic methods (see, e.g., Chomsky 1965, 1995).
The great merit of the generative school was that it introduced the notion of
grammaticality and thus succeeded in sharpening the proper understanding of
many linguistic structures. It is a pity, however, that it has relied so much on
the competence of the individual speaker and has thus tended to refrain from
utilizing written sources as a corrective. At any rate, the generative method is
much less appropriate to written or dead languages like Biblical Hebrew, since
scholars lack the linguistic instinct that is so central for its work. Moreover,
since Biblical Hebrew has a rather limited corpus, the most obvious approach
is the analysis of this corpus, rather than extracting from it a set of rules to produce grammatically correct sentences. Although study of Biblical Hebrew in a
generative framework is by no means impossible, it is, in my opinion, not the
most effective way to master the languages difculties. Moreover, a generative approach has difculties in coping with the multilayered character of the
Biblical Hebrew corpus.
1.1.16n. The older terms, transformational or generative-transformational linguistics, refer to the important role played by the idea of transformations, relating, e.g., passive sentences to corresponding active ones.
For an example of generative work on Biblical Hebrew, see the work of Malone, especially his 1993 volume. In my opinion, when Malones studies, no doubt the most important representative of the generative approach to Biblical Hebrew linguistics, are stripped
of their generative framework and clad in traditional diachronic terms, they become much
easier to understand.
1.1.17. Some scholars use the terms linguistics and philology as near synonyms, both denoting the study of language, although the term philology
stresses historical and comparative aspects. For others, however, linguistics
refers to the study of language in itself, whereas philology aims at the study
of language in order to understand texts. According to this view, the purpose
of this book is philological, viz., the better understanding of the Bible by
deeper insight into its language. It is our conviction that proper understanding
of Biblical Hebrew sound shifts is necessary for the correct understanding of
the text. Interpreters of a biblical passage often have recourse to, e.g., comparative etymology in order to elucidate the meaning of a dubious word. It is
imperative for them to understand properly the mechanisms involved, in order to make an accurate decision. It is for this reason that they use philology
(linguistics).
Description of Biblical Hebrew 1.2.4.
1.1.18. In this work, we shall for the most part apply the diachroniccomparative approach. Synchronic investigation is not congenial to Biblical
Hebrew, since the corpus does not reect a closely knit linguistic system but is
profoundly multilayered. It is not useful to analyze such a language with the
tools of synchronic linguistics.
1.2. A Short Description of Biblical Hebrew

1.2.1. Biblical Hebrew, as shown by its very name, is preserved primarily
in the Bible. Contemporary inscriptions, like those of Gezer, Siloam, Lachish,
Tel Arad, ashavya (Yavneh Yam), Samaria, etc., do not add much to our
knowledge, though they contain some interesting linguistic features (Renz
and Rllig 1995; Ahituv 1992, 2005; Donner and Rllig 1973). They are for
the most part short and, since they are written without vocalization and contain few vowel letters, they convey limited linguistic information (Gogel
1998). Transcriptions of Hebrew words, especially of proper nouns in the ancient versions of the Bible, notably the Old Greek (Septuagint), reveal vocalization. Such information is difcult to use. One must constantly bear in mind
that the transcribing language has limited resources for marking the sounds of
Hebrew. Therefore, on the whole, biblical linguistics must be based on the
Bible.
1.2.2. The impediments offered by the Bible itself to the study of Biblical
Hebrew are formidable. The size of the Bible is quite restricted, and being a
book of religion, it does not reect the whole compass of life. Further, one
must not lose sight of the facts that Biblical Hebrew is a literary language and
that the Bible itself underwent several redactions. These two facts explain the
limited variation, historical and dialectal, found in Biblical Hebrew, even
though the Bible was written over hundreds of years and stems from various
regions of the Holy Land.
1.2.3. In the biblical text itself three layers are to be distinguished, diminishing in antiquity and importance: the consonantal skeleton, the vowel letters, and the vocalization (and cantillation) marks.
1.2.4. The most ancient and important layer is the consonantal skeleton.
Even this most hallowed part of the biblical text underwent changes. For example, changes in pronunciation led to changes in spelling. Originally in and
samek represented two distinct sounds (see 3.2.2, p. 73); these sounds later
merged, and since in was pronounced like samek, the latter was sometimes
substituted for it (as wyt:s} winter, instead of the orginal wyt:c*, Song 2:11).
Antiquated forms were sometimes replaced by current ones; e.g., the older
form yniT&Ej}T" under me, 2 Sam 22:37, 40, 48, was replaced by the more common and (presumably) later form, yT:j}T", Ps 18:37, 40, 49. Similarly, synonyms
replaced obsolete words, as can be seen in parallel passages occurring in
1.2.5. Layers of Biblical Hebrew
Chronicles in contrast with Kings and in the readings exhibited by vulgar

Qumran biblical texts.
1.2.4n. It is generally assumed that such processes replaced obsolete forms with current
forms, but it is possible that the opposite occurred, that puristic redactions expurgated living features in favor of features preferred in literature. On this point, see Bergstrsser
(1909), who argues that sometimes s has been expurgated in favor of sr.
1.2.5. Such alteration stopped at some point, generally set in the HellenisticRoman period. (The assessment of the history of the biblical text, and thus
the place of the Samaritan Pentateuch and the vulgar Qumran biblical texts,
is beyond the scope of this book.) By the time of the Masoretic manuscripts
(10th c. c.e. and later) the process was long over. The discrepancies among
these manuscripts are so few that their uniformity has perhaps to be explained
according to the one-recension or even archetype theory.
1.2.6. The vowel letters (y, w, h, a), originally and in retrospect at least,
mark some of the (historically long) vowels. Their use arose through phonetic
development, as when *bayt house in construct shifted to tyBE, yet it continued to be spelled with yod, which thus became a vowel letter denoting e. Differences in the usage of vowel letters are more conspicuous and of later origin
than differences in the consonantal layer of the text.
1.2.6n. This description of the origin of vowel letters is not meant to exclude the possibility that the Biblical Hebrew use of vowel letters was transferred from another language.
1.2.7. In ancient inscriptions, the occurrence of the vowel letters is rather

restricted, and it stands to reason that they were also less frequent in the original biblical text, as reected, e.g., in deviations of the Septuagint from the
Masoretic Text. Within the Bible, there is no consistency in the use of vowel
letters, and sometimes there is extreme variation even in the same book.
1.2.7n. For the use of the vowel letters w and y in the Pentateuch, which represents the
most archaic orthographic level of the Bible, see Blau 1995 = Topics, 2125.
1.2.8. Over the course of time the use of vowel letters becomes more and
more frequent. The tendency is to mark all originally long vowels with vowel
letters, with the notable exception of word-internal original a. Nevertheless,
even the same word may be spelled differently; both scriptio defectiva (i.e.,
without vowel letters to mark originally long vowels) and (the much less frequent) scriptio plena (i.e., with vowel letters to mark originally short vowels)
are found. As a rule, no vowel letter is used word-internally in the vicinity of
the same letter marking a consonant (thus yi/G, rather than yyi/G*, nations).
Moreover, a vowel letter is only rarely used when the following syllable contains one (as t/lq voices, rather than t/l/q). There exist some differences
between the Tiberian and other traditions with regard to the use of vowel letters. Nevertheless, the uniformity mentioned above (1.2.5) obtains in the
sphere of vowel letters as well.
Description of Biblical Hebrew 1.3.1.
1.2.9. The latest layer attested in the text of the Bible comprises the vowel
and cantillation marks. These developed between ca. 600 c.e. (the date of
the nal redaction of the Talmud, in which they are not mentioned) and the beginning of the tenth century (when dated manuscripts are found). Such marks
are, however, based on a much older tradition. Because of the sanctity of the
Bible, Jews quite early started to make extraordinary efforts to preserve the
holy text. The scholars who transmitted the tradition of the pronunciation of
the holy text were the Masoretes, originally those who count, i.e., those who
count the verses and letters of the Bible (Ben-ayyim 1957).
1.2.10. The Masoretes established the system of qre that which is read
and ktib2 that which is written. As a rule, the ktib2 bears the vocalization of
the reading preferred by the Masoretes, viz., the qre, and the consonants of
the latter are written without vocalization in the margin. Accordingly, the ktib2
is of mixed nature: the letters represent the ktib2 , the vocalization the qre.
1.2.10n. For the problematic nature of the relation of qre and ktib, see Breuer 1981:
26066; 199495: 29296.
1.2.11. The same discrepancy is also found with the so-called qre perpetuum, found with some frequently occurring words. These words are always
(or very often) read differently from the ktib2 . Here the qre, assumed to be
known, is omitted altogether and is suggested only by the vocalization of the
ktib2 . Instances of qre perpetuum are the Tetragrammaton; lwry, to be pronounced yil"vWry] Jerusalem; and, in the Pentateuch, awhI when it is to be read
ayhI she.
1.2.12. The only vocalization and cantillation system used today is the socalled Tiberian vocalization. It represents the most elaborate system and is
the only one completely preserved. Therefore, it serves as the base for the
grammatical investigation of Biblical Hebrew. In principle, however, the
Tiberian vocalization, despite its diffusion, does not take precedence over the
other vocalization systems, the Babylonian and Palestinian. (The Babylonian
vocalization has been treated in a masterful way by Yeivin 1985.) These are
called the superlinear vocalizations, because they put all of the vocalization
marks over the letters. The most prominent feature of the Babylonian vocalization is the correspondence of pata to both Tiberian pata and segol. The
Palestinian vocalization has two main subtypes and varies greatly (Revell
1970). It has mainly been preserved in Jewish liturgical poetry, the so-called
piyyu, which contains many biblical quotations (Yahalom 1997).
1.3. Dialect Diversity in Biblical Hebrew

1.3.1. Despite the overall uniformity of Biblical Hebrew, some information
about dialect diversity may be elicited from the Bible and contemporary
1.3.2. Dialect Diversity; Poetry
inscriptions. In some cases the evidence is straightforward. According to the

well-known incident in Judg 12:6, the Ephraimites pronounced tl<B&s I for standard tl<B&v ear (of corn) (see 1.10.3.21, p. 40). The Samaria ostraca (from
the rst half of the eighth century b.c.e.) have t year (as in Aramaic) for
standard hn;v, and y, reecting yen wine for standard yiy ' , thus attesting to the
monophthongization of ay in stressed closed syllables in the Northern dialect.
1.3.1n. This monophthongization may be reected in the word play in Amos 8:12 involving the words qayi summer-fruit and qe end: the pun would have been more powerful
in the speech of the population of the Northern Kingdom, whom Amos was addressing, if
Amos pronounced qayi as qe.
1.3.2. Various other features have been claimed to be peculiar to the Northern tribes, including the use of s who, that or forms like dea to know, instead of standard daat, or innitives of III y verbs terminating in -o, rather
than in -ot.
1.3.2n. An example of the last would be o to do in contrast to standard ot. G. A.
Rendsburg deals with the identication of Northern features in various biblical passages;
see, e.g., Rendsburg (1990), always closely reasoned, but not always convincing.
1.3.3. More of the history of Biblical Hebrew can be inferred from the various genres attested by the Bible. Besides Standard Biblical Hebrew, represented by pre-exilic biblical prose (also referred to as Classical [Biblical]
Hebrew), one can distinguish Archaic and Late forms of the language.
1.3.4. Archaic Biblical Hebrew is represented by early biblical poetry, including that contained in the Pentateuch and the early Prophets. Like poetic
language in general, it tends to preserve archaic forms. These are attested not
only in the eld of vocabulary (like aru gold, ty to come), but also outside it.
1.3.5. Morphological elements are involved. The 3mp pronominal sufx
has the form -mo, and the 3ms sufx may be spelled with h. The form azlat
she has gone (Deut 32:36) exhibits the archaic 3fs ending of the sufx-tense
(which, through Aramaic inuence, also recurs in later books). Nouns are apt
to terminate in -i/-o in the construct, and -i is found in additional cases as
well. The noun ad@ eld appears in the archaic form aday.
1.3.6. Syntactic markers are affected as well. The prepositions l to, al
on, and ad up to have the poetic forms *le, le, and de. The denite
article ha-, which is a comparatively late phenomenon (see 4.2.5.4, p. 180), is
less frequent in poetry, as is the relative pronoun sr (see 4.2.6.2.1, p. 183).
The form et/ t-, which in Standard Biblical Hebrew marks nouns as denite
direct objects, was probably originally restricted to pronominal sufxes, and
only later used before nouns; it, too, is rare in Archaic Biblical Hebrew.
1.3.7. Nouns and verbs also show differences. Construct forms may precede prepositional phrases (as, e.g., ryxIQB: " tj"m}c rejoicing at harvest Isa
History of Hebrew 1.4.2.
9:2). The short prex-tense may refer to the past even if not preceded by the
conversive waw. Although this feature is archaic, it seems that the generally
haphazard use of the tenses does not reect archaic usage only but is the result
of a mixture of various tense systems.
1.3.8. Late Biblical Hebrew, as reected in post-exilic prose, exhibits the
development of Biblical Hebrew in the direction of Rabbinic Hebrew, as
well as ever-increasing Aramaic inuence. Vocabulary changes, including
words quite common in Rabbinic Hebrew, rst appear in Late Biblical Hebrew, as, e.g., rk to need (K<&r ]x: your need 2 Chr 2:15) and ksr to be appropriate. The form ynia I replaces the earlier alternation of ynia and ykInoa:.
Even the spelling changes and becomes fuller in later books. The tendency (in
Ezra/Nehemiah, though not in Chronicles) is to use the long prex-tense after
the conversive waw (as hl:B}a"t}a<w; and I mourned Neh 1:4). The use of et
with the pronominal sufx becomes more common than object sufxation on
the verb. The use of the participle becomes more frequent, presumably owing
to its increasing integration into the tense system. After az then the sufxtense is employed, rather than the prex-tense used earlier. Similarly, the
prex-tense following conversive waw (wayyip al) tends to be replaced by
the sufx-tense following connective waw (upa al), because the sufx-tense
has become, as in Rabbinic Hebrew, the sole past tense. This change is also
seen in the use of the sufx tense to indicate iterative/continued past. The use
of the absolute innitive in the sense of the imperative has become obsolete.
The preposition l- is used to mark the direct object.
1.4. The Later History of Hebrew

1.4.1. Around 200 c.e. Yehuda Hanasi (or Judah the Prince, traditionally
known as Rabbi) and his pupils collected the oral tradition of the Law in the
Mishnah, the Tosefta, the Beraytot, and the oldest halakhic midrashim, formulated in a Hebrew customarily termed Rabbinic Hebrew or Mishnaic Hebrew. This language thus became a literary language.
1.4.1n. In the past, views were divided as to its origins: Was Rabbinic Hebrew from its
very beginning an articial dialect, used only as a literary language in scholarly religious
circles, exhibiting a would-be (Biblical) Hebrew and corrupted by the inuence of Aramaic? Or was it based on a spoken variety of Hebrew?
1.4.2. Abraham Geiger, who published the rst scholarly grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew (1845), claimed that it was an articial language that was never
spoken. It may be that he convinced himself of this view because, being the
head of the Jewish Reform movement in Germany, he was interested in describing Mishnaic literature as articial, and this, according to his Romantic
Weltanschauung, was a negative feature. His view was contested throughout
1.4.3. History of Hebrew
10
the remainder of the nineteenth century. Some of his opponents were Jews
prompted to claim that Rabbinic Hebrew was once a spoken language in part
out of respect for Mishnaic literature (like Heinrich Graetz, S. D. Luzatto; see,
e.g., Graetz 1902: 46162). Others were Zionists (like Eliezer Ben-Yehuda),
who were interested in a spoken Hebrew language (see, e.g., Ben-Yehuda
1919).
1.4.3. Early in the twentieth century, M. H. Segal, also a Zionist, proved
that Rabbinic Hebrew cannot be regarded as mere Biblical Hebrew inuenced
by Aramaic (Segal 19089). He collected those traits of Rabbinic Hebrew differing from Biblical Hebrew that cannot be accounted for by Aramaic inuence. For example, the use of nitpaal for the sufx-tense of hitpael arose
through the inuence of nif al on hitpael: no Aramaic inuence can be assumed in this case, since nif al, the catalyst of this phenomenon, is totally absent from Aramaic.
1.4.4. Today it is generally accepted that Rabbinic Hebrew cannot be seen
as an articial language of the Rabbis that was never spoken. This was demonstrated by the recovery, among the Dead Sea Scrolls, of texts in a form of
Hebrew very close to Rabbinic Hebrew. The Copper Scroll, written around
100 c.e., reects some sort of (Proto-)Rabbinic or Mishnaic Hebrew. Even
closer to Rabbinic Hebrew is the language of some of the letters of BarKoziba (Bar-Kokhba), the leader of the Second Jewish Revolt (132135
c.e.), as J. T. Milik, the rst editor of these letters, recognized (1961: 70).
These letters nally proved that Rabbinic Hebrew was indeed based on a living dialect and that Hebrew was a living language in the rst part of the second century c.e.
1.4.5. Milik was aware of the long debate when he wrote, The thesis of
scholars like Segal, Ben-Yehuda, and Klausner, according to whom Mishnaic
Hebrew was a language spoken by the population of Judah in the Persian and
Greco-Roman periods, is no longer a hypothesis; it is an established fact
(1961: 70).
1.4.6. The following model of the situation of Rabbinic Hebrew, the language of the Mishnah, in the rst centuries of the Christian era may be posited:
the people of the Judean countryside in the main spoke Mishnaic Hebrew; the
Judean towns and cities were bilingual, using both Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic. The population of the Galilee, attached rather late to the Maccabean
kingdom, spoke Aramaic only. The suppression of the Bar-Koziba revolt had
disastrous results: the Judean population was in part exterminated and in part
deported. The subsequent migration of the spiritual lite to the Galilee caused
Hebrew to become extinct within a generation or two. It is possible that spoken
Hebrew might have lingered in some remote rural areas in Judea (see 1.11.8,
p. 43).
11
Rabbinic and Modern Hebrew 1.4.10.
1.4.6n. See further Kutscher (1982: 11516). In this account of the Semitic languages of
Palestine, I do not take into account the strong Greek inuence throughout the area; see
Lieberman 1942, 1950.
1.4.7. So far, we have dealt with the last centuries of the life of spoken
Rabbinic Hebrew. We have not yet treated the origins of Rabbinic Hebrew,
which cannot be considered a direct continuation of Biblical Hebrew. Though
a later form of the language, it also exhibits, as later dialects often do, traits
that have to be regarded as more archaic than the corresponding Biblical Hebrew features. Rabbinic Hebrew, for example, forms demonstrative phrases
with a (formally) indeterminate noun preceding the demonstrative pronoun hz,
unlike the Biblical Hebrew pattern of a noun determined by the denite article
preceding hZ,h". Accordingly, we posit that Rabbinic Hebrew stems from a dialect spoken in biblical times, one that (almost) did not gain entry into the language of the Bible, because it was not a literary language. (Proto-)Rabbinic
Hebrew is, nevertheless, reected in Late Biblical Hebrew deviations from
the standard, presumably because the dialect that formed the base of Standard
Biblical Hebrew had become extinct, through the vexations of the exile; only
(Proto-)Rabbinic Hebrew survived as a living language.
1.4.8. Because Hebrew ceased to be spoken around 200 c.e., we distinguish two phases of Rabbinic Hebrew. The living language Rabbinic Hebrew I was the language of the Tannaim, the authors of the Mishnah, and
related literature. The primarily written language Rabbinic Hebrew II was
the language of the Amoraim, the authors of the Talmudim, and the later
midrashim. Rabbinic Hebrew II is characterized by traits that occur in all
later, articial layers of Hebrew: it reects, on the one hand, a mixture of the
preceding layers of Hebrew (i.e., Biblical Hebrew, Rabbinic Hebrew I), and
on the other, foreign inuence (primarily of Aramaic).
1.4.9. During the long years of exile, through late antiquity, the Middle
Ages, and the Early Modern Period, Jews in traditional Jewish society used
Hebrew as a language of culture and education. Around the beginning of the
twentieth century, Hebrew was revived in the Holy Land as a language of
everyday use in speech and in writing. This quite singular event resulted from
the cooperation of various propitious factors. (For particulars, see Blau 1981c:
1820.) First, a sufcient number of people had received their education in
traditional Jewish society, using Hebrew as a language of culture, and were
therefore able to switch over to its use in speech as well. Second, the Zionist
ideal aimed at the revival of Hebrew as a national language. Third, Hebrew
had long been the natural lingua franca between Jews stemming from different communities living in the Holy Land because no other generally accepted
language existed there at the time.
1.4.10. Since the various registers of Hebrew, on which its revival was
based, constituted a mixture of (almost) all the preceding layers of Hebrew
1.5. Semitic
12
(like every earlier variety of articial Hebrew), Modern Hebrew too contains many Biblical and Rabbinic as well as later Hebrew elements. It also reects strong foreign (Standard Average European) inuence. As a living
language, it has also been affected by natural inner development. Accordingly, speakers of Biblical Hebrew would not have understood Modern Hebrew. Conversely, however, speakers of Modern Hebrew understand previous
layers of Hebrew quite easily, if they are acquainted with the subject matter.
1.5. Biblical Hebrew and Semitic

1.5.1. If one compares Biblical Hebrew with another so-called Semitic language, such as Aramaic or Arabic, one is struck by their similarity. Even a linguistically naive person realizes that many of the words used in one of these
languages occur in an identical or similar form in others (e.g., arba four in
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic; pt to open in Hebrew and Aramaic, ft in
Arabic). The linguist is even more impressed by the similarity of the grammatical structure, since even the far-reaching overlap of words does not prove
that the similarity is not due to sheer accident. Words can easily be loaned
from one language to the other, and cultural symbiosis between languages
sometimes results in a very great number of borrowed words (as happened
when an inux of Aramaic words changed the vocabulary of Rabbinic Hebrew). Nonetheless, the shared vocabulary among the Semitic languages designates some of the most basic notions of life, and so this vocabulary is much
less likely to be the result of only borrowing. The far-reaching identity of
grammatical structures demonstrates even more convincingly that these languages are similar because they are historically related, stemming from a
(common) proto-language.
1.5.2. It is usual to call these related languages Semitic, and the assumed
proto-language Proto-Semitic. The term Semitic languages was proposed by
A. L. Schlzer in 1781, basing his notion on the list of nations in Genesis 10,
where the ancestor of the Semitic nations was Shem. This list, to be sure,
deals with nations and races, rather than with languages. Nevertheless, this
term is short and to the point, and it is as good as any articial term; it has
rightly been accepted.
1.5.2n. Holger Pedersen, in his excellent survey The Discovery of Language (1965: 118),
claims, without a proper reference, that it was the great philosopher G. W. Leibniz at the
beginning of the eighteenth century who rst used this term. Leibniz treats the matter in
his short treatise Brevis designatio meditationum de originibus gentium ductis potissimum
ex indicio linguarum (1710). There he divides the languages known from antiquity into
two groups, the Japhetic or northern languages, those of Europe (named for the son of
Prometheus), and the Aramaic or southern languages (named for Abrahams native region). His Aramaic group is certainly comparable to the Semitic family: it includes Ara-
spread is 6 points short
13
Semitic 1.5.6.
bic, Syriac, Chaldean (as what is now known as Aramaic was then called), Syriac
(Christian Aramaic), Hebrew, Punic (Phoenician), and Amharic, as well as Egyptian (including Coptic). But the term Semitic is not used. See also Waterman 1978: 5960.
1.5.3. Because of the far-reaching similarity of the Semitic languages, their

connection was recognized early. As a matter of fact, it was in the realm of the
Semitic languages that comparative linguistics began, viz., among medieval
Jews speaking Arabic and belonging to both the Jewish and the Arab cultures.
They were deeply steeped in Jewish culture and thus were acquainted with Hebrew and Aramaic. In addition, they spoke (Neo-)Arabic and wrote literary Arabic; moreover, in the wake of Arab culture, they were interested in grammar.
1.5.3n. Thus the Algerian Yehuda ibn Quraysh (presumably living in the second half of the
ninth century) recognized the afnity of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic. With the Spaniard
Iaq ibn Baron (ca. 1100), who also analyzed common grammatical features, medieval
comparative Semitics reached its peak. The Spanish Muslim Ibn azm (9941064 c.e.)
recognized the afnity of Arabic and Hebrew as well; nevertheless, not being well versed
in Hebrew, he had rather rudimentary views.
1.5.4. In contrast, the recognition of the Indo-European language family as

a whole, which eventually proved decisive for the development of comparative linguistics and on which the comparative investigation of every language
family (including Semitic) is based, was comparatively late. The differences
between languages of the various branches of the Indo-European phylum
(e.g., between English, Greek, and Russian) are so signicant that it was only
around the end of the eighteenth century that William Jones, Friedrich von
Schlegel, Franz Bopp, Rasmus K. Rask, and Jacob Grimm initiated IndoEuropean comparative studies.
1.5.4n. Slightly earlier, Hungarian scholars had recognized the afnity of Hungarian with
Lapp and Finnish, although the differences between these languages are quite conspicuous. J. Sajnovics published his Demonstratio idioma Ungarorum et Lapponum idem esse
in 1770 in Copenhagen (reprinted 1968), and S. Gyarmathi his Afnitas linguae Hungaricae cum linguis Fennicae originis grammatice demonstrata in 1799 in Gttingen (reprinted 1968).
1.5.5. In the following, we shall mention some of the common features of

the Semitic languages, starting with vocabulary and continuing with structural
(grammatical) features. The best introduction to the Semitic languages is still
Bergstrsser (1923; ET 1978).
1.5.6. Vocabulary. Many of the most basic notions are designated by identical words in the Semitic languages. We adduce here the Hebrew words only;
the reader will nd the Semitic cognates in the usual biblical dictionaries,
which, almost without exception, contain etymological comparisons, and especially in the appendix to Bergstrssers Introduction (1923: 18192; ET
20923).
1.5.7. Semitic
14
1.5.7. ba: father, z,a& ear, ja: brother, aE mother, a" nose, r,a<&
land, hVaI woman, /ta: she-ass, tyiB"& house, BE son, tB" daughter, D;
blood, baEz] wolf, rk:z; male, [r'z , & seed, r/mj ass, b/f good, dy; hand,
/y day, bk:/K star, bl<K<& dog, vb"l: to dress, hl:y]l" & night, /vl: tongue,
yim"& water, tmE to die, yi["& eye, hl:[: to ascend, hP< mouth, lg,r,& foot, bn;[E
wine grape, br'q : to go near, var head, /lv peace, v name, yim"&v
heaven, [m"v to hear, v tooth, hq:vhI to give to drink, as well as most of
the numerals.
1.5.8. Grammatical features. The most conspicuous shared grammatical
feature is the striking relation between consonants and vowels, especially in
verbs. A comparison between various verbal themes, for instance, results in
the recognition of the distinct role of consonants and vowels. The consonants
bear the main meaning, whereas vowels modify it, often according to a certain
pattern, which, though not predictable, is frequently regular. Thus we have
jr'B: to ee and rk"z; to remember and their hif il forms j'yrib}hI to drive out
and ryKIz]hI to remind. The opposition of these forms leads to the conclusion
that the basic meaning (to ee, to remember) is borne by the consonants,
whereas the vowels modify it according to the pattern in the simple and causative senses. We can speak of two discontinuous morphemes, viz., the consonantal root plus the vowel pattern that adds to the meaning of the root.
1.5.9. These patterns are not always predictable. They are, however, regular enough, at least in verbs, that the different roles of consonants and vowels
are quite obvious. Whereas the patterns for verbs are restricted and regular,
and their meanings are rather limited, this is less so for verbal substantives
and adjectives.
1.5.10. The situation is different for the category of substantives proper,
also called old or primitive nouns, those that belong to the most basic stratum
of the language (e.g., most of the nouns listed in 1.5.7). Here, the division between consonants and vowels is even more blurred, and most of these nouns
cannot be analyzed as being composed of two discontinuous morphemes.
Rather, these nouns show a base in which the role of consonants and vowels
does not differ: dy; hand, e.g., exhibits the base yaq, which cannot be decomposed any further ( just as English hand cannot be decomposed into the consonants hnd and the vowel a; see 4.3.1.3, p. 187). Nevertheless, in the denominative verb hd;y; to throw, derived from dy; and transferred to a triradical
root, the consonants bear the main meaning and the vowels only modify it.
1.5.11. Closely connected to the special role played by the consonants is
triradicalism. Verbs, at least synchronically, are almost always triradical, i.e.,
they have three radical consonants, which bear the main meaning. Even if historically it appears that some verbs are of biradical origin (as tmE to die), synchronically they have to be regarded as triradical (cf. tw,m:& death derived from
tmE). Moreover, verbal nouns and adjectives are triradical as well, though in a
15
Semitic 1.5.15.
less conspicuous manner than verbs. Regarding substantives proper, the primitive nouns that cannot be decomposed into a consonantal root and vowel pattern, often possess only two consonants (as D; blood, dy; hand) and
sometimes even only one (hP< mouth, yim"& water, the second m being an
ending). Whenever a verb is derived from such a noun, it is given a three-consonant shape, since verbs are synchronically invariably (at least) triradical
(like MEDi to bleed in Modern Hebrew, derived from D; blood; the abovementioned Biblical Hebrew hd;y ; to throw, derived from dy; hand).
1.5.12. We have already mentioned that verbal patterns (the so-called
verbal themes or stems) are rather restricted. The similarity between these patterns in different Semitic languages demonstrates the close afnity between
the various Semitic languages quite clearly, as does the similarity of some
nominal patterns (such as those with prexed m, e.g., j'TEp}m" key).
1.5.13. The gender distinction is based on the opposition masculine :
feminine, and it is not restricted to nouns and adjectives but extends to verbs
as well (in the second and third persons; the rst person does not differentiate
between genders). The masculine noun is, as a rule, unmarked; the feminine
noun is marked, usually, by *-at. This *-at developed in different directions.
(See further Blau 1980 = Topics, 12637.) On the one hand, the a dropped and
only -t remained; on the other, in nal position, the -t was dropped in the absolute, with *-a, i.e., h:, alone marking the feminine. There exists an old layer
of substantives in which feminine nouns are unmarked, such as aE mother,
/ta: she-ass. Among these, substantives denoting the paired parts of the
body stand out in relief: dy; hand, lg,r& , foot, yi["& eye. (It has been claimed
that the feminine gender of the paired body parts arose through metanalysis;
see below, 4.4.2.3, p. 263.)
1.5.14. Verbless clauses are quite usual. Since nouns are quite often used
as predicates of these sentences, they are often called nominal clauses. Since,
however, certain types of adverbials (especially local adverbials, as in dl<Y,h& "
v the child [is] there) may be used as predicates of these sentences, the
(less usual) term verbless clauses is preferable.
1.5.15. Finally, we can group together a small number of exceptional morphological features involving some of the various Semitic languages. We begin with a problem in gender agreement. Ordinarily, the masculine form is
unmarked, and the feminine marked by *-at. A strange morphological phenomenon characterizes the cardinal numbers 310: it is the feminine that is
unmarked, the masculine being marked by *-at. This feature is of special importance for the study of Semitic, since, as Antoine Meillet (1951: 58) noted,
exceptional morphological features are the soundest proof for the afnity of
languages. This is so because, although morphological features may be borrowed in cases of very close contact between languages, exceptional morphological features can hardly pass from one language to another. Another such
1.5.16. Family-Tree Model
16
feature, proving the afnity of Hebrew and Arabic, is the word for son, singular Heb BE/Arab ibn son with i, in contrast to the plural yniB: /banuna with
a. Similarly, at least in Hebrew, Ugaritic, Aramaic, and Arabic, the plural of
monosyllabic nouns is formed from a disyllabic basis with a after the second
radical (see 4.4.5.10, p. 273). Noteworthy also is the derivation of the demonstrative pronouns from roots containing q > z in the singular, but l in the
plural.
1.5.16. The vocabulary and grammatical features listed here show that the
Semitic languages belong together, and much more material could easily be
adduced.
1.6. A Family-Tree Model for Semitic

1.6.1. The most common model for explaining such far-reaching similarity
between languages is the so-called family-tree (Stammbaum) theory. It posits a proto-language, in our case Proto-Semitic, from which the similar languages (the Semitic languages) stem, just as the members of a family stem
from one common ancestor. The relatives on the farther branches of the family tree have a more distant connection with each other than the nearer ones,
and the languages depicted on the longer branches of the family tree are supposed to be more and more distant from the proto-language. The usual familytree diagram employed for depicting the Semitic languages is shown here
(g. 1). (For further discussion, see Blau 1978a = Topics, 30832.)
1.6.2. Such a model is useful, but further explanation and qualication is
needed. (After explaining some features of Semitic using a family-tree model,
we shall turn to a wave model in 1.7 to explain others.) It is difcult to establish the exact degree of afnity between related languages, and the process depends on which feature or group of features an analyst considers to be decisive
for the classication. (See 1.7.51.7.16 below for discussion of conicting
evidence and evaluation of various features.) Shared innovations are an important clue for xing relationships between languages, since, if they are correctly identied, they would have come into being when the languages now
possessing them still formed a unity (Hetzron 1974). It is possible, however,
that a feature identied as a shared innovation is in fact the result of parallel
developments in the languages (see 1.7.15, p. 22).
1.6.3. Shared innovations of the West Semitic languages, which are absent
from Akkadian (East Semitic), include the sufx-tense form paala and the internal passive with characteristic u vowel. Because of these and other features, Akkadian is different from all the other Semitic languages: it was only
after Akkadian had separated itself from the other Semitic languages that the
sufx-tense paala and the internal passive developed.
Family-Tree Model 1.6.4.
17
Proto-Semitic
West Semitic
East Semitic
Akkadian
(Babylonian, Assyrian)
Northwest Semitic Southwest Semitic
Arabic
Amorite
Ugaritic
Old Canaanite
South Arabian
Canaanite
Phoenician
Moabite
Ethiopic
Aramaic
Ammonite
Edomite
Hebrew
(Amarna)
Biblical Hebrew, Rabbinic Hebrew, Medieval Hebrew, Modern Hebrew
Fig. 1. The Semitic languages: the tree model (languages and language families or groups).
1.6.3n. We have not taken Eblaite or other Palaeosyrian languages into consideration.
Most scholars consider it to be East Semitic; some scholars regard Eblaite as belonging to
Northwest Semitic. Since the information available is so restricted and uncertain, we deem
it more prudent to set this material aside at this stage.
1.6.4. In g. 1, Arabic, South Arabian, and Ethiopic are grouped together

as Southwest Semitic. South Arabian and Ethiopic are quite close. For linguistic and historical reasons, it seems certain that Ethiopia was semitized by
tribes speaking South Arabian. The connection of Arabic with the other
Southwest Semitic languages has been questioned (see Goldenberg 1977:
47375 and references). Despite this questioning, we consider the extension
1.6.5. Family-Tree Model
18
of the broken plural and of the verbal form paala to be shared innovations
characterizing Arabic, South Arabian, and Ethiopic and establishing them as a
separate subgroup.
1.6.4n. We do not consider the occurrence of comparable features in other Semitic languages to be remnants of a former wider use. In our opinion, the other languages have preserved the original range of these features, while only in Southwest Semitic were they
extended (Blau 1978a = Topics, 31617). Consider broken plurals. Even if broken plurals
turn out to be an ancient Semitic feature, it is the widespread formal identity of the shapes
of broken plurals in Arabic, South Arabian, and Ethiopic that is crucial. Goldenberg
(1977: 474) calls attention to the fact that, e.g., actual Tigre broken plural forms, though
they follow the same derivational principles as Arabic, are different from the forms in Arabic (as Tigre asayf swords in contrast with Arabic suyuf ). This, however, does not disprove the special afnity between Arabic and Ethiopic. The differences in forms are due to
the great variety of broken plurals, which enables the transition from one pattern to the
other. Even Neo-Arabic dialects reect variations in the actual broken plural forms. The
identity of the derivational principles in the broken plural is so far-reaching in Arabic and
the other Southwest Semitic languages that it has to be explained as a shared innovation.
1.6.5. The overall structure of the Northwest Semitic branch has been
widely discussed. There are no documents in Amorite. This language is entirely reconstructed from names occurring in Akkadian texts that do not t the
structure of Akkadian personal names but instead show Northwest Semitic
name formations. At least two different layers of such names have to be differentiated. Some scholars regard this language as belonging to the Canaanite
branch (East Canaanite); others consider it to be Aramaic. We take it as a
separate branch of Northwest Semitic.
1.6.6. The Canaanite branch of Northwest Semitic includes, in addition to
Hebrew, several languages of which little is known. Some of these languages
are known only from Iron Age and later inscriptions; these include Moabite,
Phoenician (and its descendant Punic), Ammonite, and Edomite. Moabite is
the language closest to Hebrew; it may even be regarded as belonging to the
same dialect group as Hebrew. For all practical purposes, it is extant only in
the Mesha inscription.
1.6.6n. Most of the important Canaanite inscriptions are available in Donner and Rllig
196873; updated bibliography can be found in Krahmalkov 2002 and Parker 2002.
1.6.7. Old Canaanite is reected in the glosses and deviations from correct Akkadian found in the Amarna correspondence. These letters were sent
by minor kings and chiefs in Late Bronze Age SyriaPalestine to Pharaoh;
they were found at Tell el-Amarna in Egypt and date from around 1400 b.c.e.
Since the scribes were not well trained in Akkadian, they deviated from correct Akkadian in the direction of Canaanite, especially in the use of verbs, and
sometimes explained Akkadian words by Canaanite glosses. These deviations
enable the reconstruction of some traits of the language spoken in the various
cities of Palestine and Syria in the second half of the second millennium b.c.e.
19
Wave Model 1.7.4.
This is the most ancient layer of Canaanite known to us, spoken nearly on the
eve of the invasion of the Israelite tribes. W. L. Moran (1950, 2003) has unearthed several facts that show various features of Hebrew and Phoenician in
a new light, and A. F. Rainey (1996) has recently summarized the state of our
understanding.
1.7. A Wave Model for Semitic

1.7.1. The family-tree model of Semitic is not without difculties. According to it, one would expect languages appearing on two remote branches to be
more different in all their conspicuous features than languages on closer
branches. Further, one would expect languages on nearer branches to be more
similar in all their decisive traits. Nevertheless, this is not the case. Sometimes
the discrepancies between the way different features appear across the Semitic
family are so great that one can imagine drawing different family trees for every feature.
1.7.2. Some features of Akkadian provide a case in point. Basing ourselves
on the absence of the sufx-tense paala and the internal passive, we have dissociated Akkadian from Hebrew and other West Semitic languages. Notwithstanding this, Akkadian has several sound shifts in common with Hebrew: in
both languages t shifts to s (Heb hVaI woman, Akk assatu wife), q to z
(Heb baEz], Akk zibu wolf), and to (Heb jE, Akk uu arrow; Heb r,a<&,
Akk eretu land). For these shifts, Aramaic, closer on the family tree to Hebrew, shows different correspondences. Such a pattern, quite different from
what one would have expected, has to be accounted for.
1.7.3. The basic assumption of centrifugal development behind the
family-tree model leads us to expect that the languages emerging from the ancestor were at rst similar and later on became more different. This assumption is not valid. The history of languages in general and of the Semitic languages in particular reveals cases in which the development was the opposite:
in this centripetal pattern, the dialects, initially more different, become increasingly similar. The Neo-Arabic dialects, especially the sedentary ones,
differed from each other in the rst centuries of Islam and later grew more and
more alike. (For details, see Blau 1965: 15.)
1.7.4. It is because of such shortcomings of the family-tree theory that in
the second half of the nineteenth century a different model was proposed. The
wave theory (Wellentheorie), in fact, does not pretend to replace the familytree theory, but rather to complement it.
1.7.4n. Johannes Schmidt in 1872 based the term wave theory on the image of waves moving through water, because, in his opinion, changes in language diffuse like waves.
Around the same time, Hugo Schuchardt expressed similar views.
1.7.5. Wave Model
20
1.7.5. Seeking to describe the intricate development of languages, the

wave theory gives up the assumption, hidden in the family-tree model, that
when languages separate, they lose touch. Of course, it may happen that related languages become totally separated. For example, a dialect group may
emigrate overseas (as did the Saxons, when they penetrated England) or another linguistic community may drive a wedge between two related linguistic
groups (as happened to the Romanians, who were separated by Slavs from the
other [Vulgar] Latin speakers). Nevertheless, as a rule, the separation between
various dialect groups is not total, and a linguistic feature, arising in one dialect, may diffuse over a wide area. A supercial observer may take this feature
to be an early phenomenon, inherited from a proto-language, when it is, as a
matter of fact, a late innovation that has spread between various languages
and dialects through linguistic contact.
1.7.6. In order to visualize such a development, let us assume a chain of related dialects, spread out across an expanse of territory: a b c d e f g h. (Recall
that linguistics makes no hard-and-fast distinction between dialect and language.) The dialects close to each other (as a-b, e-f, etc.) are similar, even mutually intelligible. Remote dialects are also distant in linguistic afnity. Thus,
b and h, for instance, are not merely different dialects but different languages;
the intermediate dialects (from c to g) constitute a gradual transition from one
to the other (from b to h). Now, let us assume that for political, economic, or
cultural reasons dialect b prevails over its environment and becomes a center
of attraction for the other dialects. In the course of time, the speakers of the
neighboring dialects will give up their native languages and become speakers
of dialect b as well. Eventually only dialect h remains (more or less) intact,
because, for instance, a natural obstacle protects it from the overwhelming inuence of b. As a result of this development, b and h become adjacent languages (no longer mere dialects, since the differences between them are quite
obvious): b h. A supercial observer would suppose that b and h split from a
proto-language. As a matter of fact, however, they never split; instead, they
are the remnants of a series of dialects that had previously been characterized
by gradual transitions.
1.7.6n. Compare Hugo Schuchardts famous description of dialects (Schuchardt 1922b)
situated in the borderland between France and Italy. Some of these dialects may easily be
associated with French or Italian, respectively. Others, however, withstand any classication, and one wonders, are they still French or already Italian (or vice versa)? See further
Schuchardt (1922a: 19193).
In order to make the description above clearer, I did not take into account the
fact that the separating factor need not be that of geographical continuity.
Sometimes easy access to communication draws farther dialects nearer,
whereas obstacles may cut off dialects that are geographically close.
21
Wave Model 1.7.11.
1.7.7. The wave model can be useful in studying the Semitic languages as
well. Even a hasty glance at the map of the Semitic languages, past and
present, reveals the geographical continuity of these languages, which has
made linguistic contact regular. Close contact between the Semitic languages
is well attested throughout history. (See also Blau 1978a = Topics, 3089.)
Further, Semitic languages (most anciently Akkadian, then Aramaic, later Literary Arabic) were established as regional linguae francae, used for cultural
and other purposes in preference to local languages.
1.7.8. Accordingly, in the description of the development of the Semitic
languages, it is imperative to complement the family-tree model with the
model of the wave theory and to allow for the importance of linguistic contact.
1.7.9. A case in point is the development of the Canaanite dialects (and
perhaps of the Northwest Semitic languages in general). According to the
family-tree hypothesis, ProtoNorthwest Semitic branched off from Proto
West Semitic, and then separated into various languages, including Canaanite
and Ugaritic. Later Canaanite broke up into Hebrew, Phoenician, and so on,
each subdivision growing more and more differentiated and distinct. Nevertheless, this rather simplistic description has justly been questioned. (See,
e.g., Friedrich [1951: 1], who was, to be sure, overeager in establishing additional language groups.)
1.7.10. The family-tree model has not been validated by the linguistic
character of Ugaritic. This language, written in cuneiform-alphabetic signs,
was rst discovered at the end of the 1920s in northern Syria, and shows a surprising afnity to Hebrew not only in literary poetic structure but also in vocabulary and in some grammatical features. Nevertheless, it must not be
classed with the Canaanite languages. First, it lacks features that are associated with Canaanite, e.g., the shift of stressed a to o. (The absence of this feature is, however, not decisive, since it may be due to the early attestation of
this language, before the shift had taken place.) Second, it has sound shifts
different from those obtaining in all the Canaanite dialects. (The most important is the shift of q to d, whereas in the Canaanite languages q changes to z;
see Blau 1978a = Topics, 32526.) Accordingly, Ugaritic has to be considered
a language separate from Canaanite. At least some of the surprisingly similar
features of Canaanite and Ugaritic have to be attributed to linguistic contact,
an assumption that ts well with the literary afnities, due to literary contact.
(Some of the shared features of Ugaritic and Hebrew may be due to preserved archaism in both languages, rather than to shared innovation; cf. Blau
1978a = Topics, 32425.)
1.7.11. There are similar problems elsewhere in Northwest Semitic. The
language of Yaudi and that of the inscription from Deir Alla do not t
into the family-tree hypothesis, as if languages developed only centrifugally,
1.7.12. Wave Model
22
being at the beginning more similar and becoming over the course of time
more different.
1.7.11n. Concerning Yaudic, Friedrich (1951: 15362) regards it as a separate linguistic
entity. Dion (1974) and Tropper (1993), rightly in my opinion, consider it to be an archaic
Aramaic dialect (see Blau 2007: 21718).
The language of Deir Alla represents, in my opinion, a different language family, close
to Aramaic but not identical to it, pace, e.g., Tropper (1993), who regards it as an archaic
Aramaic dialect, and Hackett (1984), who considers it to be more closely related to South
Canaanite dialects of its time, viz., the rst half of the rst millennium b.c.e., than to
Aramaic.
1.7.12. Moreover, one must not lose sight of the fact that the languages of
the Israelite tribes were very close to the dialects of the Canaanites whom they
conquered, thus indicating a very complicated development. (Various scholars, notably Hans Bauer and in his wake Harris Birkeland, regarded Hebrew
as a mixed language derived from pre-conquest Hebrew and Canaanite; cf.
3.5.7.5.83.5.7.5.10, p. 127)
1.7.13. Thus we must consider the possibility that the development of
Northwest Semitic was quite different from what is suggested by the familytree model. Perhaps there existed no period in which the speakers of the languages that we call Northwest Semitic lived together. Instead, it may be that
the speakers of these languages split off from the West Semitic stock in
waves, moving into the Fertile Crescent and there coming into contact with
other languages. Through such a process the Northwest Semitic type known
to us might have emerged.
1.7.14. The development of the Canaanite dialects might have been quite
similar. It may be that the Canaanite language type does not stand at the beginning of the development but, rather, came into being at its end (see Friedrich 1951: 1). A group of quite different dialects tended through contact to
become more and more similar (compare the case of the Neo-Arabic dialects
noted above in 1.7.3, p. 19). Had Ugaritic not disappeared so early, it might
also have acquired Canaanite traits and lost its non-Canaanite features, becoming, in the end, a genuine Canaanite language. This, of course, is mere
speculation. An opposed set of inferences is possible, i.e., that the Canaanite
language type branched off from Northwest Semitic in accordance with the
family-tree model, but some dialects were later attracted by the Canaanite dialects, inuenced by them and inuencing them, in accordance with the wave
model. The same could be true for Northwest Semitic.
1.7.15. One additional factor has to be taken into consideration in the development of languages in general: the possibility of parallel development.
The fundamental difculty of distinguishing between initial identity and (independent) parallel development was justly regarded by A. Meillet to pertain
to the very essence of comparative linguistics. Because of the very close afn-
Wave Model 1.7.17.
23
ity of the Semitic languages, which are as similar to each other as languages
belonging to separate branches of the Indo-European family, the possibility of
parallel development is considerable. Each language provides similar starting
points for various phenomena, sometimes even quite specic phenomena.
1.7.15n. The key passage is Meillet 1958b. See also Blau 1980 = Topics, 12637; 1968b =
Topics, 27375; 1978a = Topics, 309, 31820; and below, 3.5.7.2.1n, p. 121. Parallel development, for all its importance, must be dealt with in the framework of general comparative linguistics, as an integral part of it. It must not be misrepresented as the cornerstone of
a new conception of historical linguistics, as if it could replace family tree and wave
models, as has been done, in a somewhat fanciful way, by Lutz Edzard (1998).
1.7.16. Accordingly, a realistic model for the development of the Semitic

languages has to allow not only for their splitting off from a common stock,
but also for mutual contact and parallel development. Therefore it is perhaps
more expedient to group the Semitic languages in the following way:
East Semitic: Akkadian.

Northwest Semitic: Amorite; Aramaic; Ugaritic; Canaanite.
Southwest Semitic: Arabic; South Arabian; Ethiopic.
Fig. 2. The Semitic languages: the list model.
This list model has an additional advantage over the family-tree model. The
latter implies that all the Semitic languages derive from the same protolanguage, as if Proto-Semitic were a uniform language, without dialectal variations. It stands to reason, however, that every language, especially if spread
over broad territories, shows dialectal variations, and for Proto-Semitic, indeed, this is rather likely. Evidence is provided by alternations such as the
causative prexes h/ /s (see 4.3.5.7.3, p. 234), for which dialectal variation
could well account.
1.7.17. Such dialectal variations would make the reconstruction of ProtoSemitic even more of an imaginary endeavor than proto-language reconstruction usually is. Reconstruction would also be difcult because the various
features reconstructed for Proto-Semitic would be of varying ages. The attribution of features of different ages to the synchronic system of one language
would be tantamount, to use Charles Ballys witty formulation, to a portrait of
a man built up of photographs taken at different ages, with a babys mouth, an
adults beard, and an old mans wrinkles (quoted in Leroy 1967: 137). Further,
the various features attributed to Proto-Semitic are not only hypothetical but
necessarily decient, since they are based on literary documents accidentally
preserved in the various Semitic languages.
1.8. Afro-Asiatic
24
1.8. Afro-Asiatic
1.8.1. In recent times, the afnity between the Semitic languages and other
groups of languages has been emphasized; these are Egyptian, Berber (or
Lybico-Berber), and some other African language families (Chadic, Cushitic,
Omotic). The once usual name Hamito-Semitic languages for this larger
group is now less common because it allegedly wrongly suggests that the Semitic languages stand in opposition to the other groups, which together constitute a supposed Hamitic group. Rather, each family has to be regarded as a
separate entity within the larger family, and indeed each evinces scattered, yet
surprising, similarities with the Semitic languages. The name used today is
Afro-Asiatic languages or Afrasian.
1.8.2. The actual comparative analysis of these languages has to overcome
tremendous obstacles. The Semitic languages and Egyptian are known from
ancient times; the other languages, however, are only known from recent
times, with some exceptions in the Berber group. So far, scholars have not
succeeded in building up a model for the afnity between these languages and
the Semitic languages. Even the most basic issues are completely obscure,
e.g., whether some or all of these languages reect an original afnity with Semitic or, rather, during their history, had become semitized (or possibly egyptianized). Perhaps comparative work analyzing the internal workings of these
groups will enable future scholars to extrapolate some of the results reached to
the larger family.
1.8.3. So far, however, the many claims made seem to be premature. Thus
it has been claimed on the strength of features found in some African languages that the Semitic languages show features found in languages of the ergative type. In such languages the status (and case marking) of the subject of
an intransitive verb is similar to that of the object of a transitive verb. In English we can contrast The window broke and I broke the window; window has
a similar status in both, the undergoer of the action. This analogy is limited,
since modern English does not possess cases. Only if the subject of intransitive break (The window broke) has the same case as the object of transitive
break (I broke the window) do we have a proper ergative construction. It has
been claimed that in Semitic languages there are vestiges of this construction,
yet the proofs adduced are meager indeed.
1.8.3n. Thus Lipinski (1997: 259, par. 32.11) contends that in the Arabic sentence a>E aK
L ka:na axa: li: he was a brother to me, a>E axa: terminates in predicative -a:, supposedly marking the predicate of an ergative construction. The sentence in correct Classical
Arabic is, instead, L a>E aK kana axan li:, with tanwin -an (denoting the accusative), and
it is much more tenable to regard this accusative as a development of the adverbial construction *he stood as a brother to me > he was a brother to me.
Further, Lipinski suggests that the -a sufx of the Arabic perfect 3ms (e.g., faria he
was glad; cf. Lipinski 1997: 360, par. 40.3) reects the predicative sufx of the ergative
Sound Shift 1.9.3.
25
attached to an originally intransitive stative. This is not convincing, although it is not totally out of question. Were the nal -a of faria in fact a nominal ending, one wonders
why in the 3fs (e.g., fariat she was glad) there is no trace of the -a ending (the form is
not *fariata), since everything indicates that the nal -t was not followed by a vowel; cf.,
e.g., Bauer-Leander 1922: 309, par. 42g.
1.9. Sound Shifts and Relative Chronology

1.9.1. Consider the following groups of pairs of words in Hebrew and
Arabic.
A. Heb
q["z;
Arab zaaqa to cry
B. Heb
jb"z;
Arab qabaa to
sacrice
Heb
lz'n;
to ow; Arab nazala

to go down
Heb
z,a&
Arab uqn ear
Heb
zg'r;
to be agitated; Arab
irtajaza to thunder
Heb
zj"a:
Arab axaqa to take
In the six Hebrew words, z occurs twice in initial, twice in medial, and twice
in nal position, demonstrating that its use is not restricted to any special position in the word. In Group A, Heb z corresponds to Arab z, while in Group B,
it is Arab q that matches Heb z. What is the reason for this different behavior?
1.9.2. For arguments sake, let us begin by assuming that Hebrew, rather
than Arabic, has preserved the original structure. This would mean that in
Proto-Semitic these words exhibited z, and that it was Arabic that retained it
in Group A and shifted it to q in Group B. Such a view would require that
sound shifts be irregular and unpredictable, since there is no reason for the different behavior of the putative original z in Group B. As noted, the difference
cannot be explained by the position of the sound in the word or root.
1.9.3. It cannot even be claimed that the different consonantal environment
in these groups brought about the different behavior of supposed ProtoSemitic z, since such differences occur in identical environments as well.
Even in identical (or very similar) roots, z occurs alongside q. Consider three
examples. (1) Compare Heb [r'z;, Arab zaraa to sow, with Heb ['/rz], Arab
qira arm. (2) As we have seen, Heb z,a& corresponds to Arab uqn ear;
nevertheless, Heb yin'z& ]am scale matches Arab mizan. (3) Heb z[", root zz, to
be strong goes with Arab aziz, yet Heb zy[IhE, root wz, to bring into safety
matches Arab aaqa, root wq.
1.9.3n. The root to sow, Heb [r'z;, Arab zaraa, presents a surprise in Ugaritic. There dr
to sow is attested. Since in Ugaritic d may correspond to q, this form attests, prima facie,
PS qr, contravening regular sound correspondences. I am, however, inclined to posit for
Ugaritic original PS *zr and attribute qr to contamination with the synonymous qr to
sow; see 1.10.3.56, p. 38, and 1.16.7, p. 52.
1.9.4. Sound Shift
26
In Heb yin'z& ]am scale, the a is surprising, since the word is to be derived, as demonstrated by Arabic, from the root wzn (>yzn), rather than from zn. Just as bv/m seat, from
the root wsb (>ysb), is spelled without a, so one would have expected yin'z& ]am without a as
well. The a is due to the inuence of yin'z& ]a: (two) ears, since speakers were reminded of
(two) ears by the two scales of the balance. It is interesting to note that in Biblical Aramaic
(Dan 5:27) aY; n'z& ] am is spelled with a as well, although in Aramaic ear is derived from dn,
and not from zn. This derivation makes the possibility of any impact of dn on moznayya quite unlikely. The aleph is due, no doubt, to the inuence of Hebrew.
1.9.4. If we were to assume that it was only by chance that these roots split
into two secondary roots, one containing z, the other q, this would be tantamount to positing anarchy in sound shifts. Therefore, such a view has to be
abandoned. The analysis of the linguistic facts clearly demonstrates that
sound shifts are regular, as long as other factors do not interfere. This assumption is not only demonstrated by hundreds and hundreds of cases of regular development in various languages and regular correspondences between
related languages, but it has also enabled important ndings that otherwise
would not have been made. Therefore, a different assumption has to be made
which does not contravene the basic principle of historical linguistics that
sound shifts are regular.
1.9.5. We shall posit that it was Arabic, rather than Hebrew, that preserved
the state of Proto-Semitic for z/q. In Hebrew PS q in every position has consistently shifted to z. Accordingly, we have to postulate historically the existence of two kinds of z in Hebrew. One (found in Group A), let us call it z1,
stems from PS z and corresponds to z in Arabic and the other Semitic languages. The other, let us call it z2, originates in PS (and corresponds to Arab)
q (as in Group B). The Proto-Semitic interdentals take on various identities,
and this q was not quite stable in various Semitic languages: in Akkadian and
in Ancient Ethiopic (Gez) it shifted, as in Hebrew, to z; in Aramaic it shifted
to d; in Classical Arabic and Epigraphic South Arabian it was preserved.
1.9.5n. The history of this interdental in Ugaritic is interesting (see further Blau 1968a =
Topics, 33941). At the time of the invention of the Ugaritic alphabet q still existed, and a
special letter (the sixteenth in the Ugaritic alphabet) was invented for it. Nevertheless, at
the time of the transmission of the Ugaritic literature, the sound had shifted to d (as in Aramaic). In some words the archaic spelling, marking q by a special letter, still obtained.
1.9.6. The chart below of some Hebrew words containing z2 and their correspondences (see p. 27) in other Semitic languages is not without interest.
1.9.6n. The Aramaic forms in the chart require a word of explanation: In Aramaic b, g, d,
k, p, t after vowels have shifted, as in Biblical Hebrew, to spirants; accordingly, d after
vowels has become q, which here, however, does not represent PS q but an allophone of q.
Similarly PS b has become b2 . The -a sufxed to Aramaic nouns serves, originally at least,
as a postpositive denite article. The noun with the article is said to be in the emphatic
state. Regarding Ugaritic axd, note that the archaic spelling axq is attested as well. Aram
deb2 a means jackal, and Ethiopic (Gez) zb means hyena. Akkadian nominal forms
SoundqShift
> z 1.9.9.
27
to sacrice
ear
to take
wolf
y
Heb
Akk
Aram
Ugar
Arab
Gez
jb"z;
dOba
db
qabaa
zaba
z,a&
uzn(um)
uqna
udn
uqn(un)
zn
zj"a:
axaz(um) aq
axd
axaqa
axaza
baEz]
zib(um)
qib(un)
zb
qubab(un) znb
bWbz]
deba
zubb(um) dabbaba
terminate in -um (we are quoting Akkadian verbs in the innitive form), Arabic forms end
in -un. Gez znb reects the dissimilation of bb (in original *zbb) to nb.
1.9.7. As shown, the correspondences between the various Semitic languages are entirely regular. Heb z2, for which we posit PS q, as preserved, e.g.,
in Arabic, always corresponds to Akk and Ethiopic z and Aram and Ugaritic d.
It is this empirical regularity that serves as the basis of the determining principle of linguistics, viz., that sound shifts are regular.
1.9.8. The notions of the historical relationship between languages and of
the regularity of sound shifts have been shaped only since the last quarter of
the eighteenth century (see 1.5.31.5.4, p. 13). The principle of the regularity of phonetic change was especially stressed from the 1870s on by the Junggrammatiker or Neogrammarian school, which was at rst centered around
the University of Leipzig. These scholars, somewhat unfortunately, called the
sound shifts sound laws (Lautgesetze) and thus initiated a long and not very
fruitful discussion about the extent to which these sound laws may be compared with natural laws. In their opinion sound laws operated blindly and
with blind necessity. The most important practical distinction between sound
shifts and natural laws is that the latter are eternal, whereas sound shifts are restricted in time. Phonetic changes operate for a certain time, after which habits of pronunciation may change and thus induce different sound shifts.
1.9.8n. Neogrammarian slogans include Hermann Osthoff s formulation, Die Lautgesetze wirken blind, mit blinder Notwendigkeit (Sound laws operate blindly, with
blind necessity), and the statement of Osthoff and Brugmann, Aller Lautwandel, so weit
er mechanisch vor sich geht, vollzieht sich nach ausnahmslosen Gesetzen (Every sound
change, insofar as it proceeds mechanically, is completed according to exceptionless
laws (Osthoff and Brugman 1878: xiii).
1.9.9. As we have seen (1.9.5), PS q had shifted in Hebrew to z. At a certain period speakers of Hebrew became unable to pronounce q and constantly
substituted z for it. At a later period, other phonetic changes arose, which once
more introduced q into Hebrew. At this period d after vowels became spirantized, i.e., it shifted to q. If the sound shift q to z had still operated at this period, d should have rst shifted to q, and afterwards to z. Accordingly, we have
1.9.10. Relative Chronology; Etymology
28
to posit that at the time of the spirantization of d the sound shift q to z had
ceased to operate.
1.9.9n. We are speaking here of sounds. As a matter of fact, a great difference between the
functions of q in these two periods obtains. In the rst period, it was a phoneme, in the second, initially at least, a mere allophone. See 3.3.2.1, p. 78, on the spirantization of d,
along with b, g, k, p, t.
1.9.10. The recognition that sound shifts are restricted in their operation
enables us often to establish their relative chronology. It is clear that the spirantization of d is later than the shift of q to z; that is, the shift of q to z preceded the spirantization of d after vowels and had already ceased to operate
when the spirantization occurred. (It is not possible to determine in the same
way the absolute chronology of these shifts, i.e., to establish the actual periods
in which they took place.)
1.9.11. The shift of q to z occurred under every circumstance; it is unconditioned, and because of its operation q completely disappeared from ancient
Hebrew. In contrast, the shift of d to q occurred only after vowels; it was conditioned, and therefore d not after a vowel remained in Hebrew and did not
disappear.
1.10. Etymology and Sound Shifts

1.10.1. Introduction
1.10.1.1. Etymology deals with the original formation and meaning of
words. Greek etymos means true, as if the true meaning were at stake,
based, it seems, on the Stoic notion that the original meaning of each word was
onomatopoetic (an imitation of sound), disclosing the initial connection between the sound of the word and the object or action it marks. For the most
part, etymology is diachronic, attempting to trace the history of words by nding out their early forms and meanings, and working back, as far as the existing documents allow. Comparative etymology attempts to discover the afnity
between the vocabularies of related languages. It is customary to base the
etymology of biblical vocabulary on comparative evidence, the more so because it is of limited extent only. Judiciously done, it is of no mean importance. An example will sufce to illustrate our claim.
1.10.1.1n. For the vocabulary of Biblical Hebrew, see the various editions of Wilhelm Gesenius dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew. The rst German lexicon was published in 1812,
while the Latin lexicon appeared in 183558. The best known dictionary in the Gesenius
tradition and the most widely used English biblical lexicon is the excellent, though somewhat outdated, work of F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs (1907), generally quoted
as BDB. In the same tradition, in German, and up to the same standard is the likewise
somewhat obsolete dictionary of F. Buhl (1915), nominally the seventeenth edition of Gesenius German work.
29
Etymology 1.10.1.3.
More modern dictionaries, such as the various editions of the work of Ludwig Koehler
and W. Baumgartner, are not up to the same standard, with the notable exception of their
Aramaic portion, composed and guided by Baumgartner (Koehler and Baumgartner 1953,
1958, 1996, 2000; Holladay 1971; Reymond 1991). E. Klein has published A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English (1987).
1.10.1.2. The biblical verb jf"B: denotes, as a rule, to be condent, secure,

as Judg 18:7 j'fEbW fqEv secure and condent. A problem arises with Jer 12:5.
The verse begins with the exclamation: yaEw ] Wa& l} Y' w' hT:x}r'& ylIg]r'Ata< yKI
ysIWSh"Ata< hr,jt"T} because [if ] you have run with footmen and they have wearied you, then how can you contend with horses? It continues: /lv r,a<&b}W
Der]Y'h" /ag]BI hc[T" yaEw ] j'fE/b hT:a." According to the ordinary signication of
jfb, this would have the quite absurd meaning: and [if ] in the land of peace
you are condent, then how will you do in the swelling of the Jordan? This
suggests that one is safer in the jungles along the Jordan, a dangerous area
where lions make their covert, than in the land of peace! In Arabic, however,
baaahu means he threw him down and inbaaa he fell (upon his face).
It appears that jfb in the sense of to fall was still preserved in Biblical Hebrew, and that this sense was later forgotten through the inuence of the
meaning to be secure. In Jer 12:5, at any rate, j'fE/b has preserved the meaning of falling and the lines have to be translated and [if ] in the land of peace
you fall down, then how will you do in the swelling of the Jordan? The Targum corroborates this suggestion, translating j'fE/b by lypn falling.
1.10.1.2n. Apparently, jf"B: to be secure and inbaaa to fall are not homonyms, i.e.,
they are not words that, though identical in sound, have no historical connection. Rather
this is a case of polysemy, i.e., the words are derived from one root which, by semantic
shift, has developed different signications. The semantic shift was to fall > to lie > to
lie in security, to be secure, as in Ps 22:1011: j<r;&mE yTIk}l"v
& h: yl<[& : yMIaI ydevAl[" yjIyfIb}m" , literally, (you) are letting me lie on my mothers breasts; I was cast upon you from the
womb, i.e., (you) are making me secure on my mothers breasts; I have been made secure
and condent in you from the womb. For a similar development, cf. Arab saqaa to fall,
fq' v to be quiet.
1.10.1.3. In spite of the great merits of etymology, the etymologist must

beware of pitfalls. He has to take heed lest he attribute to words a meaning attested in other languages, rather than the meaning demanded by context. A
case in point is Isa 2:16, hD;m}j<h" t/YkIcAlK: l["w ] vyvr]T" t/YniaAlK: l["w ] and on all
the ships of Tarshish and on all pleasant t/YkIc. The word t/YkIc was connected by many scholars with Heb tyKIcm" gure and Aram ak:s} (originally
akc*) to look out and therefore interpreted as imagery. Nevertheless, the
context clearly demands ship, rather than a metonymic expression such as
imagery, and scholars who interpreted t/YkIc as imagery were simply misled by etymology. In fact, Ugaritic tkt a kind of ship substantiates the contention that t/YkIc denotes ships from the point of view of etymology.
1.10.1.4. Etymology
30
1.10.1.3n. Ugaritic tkt should, according to regular sound shift, correspond to twykv*. This
does not, however, necessarily imply that the original biblical reading was with v, since
the word may well be borrowed (in both languages) from Egyptian; thus Hebrew and Ugaritic may here reect different adaptations of the same Egyptian word.
1.10.1.4. Sometimes etymology misleads the scholar in matters of material culture. Thus j:l}v table was connected with Arabic salaxa to strip off
hide and interpreted as having been a leather mat spread on the ground and
used as a table, as is usual in Arab Bedouin societies. Nevertheless, archaeological evidence from the biblical period points to tables made of wood, as is
also required by Exod 37:10. With the discovery of Ugaritic, which attests to
tln table (rather than *slxn), the connection with Arabic slx can nally be
refuted.
1.10.1.4n. Tropper (2000: 109) claims that the t of Ugaritic tln corresponds to PS s, and
he is inclined to regard this as a loan word (and, indeed, Ugaritic t may reect s in loan
words, Tropper 2000: 108). Therefore, he considers its derivation from slx (Arabic slx) to
be possible. Although this supposition would account for t, it does not explain the occurrence of , rather than the expected x, if the Ugaritic word were in fact related to *slx.
One could, to be sure, posit a loan from a language in which x had shifted to ; nevertheless, such an assumption is nothing more than an unnecessary and desperate attempt to
save the derivation of tln from slx.
1.10.2. Etymology and Regular Sound Shifts

1.10.2.1. If we continue with the word j:l}v table, we can explore the
complexity of regular sounds shifts, since this word contains two of the Hebrew sounds that represent mergers from Proto-Semitic. We will explain why
theoretically Heb v (j:l}v) could correspond to Ugar t (tln) on the one hand
and to Arab s (slx) on the other hand, as well as why theoretically Heb j (j:l}v)
could correspond to Ugar (tln) on the one hand and to Arab x (slx) on the
other hand.
1.10.2.2. If we compare Hebrew roots containing s or , a picture similar to
that observed with z (in 1.9.61.9.7, pp. 2627) emerges. Heb s in one
group of roots corresponds to s in other Semitic languages; specically, Heb s
corresponds to Akk, Aram, and Ugar s, and Arab and Eth (Gez) s. This s we
shall call s1. In contrast, for another group of Hebrew roots containing s
(which we shall call s2) other sounds correspond in other Semitic languages:
Akkadian has s, agreeing with Hebrew, but we nd Aram t, Ugar and Arab t,
and Eth (Gez) s.
1.10.2.2n. Minor adjustments that are relevant to the examples will be cited in every case.
Akkadian shows some dialectal variation that is not germane. Arab and Gez s, in contrast
with s in the other languages, seems to be secondary. In the related language Epigraphic
South Arabian, on the other hand, s has been preserved, and it is also attested in Modern
South Arabian languages. Against the earlier view, that in Epigraphic South Arabian s had
shifted to s, as if this shift were a common Southwest Semitic feature, see, e.g., Beeston
Etymology
s / t 1.10.2.3.2.
31
1984: 9 and n. 15; Blau 1977e: 9092 = Topics, 7375. (This s is conventionally represented as s1. In this same scheme, s2 corresponds to the Modern South Arabian nonemphatic lateral and to Heb in and Arab s, and s 3 to Heb s and Arab s.)
1.10.2.3. Let us look at the following examples involving the root sny year
and to change, containing s1, and two and to do a second time, with s2.
Heb
Akk
Arab
Gez
Aram
Ugar
year
to change
hn;v
sattu(m)
sana
sna
snt
hN;v
sunnu(m)
two
to do again
sina
sanita
sanni
yin'v
&
tren
tn
hn;v
sanu(m)
tna
tny
itnani
tana
In Hebrew and Akkadian, by dint of the shift t > s2, the two roots sny/tny have
become homonymous. It is only synchronically that hn;v year and hN;v to
change can be derived from the same root, although both begin with s1. hn;v
belongs to the very old stratum of primitive nouns with biconsonantal roots
(see 1.5.7, p. 14, 1.5.10, p. 14), and it is, prima facie, difcult to imagine that
to change is derived from it, as if change were a distinctive characteristic of
a year.
1.10.2.3n. A supposed link between change and year has often been alleged; see, e.g.,
BDB. Semantically it is more plausible to connect yin'v
& two, beginning with s2 , also a biconsonantal noun, and the verb to do again. Historically, there was no connection whatever between these words, since two begins with s2 , and change with s1. Nevertheless,
synchronically, after the initial t in two had shifted to s, the two words were felt to be
related, since if something shifts to a second thing, it changes. This intricate connection
between various roots clearly demonstrates the importance of strictly adhering to the assumption of the regularity of sound shifts. This is the only way to disentangle, at least to
some extent, the complicated relations between various roots. See also immediately below!
The table requires some annotation.

1.10.2.3.1. year: Akk sattu(m) reects original *santu(m) with assimilated n, as does Aram (emphatic state) aT:v" the year. The original feminine
ending is -(a)t; in Hebrew and Aramaic this ending had shifted in nal position to -a (spelled h-;): Heb hn;v, Aram hn;v.
1.10.2.3.2. to change: Akk sunnu(m), being an innitive, terminates in
the nominal ending -u(m). The existence of this root in Ugaritic is uncertain.
1.10.2.3.2n. In what follows we shall not call attention to the Akkadian nominal ending
-um. It is customary in Akkadian transcriptions to mark with a circumex long vowels that
arose by contraction (e.g., ) and to mark other long vowels with a macron (e.g., u). In order not to complicate matters, we mark all long vowels with a macron.
1.10.2.3.3. Etymology
s / t and / x
32
1.10.2.3.3. two: The nal -a of Akk sina is the dual ending, as are Heb
-yim, Arab -ani, and Aram -en. In Arabic, t, being without a vowel, is preceded by a prosthetic aleph. Gez sanita denotes the second/next day. Aram
tren emerged from original *tnen, cf. Aram tinyan second. The shift of the
last radical from n to r is also attested in Aram bar son < *bin, and mr to
hide < mn.
1.10.2.4. Heb j also corresponds to two different sets of sounds in other
Semitic languages. On the one hand, it corresponds to Akk W (zero), Aram,
Ugar, Arab, Gez (and ESA) ; in such cases, we shall call it 1. On the other
hand, it may correspond to Aram , Akk, Ugar, Arab, Gez (and ESA) x, and
in these cases we shall call it 2.
1.10.2.4n. With the exception of x (generally transliterated h in Akkadian), Akkadian laryngeals and pharyngeals have weakened to become a glottal stop or have disappeared entirely. Nevertheless, they have often left traces of their former presence in the surrounding
vowels. It appears that the weakening of the laryngeals and pharyngeals occurred through
the impact of Sumerian, a non-Semitic language of unknown linguistic afnity, whose
speakers preceded and deeply inuenced the Semites in Babylon in language and culture,
including writing. The merger of 1 and 2 is found in Aramaic as in Hebrew.
1.10.2.5. If we examined these data and proposed that Hebrew (which exhibits s and only, as does Aramaic), reects the original state of Semitic, we
would be obliged to suppose complete arbitrariness in the behavior of these
sounds in the other Semitic languages, which, in this case, varied without any
apparent reason. Basing ourselves on the principle of the regularity of sound
shifts, we can instead explain these data for Proto-Semitic by proposing the
existence of s1 (pronounced s) and s2 (pronounced t), and the existence of 1
(pronounced ) and 2 (pronounced x), respectively. The information of the
many Semitic languages is thus accounted for. Here are some examples of
both s1 /s2 and 1 /2:
1.10.2.6. ts1 nine, Heb [vT& E, Akk tisu(m), Aram tOs, Gez tsu, Arab
tis(un), Ugar ts, ESA ts.
1.10.2.6n. The Hebrew form was originally *tis , which developed in H to [vT& E (note the
penultimate stress!) with the insertion of an anaptyctic vowel (see 4.4.5.10, p. 273;
4.5.1.11, p. 282).
In Akkadian, the disappeared.
The different syllable structure of Aramaic (in contrast with [vTE& < *tis ) is due to an internal development, the so-called sursaut (a vocalic jump). This was caused, it seems,
not only because the anaptyctic (nal) vowel had become phonemically relevant and attracted the stress, but also by the analogy of certain disyllabic nouns. These originally had
two short vowels in a (rst) open and a (second) closed syllable and had become identical,
in the pronominal state, with originally monosyllabic nouns. Thus, e.g., *haqar majesty
> Aram hqr, with pronominal sufx haqri, which was identical in shape with the status
pronominalis of monosyllabic nouns, like yari my month, thus giving rise to forms like
yra. See Spitaler 1968: 9496; Blau 2000: 520. In Gez, the nal -u is a special sufx.
33
s /Etymology
t and / x 1.10.2.19.
1.10.2.7. qds1 to be cultically clean, hallowed, Heb vdq, Akk, Aram,

Ugar, ESA qds, Arab, Gez qds.
1.10.2.8. s1m name, Heb v, Akk sum(um), Aram v, Ugar sm, Gez
sm, Arab ism(un), ESA sm.
1.10.2.8n. In Akkadian and Aramaic, the u is presumably due to the assimilation of original i to the following m. The Arabic word has a prosthetic vowel that is used only at the
absolute beginning of an utterance (and in the dictionary form, as here).
1.10.2.9. lbs1 to dress, Heb, Akk, Aram, Ugar, ESA lbs, Arab, Gez lbs.
1.10.2.10. ms2 l to be (a)like, etc., Heb, Akk msl, Aram mtl, Gez msl,
Arab, ESA mtl.
1.10.2.11. s2br to break, Heb rb"v, Akk sbr, Aram tbr, Gez sbr, Ugar,
Arab, ESA tbr.
1.10.2.11n. The Arabic word means to destroy.
1.10.2.12. 1rs2 to plow, Heb vr'j:, Aram rt, Gez rs, Ugar, Arab, ESA
rt.
1.10.2.12n. The occurrence of this root in Akkadian is dubious, since eresu to sow may
correspond to Arab wrs.
1.10.2.13. 1rs1 craftsman, Heb vr;h:, Ugar rs.

1.10.2.14. 2rs1 deaf, mute, Heb vrejE, Aram arsa (emphatic state), Arab
axras(u).
1.10.2.14n. Arab axras(u) belongs to an exceptional class of nouns that end in -u (rather
than in -un).
1.10.2.15. 1bl rope, Heb lb<j<&, Akk ebl(um), Aram b2 al/b2 el, Ugar,
ESA bl, Gez abl, Arab abl(un).
1.10.2.15n. The Hebrew was originally *abl, which developed to lb<j<& (note the penult
stress!) with the insertion of an anaptyctic vowel.
In Akkadian, as noted, 1 disappeared (or rather shifted to ).
The Aramaic form again shows sursaut (1.10.2.6n). Some words show derived sense:
the Ugaritic noun means band, group, and the Epigraphic South Arabian means pact,
contract.
1.10.2.16. 2 bl to corrupt, to injure (with various semantic variations),

Heb, Aram bl, Akk, Arab, Gez(?), ESA xbl.
1.10.2.17. 2ms1 ve, Heb vmEj:, Akk xams(um), Aram mes, Ugar, ESA
xms, Arab xams(un), Gez xams.
1.10.2.17n. In Arabic and Gez, the numeral is monosyllabic. In Aramaic, other forms
exist as well.
1.10.2.18. 2nq to strangle, Heb qn'j:, Akk, Gez, Arab xnq, Aram nq.
1.10.2.19. These regular sound correspondences provide the basis for the
study of Semitic etymology. As we shall see, there are many complexities and
risks involved in etymology. It is because of these that the excellent (yet
1.10.2.20. Etymology
34
outdated) biblical dictionary of C. Siegfried and B. Stade (1893) renounced

comparative etymology entirely, claiming that it harms more than it helps.
Such a procedure, however, surely throws the baby out with the bathwater.
1.10.2.19n. A fruitful way of determining the exact meaning of words, without necessarily
having recourse to etymology, was developed by Moshe Held and, in his wake, by his
pupil Harold R. (Chaim) Cohen. They seek to establish the meaning of a difcult word by
examining synonyms in related Semitic languages used in the same environment. Thus,
e.g., the meaning of the hapax legomenon x<q,& foam in Hos 10:7 yim"& yneP} l[" x<q,&K} as foam
upon the water, can be elucidated by a parallel expression in Akkadian in which xubus
foam occurs. See, e.g., Held 1965, 197071, 1973, 1974, 1982, 1985; Cohen 1978, 1989.
1.10.2.20. Comparative etymology, when judiciously researched, is indeed,

of great value. Above all, it has to be based on sound knowledge of the languages compared. It does not sufce to look in the dictionaries of the compared languages for corresponding roots. The etymologist must carefully distinguish between basic and secondary meanings. Often, the compared language has a root with a signication that, on the face of it, offers the meaning
required by the biblical passage compared. Nevertheless, deeper scrutiny reveals that this is due to secondary development of meanings not attested in
Biblical Hebrew.
1.10.2.21. This danger is especially great in comparisons with Arabic. Its
vast vocabulary was already used for comparisons in the Middle Ages, and
since the days of Albert Schultens (16861750) it has often been abused for
comparative biblical etymology. Because we do not possess modern dictionaries of Classical Arabic based on readings of texts, comparison with Arabic
was carried out with the help of the native dictionaries. These, however, have
a rather atomistic approach, without any attempt to distinguish between basic
and occasional meanings. Scholars have wrongly sought to elucidate difcult
biblical passages on the basis of many of these occasional meanings, based on
special context. In the Middle Ages, Jona ibn Jana (11th century), the greatest medieval Hebrew grammarian and lexicographer, interpreted Amos 6:5
lb<N;&h" yPIAl[" yfIr]Ph" on the basis of an Arabic verb as those who improvise on
the harp. This interpretation ts the context very well. Nevertheless, it cannot
be substantiated on the strength of Arabic, since the basic meaning of Arabic
fr is to precede, which shifted to to do hastily, and only then to to improvise. It is quite unlikely that the same semantic shift took place in Hebrew,
where the basic meaning is absent. (See further Blau 1987a: 96 = Studies, 201.)
1.10.2.22. Nevertheless, the most fundamental requirement of a comparative etymology is that the scholar not be misled by external similiarities between words, but rather that he/she adhere to rigorously observed, precise
rules of sound shifts. If this is not done, etymology is apt to turn into nothing
more than a game.
35
Etymology; Semantic Connections 1.10.2.26.
1.10.2.23. In many cases, strict adherence to the regularity of sound shifts

enables us to disentangle the connections of words and to discover homonyms. We have already seen that two yin'&v begins with s2. One might (as
noted above) seek to connect it with hN;v to change, beginning with s1. The
notions of changing, diversifying on the one hand, and of two, second on
the other, are related. Nevertheless, the fact is that hn;v to change is historically not related to yin'&v two. In the wake of the shift of t to s in Hebrew,
however, a (historically) homonymous root sny developed, and since two
and to change are semantically closely related, the historical homonymy of
the root sny has developed into a synchronic polysemy. Synchronically, two
and to change are felt to be semantic modications of the same basic idea, so
that the synchronic root exhibits polysemy.
1.10.2.23n. In such cases, one may also speak of mutual contamination of the two words
or roots. Cf. also Blau 1957c: 1012 = Studies, 17374. A difcult phrase in Ugaritic deserves attention here. In the poetic Kirta epic, the phrase wtn . ndr occurs (CAT 1.15 [= UT
128] III 29). This is sometimes interpreted as and he changed [i.e., abrogated] the vow. If
this is correct, then the semantic change to make something into another thing (< a second) > to change it has taken place in Ugaritic, which thus has tny to change, where
other Semitic languages have s1ny.
1.10.2.24. The case of sny also teaches us an important caveat in etymology: even meanings that, prima facie, are very close to each other may historically be derived from different roots. In the case of sny, it was only due to
chance that we could prove that the notion of one root, denoting both two
and to change, is fallacious, since one meaning is attested in other Semitic
languages with s1, the other with s2. When the circumstances are not so favorable and the data not so abundant, nothing certain can be stated. We have entertained the notion that year and change may be related. Nevertheless,
nothing certain can be said of them, since both of them begin with s1. Therefore, they may well reect Proto-Semitic homonymy. We have certainly arrived at the limits of our knowledge.
1.10.2.25. Semantic connections are more difcult to place in a scholarly
framework than phonetic relations. The most one can do is to trace such semantic connections and demonstrate semantic shifts. This, however, can only
be done post factum. We must not attempt to connect everything that can be
connected, lest we end up connecting everything with everything else, as has
been done, for instance, in various attempts to demonstrate the biradical origin
of all roots in the Semitic languages (see, e.g., Botterweck 1952). When perusing such works, one has the feeling that the etymologies included in them,
though not impossible in principle, have such slim chances of reecting reality
that it would be much more prudent to refrain from proposing them altogether.
1.10.2.26. The juxtaposition of possible parallel semantic shifts is much
more rmly based on reality. Thus, it is possible to recognize that verbs
1.10.2.27. Semantics; Sound Shifts
36
denoting covering, dressing may also have the meaning of being faithless,
deceiving, as attested by the pairs dg'B: / dg,B& < and l["m: / ly[Im}. In these pairs, the
rst words (dg,B& < and ly[Im}) denote garment, robe, the second (dg'B: and l["m:)
to lie, act treacherously. In other cases, covering may shift to being weak,
fainting. Thus FE["t}hI / LE["t}hI mean not only to cover oneself, but also to
be weak, to faint. Arab wasiya means to cover, wusiya alayhi it was covered over him > he fainted. We may conclude that weakening was conceived as being connected with being covered.
1.10.2.26n. For the rst illustration, see Palache (1959: 1012); note also Arab wll. For the
second, the semantic pattern argues against Jacob Barths view that there were two homonymous verbs FE["t}hI; he connected the meaning to be weak with Arab aiba to perish (Barth 1893: 2728). In principle, this is possible. Nevertheless, given the semantic
shift to be covered > to be weakened, the odds are against Barths view, the more so,
since Barth also based himself on (an admittedly light) phonetic change: p (p) in contrast
to b (b). For the term weak phonetic shift, see 1.10.3 and Blau 1977e: 6769 = Topics,
5052.
1.10.2.27. Notwithstanding such patterns of semantic shifts, an etymology

has a much better chance of being on solid ground in phonology if it shows
regularity of sound shifts. The importance of such shifts is especially conspicuous in those cases in which Proto-Semitic sounds, reconstructable from other
Semitic languages, have merged in Hebrew. Thus one might easily see an afnity between Heb br,j<& sword and byrijh< to destroy. The word br,j<&, corresponding to Arab arb(un) war, could easily be seen as the means par
excellence of destruction. Nevertheless, historically, these two roots have to
be distinguished, since the of br,j<&, as demonstrated by Arab arb(un), is 1,
while byrijh< corresponds to Arab xarraba, i.e., it begins with 2.
1.10.2.28. The strict application of sound shifts may also affect the philology of the biblical text. Whenever difculties in the understanding of a verse
arise, scholars are tempted to emend it, a procedure understood to be licit because of the very intricate way that the biblical text has reached us. A parallel
but distinct procedure has arisen in the last half-century: some scholars have
used the vast vocabulary of Akkadian, in addition to Arabic, and, applying the
regular sound shifts to words of those languages, have sought to attribute to
biblical words new meanings. Effectively, new homonyms are found in the
biblical text. So, e.g., we have already discussed the complex character of the
root sny in Hebrew. Modern biblical philologists have further expanded its extension. It has been claimed that hn;v may also denote to be eminent, in accordance with Arabic sny, and that hn,vmI designates equivalent, based on a
certain interpretation of Akkadian mistannu(m).
1.10.2.29. The question arises whether such an excessive number of homonyms is likely to have existed in Biblical Hebrew. The biblical texts are, to
be sure, of great variety, stemming from different parts of Palestine over a
37
Weak Sound Shifts 1.10.3.4.
very long period, yet the biblical corpus reects nevertheless a surprisingly
homogeneous text, which certainly underwent redaction, so that the supposed
plethora of homonyms is surprising.
1.10.2.29n. The issue is well treated in Barr 1968: 12555. The examples cited here are
noted with references in Barrs appendix of examples, 1968: 337 ##328 and 329.
1.10.3. Etymology and Weak Sound Shifts

1.10.3.1. We have so far dealt with cases reecting absolute regularity of
sound correspondences, the great majority of cases. It is worthwhile to treat
some of the cases, representing a minority, in which deviations from the accepted sound shifts occur; these may be dubbed weak phonetic changes
(see further 1.17.2, p. 54). Phonetic changes are absolutely regular only in
clearly delimited speech communities. Where these communities are uid, irregularities may occur.
1.10.3.2. Consider a group of Akkadian words. We have seen that PS x corresponds to 2 in Akkadian, Ugaritic, Arabic, Gez, and Epigraphic South Arabian, whereas 1 disappears in Akkadian and is preserved as in Hebrew,
Aramaic, Ugaritic, Arabic, Gez, and Epigraphic South Arabian. Since in Heb
and Aram 1 () and 2 (x) have coalesced in , nothing may be inferred from
the occurrence of in words or roots found only in these languages. There are,
however, some cases in which Akkadian x corresponds to 1 () in Ugaritic,
Arabic, Gez, and Epigraphic South Arabian. This is the case, e.g., with the
roots xpr to dig, rx to wash, and xkm to understand. In these cases the semantic correspondence is so clear that the exceptional phonetic correspondence can hardly be doubted.
1.10.3.3. The situation may even be more intricate. In the case of Akkadian
x there is a certain regularity, i.e., the exception is attested in a number of examples. In some cases, comparative etymology may unearth unparalleled
oddities inherent in individual words, as if to suggest that every word has its
own history. Thus, until the discovery of Ugaritic we had no qualms about the
etymology of Heb zr to sow; seed: since it corresponds to zr in Aramaic
and Arabic, z1r was posited for it. In Ugaritic, however, the root appears as
dr, and since, as a rule, PS q shows up as Ugar d, the Ugaritic root has to be
interpreted as reecting original *qr, i.e., z2r (see 1.9.3n, p. 25).
1.10.3.4. Three different explanations have been proposed for this anomaly. The rst involves borrowing. It has been suggested that the q is original
and that Aram and Arab zr are borrowed from a dialect in which q had shifted
to z. On the Arabic side, this suggestion would work, since the Arabic form
could easily be an Aramaic loan, as are many other Arabic agricultural terms.
The Aramaic form is more difcult: it is not easy to nd a Semitic dialect in
which q had become z and from which Aramaic might have borrowed this
word. It cannot be an Akkadian loan, since in Akkadian the disappears. The
1.10.3.5. Weak Sound Shifts
38
Aramaic could be a borrowing from Hebrew or a related dialect. This is, however, culturally and geographically unlikely. Therefore, pending further discoveries, the explanation of this irregular sound correspondence by the assumption of borrowing seems unlikely, though by no means impossible.
1.10.3.4n. The Ugaritic example is complicated by the fact that the verb to sow has the
shape dr, while the noun seed, offspring is attested as both dr and *qr (For this problem, see Blau 1968a = Topics, 33943). For the borrowing suggestion, see UT, p. 387; for
the lexical data, see del Olmo Lete and Sanmartn 2000, 2003.
1.10.3.5. Another category of explanation, which, along with borrowing is

often used to explain exceptional sound correspondences, is contamination,
the blending of different roots. The present problem can be explained through
either of two possible cases of contamination. One involves a III-y root. Heb
hr;z; to winnow stems from *qry, i.e., z2ry, preserved in Arabic and Epigraphic South Arabian and corresponding to dry in Ugaritic and Aramaic. We
could postulate that Heb zr reects original z1r (as assumed before the discovery of Ugaritic) and attribute Ugar dr (< qr) to the impact of the related
agricultural term qrw/y.
1.10.3.6. Further evidence suggests yet another explanation, the one I prefer. There are words that reect a III- root for to sow (1.9.3n, p. 25): Arab
qr/qra to sow, Epigraphic South Arabian mqrt sown eld, and Gez zr
to sow; seed. Thus, I would posit the existence of a Proto-Semitic doublet
z1r/qr to sow, the contamination of which gave rise to Ugar dr (< qr).
1.10.3.7. Exceptional sound correspondence is, in fact, often due to borrowing. Sometimes a language presents a doublet of words, one with the
regular sound correspondence and one that has been borrowed and therefore
has an exceptional correspondence. The two words may have the same or
somewhat different meanings. Such a doublet is Heb nr/nr to watch. Before we analyze these two verbs, some introductory expanations are needed.
1.10.3.8. Three Proto-Semitic sounds have coincided in Heb ade. 1 corresponds to Arabic , the emphatic counterpart of s. 2 corresponds to Arabic
. In standard pronunciation, this is pronounced as emphatic z, transcribed ;
in Bedouin dialects, however, and sometimes also in standard pronunciation,
it is pronounced as emphatic voiced th, i.e., q0. (This second sound is posited
for Proto-Semitic.) Finally, 3 corresponds to Arabic d0 d. This pronunciation
of d0 d, however, is secondary; the sound was originally an emphatic lateral.
Akkadian behaves as Hebrew and has in all three cases. All the Semitic languages have for Heb 1. In Ugaritic, 2 is perserved, while 3 has shifted to .
Aramaic has for 2, and (2) for 3. The surprising variety of realizations for
3 in the Semitic languages is due to the fact that, being a lateral sound, it was
phonetically quite isolated. The more isolated a sound is, the more it can
change phonetically without causing phonemic (or systemic) changes. This
same phenomenon can be illustrated with the velar stops. In the triad g k q, we
have the voiced velar stop g, its unvoiced counterpart k, and the unvoiced uvuspread is 9 points long
39
Weak Sound Shifts

1.10.3.17.
lar stop q. Since q is more isolated than g and k, it may change from unvoiced
to voiced (e.g., uvular g occurs in Arabic dialects) without any alteration of
the phonemic system. In contrast, if k had become voiced and, accordingly,
identical to g, the phonemic opposition of k:g would have disappeared and the
phonemic system changed.
1.10.3.8n. The secondary pronunciation of 3 as Arab d0 d represents the occlusive pronunciation of 2 (i.e., q0), as pronounced in the so-called city dialects; see Fischer (1972: 17,
par. 27, rem. 2). The original pronunciation as lateral is still preserved in Modern South
Arabian dialects; see Steiner 1977, 1991.
The thorny problem of Ugaritic w corresponding to PS 2 is mentioned below (1.10.3.18n,
p. 40).
In Old Aramaic (9th7th centuries b.c.), 2 is still spelled , presumably a Canaanite
spelling for the still preserved PS 2. (The Old Aramaic use of the alphabet involved several
cases of polyphony.) Old Aramaic q [= q2] is used for 3. (See Blau 1987b: 34 = Topics,
29091.)
1.10.3.9. Here are some examples of the three Proto-Semitic sounds that
merged in Heb ade.
1.10.3.10. 1: PS 1r2, to shout, Heb jr'x:, Aram r, Akk, Arab, Gez rx.
1.10.3.11. PS qr1 to bite, pinch, etc., Heb, Aram, Arab, Gez, Ugar qr,
Akk kr.
1.10.3.11n. According to Geers Law, when two non-identical emphatic consonants occur
in an Akkadian root, one of them loses its emphasis through dissimilation.
1.10.3.12. 2: PS 122. arrow, luck, Heb jE, Akk u(um), Aram , Ugar
, Arab a(un), Gez a.
1.10.3.13. PS 2ll shadow, Heb lxE, Akk ill(um), Aram lla, Ugaritic l,
Arab ill(un), Gez lalot.
1.10.3.14. PS 2 pr nail, claw, Heb r,P&xI, Akk upr(um), Aram par,
Arab ufr(un), Gez fr.
1.10.3.14n. Note that in Gez, Arabic, and Epigraphic South Arabian the phoneme f corresponds to p in other languages; f (transcribed p) in Hebrew and Aramaic is but an allophone of p after vowels, see 3.3.2.1.1, p. 78.
1.10.3.15. 3: PS r3 land, earth, Heb r,a<&, Akk eret(um), Aram ra

(Old Aram raq), Ugaritic ar, Arab ard0 (un), Gez not attested, ESA rd0 .
1.10.3.16. PS 3 wood, tree, Heb [E, Akk i(um), Aram a (Old Aram
q), Ugar , Arab id0 at(un) (in a restricted sense, tree having thorns), Gez
d0 ,
1.10.3.17. PS r13 to wash, Heb j"r;, Akk rx, Aram r, Ugar r, Arab
rd0 , Gez rd0 (to sweat).
1.10.3.17n. Akk eret(um), with the feminine ending -at/-et, is an example of a noteworthy phenomenon: feminine nouns without a feminine ending (like r,a& <), often belonging to the archaic layer of the language, tend to add the feminine sufx in order to mark
their gender externally.
1.10.3.18. Weak
; sibblt
Sound Shifts
40
The Aramaic form of wood is unusual. It shows assimilation of i > a with (*i > *a)
and dissimilation of one of the two (< *a). Such a dissimilation is quite common in order to avoid two laryngeals/pharyngeals in the same word. The a is long because this biradical noun has been adapted to the pattern of triradicals, as if it belonged to a II w root.
The Akkadian for to wash irregularly exhibits x for Proto-Semitic , a phenomenon
discussed in 1.10.3.2, p. 37.
1.10.3.18. Now let us return to the Hebrew doublet nr/nr to watch. Hebrew and Akkadian have nr, and Aramaic has nr. In the related sense to
look Gez has nr and Arabic nr. Thus, the PS form is n2r. Heb nr is, accordingly, exceptional. In all likelihood, it is an Aramaic borrowing (or a loan
from another language in which had shifted to ).
1.10.3.18n. In Ugaritic the expected nr does not exist; nwr to guard is attested, but its
connection with nr is contested. For details and the weak sound change from PS to Ugaritic w in general, see Blau 1977e: 7072 = Topics, 5355.
1.10.3.19. Another Proto-Semitic root yields a doublet in Heb, m/mq

to shatter/to destroy, it seems, from PS m2 3; cf., e.g., Arab mxd0 to shake
violently. The form m represents the genuine Hebrew correspondent. The
form mq agrees with Old Aramaic and may be a borrowing; given that it occurs only in the poetic context of Judg 5:26, it may be an archaic form preserved in poetry. In fact, there may be a third form. The Aramaic form *m
developed by dissimilation to m/my (ajm occurs in Biblical Aramaic), and
this may be reected in the Hebrew verb my to wipe out.
1.10.3.20. It is evident that comparative etymology has to be based on
close examination of the details. Even minor misinterpretations may lead to
completely wrong ideas. One example will sufce.
1.10.3.21. According to the famous incident told in Judges 12, Jephthahs
forces were able to catch disguised Ephraimites attempting to cross the Jordan
by demanding that they say sibblt, which the Ephraimites were not able to
do; they said rather sibblt (Judg 12:6). The apparent biblical view that in
the Ephraimite dialect s had shifted to s was challenged, because no known
Northwest Semitic language lacks the phoneme s. Therefore, it has been suggested that the s of sibblt is not s1, as it is generally posited for ear of corn,
according to the evidence of all the Semitic languages. Rather, it is proposed,
Jephthahs forces (stemming from Gilead) had preserved t, whereas in the
speech of the Ephraimites (and other Hebrew speakers) it has merged with s.
The Ephraimites were asked to pronounce *tibblt (written in the Bible
tl<B&v, because Hebrew script lacked a sign for marking t), and they were unable to utter it. This stimulating suggestion is based on the false idea that Aramaic had a word for ear of corn like tibblt. The only evidence for this is
alleged Judeo-Aramaic ylbwt in Pseudo-Jonathans translation of Gen 41:5ff.;
nevertheless, this form is a learned, hypercorrect formation, not reecting
genuine tradition. Accordingly, because of this small etymological detail, the
whole superb building collapses.
41
Change in Language 1.11.3.
1.10.3.21n. The suggestion of tibblt was discussed by Speiser (1942), who cites earlier
literature. The articial character of the Pseudo-Jonathan form was demonstrated as early
as 1905(!) by S. Fraenkel in a short, but very important remark. Fraenkel calls it a gelehrte aramaisierende Rckbildung (a learned Aramaizing back-formation). Cf. Blau
1970c: 48 n. 9. It was only many decades later that Ralph Marcus (1942) and E. Y. Kutscher (1967: 17374), ignorant of Fraenkel, rediscovered this fact.
Later, in the wake of Marcuss and Kutschers papers, the fact that sibblt ear of
corn contains s1 was generally acknowledged. Scholars then suggested that sibblt in
Judges is a different word, denoting stream, which begins with s2, although there is no
proof for this in any Semitic language. For details, see Rendsburg 1992; cf. 1988a, 1988b.
Nevertheless, this theory, too, has no foundation and is contradicted by the cognates of
sibblt stream in Palestinian Judaeo-Aramaic and Syriac, which prove that sibblt,
whether denoting ear of corn or stream, contains s1. Two small phonetic details have
disproved many scholarly papers. See Blau 2001: 39.
1.11. Change in Language

1.11.1. We have proceeded so far on the assumption that languages do
change and posited this fact as self-evident. And, indeed, change is the hallmark of every living language. Although speakers of a language, in principle,
attempt to adhere to the system of the language as they know it in order to be
properly understood andonce understood, in order not to appear oddother
forces propel changes in the system.
1.11.2. One of the most important reasons for linguistic change is that the
younger generation does not accept the language of adults as a whole, as a
complete entity in itself. Children rather acquire language by action, listening to the speech of the older generation and attempting to imitate it, and this
action is apt to result in changes. (As Wilhelm von Humboldt put it, language
is energeia rather than ergon.)
1.11.3. Social strata in the community affect the language as well. A once
variable feature may become the indicator of a certain sector of the speech
community, which may even become more conspicuous and prestigious in the
younger generation. The social standing of that stratum and the degree of its
prestige determine the nature of these changes to a great extent, and the tempo
of the changes is a corollary of the external and internal situations of the
speech community. If circumstances are relatively calm and no strong external inuence is felt, then conservative forces may have the upper hand. Their
prestige is strong enough to check innovations. Changes are then comparatively few and even those may disappear through the reputation of the lite. At
times of upheaval, however, the authority of the once prestigious classes is
reduced, and new centers of imitation arise. Then other sectors of the population set the pattern for the speech community in general and the younger generation in particular, who tend to alter their speech habits at a much quicker
pace. Social tensions intensify and accelerate the emergence of new linguistic features.
1.11.4. Change in Language
42
1.11.3n. On social mechanisms of language change, see especially the work of William
Labov and his students, e.g., Labov 1965, 1980, 1994.
1.11.4. Social and generational factors alone do not account for language
change, since change is inherent in the system itself. The phonological system often lacks equilibrium, and linguistic changes occur in order to reach a
state of better balance. However, since optimum balance is never attained,
change becomes an intrinsic part of the language.
1.11.4n. See especially Martinet 1970.
1.11.5. Scholars are at variance as to the beginnings of sound change. It is

generally assumed that at a certain time a generation becomes unable to produce certain sounds and, instead, produces others. It seems, however, more realistic to assume that phonological changes do not affect an entire group of
words at once, but rather start in a few words (or even in one word), and later
spread to other words that contain the same phoneme. The notion of the regularity of sound shifts applies to the nal result of these changes: then,
indeed, one sound has changed to another in each of its occurrences. Nevertheless, before the shift is completed, it appears only in some of its occurrences. Dialect geography conrms this view, often attesting to different
reections of one phoneme in the same environment.
1.11.5n. The view that change happens across-the-board is held by generative linguists,
who assume a systemic change in competence. For the contrary view, accepted here, see
Sommerfelt 1962: 7280.
1.11.6. Changes are often due to external inuence. In principle, if the external inuence is not too far-reaching, the linguistic system of the borrowing
language acts as a sort of regulating force, only admitting changes that do not
contravene it. If the impact of the other language is opposed altogether to the
linguistic system of the borrowing language, the latter may even react by hypercorrection and so preserve its inherited system.
1.11.7. Hebrew, in the period of the Second Temple, was decisively inuenced by Aramaic. Hebrew, as a rule, preserved short a (and sometimes short
i) in open syllables preceding the stress, whereas Aramaic reduced them. The
inuence of the Aramaic vowel system threatened to destroy the Hebrew one.
Since, through the inuence of Aramaic, Hebrew speakers lost the ability to
pronounce short vowels in open pretonic syllables, by a kind of hypercorrection in Hebrew these short vowels were lengthened and the vocalic structure
of the language partly preserved (see 3.5.7.5.123.5.7.5.13, p. 128). In
other cases, however, the external inuence was so strong that the Hebrew
system was superseded by the Aramaic structure. Thus, *samaru# shifted to
Wrm}v, reducing, as in Aramaic, the pretonic a. Further, it appears that the system of tenses in Rabbinic Hebrew, totally different from that of Biblical Hebrew and almost exactly parallel to Aramaic, arose through the impact of the
43
Bilingualism; Substrate 1.12.1.
latter (Kutscher 1982: 13132). In these cases, the inuence of the foreign
language was too strong and the power of resistance of the indigenous language too weak to counteract the external inuence.
1.11.8. If the inuence of a foreign language becomes overwhelming, the
speakers of the inuenced language become bilingual. They still speak their
original language; however, they also become conversant with the new language. The period of bilingualism may be rather protracted. A case in point
involves Rabbinic Hebrew. Since the inuence of Aramaic on Rabbinic Hebrew was far-reaching, it appears that the inhabitants of the Judean cities had
already become bilingual during the period of the Second Temple. It may
well be that only the male population became bilingual. Since housewives, as
a rule, were less in touch with sources of external inuence, it is plausible
that they continued for a long time to speak only Hebrew, and this situation
provided one of the main reasons for the prolonged period of bilingualism.
1.11.9. Another way to look at this situation is in terms of substrate theory. In a substrate setting, one language (the substrate), which may even be
partially extinct, continues to inuence the prevailing language (the superstrate) for a long time. In the present case, this means that several generations
after the male population had completely switched to the prevailing language
outside the home, they still continued using their original language at home,
because the women still spoke that language. A case in point may be the wellknown story that the maidservant of Rabbi (Judah the Prince, ca. 200 c.e.)
still knew rare Hebrew words that were unknown to the rabbis assembled in
Judahs house. Another factor apt to prolong bilingualism might also have
played a role: the maidservant might have come from a small village. It stands
to reason that linguistic changes connected with administration and trade
reach cities before reaching villages, so Rabbis maidservant may have continued speaking Hebrew long after city dwellers had already switched to Aramaic. Since, through these factors, bilingualism is apt to become a protracted
process, it makes sense that the slowly disappearing language (the substrate) leaves its traces in the prevailing language (the superstrate).
1.11.9n. It is possible that the stories about Rabbis household are apocryphal, their point
being that Rabbis house was so learned that even his maidservant was more knowledgeable than ordinary rabbis.
1.12. Reconstruction of Proto-Semitic Forms

1.12.1. We have already stressed the fact that we do not have the ability to
reconstruct Proto-Semitic as such. Nevertheless, the attempt to reconstruct a
possible Proto-Semitic form may be important, because it may enable us to
consider the forms of the individual languages from a different vantage point.
Needless to say, reconstruction has to be based on meticulous observation of
1.12.2. Reconstruction of Proto-Semitic Forms
44
the sound shifts involved. Reconstructed forms are marked with an asterisk, in
order to stress that they are supposed forms, not attested ones.
1.12.1n. Older generations of linguists, more condent of their ability and their results, attempted to compose stories in the alleged proto-languages. The most famous attempt was
that of August Schleicher (18211868), who wrote a Parable of the Horse and the Lamb in
his reconstructed putative Proto-Indo-European. Our knowledge of the relative chronology of various shifts is not sound enough, and any such attempt of necessity mixes up different levels of the language. See 1.7.17, p. 23.
1.12.2. In the process of reconstruction, one should not lose sight of the
fact that words from the same root and (almost) identical in meaning in various Semitic languages may reect originally different patterns, which cannot be traced back to a common Proto-Semitic etymon. We have already
mentioned (in 1.10.3.1314, p. 39) Gez lalot shadow, which differs
from monosyllabic Heb lxE, Akk ill(um), Aram lla (emphatic state), Ugaritic l, Arab ill(un). The Hebrew word for nail, claw, r,P&xI, is clearly different from the monosyllabic nouns attested in the other Semitic languages, viz.,
Akk upr(um), Aram par , Gez fr, Arab ufr(un). Heb /ty; orphan contrasts with monosyllabic Aram yatma (emphatic state) and bisyllabic Arab yatim(un). Nevertheless, the number of words reecting the same pattern in the
various Semitic languages is legion.
1.12.3. A good example is nose. In Hebrew we have the form a" (dual
yiP"&a" face). The verb N'a"t}hI to be angry, derived from a" (/rj) anger (literally the heat of the face), proves that its original form is *anp. (The singular form has f [p], rather than p, due to the preceding vowel, which turns the
plosive p into the spirant f [p]. See 3.3.2.1, pp. 7879.) Cognate forms include
Akk app(um), Ugaritic ap, Aram *nap, emphatic state appa, emphatic plural appayya, Gez anf, Arab anf(un). The various forms reect (1) the assimilation of n to the immediately following p in Akkadian and Northwest
Semitic, and (2) the shift of the plosive p to the spirant f, which arose unconditionally in Gez and Arabic; and after a vowel, when not doubled, in Hebrew
and Aramaic (transcribed p ). Thus, one can safely conclude that the PS form
was *anp, although, as far as we know, no Semitic language has exactly preserved it without any change.
1.12.3n. The Aramaic form *nap reects sursaut (1.10.2.6n, p. 32), and, through dissimilation, the partial restoration of the n.
1.12.4. Let us consider two words containing diphthongs. The forms for
house include Heb tyiB"&, Akk bit, Ugar bt, Aram bayta (emphatic), Gez bet,
Arab bayt. The words for death are Heb tw,m:&, Akk mut, Ugar mt, Aram
mawta (emphatic), Gez mot, Arab mawt. The diphthong ay/aw is sometimes
preserved and sometimes reduced (to e-i/o-u); its preservation sometimes involves an anaptyctic vowel dividing the original diphthong into two syllables
45
Reconstruction of Proto-Semitic Forms 1.12.7.
(ayi/aw). One may conclude that the Proto-Semitic forms contained diphthongs as well: *bayt/*mawt.
1.12.4n. In Biblical Aramaic, in the emphatic forms, t shifts to t after the diphthong; cf.
3.3.2.1.1n, p. 78. For the languages with cases (Akkadian and Arabic), for now, I am ignoring the original case endings, for which see 4.4.4, pp. 266ff.
1.12.5. Occasionally, an original Proto-Semitic form is preserved in one or

another of the languages. The exact shape of PS *salam peace, e.g., is preserved in Akk salam. The forms in the other languages all emerge from this
Proto-Semitic form. Heb /lv had original a in its second syllable. The o in
the second syllable is due to the so-called Canaanite vowel shift a > o in
stressed syllables (see 3.5.9.2, p. 136). The rst syllable originally contained
short a, which in Hebrew has been lengthened (and later rounded) to qama,
owing to the so-called pretonic lengthening (see 3.5.7.6, p. 129). In Aramaic,
on the contrary, the original short vowel of the pretonic open syllable has been
reduced: slam. In both Gez salam and Arab salam, PS s has shifted to s.
(Since the vocalization of Ugaritic slm is not known, we do not treat it here.)
Thus the original Proto-Semitic form has been preserved in Akkadian only.
1.12.6. As with a" nose, it is often the case that the Proto-Semitic form is
not attested in any of the known languages and has to be reconstructed piecemeal from the various languages. This is also true of the word soul. This
noun has the Hebrew form vp<n,,& arising from *naps by the insertion of an
anaptyctic vowel, and later assimilation of the original vowel to the anaptyctic
one. The fact that the last vowel is anaptyctic is reected by the absence of
stress on it, even though in Hebrew most words bear ultimate stress. Moreover, as stated in 1.12.3 BHebabove, in both Hebrew and Aramaic, p has
shifted to p (= f ) following a vowel. As for the other Semitic languages, the
forms are Aram npes, alongside emphatic napsa, Ugar nps, Gez nafs, Arab
nafs, and Akk napist. The Arabic and Gez forms exhibit the unconditioned
shifts s > s and p > f; in those languages f has totally superseded p. Akk napist
terminates in the feminine ending -t, in contradistinction to the other Semitic
languages, where this noun is feminine but has no feminine ending. Accordingly, it makes sense to reconstruct *naps as the PS form, although it is not attested exactly in this form in any Semitic language.
1.12.6n. Akkadian here manifests the tendency, found in various Semitic languages, to add
the feminine ending to feminine nouns that lack the feminine ending (cf. 1.10.3.17n,
p. 39, on eret[um]).
It appears that Ugar nps should be interpreted as *naps, comparable to the Proto-Semitic
form; however, it is not attested as such.
1.12.7. In some cases, the reconstructed Proto-Semitic form enables us to

understand an individual form better. The word honey is Heb vb"D], Akk
disp, Aram *db2 as (with sursaut, 1.10.2.6n, p. 32), emphatic dib2 sa/dub2 sa,
1.13. Internal Reconstruction
46
(Epigraphic) Gez dbs, Arab dibs; the word does not occur in Ugaritic. The
Akkadian form shows metathesis and assimilation of the b to p. At rst
glance, the evidence suggests two different patterns for this noun: vb"D] in Hebrew, *dibs in the other languages. The nal pata (rather than qama), however, suggests a reconsideration of the supposed Hebrew proto-form. Hebrew
nominal syllable structure (see 3.5.7.1.2, p. 119) demands a long vowel in a
nal stressed syllable terminating in a simple consonant; therefore dy; hand
contains qama, rather than pata. Moreover, Heb vb"D] with pronominal sufxes reects dibsi yvb}Di. Thus we suggest that the pata in Heb vb"D] is due to
foreign (Aramaic) inuence. The Aramaic word is a segolate form in which,
as usual in Aramaic (due to sursaut), the anaptyctic vowel (the pata) has attracted the stress. Thus, all the forms, including the Hebrew, can be derived
from dibs.
1.12.7n. Of the two Aramaic emphatic forms, one has the original i and the other reects i
> u, due to the assimilation of the i to the labial b/b .
1.13. Internal Reconstruction

1.13.1. We have so far sought to reconstruct aspects of Biblical Hebrew by
dint of comparative evidence derived from other Semitic languages. Sometimes, however, it is not necessary to have recourse to other Semitic languages, and the reconstruction may be done by internal means. It is possible to
arrive at earlier stages of a language even if the analysis is limited to its own
features. In some cases, the outlines of a certain structure are discernible, yet
some details do not t, and it is possible to account for such discrepancies by
reconstructing a linguistic stage in which this structure applies to all details.
The very fact that this reconstruction accounts for features that otherwise
seemed exceptional makes it quite likely.
1.13.2. Biblical Hebrew pausal stress falls, in the main, on the penult when
the word terminates in a vowel, but on the ultima when the word ends in a consonant. Thus we have penultimate stress in pausal Wrm:&v they kept, Wrm&vyi
they will keep, yTIr]m:&v I kept. (The last form has the same stress in context.)
We have ultimate stress in pausal (and contextual) rm:&v he kept, rb:&D; thing.
These words with ultimate stress, when they precede pronominal sufxes,
show connecting vowels (as in Wnr;&m:v he kept us, Wnre&b:D] our thing); the
connecting vowels are in the penult and thus take pausal stress. The 3fs sufxtense lacks such a connecting vowel (Wnt}r;&m:v she kept us); the nal t in this
form is original, and the form ending in (hr;m}v) is a later development.
1.13.2n. The pausal stress system treated here is the more basic system; the contextual
stress system reects a later stage of development. See 3.5.12.2.5, p. 146.
47
Internal Reconstruction; Exceptions to Sound Shifts 1.14.2.
1.13.3. The 3fs sufx-tense form is a clue to an earlier stage of the language. That form originally ended in a consonant, which is maintained when
a pronominal sufx is added, and the form shows penultimate pausal stress.
We may conclude that the forms that now get ultimate pausal stress originally
ended in a short vowel. These nal short vowels were dropped in nal position (giving the forms ultimate stress) but preserved in medial position, i.e.,
preceding pronominal sufxes. The so-called connecting vowels are, historically speaking, remnants of these short-vowel endings. Thus we may reconstruct original *samra, *dab2 rv, and overall we reconstruct a stage of the
language with uniform penultimate stress (cf. 3.5.12.2.2, p. 144).
1.13.4. Another example of internal reconstruction involves the behavior
of the stop or plosive consonants b, g, d, k, p, t. Generally, these sounds become spirants only in postvocalic position: yKIl}m" my king in contrast to
ykIl:m} kings. This overall structure has exceptions: ykE l}m" kings of (construct), where the k is a spirant, although it is not postvocalic. It appears that
we should posit an original vowel preceding this k as well, *malvke. This suggestion is supported by the absolute plural form, which does have a vowel, a,
preceding the k: ykIl:m} (cf. 4.4.5.10, p. 273).
1.13.5. For an isolated language, internal reconstruction is a most important substitute for comparative linguistics. It enables the linguist to reconstruct
features, which, for the want of related languages, would be otherwise unknown. For a language like Biblical Hebrew, its importance is somewhat limited. It is, for instance, much easier to reconstruct the fact that rm"&v and rb:&D;
originally ended with short vowels by comparison with other Semitic languages that have nal short vowels. In contrast, for reconstructing the existence of a vowel preceding the k of ykE l}m" , internal reconstruction is, in fact, the
simplest solution.
1.14. Exceptions to Sound Shifts, Real and Apparent

1.14.1. Historical linguistics is based on the assumption that sound shifts
are regular, and, under the same conditions, sounds change in the same way
(1.9.4, p. 26). Accordingly, if sounds do not behave regularly, particular attention should be paid to them in order to discover the special conditions causing the irregular behavior of these sounds.
1.14.1n. See Blau 1979a = Topics, 2634.
1.14.2. In some cases, a closer look at the apparently irregular behavior

of these sounds enables us to discover unknown stages in the development of
the language in which these sounds occurred in special phonetic environments,
accounting for their seemingly aberrant comportment. The most famous case
of such a discovery is the sound shift known as Verners Law.
1.14.3. Canaanite Shift and Stress System
48
1.14.3. In the heyday of the Neogrammarians (1.9.8, p. 27), in the 1870s,

an anomaly in the regular correspondence of Germanic t to Indo-European t
was observed. Generally when the other Indo-European languages have intervocalic voiceless stops, e.g., t, the Germanic languages have voiceless spirants, as t (Latin frater brother, Gothic brotar). Nevertheless, some ancient
Germanic words contain d, i.e., a voiced stop, instead of the expected t (Latin
pater father, Gothic fadar). If one admitted the possibility of irregular sound
change, one could claim that the shift of intervocalic t to d in words like fadar
represented merely the beginning of this process, not yet completed. Nevertheless, in 1876, the Danish linguist Karl Verner accounted for these apparent
contradictions by observing that they result from different positions of stress
in the words. (He convincingly reconstructed the stress patterns with the help
of Sanskrit and Greek.) Thus voiceless spirants (like t) occur in Germanic
after a stressed syllable, otherwise they become voiced stops (like d). Strict
adherence to the notion of the absolute regularity of sound shifts made the reconstruction of linguistic development possible.
1.14.4. A similar assumption as to earlier stress patterns in Biblical Hebrew may explain the apparently irregular behavior of PS a. Generally, PS a is
reected in Heb o: PS katib in contrast to Heb btEK one writing, PS imal in
contrast to Hebrew lamOc left hand. In some cases, however, Heb a corresponds to PS a. Among these exceptions we shall mention imaliy > ylIam:c
left (adjective), arim yri[: towns, galut tWlG; exile. It seems that this irregularity is due to the fact that the shift of a to o in Hebrew was not unconditioned but occurred only in stressed syllables. The stress system attested in the
& l: tongue and
Bible does not account for the operation of this shift. Thus /v
laO&mc reect, to be sure, stressed o < a; and the forms cited above, ylIam:c, etc.,
show the preservation of unstressed a. But btE&K exhibits unstressed o < a. Thus
we have to posit a stress system for early Biblical Hebrew in which the
stressed vowel was the last long vowel in any word. Accordingly, we posit for
*katib a stress different from btE&K, viz., that it was stressed on a, this being the
& l:
last (and only) long vowel, which accordingly shifted to o. The forms /v
and laO&mc reect stressed o < a as well. In ylIa& m:c, yr&i[: tW&lG; , the a was followed by another long vowel, which accordingly attracted the stress. Therefore, this unstressed a has been preserved and did not shift to o. It was
adherence to the principle of regularity of sound shifts that enabled us to reconstruct the earliest stage of biblical stress possible.
1.14.4n. This stress-system reconstruction is the opinion of the majority of scholars and is,
in our opinion, correct. See 3.5.9.2, p. 136; 3.5.12.2.18, p. 153. A substantial minority
disagree with this view.
49
Analogy 1.15.4.
1.15. Analogy
1.15.1. In most cases, deviations from the expected results of sound shifts
are the result of analogy, caused by the inuence of a word or construction
that has some formal or semantic connection.
1.15.2. Analogy may obtain between words semantically related or opposed. Thus hVv six with double V inuenced ve to become hVmIj, and
conversely the construct of six tvv& rhymes with ves construct tvmE&j. Under the inuence of /vari rst, the forms /kyTI medial and /xyqI last
arose; for last we would have expected *qion, since the root is q.
1.15.2n. The form tvv& could also have arisen independently: in *sisst the consonant cluster sst might have been simplied to st, thus giving rise to *sist > tvv&. Cf. hVaI woman,
wife, construct *isst > *ist > tva& E.
1.15.3. Grammatical analogy obtains between the different members

of a morphological class. Thus the plural of *maqam > /qm: place is
*maqamat > t/m/qm}. As we have just seen (1.14.4, p. 48), only stressed long
a shifted to o. The proto-form *maqamat! bore its stress on the second a, the
last long vowel in the word. Accordingly, only this a should have shifted to o,
yielding *mqamot. Nevertheless, *mqamot was re-derived from the singular of this word, /qm:, where the proto-a was stressed and had become o. Had
*mqamot not been adjusted to /qm: and become t/m/qm}, the singular and
plural pattern of this noun would have differed and the paradigm would have
become irregular.
1.15.3n. For *mqamot, *maqamot would be more accurate, since at this period, it seems,
short vowels distant from stress had not yet been reduced. We use *mqamot for simplicitys sake.
1.15.4. A similar uniformity is found in the sufx-tense and the participle

of II-w/y verbs. The sound shift stressed a > o, did not affect the rst-person
qmti, qmnu and second-person qmta, qamt, qamt! m, qamt! n, since the
forms contain short a, but it should have inuenced the third-person forms
and yielded *qom, *qoma(t), *qomu. Similarly, the participle would have had
o: *qom, *qo!ma(t), ymI&q,: t/m& q:. (In the last two forms, the a was unstressed
and therefore did not shift to o.) These third-person sufx-tense forms and the
singular participle instead show the same vowel quality (a/a) as the rst- and
second-person sufx-tense forms and the plural participles. As in the case of
*mqamot, one vowel spread over the whole paradigm: in the case of *mqamot, it was o that prevailed; in the case of *qam it was a, which was shortened
to a when it came to stand in a closed syllable.
1.15.4n. The rst- and second-person sufx forms are shortened from *qamta, etc., in
closed syllable, since at that stage, long vowels were excluded from closed syllables
(3.5.12.2.14n, p. 151). This happened before the sound shift a > o took effect; accordingly,
1.15.5. Analogy
50
T:m}q'&, etc., were not affected by it. We do not reconstruct here the original 2fs form *qamti,
because the shape of the sufx does not affect the issue. In the participle, o had not been
shortened, because it stood originally in an open syllable, since *qom terminated in case
endings: *qomu/*qoma/*qomi. The 3ms sufx form originates from *qoma.
1.15.5. We have seen paradigmatic analogical pressure in the singular

and plural of a noun and a participle, as well as in the conjugational paradigm
of a verb. Paradigmatic analogy may spread over various verbal themes as
well. Thus, in Hebrew in particular and in Northwest Semitic in general, initial w had shifted to y, as anyone opening a Hebrew dictionary will immediately realize: words with initial w are almost entirely missing from Hebrew
vocabulary. Thus Arabic walada to give birth corresponds to Heb dl"y;. The
same applies to the piel dLEyi to assist in birth. Thus, one would have expected in the prex-tense *ywalled, rather than dLEy'y,] and in the participle
*mwall! dt midwife rather than td,L< &y'm}, because in these forms w was not
initial. Nevertheless, by paradigmatic analogy, the y spread from the sufxtense (and imperative and innitives), where w was initial and therefore had
shifted to y, over the whole paradigm of piel. Since the piel is closely related to the hitpael, in which the w should also have been preserved throughout the whole paradigm, being always in medial position, the y also spread
over the whole hitpael.
1.15.6. Grammatical analogy may also obtain between isomorphic forms of
various words. Thus, there occur already in Biblical Hebrew shifts from verbs
III- to III-y (4.3.8.5.1, p. 248), and in Rabbinic Hebrew this shift has further
developed. The verb acn; to bear can have the sense to forgive, and in Ps
32:1 the construct form of the qal passive participle yWcn] (from root acn) he
who is forgiven occurs, parallel to yWsK}, from a genuine III-y verb, he who is
covered; this form cannot be derived by sound shift from an underlying aWcn].
Rather, it has to be explained by the impact of verbs III-y: since verbs III- and
III-y coincided in various forms, as in qal 3ms acn; and hn;q; he bought, other
forms of verbs III- were also formed by analogy to III-y verbs. (The aleph of
acn; is only a vowel letter, as is the he of hn;q;). This may be expressed by the
following proportion: hn;q : : acn; = yWnq:, construct yWnq} : x; the x is yWcn;, construct
yWcn]. This form of analogy is usually called proportional analogy.
1.15.7. So frequent are the various cases of analogy that it has to be regarded as one of the two pillars of linguistic change, the other being sound
shift. Whenever a linguist encounters an exception to regular sound shift, s/he
attempts to explain that deviation by the assumption of analogy.
1.16. Sound Shifts, Analogy, and Exceptions

1.16.1. We have already mentioned that sound shifts are limited in time
(see 1.9.91.9.10, pp. 2728). Thus, the shift of stressed long a to o stopped
51
Sound Shift and Analogy 1.16.4.
operating at a certain point in history. After this shift had stopped acting,
stressed long a arose, e.g., in the nal syllables of nouns (like dag sh, according to the Sephardic pronunciation) and did not shift to o, because this
shift was no longer in force.
1.16.1n. In contrast to Hebrew, Phoenician in this position exhibits o; this may be interpreted as continuation of the shift seen in Hebrew (the Canaanite shift) or it may reect a
second, similar shift. According to the pronunciation reected in the Tiberian and Babylonian vocalizations, in this position dOg occurs, with an open back vowel, exhibiting a new
sound shift a > O after the old one, (stressed) a > o, had ceased operating.
1.16.2. We have been describing sound shifts as the main forces changing
language, and analogy as a source of interference with them. Such a view is
by no means entirely accurate. Analogy may be so powerful that it literally
wipes out the results of a sound shift. It is possible that the original sound
change would have disappeared completely except for some traces of it that
have managed to subsist. Thus, grammars report that according to Hebrew, iw
shifted to i; cf., e.g., yiqaq it will burn < *yiwqaq, and so in (almost) all the
I-w verbs that do not drop their rst radical. As a matter of fact, however, it
appears that this alleged sound shift is actually an analogy, in our case of
verbs I-y (like vb"yyi it will become dry < *yiybas) and even the strong verb
(like bK"vyi he will lie). The genuine sound shift was instead iw > u, only preserved in some residues, as in the very frequent verb lk"Wy he will be able
from *yiwkal, which, because of its frequency (see 1.16.4) resisted analogy.
1.16.2n. See further Blau 1971a: 15 = Topics, 18589.
1.16.3. The great majority of words are arbitrary signs, and there is no connection between their sounds and the object or action they name. An exception is provided by the sound-imitating or onomatopoetic words. It may
happen that the connection between an onomatopoetic word and its meaning
is so strong that it resists any sound shift that threatens to sever this connection. Thus, German Kuckuk cuckoo, clearly an onomatopoetic word imitating the sound produced by this bird, should have changed according to
German sound shifts. However, since the changed word would not have expressed the connection with its meaning, the word resisted this change and remained sound-imitating.
1.16.4. We have already mentioned (see 1.16.2) that highly frequent
words resist analogy. Because of their frequency, these words are so rmly
preserved in memory that analogy is not apt to uproot them. The very common
verb lk"Wy he is able preserved the genuine sound shift iw > u and resisted the
analogical pressure of verbs like vb"yyi. This is the reason that in so many languages (including English) the verb to go is conjugated in an exceptional
way. Because of its frequency, this verb is apt to undergo sound changes
without allowing for the leveling force of paradigmatic analogy. Similarly, in
1.16.5. Irregular Sound Shifts
52
Hebrew, lh to go is highly irregular: in the qal imperative and prex-tense

and in the whole of the hif il the rst radical h is omitted and hlk behaves as
if it were derived from ylk: lE, lEye, ylI/h, ylI/y. (For details, see 3.3.5.5,
pp. 94ff.) The suppletive paradigm hVaI woman, plural yvn,; was not leveled
out by paradigmatic pressure because of its high frequency.
1.16.4n. The words for woman exhibit two totally different roots: hVaI < insat, has s2,
based on the other Semitic languages, while yvn; has s1. The occurrence of s in both words
facilitated the combination of the two words into one paradigm in Hebrew.
1.16.5. Many high-frequency words do not refer directly to reality (even abstract reality), i.e., they do not act as content words but rather fulll certain
functions in the sentence, as prepositions and conjunctions; these are dubbed
function words. Although these words play important roles in sentences, serving, so to say, as their backbone, they are in many cases proclitic, being closely
attached in pronunciation to the following word and having no accent. Being
frequent and sometimes pronounced without care, they tend to be shortened, as
shown by monosyllabic prepositions like l}, B}, K}, mI or conjunctions like w], yKI. In
many ways, function words do not constitute real exceptions to regular sound
shifts, because they occur under special phonetic conditions. Nevertheless,
their form is so conspicuous that we must mention them in this context.
1.16.5n. The proclitic character of many of these words is reected in their being joined in
spelling to the next word; one-letter words are always attached to the following word in
Hebrew writing. An example of a proclitic content word from another Semitic language is
Arabic haqa this, which in many dialects changes to ha.
1.16.6. Some of these high-frequency words occur in an excited context,

reecting exclamation, surprise, command, etc. Again, their exceptional behavior does not constitute a real exception to sound shift, because they occur
in special phonetic conditions.
1.16.7. Sometimes, the blending of synonymous or semantically related
roots (contamination) creates the impression of an exceptional sound shift.
Thus Ugar dr to sow (see 1.9.3n, p. 25; 1.10.3.6, p. 38), on the face of it,
suggests that PS zr to sow shifted in Ugaritic to dr, as if reecting an exceptional Ugaritic sound shift z1 > d; in Ugaritic, as a rule, as in other Semitic
languages, z1 is preserved. As a matter of fact, however, dr reects the blend
of the PS doublet to sow zr and qr, which gave rise to Ugaritic qr to sow.
Another case in point is perhaps Heb sm to mix; this seems to correspond to
Arabic msj, which, according to regular sound correspondence, should appear
as Heb cm*, rather than sm. It is not unlikely that the samekh is due to the
impact of sn in the same sense. In this instance, accordingly, words with
similar sense were attracted in form, as in the Ugaritic case. Similarly, the
form in Dan 8:13 yni/ml}P" someone reects the contamination of the two synonyms yni/lP} and yni/ml}a".
53
Suppletion; Loan Words 1.17.1.
1.16.7n. BHeb gz,m:& mixture (pausal form) belongs with Aramaic mzg to mix (loaned
into Arabic). These forms suggest that it is possible that there was an original Semitic root
msk, related to mzg, and that this was the source of Heb sm to mix. Morover, the s of
msk may reect the late spelling of s for , because they came to coincide in pronunciation
(see Blau 1970c: 117).
1.16.8. Inversely, words with similar form are apt to converge in sense as
well. It may well be that the many groups of verbs with the rst two radicals
identical (like drp to divide, rp to break through, [rp to let loose, etc.)
and related meanings, reect, partly at least, development of such lexical contaminations, rather than residues of ancient biradicalism.
1.16.9. Analogy and frequency interact in complex ways. Paradigmatic
pressure does not always sufce to eliminate paradigmatic differences. A case
in point is provided by the independent personal pronouns (ynia hT:a" aWh,
etc.). Because of their extraordinary frequency (see 1.16.4, p. 51), they were
less exposed to analogical leveling. Nonetheless, cases of analogy do occur
even in these very frequent words; Wnj}n'a& we arose from the expected form
Wnj}n' & (attested in the Bible and also epigraphically) through the analogical impact of ynia I.
1.16.10. Suppletion or metaplastic formation involves paradigms derived
from different bases. This occurs with less frequent words as well, such as to
be good qal sufx-tense b/f, root wb, qal prex-tense bf"yyi, root yb. In the
hif il, forms derived from wb and yb alternate and are pronounced the same,
although spelled differently, byfImE, byfIymE. In some cases, suppletion reveals
rather intricate linguistic development, as in the suppletion of the apparent
pual jQ' lU he was taken in the sufx-tense by the apparent hof al jQ' y u in the
prex-tense. On closer inspection, both sets of forms turn out to represent the
qal passive (see 4.3.5.1.2, p. 217). Consider the use of the qal sufx-tense of
lvk to fall alongside the nif al prex-tense (lvK: lvK:yi); the nif al sufxtense and the qal prex-tense are rare. This pattern presumably attests to an
earlier qal, which was later superseded by the nif al. The Masoretes vocalized
the prex-tense lky, etc., which could be interpreted both as qal (lvk}yi *) and
nif al (lvK:yi), according to the late usage of nif al. They were, however, prevented from doing so in the sufx-tense lvK:, etc., because of the absence of
the nun.
1.16.10n. On Heb lvk to fall, see Ginsberg 192930.
1.17. Loan Words, Weak Phonetic Change,

and Pseudo-Corrections
1.17.1. We have already noted that loan words may reect deviations from
sound shifts, but these are only apparent, since such words exhibit the sound
1.17.2. Weak Phonetic Change; Pseudo-Corrections
54
system of their original languages (1.10.3.4, p. 37; 1.10.3.7, p. 38). In a Hebrew doublet for to watch, rx"n; shows agreement with Hebrew sound shifts,
and rf"n; reects Aramaic shifts. Two such doublets in Hebrew exhibiting s2 in
the genuine Hebrew form and t in the form loaned from Aramaic are
v/rB} /t/rB} cypress? and vr'j: to plough/ tr'j: to incise, engrave. In the
last case, the loan word has a slightly different meaning from that of the genuine Hebrew word.
1.17.2. Through deviations from regular sound shifts, as well as through
the not entirely predictable processes of assimilation, dissimilation, haplology, and metathesis (see 1.19, pp. 57ff.), low-yield diachronic correspondences arise, which were described by Yakov Malkiel as weak phonetic
change. The weakness may be due not to unpredictability but to rarity, as in
the case with iw > u (1.16.2, p. 51), a true sound shift, which became quite
exceptional in Hebrew by morphological analogical pressure.
1.17.2n. On weak phonetic change, see Malkiel 1962; Blau 1977e = Topics, 50103.
1.17.3. Hypercorrections and pseudo-corrections in general may be conducive to weak phonetic change as well. Whenever two forms of a language
clash and one is more prestigious than the other, the speaker of the lower form
is apt to imitate the higher one. Often s/he lacks apposite knowledge and uses
an in-between form, non-existent at least in the given environment. Such a
form is neither at home in the persons own (lower) speech (because s/he corrected the form s/he would have used) nor in the higher language (because
s/he was not able to produce the form used there). Such a form may be called
pseudo-correct (Blau 1970c). If the speaker overshoots the mark and uses a
higher form, although the higher language demanded a form similar to that
used in the lower speech, we speak of a hypercorrection. Such forms may become productive and eventually may become a part of the language.
1.17.4. In Biblical Hebrew, monosyllabic nouns as a rule become bisyllabic through the insertion of an anaptyctic vowel and are stressed on the penult. Thus *malk king becomes l<m<&. Only rarely do Hebrew words follow
the Aramaic course, whereby the anaptyctic vowel attracts the stress and the
original vowel is reduced. We mentioned above (1.12.7, p. 45) one such
noun, vb"D] honey; the phenomenon is also attested in b"s} entanglement
(Bauer and Leander 1922: 580su). Because of the rarity of this feature, one
would not consider it a sound shift, even a weak one, were it not for two special groups: nouns III-y and II-. For the rst group, the stress on the anaptyctic vowel is understandable. In contrast, we shall see that this phenomenon in
nouns II- is pseudo-correct.
1.17.5. Thus, if our assumption is valid, it was the combination of this feature in III-y nouns and the pseudo-correct use of the feature in II- nouns that
made the change of stress in monosyllabic nouns a veritable sound shift.
55
Pseudo-Correction; Function 1.18.2.
There is a special phonetic reason for the change of the stress in nouns III-y, as
in yriP} fruit < *piry. The form *piry shifted (by the insertion of anaptyctic i)
to *priy > *pri, and then the long i attracted the stress and the rst vowel was
reduced. No such reason obtains for II- nouns. We reconstruct the development this way: in vernacular speech the aleph of such nouns was elided, so
that original *bir became *ber, yet in the higher language the was preserved. On the analogy of biblical forms like the more vulgar yariqO calling,
instead of the expected standard form yaIr]qO, a more elegant pseudo-form was
coined for *ber, viz., raEB}.
1.17.5n. For particulars, which are somewhat intricate because of the occurrence of parallel features in the Babylonian and Samaritan traditions, see Blau 1970c: 2829; Benayyim 2000: 67 n. 95.
1.18. Conicts of Function and Language Change

1.18.1. There are cases in which the normal function of sound shifts would
have neutralized oppositions in the paradigm. In such cases, paradigmatic
pressure against the free operation of the sound shift may abolish it. In the
Semitic languages nal vowels mark the opposition between the 2ms and 2fs
personal pronoun and sufx-tense forms; so in Arabic 2ms anta katabta and
2fs anti katabti. The dropping of such nal vowels by the sound shift that
caused the omission of nal short vowels in many Semitic languages, including Hebrew, would have caused the disappearance of gender distinction in the
second person. Three outcomes are found. First, there are Semitic dialects in
which this sound shift overcame the morphological resistance and neutralized
gender distinction. On the second and third options, one form dropped its nal
vowel, where the other preserved it and so the gender distinction persisted.
The second option was based on the analogy of the 2fs imperative and prextense (e.g., Heb ybIt}KI, ybIT}k}TI), which terminate in a long i; thus anti katabti
was preserved, whereas the 2ms became ant katabt. This is the case in Aramaic and many Arabic dialects. Hebrew, however, in which a is more apt to
be preserved than the other vowels, chose the third option. The 2fs nal -i was
dropped and the 2ms nal -a was lengthened and preserved: T:b}t"&K: hT:a," T}a"
T}b}t"K:. (See 4.2.2.3, p. 161.)
1.18.1n. The nal vowels mentioned above may have been anceps (i.e., either long or
short, depending on context) with a tendency to shorten, or they may simply have been
short vowels. For gender neutralization in some Iraqi dialects of Arabic, see Jastrow 1978:
21431. There are also Maghrebine dialects in which even the 1s sufx-tense is identical
to the now epicene (common gender) 2s. On the tendency of Hebrew to preserve a, see
Steiner 1979: 169; and 3.5.7.2.3n, p. 122; 3.5.7.6.1, p. 129.
1.18.2. It seems that sound shifts are not totally independent of the
function that the sounds fulll. This is, of course, contrary to the demand of
1.18.3. Function
56
the Neogrammarians that only phonetic conditions should be taken into consideration. As already noted, the notion that paradigmatic pressure may inuence sound shift (1.15.31.15.5, pp. 4950) goes against this demand. For
the whole problem, see Blau 1979a = Topics, 2635.
1.18.3. Consider an example of several sound shifts interacting in Aramaic. In Nestorian Syriac, PS (1) had shifted to x (and thus coincided with
original x = 2). In Aramaic in general and in Syriac in particular, the bgdkpt
stops are spirantized in post-vocalic position, and thus k shifts to x (or at least
to a very similar sound). Nevertheless, the two sounds, identical for all practical purposes, are not mistaken for each other, because, it seems, the rst
functioned as a phoneme, the second as an allophone (i.e., a variant, used under clearly set conditions) of a phoneme. It is, it seems, because of their different functions that x < and x < k are differentiated and not confused.
1.18.4. If this proves true, it may be of no mean importance for the relative
and even absolute chronology of Biblical Hebrews history. It is generally accepted that the (Proto-Semitic) phonemes t, q, x, w had disappeared prior to
the postvocalic spirantization of t, d, k, and g respectively. Had the phonemes
t, q, x, w still existed when t, d, k, and g had become spirantized, they would
have been, prima facie, mixed up, since they were phonetically (almost) identical. We are especially interested in the problem of x and w. The Septuagint
uses two sorts of transcription to transliterate names containing and : more
or less, 1 and 1 are transcribed by W, 2, and 2 (corresponding to Arabic
ghayn) by Greek khi (c) and gamma (g) respectively. This would, however,
entail that in the third century b.c.e., at the time of the translation of the Septuagint, 2 and 2 still existed. (For details, see Blau 1982a.) Therefore, the spirantization of at least k and g would have to be even later, as is generally
claimed (see, e.g., Bergstrsser 1.40, 6m), since otherwise they would have
been confused. This would involve, however, great chronological difculties
for explaining forms like ykE l}m" the kings of. Were the spirantization a late
feature, *malake (> ykE l}m") would not exhibit a spirantized k, because a between l and k would have disappeared earlier. However, if we rely on what
may be inferred from Nestorian Syriac, it is not necessary to pospone the spirantization. Even if the phonemes x and w co-existed with the allophones x/k
and g/g, they would not necessarily have been mixed up, since their functions
were different, just as the case was in Nestorian Syriac.
1.18.4n. The view presented here is not the only possible interpretation of the facts. Richard Steiner, in a lecture in Jerusalem in 2002, suggested that the spirantization of b, d, p, t
was on the whole realized in the third century c.e., yet that of k /g was blocked by the existence of x/g% , and was carried out only after x/g% had disappeared.
57
Assimilation; Dissimilation 1.19.5.
1.19. Assimilation, Dissimilation, Metathesis

1.19.1. Assimilation and dissimilation are both propelled by clear causes,
which is not usually the case with sound change. Nevertheless, these two processes are regular only in relatively few cases; as a rule, they are sporadic and
unpredictable. For this reason they sometimes lead to weak phonetic
changes (1.17.2, p. 54).
1.19.2. Assimilation results from the speakers inertia, endeavoring to
speak with the least possible effort. Accordingly, the speaker does not always
clearly differentiate between sounds in sequence but instead makes them more
uniform, not exerting her/himself overmuch in moving the speech organs.
The most conspicuous case of assimilation in Biblical Hebrew, almost totally
regular, is that of n to an immediately following consonant: *yinpol > yippol
he will fall. (For exceptions, see 3.3.1.9, p. 77.) The assimilation in this
case is total (because the n becomes totally identical with the following consonant, in our case p). It is also regressive (because the following sound, the p,
assimilated it in a backward movement) and continuous (because the assimilated n and the assimilating p were in direct contact, without any interrupting
sound).
1.19.3. Also frequent and regular is the assimilation of the t of the hitpael
to a preceding sibilant: qDef"x}hI < *hitaddeq he justied himself. Here the assimilation is apparently grammatically conditioned, since it is limited to the
hitpael only. Through the impact of the directly preceding emphatic , t became emphatic as well, i.e., it shifted to . In this case too, the assimilation is
continuous, but it is only partial (the t has not become ) and progressive, because it was the preceding sound that assimilated to the following one.
1.19.3n. This account depends on the assumption that this assimilation is later than the
metathesis of the rst-radical sibilant and the t of the hitpael. If it is so, then *hitaddeq
rst became *hitaddeq and only then did the t become . If the assimilation occurred earlier than the metathesis, the assimilation is regressive: *hitaddeq became *hiaddeq and
then by metathesis qDef"x}hI. This, however, is less likely, since then one would have expected the t of the hitpael to be assimilated to a following q as well, which is not the case
(cf. vDeqt
" }hI he was hallowed).
1.19.4. According to the testimony of other Semitic languages, the original

form of yyid]Gi my lamb was *gaqyi. In this case a, a vowel, is assimilated to
the (half-)consonant y. The assimilation is discontinuous, partial, and regressive. Monosyllabic nouns like *malk king became, through an anaptyctic
vowel, disyllabic: *mlk. By assimilation of a to the , it shifted to l<m<&. In
this case, the assimilation was total, regressive, discontinuous, and between
vowels. (This is thus a sort of vowel harmony.)
1.19.5. Dissimilation stems from the difculty of repeating the same
sound or similar sounds. Therefore, originally similar sounds become less
alike, in order to facilitate their pronunciation. A double consonant (CC) may
1.19.6. Dissimilation
58
be dissimilated into rC or lC. Thus, e.g., fybIr]v scepter derives from

*sabbi; cf. fb<v stick; ['BOl}Gi Gilboa (a mountain-ridge), originated from
*gibboa ; cf. h[:b}Gi hill. The dissimilation in these cases is contiguous, partial
(since the dissimilated sound has not disappeared), and regressive.
1.19.6. We have already mentioned that Arab s corresponds to Heb s1
(1.10.2.2n, p. 30). Accordingly, one would expect for Heb *sams > vm<v&
sun a form like Arab *sams, yet the Arabic word is sams, where the initial s
arose through discontinuous, partial, and regressive dissimilation.
1.19.6n. It is not impossible that the original form contained two different sibilants that
were assimilated in Hebrew.
1.19.7. Dissimilation is frequent in reduplicated biradical roots, like

*kabkab star, which became *kawkab, and nally bk:/K. In this case, too, the
dissimilation is non-continuous, partial, and regressive.
1.19.8. So far, we have dealt with the dissimilation of consonants; dissimilation of vowels occurs as well. An especially important case is the dissimilation of u/o > i preceding u/o (regressive, partial, and discontinuous
dissimilation). This is seen in *uon outer, derived from Wj outside,
which shifts to /xyjI; *tokon middle (adjective), derived from w,T:& / /T
midst, which becomes /kyTI; and ['v/hy] Joshua > *['v/y > ['Wvye, from which
Jesus stems. In these cases, the dissimilation is, as often, regressive.
1.19.9. Progressive vowel dissimilation is found in special cases. In alEWl
if not = Wl + al it is progressive, presumably because the preservation of Wl
was more important for communication (marking a condition) than that of al
not. In verb forms such as zjEayo he will take < *youz, special conditions
also prevail: regressive dissimilation would have given rise to *yeuz. This
form is odd: the verbal prex ye-, to be sure, does exist (lq"ye, r/aye , v/bye he is
small, it is dawning, he is shamed), but it is marginal. Moreover, there was
morphological pressure from the parallel hp<ayo he bakes, hb<ayo he is willing.
The dissimilation of *anoku to ykInoa: I was inuenced by the pronominal sufxes -i and -ni (see 4.2.3.2.1, p. 168; Blau 1979c: 14648= Topics, 34749).
In these three cases progressive dissimilation prevailed, even though normally
vowel dissimilation is regressive.
1.19.10. So far, the cases of dissimilation treated were partial: the dissimilated sound is not entirely lost. Total dissimilation is reected by the disappearance of the (second) glottal stop in *auz I shall take. This yields an
intermediate form *a!uz, exhibiting compensatory lengthening of the a;
from this, by the shift a! > o and the above-mentioned dissimilation (1.19.9),
*o!ez > zjE&aO arose.
1.19.10n. For the place of the stress in the last form, see 3.5.12.2.18, p. 153. This account
condenses the historical development of the conjugation of the prex-tense of zja. At rst,
it seems, the of the root disappeared in the 1cs prex-tense by dissimilation, in order to
59
Haplology; Lexicography 1.20.2.
avoid two glottal stops in the same syllable, and the preceding a was lengthened (a > a)
to become later, by the Canaanite shift, o. Only later, through paradigmatic analogy, did
long o, not followed by the glottal stop, spread through the whole paradigm of the qal
prex-tense: zjEayo, zjEaT.
1.19.11. Haplology is a special case of total consonant dissimilation, mentioned in the example of zjE&aO. In Biblical Hebrew, this feature is perhaps attested in the phrase hT:a" aEm: aI if you refuse (Exod 7:27; 9:2; 10:4; Jer
38:21), if indeed it stands for im *mmaen . . . (with the piel participle) and
does not represent an archaic qal participle. In this case, the vowel following
the totally dissimilated consonant disappears as well, so that the whole syllable is omitted. Thus, it makes sense that jt"P<& denoting at the door and tyiB"&
in the house (see, e.g., Gen 38:11; 43:19), respectively, exhibit haplology of
bp!ta and bb2 yit. The assumption that these forms are adverbial accusatives cannot by itself explain the frequency of this usage in nouns beginning
with a labial, although it might have been an additional factor.
1.19.12. Metathesis is the transposition of sounds in a word. It may be
regular and predictable: the t of the hitpael is regularly transposed after a
rst-radical sibilant: j'BET"vhI to triumph; the metathesis is, it seems, grammatically conditioned. All the other cases are sporadic and unpredictable, often occurring (in form of doublets) alongside the original form: hl:m}c / hm:l}c
garment, cb<K<& / bcK<& lamb.
1.20. Divisions of the Study of Language

1.20.1. It is customary to distinguish between grammar and lexicography: grammar deals with anything general and regular in language, whereas
lexicography treats singular features. Therefore, one would not look in the
dictionary to learn how to form the plural of, e.g., rm"v he preserved (viz.,
Wrm}v), because this formation is regular and predictable. It belongs instead to
grammar. In contrast, we would consult the dictionary to nd out if the root
rmv occurs in the qal and, if so, what its meaning is. The occurrence of the qal
of a given root is not predictable, since there are many roots for which no qal
is attested. Moreover, there is no complete regularity in the meaning of qal
forms. It is accordingly an individual phenomenon, and its proper place is in
the dictionary.
1.20.1n. Instead of lexicography, some scholars use the term lexicology, while others distinguish between lexicography and lexicology.
1.20.2. This division between grammar and lexicography has a central

value rather than clear-cut boundaries. No biblical grammar will omit the
fact that the plural of the demonstrative pronoun hz, / tazO is hL<aE&, although this
is a completely irregular formation. The plural may have its own entry in a
1.20.3. Lexicography; Verbal Themes
60
dictionary or it may be included with the singular forms. The exceptional behavior of lh to go or of hw,jT"vhI to bow must be mentioned in a grammar
as well as in a dictionary. Word derivation is an important borderline area.
Individual instances may be regular and thus belong to the grammar, while
others may be exceptional and, theoretically at least, be a part of the dictionary only. Practically speaking, derivation in general is treated in grammars,
but also in dictionaries under various derivational afxes and derived words.
1.20.3. A related problem is whether the verbal themes (binyanim, stems)
should be considered a part of the conjugation, belonging to grammar, or a
facet of word derivation, belonging to lexicography. Scholars are at variance.
As a rule, grammars deal with conjugation together with the treatment of the
verbal themes. Nevertheless, Heinz Grotzfeld in his grammar of the Arabic
dialect of Damascus (1964) treated the verbal themes separately from the conjugation because of their unpredictability, both in meaning and occurrence.
The most important consideration is practical. It is easy and lucid to treat the
formation of the verbal theme together with the formation of the sufx-tense
and prex-tense. Grotzfeld, in separating them, sacriced perspicuity and
easy arrangement to theory; the effort may be correct but not worthwhile.
Connected with this problem is the question whether every verbal theme
should appear in the dictionaries as a separate entry, let us say, j'BET"vhI under
this letter sequence, rather than under jbv. Scholarly tools for Biblical Hebrew never use such a scheme but rather arrange the lemmata according to
two systems. BDB (originally 1907) and the concordance of Mandelkern
(originally 1896), for instance, are arranged according to roots. This has the
great advantage that scholarsand these works address scholarsoften analyze roots, and here they are grouped together. The disadvantage is that many
Hebrew nominal roots are opaque in derivation, and it is only with a crossreference that ordinary readers can nd the lemma. Even a noun having such
a clear derivation as hr;/T law will not be found by many readers if it is put
under hry or yry. Is it really justiable to cite tpE/m under tpa or hn;WmT} under
ym? Most other dictionaries take a middle course, which is quite appropriate:
only the verb is adduced under the root, while the other parts of speech (listed
in the root entry) are given in their letter sequence. Since the derivation of
verbs is completely transparent even for students, this arrangement does not,
as a rule, cause any difculties. For scholarly dictionaries, at any rate, the arrangement of the various verbal themes under separate lemmata is out of the
question. Even if it were shown that the various verbal themes have to be considered separate words, such a separation would make such a dictionary difcult or useless for scholars, because of the absence of predictability of verbal
themes and because many scholars are interested in the root.
1.20.3n. See Grotzfeld 1964: 5362. More recently Uzi Ornan has applied Grotzfelds approach to Hebrew (e.g., Ornan 1971: 12428).
61
Phonemics; Morphology; Syntax 1.20.7.
1.20.4. In connection with this discussion, it is worth emphasizing that verbal themes are predictable in their formation, except that the formation of the
qal prex-tense is not predictable from the qal sufx-tense and vice versa.
1.20.5. The arrangement of popular dictionaries of Modern Hebrew is
guided by the needs of the unsophisticated reader. To repeat: every dictionary
should be formed for the benet of its special circle of readers; thus, the future
Great Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language by the Academy of the
Hebrew Language will be arranged in its entirety according to roots.
1.20.6. In other elds of grammar, too, areas overlap. Traditional grammars are divided into phonemics (or phonology, dealing with the smallest
units of language, i.e., sounds or phonemes), morphology (dealing with
words, or more accurately, with the smallest units that carry meaning, the
morphemes), and syntax (which analyzes the functions and relations of words
in the formally independent units of language, i.e., in sentences). If, in the
sentence r/a yhIy]w' and there was light (Gen 1:3), we treat the relations and
functions of the two words (their order, predicate subject; their concord), we
treat syntax. If we are interested in how to form the plural of these words or in
what the form of w' and is, we have passed to morphology. If we treat the
sound represented by w, we are dealing with phonetics (the features of sounds)
and phonemics (relative to sounds that are distinct within BHeb).
1.20.7. This schema has its focal value, but once again the boundaries between these areas are often blurred. It is clear that the formation of the feminine hl:/dG} great from the masculine l/dG: belongs to morphology, since it
was by means of the regular sufx h-; that the feminine was formed. What is
the theoretically proper place for dealing with the feminine usage of rdeG :
fence? In this case, the gender is not marked by any sufx; it is shown only
by concord, i.e., by syntactic means. Should we therefore separate the analysis
of the feminine nouns terminating in h-; from the list of nouns that have no special ending and yet are syntactically (not morphologically!) feminine? Similarly, what is the appropriate place for the analysis of the use of tenses?
Customarily, it belongs to syntax. Nevertheless, John Ries, in his inuential
book Was ist Syntax (1894) claimed that the place for such problems is morphology, since syntax treats the relations between words and not individual
words; in this view, he was followed by Bergstrsser (see 1.1.12n, p. 3). We
could argue that it is not the isolated verb that denotes an event at a given time,
but rather its relation to its subject that refers to the time of the event. If this is
really the case, then tense usage should be located in syntax. Recently, a nice
safety valve was found: for such cases a separate division of study was set up,
morphosyntax. (Similarly, for borderline cases between phonemics and morphology, we have morphophonemics.) Creating new divisions of a eld is
not, however, a deus ex machina, solving all difculties. New difculties will
1.20.8. Word Derivation; Semantics
62
arise: what are the exact boundaries between morphosyntax and syntax, on the
one hand, and morphosyntax and morphology, on the other, etc.?
1.20.8. We have already mentioned the topic of word derivation, which is
attached to many grammars. In the Semitic languages in general and in Biblical Hebrew in particular, word derivation is achieved by morphological
means. Therefore, morphology seems to be the apposite place for it. However,
in Indo-Germanic languages, including English, where morphological derivation is comparatively marginal and words are frequently derived from wordgroups, it is perhaps preferable to devote a separate section to word derivation.
1.20.9. A further division of grammar is semantics, which is concerned
with meanings but, unlike dictionaries, it attempts to nd what is general and
regular about them. Biblical semantics is not much developed, and we are still
in need of judicious works in this area.
2. Phonetics
2.1. Introduction
2.1.1. Phonetics deals with the physical character of vocal sounds as they
concern linguists; the exposition of phonetics presented here is brief. There
are ve ways of subdividing the vocal sounds. The basic contrast is (1) between consonants and vowels (2.2). They can also be distinguished on the
basis of (2) duration (2.3); (3) place of articulation (2.4); (4) resonance
chamber (2.5); and (5) vocal cord movement (2.6). We must also deal with
the special Semitic category of emphatics (2.7). After summarizing the major features of the Hebrew consonants (2.8), we conclude this section with a
discussion of stress and syllabication (2.9).
2.2. Consonants and Vowels

2.2.1. Sounds may be divided into consonants and vowels. These terms,
though generally accepted and rmly rooted, are not fully appropriate in etymological terms, since they refer to different criteria. The term consonant
marks function, i.e., it is applied to a sound which does not serve by itself as
sonant but must occur with a sonant (con with + sonant). Thus the opposed
term should be sonant, a sound capable of forming a syllable. The opposed
term that is used, vowel (related to vocal), describes its character: a vowel
is a vocal sound, and its opposed term should be a noisy sound (Geruschlaut). This etymological disparity is generally ignored today, and the pair consonant : vowel is standard.
2.2.1n. For doubts about the distinction, see already Brockelmann (190813: 1.41).
2.2.2. Actual use of the terms is based on slightly different senses. Consonants are pronounced with total or partial obstruction of the breath, whereas
the air moves freely in the pronunciation of vowels. When pronouncing, e.g.,
p, the air is blocked totally (stop), whereas the pronunciation of p (= f ) entails only partial obstruction; such a sound is a spirant, i.e., breathing, or a
fricative, i.e., made by the friction (of breath). Both stops and spirants are
consonants. The air ow from the lungs does not encounter any obstacle during the pronunciation of a; it is, accordingly, a vowel.
2.2.3. It is difcult to justify the division between consonants and vowels
from a physical-acoustical point of view only. Again, the core of each group is
63
02-Blau Page 64 Thursday, May 6, 2010 8:48 AM
2.2.4. Consonants/Vowels; Duration
64
clear, yet the boundaries are blurred. As a matter of fact, w and y may justly be
called both semi-consonants and semi-vowels, and indeed, they pass easily
into the vowels u and i, respectively. These are not sufcient grounds for renouncing the accepted division of consonants and vowels.
2.2.3n. Little that is certain can be said as to the vocalic function of spirants in Hebrew. Cf.
Rendsburgs attempt (1999: 2930). Sometimes bgdkpt following vowelless r change to a
corresponding fricative; in these cases, r, a liquid consonant, inuences the following stop
as a vowel would (3.3.2.1.1, p. 78). Such sporadic cases reect the fuzziness of the
vowel-consonant boundary. For particulars, see 3.3.2.1.4, p. 79.
2.2.4. In Semitic languages, at any rate, especially in verbs and verbal

nouns and adjectives, consonants and vowels are functionally different: the
radical consonants, so to say, convey the main meaning; the vowels (together
with afxes) only modify them (1.5.81.5.11, p. 14). This decisive functional difference is even reected in the alphabets of most Semitic tongues. If
we disregard vowel letters (which do not occur in all methods of spelling),
most Semitic alphabets write consonants only; the vowels have to be supplied
by the reader from the context.
2.3. Duration
2.3.1. Sounds may also be divided according to their duration: some
sounds are momentary and others continuant. The momentary sounds, all of
them consonants, are called stops or occlusives, because their pronunciation
entails total stopping (occlusion) of breath. The obstruction in the air stream
being released, the breath is expelled as if exploding; therefore these sounds
are sometimes called plosives. It goes without saying that such an explosion
can only last for a moment: , b, g, d, k, p, t, , q.
2.3.2. The continuants may be subdivided into spirants (fricatives), sonorants, and vowels.
2.3.3. Spirants or fricatives are uttered with perceptible expulsion of
breath, while the parts of the vocal tract are near together, but not wholly
closed. The breath is still able to pass between them with a grating sound: b2 ,
g, d2 , k, p, t, h, , , s, s, , z. The last four spirants are called sibilants, being
sounded with a hiss or a hush.
2.3.4. Sonorants are uttered while the parts of the vocal tract are farther
away from each other. The breath, accordingly, moves with greater ease: l, m,
n, r, and the semi-consonants (or semi-vowels) w, y.
2.3.5. Vowels are pronounced while breath is moving freely.
2.3.6. The full vowels include a (' ), (, ), e (e ), i (i ), o (//o ), O (; ), u (W/u ).
2.3.6n. The vowels given here are those of the Tiberian vocalization system, in which
there are no quantitative distinctions, i.e., phonetic long and short vowels are not distinguished.
Place of Articulation 2.4.10.
65
2.3.7. The ultra-short vowels are (] ), (), * (), O) ().
2.4. Place of Articulation

2.4.1. The consonants can be divided according to the place of articulation, i.e., the part of the vocal tract where the breath is (totally or partly)
blocked.
2.4.2. For the glottals the breath is blocked at the glottis, i.e., between the
vocal cords in the larynx: , h. Therefore, they are also called laryngeals.
2.4.2n. Note well that , when not used as a vowel letter, is an ordinary consonant, a glottal
stop, for which the air is totally blocked in the glottis, between the vocal cords.
2.4.3. For the pharyngeals the breath is obstructed in the pharynx, (behind
the root of the tongue and above the larynx): , .
2.4.4. For the uvulars the sound is articulated in the eshy extension of the
soft palate hanging above the throat, which is called the uvula (little grape).
Hebrew has only one uvular: q.
2.4.5. For the velars the sound is articulated at the soft palate (the velum,
the back part of the palate): k, g, k, g.
2.4.6. For the palatals the sound is articulated at the hard palate (i.e., the
front part of the palate). Hebrew has only one palatal: y, besides the palatal
sibilant sin, for which see below.
2.4.7. For the dentals and alveolars the sound articulated with the tonguetip against the teeth (dentals) or the gums (alveolars, the alveolus being the
bony socket at the root of a tooth). For the purposes of this study the distinction between dentals and alveolars is not important. The dentals and alveolars
include d, q, t, t, , and the sibilants z, s, s, , and the sonorants l, r, n. The sonorant l (and r) is also called lateral, because during its pronunciation the airstream passes by the sides of the tongue.
2.4.7n. The sound s is spelled with both samekh (s) and in (c). It is possible that q and t
were inter-dentals.
2.4.8. For the labio-dentals the sound is pronounced between the upper
teeth and the lower lip: b2 , p.
2.4.8n. In this paragraph and the following we present the accepted pronounciation; the
labio-dentals could have originally been bilabials.
2.4.9. For the bilabials the sound is pronounced between the two lips: b, p,
m, w.
2.4.10. Since the air is not blocked when vowels are pronounced, no place
of articulation, in the true sense of the term, exists for them. Vowels may be
classied according to the place of the tongue during their pronunciation.
Vowels pronounced as the tongue approaches the palate (i, u) are called high
2.4.11. Full Vowels
66
vowels, the tongue being in high position during their pronunciation. The
vowel a, being pronounced with the tongue in low position, is a low vowel.
Vowels pronounced with the highest point of the tongue in the front of the
mouth (i, to a lesser degree e) are called front vowels, whereas u and to a
lesser degree o are dubbed back vowels, because the tongue reaches its peak
in the back of the mouth. Ordinary back vowels, at any rate those used in Hebrew, are pronounced with rounded lips (they are called rounded vowels),
whereas the front vowels are called spread vowels, being pronounced with
spread lips, or unrounded vowels.
2.4.11. It is customary to draw a chart of vowels according to the position
of the tongue in the form of a trapezoid (the trapezoid of vowels). Here the
trapezoid of biblical vowels is reconstructed according to the Tiberian vocalization. This vocalization differs from the Sephardi pronunciation usually
taught at universities in that qama (whether qama gadol or qama qaan) is
pronounced O, i.e., as a back vowel somewhat lower than o. This pronunciation is supported both by internal reconstruction (1.13, p. 46), qama being
always O (3.5.3.6, p. 109), and by the usage of the so-called Ashkenazi Jews.
2.4.11n. On the difference between qama gadol and qama qaan, see 3.5.10.7, p. 138.
The ofcial Hebrew language of the State of Israel reects Sephardi pronunciation in its
vowel inventory; in that system qama gadol and qama qaan are pronounced a and o, respectively. Ashkenazi pronunciation is assumed to have used O for all qama; now all are
pronounced o.
2.4.12. This is the trapezoid of the full vowels of Biblical Hebrew.

i
u
e
O
a
2.4.13. The reconstructed full vowels of Biblical Hebrew according to the

Tiberian pronunciation are a (' ), (, ), e (e ), i (i ), o (//o ), O (; ), u (W/u ). The a
(pata ' ) is a front, low, spread vowel. The (segol , ) is a front, half-low,
spread vowel. The e (ere e ) is a front, half-high, spread vowel. The i (iriq I)
is a front, high, spread vowel. The o (olam o ) is a back, half-high, rounded
vowel. (In the Sephardic tradition this is the pronunciation of qama qaan
as well.) The O (qama ; ) is a back, half-low, rounded vowel. The u (qibbu,
shuruq u / W) is a back, high, rounded vowel.
67
Vowels; Voiced Sounds 2.6.1.
2.4.13n. With the exception of pata and qama, these vowels when historically long tend
to be followed by a vowel letter in biblical spelling. The rounding of qama is uncertain; it
is possible that it was a spread vowel.
2.4.14. The distinction between a short high back vowel (short u, written
qibbu) and a long high back vowel (long u, written shuruq) is alien to Biblical Hebrew. The choice between the two spellings in the Bible depends on the
consonants provided by the text. If the letter waw was used, it was marked
with a dot in it, i.e., the preceding consonant was followed by shuruq. Otherwise, qibbu was used. The spelling of the consonantal text was hallowed and
could not be adjusted as spelling systems changed. In fact, in older biblical
texts the two vowels alternate: the same word is vocalized in one place with
shuruq and in another with qibbu, depending on whether the waw is present.
Compare the ordinary spelling L:KU (e.g., Gen 43:34) and L:Wk(AyKI) (because)
they all Jer 31:34. As a rule, however, there was a tendency to use W when the
vowel is historically long. Similar is the use of olam (/ in contrast to o ).
2.4.15. The ultra-short vowels are (] ), (),
* (),
O) ().
The (mobile
swa ] ) is an ultra-short, central, neutral vowel. The other ultra-short vowels,
(aaf pata ),
* (aaf segol ),
O) (aaf qama ),
are, as a rule, restricted
to the neighborhood of laryngeals and pharyngeals. They serve, in the main,
as allophones of the mobile swa, and, like it, cannot be stressed. The swa itself
often denotes the lack of a vowel (zero, quiescent swa). This double function
of the swa arose because in the same word the zero articulation often alternates with the pronunciation of an ultra-short vowel.
2.4.15n. The central neutral pronunciation of swa was not that of the Masoretes, who pronounced it, as a rule, as a very short a as expressly stated by them. It is only in this light that
the alternation of swa with aaf pata becomes intelligible. For details see 3.5.6.4.2n,
p. 116.
2.5. Resonance Chamber

2.5.1. Sounds may be divided according to the resonance chamber that reinforces the sounds. The main resonance cavity is the mouth, and the passage
to the nasal cavity is generally closed; sounds that resonate only in the mouth
are oral. The sounds m, n are pronounced while the nasal passage is open, so
that they resonate in both mouth and nose; therefore they are called nasals.
2.6. Voiced and Unvoiced

2.6.1. Finally, the sounds may be divided into voiced and unvoiced
sounds. During the pronunciation of voiced sounds the vocal cords vibrate.
(If you put your ngers to your throat, you will feel vibration, and if you put
2.7. Emphatics
68
your ngers in your ears you will hear humming or buzzing.) Voiced sounds
have higher sonority, especially the vowels, which are all voiced.
2.7. Emphatics
2.7.1. The class of emphatics is characteristic not only of Hebrew but of
nearly all the Semitic languages. Ashkenazi (European) Jews have lost the
faculty to pronounce these sounds (, , q) and so pronounce them either as the
non-emphatic counterpart (t, k) or as an affricate (ts for ). Arabic-speaking
Jews pronounce them in accord with their Arabic environment. Thus the special Jewish tradition of emphatic pronunciation must be considered lost.
2.7.2. In living Semitic dialects two types of emphatic pronunciation are
attested. In Ethiopia an emphatic is glottalized (i.e., pronounced with glottalic
pressure), whereas in Classical Arabic and many Arabic dialects an emphatic
is velarized (i.e., the body of the tongue touches the velum). The velarized
pronunciation is used by Arabic-speaking Jews.
2.7.3. Such a pronunciation is not likely for Biblical Hebrew, at least in the
time of the Masoretes, because if the emphatics had been velarized, so would
the following vowel have been; thus pata a would have passed to a qama O.
(This is an argumentum ex silentio and as such is open to objection.) It stands
to reason that originally emphatics were pronounced by way of the contraction of the larynx (and the lower pharynx). It was from this pronunciation that,
on the one hand, glottalization arose, and, on the other, velarization.
2.7.3n. For the extent of the ts pronunciation of , see Steiner (1982). It has been claimed
that x, z, s were originally affricated, i.e., they were pronounced , dz, ts. Whether or not z
and s were originally affricated is of no consequence for Biblical Hebrew. As for x, however, the issue is of no mean importance. We accept Steiners cautious and prudential proposal that a Proto-Semitic affricated sibilant is a possible hypothesis (1982: 8991). For
new material discovered since the publication of Steiners book, see Tropper (2000: 102).
If Steiners proposal can be validated, the pronunciation ts would be regarded as a retention, since a glottalic (emphatic) pronunciation would have prevented the loss of affrication, contrary to what happened to z and s. Otherwise, the Ashkenazi pronunciation of
must be considered an innovation, triggered by its glottalic (emphatic) pronunciation.
2.7.4. For the suggestion that glottalization and velarization both arose from
laryngeal and lower pharyngeal constriction, see Garbell (1954: 23436).
2.8. Summary of the Consonants

2.8.1. The basic features of the consonants are shown in the chart on p. 69:
2.8.1n. The sounds g, q, and even t have disappeared from the accepted pronunciation and
yet have been preserved in various Jewish communities. The dental-alveolar, unvoiced
Consonants 2.8.1.
69
b
b2
g
g
d
d2
h
w
z
y
k
k
l
m
n
s
p
p
q
r
s
t
t
a
B
b
G
g
D
d
h
w
z
j
f
y
K
k
l
m
n
s
[
P
p
x
q
r
v
c
T
t
aleph
bet
b2 et
gimel
gimel
dalet
d2 alet
he
waw
zayin
et
et
yod
kaf
kaf
lamed
mem
nun
samekh
ayin
pe
pe
ade
qof
resh
shin
sin
taw
taw
laryngeal (glottal), stop, unvoiced

bilabial, stop, voiced
labio-dental, fricative, voiced
velar, stop, voiced
velar, fricative, voiced
dental-alveolar, stop, voiced
dental-alveolar, fricative, voiced
laryngeal (glottal), fricative, unvoiced(?)
bilabial, semi-consonant, voiced
dental-alveolar, fricative (sibilant), voiced
pharyngeal, fricative, unvoiced
dental-alveolar, stop (emphatic), unvoiced
palatal, semi-consonant, voiced
velar, stop, unvoiced
velar, fricative, unvoiced
dental-alveolar, liquid, voiced, lateral
bilabial, liquid, nasal, voiced
dental-alveolar, liquid, nasal, voiced
dental-alveolar, fricative (sibilant), unvoiced
pharyngeal, fricative, voiced
bilabial, stop, unvoiced
labio-dental, fricative, unvoiced
dental-alveolar, emphatic, fricative (sibilant), unvoiced
uvular, emphatic, stop, (as a rule) unvoiced
dental-alveolar, liquid, voiced
palatal, fricative (sibilant), unvoiced
lateral, unvoiced fricative, today pronounced as s
dental-alveolar, stop, unvoiced
dental-alveolar, fricative, unvoiced
spirant was originally used only for samekh, but it is the contemporary pronunciation of
in all Jewish communities. The replacement of by s is attested as early as the Bible, especially in the later books (Blau 1970c: 2425, 114ff.), and in Rabbinic Hebrew it has become the rule. Samaritans pronounce as s. The original lateral pronunciation of has
disappeared from Hebrew; see Steiner (1977, 1991).
2.9. Stress; Diphthongs
70
2.9. Stress and Syllabication

2.9.1. Stress and syllabication are closely related in Hebrew, as in many
languages. There are two ways of of emphasizing syllables: (1) (expiratory)
stress, which emphasizes the stressed syllable by contracting the muscles of
the rib cage and thereby pushing more air out of the lungs, and (2) pitch, the
musical accent, which emphasizes the accented syllable by contracting the
muscles of the larynx, thereby increasing the rate of vibration of the vocal
cords. Pitch is found to some extent in every language, but only in a minority
of languages (e.g., Chinese) are words differentiated by it (i.e., in them pitch
has phonemic function).
2.9.2. In Biblical Hebrew pitch had no phonemic function, and expiratory
stress prevailed (see 3.5.12, pp. 143ff.). As its results make clear, stress was
strongly centralizing (i.e., it used up most of the breath in the pronunciation of
the stressed syllables). Accordingly, other syllables became blurred and were
shortened.
2.9.3. It is not easy to dene the syllable. In Biblical Hebrew a syllable always begins with a consonant and is followed either by a vowel (open syllable) or by a vowel and consonant (closed syllable). Only at the end of a word
can a vowel be followed by two consonants. Consider T:r]m"&a: you (masc.
sing.) said: a: open syllable, r]m"& closed syllable, T: open syllable; T}r]m"&a: you
(fem. sing.) said: a: open syllable, T}r]m"& doubly closed syllable (i.e., closed by
two consonants). The culmination of every syllable is the sound with the highest sonority, which in Hebrew is always a vowel. Accordingly, the number of
syllables in a given word is identical to the number of its vowels. Even ultrashort vowels, with low sonority, have to be counted as separate syllables.
2.9.3n. Various linguists have gone so far as to deny the existence of the syllable. In Hebrew even aleph at the beginning of the syllable has to be accounted a consonant; the only
case of a syllable not beginning with a consonant in Tiberian vocalization is W and in certain environments; this u, however, is nothing more than a variant of w]. A different approach to Hebrew syllabication counts a consonant plus an ultra-short vowel as being
attached to the following full syllable.
2.9.4. If two continuous vowels occur in one syllable, they are called
diphthongs. Prima facie, this contravenes our statement that in Hebrew the
number of syllables is identical to that of the vowels. Functionally only one of
the two vowels is a real vowel: in Hebrew the diphthongs consist of a full
vowel, which is the peak of the syllable, followed by a semi-vowel (or semiconsonant), w or y, which functions as a consonant and, being less sonorant
than the full vowel, marks the boundary of the syllable, as an ordinary consonant would.
2.9.5. It is legitimate indeed to speak of diphthongs because they are apt to
be monophthongized, i.e., to become one (long) vowel. Thus ht:y]B"&h" home-
71
Monophthongization 2.9.5.
ward corresponds to ytIyBE my house; the poetic pausal form ht:&w]M:&h" death
to ytI/m my death. The ay and aw are called descending diphthongs, since the
more sonorous vowel (the peak) precedes the less sonorous element (and the
air stream descends to it). These are the only important diphthongs in Biblical
Hebrew. Ascending diphthongs like wa, ya, in which the more sonorous element follows the less sonorous one, are not noteworthy, because, with few exceptions, they behave as ordinary open syllables.
3. Phonology
3.1. Introduction
3.1.1. The topic of physical qualities or features of sounds, the topic in
chapter 2, stands on the border between linguistics and acoustic science. Only
certain features of sounds are important for linguistics; many particulars of
pure phonetics are of no relevance. How concerned is linguistics with accurate phonetic transcription? Is a transcription necessarily better (for linguistics!) if it is more complete, even exhaustive? Or is the linguistic interest in
phonetic accuracy limited?
3.1.2. Let us attempt, for instance, to transcribe the word rK:KI district;
loaf. In a broad transcription we would use the same sort of k in both syllables: kik-kar. A narrower (more accurate) transcription, in contrast, might
note that the rst k, being followed by a front vowel, assimilates to that vowel
and becomes more fronted than the kk preceding a. Is it worthwhile to note
such phonetic differences, although they are totally dependent on their environment and, therefore, do not differentiate meanings?
3.1.3. The difference between, e.g., b and p is of crucial importance for
anyone interested in language. In Hebrew, as in many languages, b and p may
appear in the same phonetic environment, e.g., hn;B: he built and hn;P: he
turned. Thus b and p are the shortest elements which differentiate meanings,
i.e., they serve as phonemes. The subeld of linguistics that deals with phonemes (rather than with the phonetic-physical qualities of sounds) is called
phonology. Neither the linguist nor the nave reader is interested in phonetic
differences that do not differentiate meanings. In fact, a good alphabet is one
that notates only phonemes, with a one-to-one correspondence between sound
and letter. The marking of the subtle difference between k preceding i and k
preceding a, for instance, would not help a reader; on the contrary, it would
only confuse the reader.
3.1.3n. Among the founders of phonology, N. S. Trubetzkoy, who lived in the rst half of
the twentieth century, deserves special mention. See Trubetzkoy (1968, 1969).
3.1.4. Alternant phonemic forms, i.e., various manifestations of the same

phoneme, are called allophones. Even in cases in which allophones are conspicuous and in certain environments have developed into phonemes, the ordinary reader will not be misled by a failure to mark the difference. The fact
that allophones are predictable, because they appear in dened environments,
72
Allophones; Polyphony 3.2.2.1.
73
enables the reader to identify them readily. Biblical Hebrew is a case in point.
In unvocalized biblical texts there is no graphic difference between bgdkpt
letters pronounced as stops or as spirants. Nonetheless a reader familiar with
the language can easily distinguish them, despite the great phonetic difference. Because each realization generally appears in a well-dened phonetic
environment (spirants occur after vowels, otherwise stops occur), the ordinary reader readily differentiates them. This is true even though in certain environments these allophones have become veritable phonemes (see below,
3.3.2.2, p. 79). Moreover, even polyphonic letters (like marking both s and
[s], see 3.2.2) are easily differentiated.
3.2. Hebrew and the Proto-Semitic Consonants

3.2.1. Hebrew Script
3.2.1.1. The twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet mark consonants;
even y, w, h, a do so when they are not used as vowel letters (i.e., to mark vowels). Before the introduction of vowel letters, Hebrew script was entirely consonantal, notating consonants only. Despite clear difculties that must have
existed in reading such a writing system, it is congenial to Hebrew (and Semitic) language structure, in which, to a great extent, consonants bear the
main meaning of the word and vowels only modify it.
3.2.1.2. All the letters of the Hebrew alphabet mark separate phonemes.
Being a phonemic writing system, it suits the readers aim well, even with the
qualication that vowel phonemes are not marked in unvocalized script.
(Note that vowel marking is not entirely phonemic; see 3.5.6.6, p. 118.)
3.2.2. An Example of Polyphony: in

3.2.2.1. According to Jewish tradition, the pronunciation of in is identical
to s, and, therefore it is not a separate phoneme. This tradition does not t the
linguistic fact that Biblical Hebrew spelling uses in and samekh in accord
with distinct sets of correspondences in other Semitic languages. This pattern
reects the fact that the two sounds (and letters) derive from separate ProtoSemitic phonemes. Hebrew samekh corresponds to s in other Semitic languages, as in to cover Heb hS:KI, Ugar, Aram ksy, Arab ksw; to break, tear
apart (prey), divide Heb sr'P:, corresponding to forms with s in Akkadian,
Aramaic, Gez, and Arabic. The Hebrew correspondences for are distinct:
grey hair Heb hb:yc, Akk sib(um); witness, elder, Aram bc old, Ugar sbt,
Gez sibat, Arab sayb; left Heb lamOc, Akk sumel, Ugar smal, Aram lm,
Arab simal left, samal, samal north wind; ten Heb rc[<&, Akk esr, Ugar
sr, Aram rc[, Gez asru, Arab asr.
3.2.2.2. Polyphony
74
3.2.2.1n. The Samaritans pronounce in as shin, so that according to the Samaritans as well
it does not constitute a separate phoneme, being identical to s. In later Jewish tradition,
tends to be superseded by s.
Since Old Aramaic lm alternates with later lms, the s has to be interpreted as .
In Gez asru, the sufx -u is a special Gez feature (see 1.10.2.6n, p. 32).
3.2.2.2. These sound correspondences establish the existence of two different Proto-Semitic sounds. Since Heb appears (almost) exclusively in words
in which a consonant different from samekh has to be posited, the biblical tradition of spelling s has to be considered reliable (Blau 1977e = Topics, 50
103; for occasional deviations, see Blau 1970c: 11417). The absence of a
special letter to mark this consonant preserved in ancient Biblical Hebrew
(before it coincided with samekh) is to be explained by the assumption that the
alphabet was not invented by the ancient Jews. Otherwise, why did the Jews
use as a polyphonic sign, i.e., a sign standing for two different sounds, s
and ? By no means can it be argued that in ancient Biblical Hebrew there was
a sound that was rst pronounced as s, later drifting sporadically to s: why did
it become s of all things in some cases, yet remained s in the others? Such an
assumption would totally contravene the postulated regularity of sound shifts
(1.9.8, p. 27). Moreover, how could it have happened that it became s in
exactly those cases in which the sound correspondences attest to a separate
phoneme?
3.2.3. The Origins of Polyphonic Sin

3.2.3.1. In the language of the people who invented the alphabet, and s
had merged, presumably as s; such a merger is attested in many Semitic languages (see 3.2.2.1, p. 73). This people did not need or have a letter marking
. Two explanations for the polyphonic use of v are possible.
3.2.3.2. In the rst scenario, when the ancient Hebrews took over this alphabet, they lacked a letter for , which they still possessed. They did not invent a new letter to add to the newly acquired alphabet, but rather used s to
mark it as well. This polyphonous use of the s might have been caused by the
phonetic similarity of and s: the Hebrews chose a letter that represented a
rather similar sound.
3.2.3.3. The second scenario develops from a well-attested fact in the history of Semitic alphabet-borrowing. Again and again one nds that the adopters of another alphabet do not mark sounds that do not exist in the original
alphabet with letters reecting a similar pronunciation. Rather they imitate
the original alphabet.
3.2.3.4. At the time the Canaanite alphabet was rst used, Old Aramaic
still preserved the interdentals. The Canaanite languages had lost them. Accordingly, for example, Old Aramaic still had t (= later Aram s2), whereas in
Canaanite it had merged with s. Thus the Canaanites pronounced ox sor,
while the speakers of Old Aramaic still said tor. Since the Old Aramaic
Polyphony 3.2.4.2.
75
speakers did not invent any new letters, one might have expected that they
would polyphonously use a letter that marked a phonetically similar sound, for
instance samekh: rs*. (In the Tell Fekherye Aramaic inscription, s corresponds to Proto-Semitic s2.) In fact, they used , presumably not because the
sounds t and s are similar, but under the inuence of the original Canaanite alphabet, which employed in these cases , and spelled the word for ox r!
Since Canaanite and Aramaic are similar, the Arameans grew used to reading
Canaanite r and pronouncing it, in accordance with their own language, tor.
Thus, for marking the sound absent from the Canaanite alphabet, they used the
letter that in the Canaanite alphabet historically corresponded to that absent
letter (without, of course, having any inkling of the historical development).
3.2.3.5. This process can be seen most clearly in adoption by the Arabs of
the (Aramaic-) Nabatean alphabet (see Blau 1977b: 1013 = Middle Arabic,
1318). Nabatean Aramaic had lost many consonantal phonemes preserved in
Arabic. Thus, for instance, Proto-Semitic q0 (= Heb 2) in Aramaic (including
Nabatean Aramaic) had coincided with (2). Accordingly, Proto-Semitic
q0aby was spelled ybf. The Arabs pronounced it in accord with their own language, q0aby. Nevertheless, they used for marking q0, though the sounds involved are totally different.
3.2.3.6. The same may be true regarding acceptance of the alphabet by the
Hebrews. Since the original users of the alphabet used to spell words in
which Proto-Semitic occurred (which they pronounced s), the Hebrews
might have taken over the for marking (also) . If this proves true, nothing
can be inferred from the pronunciation of from the fact that it is marked by
in the Hebrew alphabet. It would simply reect the fact that in the original
language s and had coincided, without suggesting that in Hebrew they were
phonetically similar.
3.2.4. Other Cases of Polyphony

3.2.4.1. The use of to mark both s and shows clearly that the Hebrew
alphabet allows for polyphony (Blau 1982a). Were other letters used polyphonously? It stands to reason that j and [ were polyphonous as well: j represented both and x, [ both and w until the third century b.c.e.
3.2.4.2. The double pronunciation of these letters was still in use at the
time of the earliest parts of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Bible
(the Pentateuch is from the third century b.c.e.). Thus names containing /
are transliterated according to the following system: original and (i.e., j/[)
are not transliterated at all or vowels are used for them, original x (i.e., 2) is
marked by c and original w (i.e., 2) by g. Thus bb:jO, derived from 1bb, is
transliterated by obab, while nouns beginning with yjIa, from the root xw, are
always shown with aci. Nouns from the root 1zz are transcribed with initial
vowels, yet Gaza (the initial wyn is attested by the Arabic name wazza) by
3.2.5. Polyphony; Consonants
76
Gaza. This last example is especially powerful, since it reects the difference
in cases that otherwise would be, prima facie, identical. There are some deviations from the pattern, yet in the main the principle seems clear. Nevertheless, the pattern is not uniform throughout the Old Greek translation, since the
work was done over several centuries. Thus the transcriptions in the Septuagint Ezra and Nehemiah reveal that transcription by zero prevails in them,
without distinguishing between and x, and w. The polyphonous distinctions
made at the time of the Pentateuch translation had disappeared by the time of
the translation of Ezra and Nehemiah.
3.2.5. Hebrew and Proto-Semitic Consonants

3.2.5.1. The Hebrew alphabet has 22 letters (c and v are marked by the
same letter) but originally marked at least 25 consonantal phonemes. ProtoSemitic had, in addition to these 25, four other consonantal phonemes. We
have no indication that they still existed in Hebrew at the time the Hebrews
took over the alphabet. These are 2z (= q 1.9.11.9.11, pp. 2528), 2v (= t,
1.10.2.1ff., pp. 30ff.), 2x and 3x (= q0 and , 1.10.3.81.10.3.19, pp. 38
40).
3.2.5.2. These are the 29 consonantal phonemes of Proto-Semitic. The
consonants that disappeared from Hebrew before the destruction of the First
Temple are in parentheses; sounds that still existed at that time but were not
represented by separate letters of the alphabet are in brackets.
b g d (q) h w z [x] y k l m n s [w] p ( q0) q r s [] t (t)
3.3. The Consonants of Hebrew

3.3.1. Classication of the Consonants
3.3.1.1. The consonants of Hebrew can be classied, as we have seen, in
various ways. In this section we briey comment on some groups, and in the
succeeding sections we discuss in detail three groups that present various difculties, the bgdkpt letters, the laryngeals and pharyngeals (including aleph
and he), and the semi-consonants.
3.3.1.2. The emphatic stops are et (dental-alveolar) and qof (uvular). For
the emphatic category, see 2.7, p. 68. The t of hitpael is assimilated to a preceding x to become : qD;f"x}ni shall we justify ourselves? (with pausal qama,
Gen 44:16). See 1.19.3, p. 57.
3.3.1.3. The sibilant fricatives include a dental-alveolar group (samekh,
zayin, and ade) and the palatal shin. in, originally a lateral fricative, fell into
the dental-alveolar group after its original pronunciation was lost and it came
to be pronounced as samekh. All the sibilants metathesize with the t of the
hitpael; see 1.19.12, p. 59.
77
Consonants 3.3.1.9.
3.3.1.4. The dental-alveolar sibilant fricatives are samekh (unvoiced),

zayin (voiced), and adhe (emphatic). For the suggestion that z, s, x were
originally affricated, i.e., that they were pronounced dz, ts, , rather than as
simple sibilants, see 2.7.3, p. 68. For the original contrast of samekh and sin,
see 3.2.2, p. 73. For the etymological contrast of z1 and z2, see 1.9, p. 25.
Three Proto-Semitic sounds have coincided in Heb x; see 1.10.3.8
1.10.3.18, pp. 3840. For its metathesis preceding the t of the hitpael and
the assimilation of the non-emphatic t to the emphatic , see 3.3.1.3 and
3.3.1.2. For its emphatic character, see 2.7, p. 68.
3.3.1.5. The consonantal text does not distinguish between s and , i.e., the
two sounds had merged in the language from which the alphabet was developed, which we have argued was not Hebrew. The sign is polyphonic
(3.2.2, p. 73). The differentiation between them (v versus c) stems from the
Masoretes only, yet it is well founded. Much evidence, both internal and comparative, suggests that was originally a lateral fricative (2.8, p. 68), a sound
preserved in Modern South Arabian dialects. The alternation of the roots
qj3x/qjc to laugh attests to the afnity between c and lateral 3x (1.10.3.8,
p. 38).
3.3.1.6. The palatal sibilant is shin (unvoiced). For the etymological
background of the Hebrew consonant, see 1.10.2, p. 30.
3.3.1.7. The liquids are lamed (dental-alveolar lateral) and resh (dentalalveolar). For the properties of resh, see 3.3.3.1.13.3.3.1.2, pp. 8182. For
the exceptional behavior of l in the prex-tense, imperative, and construct innitive of jq"l: he took, see 4.3.8.3.7, p. 243. For the possible assimilation of
the l of the alleged interrogative particle *hal, see 3.3.5.5.5, p. 95; 3.5.11.5n,
p. 140.
3.3.1.8. The nasals are mem (bilabial) and nun (dental-alveolar). The latter
in Hebrew, as in other Semitic languages, exhibits a certain weakness.
3.3.1.9. The nasal n immediately preceding a consonant is totally assimilated to it: *yinpol shifts to lPOyi yippol. There are two major groups of exceptions (and some sporadic exceptions as well). (1) With few exceptions n is not
assimilated to a following laryngeal-pharyngeal: a"n]yi he will commit adultery; gh"n]yi he will drive; lj"n]yi he will take possession; ["n]yi it is pleasant.
This is an ancient phenomenon, reected in the consonantal skeleton of the
Bible, and is due to the difculty of doubling laryngeals and pharyngeals. Cf.
4.3.8.3.1, p. 241. The exceptions to this pattern include tj"ye he will go down,
occurring alongside tj"n]y;i WjmI from outside; fWjmI from a thread. (2) In
verbs III-n, through the analogy of forms preserving the n because it does not
immediately precede a consonant, the n has been reinstated: yTIn]k"&v, T:n]k"&v I,
you settled down, through analogy to k"v, hn;k}v, Wnk}v he, she, they settled
down, kE/v, ynik}/v settling down (ms, mp), KOvy,i WnK}vyi he, they will settle
down, etc. For the exceptional behavior of tn to give, see 4.3.8.3.4, p. 242.
3.3.1.10. BGDKPT
78
3.3.1.10. For the tendency to preserve n in pausal forms, see 4.3.8.3.2,

p. 241; for its preservation in the qal construct innitive in forms like lPOn]lI to
fall, see 4.3.4.2.2, p. 213.
3.3.2. The BGDKPT Consonants

3.3.2.1. Stop-Spirant Contrast
3.3.2.1.1. The six oral stop consonants, tpkdgb, each have two pronunciations, as a stop and as a spirant (fricative). They generally preserve their original pronunciation as stops (bgdkpt, marked by dages TPKDGB); after vowels,
they change to spirants (b2 gqkpt). The spirant pronunciation is optionally
marked by an overbar, called raphe, tpkdgb, but more typically by the absence
of dages, tpkdgb. The consonants are pronounced as stops in word-initial position and after a consonant (i.e., after a quiescent swa), and as spirants in other
cases. The process of spirantization is basically one of assimilation: vowels are
continuants (2.3.5, p. 64) and assimilate immediately following stops to become continuants as well. Insofar as stop and spirant alternate, they can be considered two allophones of a single archiphoneme, but there is some evidence
that they were on their way to becoming separate phonemes.
3.3.2.1.1n. For the feminine morpheme -at becoming -a in nal position, see 3.5.7.2.1,
p. 121.
The diphthongs aw and ay tend to be followed by the stops bgdkpt, since the nal w and
y function as consonants (and are, indeed, marked by quiescent swa, except at the end of a
word preceding a word opening with bgdkpt, where swa is, as a rule, not written): yTIw]l"&v I
was quiet Job 3:26. After the Tetragrammaton, pronounced yn;dOa, with nal -ay, a following bgdkpt is invariably a stop. Some exceptions are due to analogy: ht:y]B" homeward
was inuenced by the absolute form tyiB"& (see Blau 1992: 1011 = Studies, 9293); pausal
ykIy]a:&WljT" your (fs) illnesses Ps 103:3 reects the fact that the pronominal sufx always
contains spirant k. There are true exceptions as well: Wht& wq"line of confusion Isa 34:11.
3.3.2.1.2. The stop-spirant variation can extend outside a single word,

since the Masoretic notation recognizes sandhi (external close juncture),
where two (Masoretic) words (i.e., stress units) are joined together. If the rst
word ends in a vowel and the second opens with one of the letters tpkdgb, this
letter is, as a rule, pronounced as spirant. The two words effectively form one
stress unit in which the tpkdgb letter is preceded by a vowel: Wht& ht:y]h: it was
confusion Gen 1:2. A connective cantillation mark indicates this joining process. This joining is always the case when two words are hyphenated, i.e.,
linked by maqqaf; here the words form a single stress unit in which the rst
word is proclitic: hk:mO&k:AymI who is like you? Exod 15:11 (rst occurrence).
3.3.2.1.3. An expected spirantization may not be carried through because
of dissimilation: if the second word begins with b or k followed by another
similar (or identical) spirant, the initial sound of the word remains a stop:
BGDKPT 3.3.2.2.3.
79
Ha:/bB} yhIy]w' and it happened when she came Judg 1:14; hk:mO&K: ymIwho is like
you? Exod 15:11 (second occurrence).
3.3.2.1.4. Sometimes bgdkpt following vowelless r change to fricatives because r, as a continuant and one with weak pronunciation, inuences the
following stop as a vowel. (This reminds us how vague the differences between consonants and vowels can become.) Consider: db"r]m" coverlet; fybIr]v
scepter; b:r]D; goad; b:r]q: offering only in Ezek 40:43, otherwise B:r]q.: The
form ydir]Y;mI that I should go down Ps 30:4 contains a fricative d as usual with
construct innitives governing pronominal sufxes (e.g., /db}[:l} to serve
him); surprisingly, the qama is marked by meteg (and, therefore, pronounced by the Sephardim as a). The meteg, indicating an open syllable, is
used here, it seems, because of the vocalic character of the r, which caused the
preceding syllable to be open.
3.3.2.1.4n. On the weak character of r and its inclusion among the laryngeals and pharyngeals, see 3.3.3.1.1, pp. 8182. For meteg, see 3.5.11.9, p. 142. For the problem of
the date of the spirantization of bgdkpt, see below.
3.3.2.2. The History of the Process

3.3.2.2.1. Biblical vocalization reects a stage of the languages history in
which spirantization was no longer always productive in word-medial and
word-nal positions: a swa replacing a vowel, when preceded by a short vowel,
was, as a rule, not pronounced, yet a following bgdkpt remained spirant. (This
is the so-called swa medium, as in ykEl}m;" see 3.5.6.3.6, p. 114.) The failure to
shift to a stop pronunciation indicates that the automatic alternation of stop and
spirant bgdkpt no longer operated: bgdkpt had become a spirant because of the
preceding vowel, but when that vowel disappeared, the spirant pronunciation
was maintained (see Blau 198990: 10813 = Studies, 28388).
3.3.2.2.2. The disappearance of this alternation is indicated by other
features as well. In some cases, the 2fs sufx-tense of verbs III-laryngealspharyngeals contrasts with the innitive: T}j"q&l" : you took (with stop T}), tj"ql"& :
to take (with spirant t). This reects a phonemic opposition of stop and spirant for t, both occurring after a vowel. In I-laryngeals-pharyngeals with a
bgdkpt second radical, there is a marked tendency to vocalize the rst radical
with quiescent swa, rather than with a aaf vowel; thus the bgdkpt radical is
realized as a stop, e.g., lOBj}T" you take in pledge. Were the stop-spirant alternation automatic (i.e., if the two pronunciations had remained allophones of
the same archiphoneme), there would be no reason for the speaker (and the
Masoretes) to prefer the stop pronunciation. This preference is comprehensible only on the assumption that the automatic alternation of occlusive and
spirant bgdkpt has been restricted.
3.3.2.2.3. A further piece of evidence is provided by the simplication of
geminates: there is a strong tendency to reduce double consonants followed
3.3.2.2.4. BGDKPT
80
by mobile swa to simple consonants followed by quiescent swa, e.g., y[Es}m"

journeys (cstr) Num 33:1; here mase replaces the expected *masse. This
simplication is almost totally absent from bgdkpt, which, again almost without exception, are marked by dages, as hd;D]v was plundered Jer 4:20; W[G}yi
they will touch. (See Bergstrsser 1.14142.)
3.3.2.2.3n. In the Jer 4:20 case, the dages has been preserved when it precedes the same
consonant, although this environment is, as a rule, conducive to the omission of the dages.
3.3.2.2.4. Why are some geminates simplied and others left geminates?
The main reason for the simplication of geminates followed by an ultra-short
vowel (the swa) is the difculty of pronouncing a double consonant with the
help of only an ultra-short vowel. Now, this difculty would have been even
greater with bgdkpt, which, as stops, are shorter than continuants and therefore more likely to require a full vowel when being geminated. Why then do
they always preserve the dages? This is a difcult issue. The only way out of
the dilemma is to suppose that, in at least some of the cases in which the dages
continues to mark bgdkpt, it denotes their pronunciation as simple stops, although they follow vowels. Accordingly, hd;D]v may denote not only suddqa
but also sudqa; W[G}yi not only yiggu but also yigu.
3.3.2.2.4n. For the marking of simple stops with dages in Syriac, see Blau 198990: 108 =
Studies, 283 n. 15.
3.3.2.2.5. The features just outlined indicate that at a certain stage in the
history of Hebrew the stops bgdkpt after vowels did not automatically change
to spirants in word-medial and word-nal position. In contrast, both external
and internal evidence indicate that in word-initial position the automatic alternation of stop and spirant continued. The internal evidence is the consistent
use of spirants in sandhi after a word ending in a vowel. External evidence is
furnished by the use of this feature in the living Aramaic of Tiberias at the beginning of the tenth century c.e., as attested by Rav Saadya Gaon. Moreover,
even outside word-initial position spirantization after vowels is often carefully
preserved. A case in point is vd;Q}mI sanctuary Exod 15:17, with spirant q after
mobile swa, in contrast to the usual vD;q}mI with occlusive d after quiescent swa.
Accordingly, the bgdkpt spirants are allophones on their way to becoming phonemes in word-medial and word-nal position; here, as in other features, the
biblical vocalization reects a transitional stage in the history of Hebrew.
3.3.2.2.5n. For Saadya Gaons two anecdotes dealing with spirantization in word-initial
position after a preceding word terminating in a vowel, see his Commentary to the Sefer
Yira (4.3; edition: Kafa 1972: 78; French translation: Lambert 1891: 102).
3.3.2.2.6. Paul Kahle believed that the Masoretes had tampered with the
traditional Jewish pronunciation of Hebrew in fairly drastic ways. (See
3.3.3.4, p. 86, for his views on laryngeals and pharyngeals.) Kahle proposed
an ingenious theory of Masoretic activity, most fully presented in The Cairo
Geniza (1959). He claimed there that the Masoretes did not reproduce tradispread is 12 points long
BGDKPT 3.3.3.1.1.
81
tional Jewish pronunciation; rather, after the fashion of Classical Arabic

grammarians, they remodeled it under Syriac and Arabic inuence. They
were, he alleged, seeking to give the Holy Book the most eloquent literary
form possible.
3.3.2.2.7. His notion of the Masoretes introducing deliberate changes is
implausible. In particular, he believed, based on the Septuagint transliterations (1959: 17984), that the fricative pronunciation of bgdkpt was historically accurate, but that the double pronunciation was a Masoretic creation.
(See Kutscher 1965: 2434, reviewing Garbini 1960, a book dominated by
Kahles theories.) Kahles theory does not explain how the Masoretes were
able to use spirants in cases in which the preceding vowel had already disappeared (the so-called swa medium, as in ykEl}m", t/bn]z'). In particular, note that in
Syriac, the Masoretes supposed prototype, the stop pronunciation often supersedes the spirant one. The contrast of lPOn]lI to fall and lpn]BI when he
falls can only be explained as reecting internal Hebrew development.
3.3.2.2.8. Moreover, Kahles use of Septuagint transcriptions is fallacious. He claimed that the Greek forms demonstrate that the pronunciation
was always spirant, since the Septuagint usually transliterates both stop and
spirant k, p, t by c, f, and q respectively. This view, however, does not take
into account the facts of Greek: among Greek unvoiced stops there are two series, viz., unaspirated stops (like plain p, t, k) and aspirated stops (p h, t h, k h);
the aspirated stops in later Greek became fricatives. It stands to reason that
Hebrew p, t, k were aspirated. To Greek ears, Hebrew aspirated stops were
closer to their aspirated stops than to their non-aspirated stops; accordingly
they transcribed both Hebrew stops and spirants with Greek spirants. This interpretation is borne out by the Greek method of transliterating Aramaic
words. It would be absurd to claim that Aramaic also had only the spirant pronunciation, especially since according to Kahle it was (Syriac) Aramaic that
induced the Masoretes to introduce the double pronunciation of bgdkpt.
3.3.2.2.8n. Syriac p, t, k were also aspirated. Note that Syriac speakers had to introduce a
special letter to reproduce Greek pi. The contrast in aspiration between Greek and Northwest Semitic is quite early, as indicated by the Greek transcription of the rst letter of the
alphabet by alfa, rather than by *alpa. It is impossible to know whether the f represents
a spirant or a(n aspirated) stop. Cf. Harris 1939: 66.
3.3.2.2.9. In Modern Israeli Hebrew only the spirant pronunciation of b, p,

and k exists. Ashkenazi pronuncation distinguishes these three spirants and
one more, spirant t, pronouncing it as s, rather than as t.
3.3.3. Laryngeals and Pharyngeals

3.3.3.1. Non-Gemination
3.3.3.1.1. The laryngeals and pharyngeals function as an important class
of phonemes: , h, , ; some features of this class are shared with r. The most
3.3.3.1.2. Laryngeals/Pharyngeals
82
signicant feature is that the laryngeals and pharyngeals are not doubled.
This lack of gemination is a rather late phenomenon. It rst affected r and ,
later and h, and nally .
3.3.3.1.1n. There are some isolated cases of double r (i.e., of r with dages), e.g., .Rev
tR'k:Aal your navel was not cut Ezek 16:4.
3.3.3.1.2. The weak pronunciation of r is reected not only by its failure

to double but also by the fact that in the Dead Sea Scrolls it is omitted far more
often than any other non-laryngeal-pharyngeal root consonant, though in most
cases it is inserted above the line (Qimron 1986: 2627).
3.3.3.1.3. The loss-of-gemination chronology is suggested by the behavior
of the vowels preceding the consonants in situations where doubling is ordinarily found. Such vowels exhibit a set of tendencies: qibbu exhibits a
marked tendency to shift to olam; to a lesser degree, pata changes to
qama; and least often, iriq shifts to ere. (The traditional term for this set of
changes is compensatory lengthening, as if a long vowel made up for the
loss of the consonantal doubling.)
3.3.3.1.4. To understand the chronology we must anticipate the treatment
of the Hebrew vowels (see 3.5.4.2, p. 110). Hebrew in biblical times distinguished between long and short vowels (so that, e.g., qama was the long
counterpart to pata). In the Tiberian vocalization of Hebrew, the primary
form under consideration here, there is no distinction between long and short
vowels on the phonemic level, i.e., the phonemic quantitative oppositions between vowels had disappeared; any vowel could occur in open syllables. If the
vowels before a laryngeal-pharyngeal that was originally geminated behave
as if length were part of the language, the loss of gemination is older than if
the vowels show no such behavior. Since two different sets of changes (loss of
largyngeal-pharngeal gemination and rearrangement of the vowel system)
were going on over the same (relatively) long period, we have to distinguish a
number of different stages. (Here, as elsewhere in this volume, we are chiey
concerned with relative chronology.)
3.3.3.1.5. The loss of the phonemic opposition of long and short vowels is
a separate matter from the actual pronunciation (the phonetics) of the vowels during Tiberian times (the late rst millennium c.e.). Phonetically, differences between vowels continued to exist, and any stressed or open syllable
contained a phonetically long vowel. At this period the phonemic quantitative
oppositions between vowels had disappeared (cf. 3.5.4.2, p. 110), and any
vowel could occur in an open syllable. Even pata in, e.g., jEr'y] he will have
compassion was pronounced long. This is shown by medieval Arabic transcriptions; the behavior of both the cantillation marks and Babylonian pata
also suggests this conclusion, although these features may depend on the
openness of the syllable, rather than the length of its vowel.
Laryngeals/Pharyngeals 3.3.3.2.1.
83
3.3.3.1.5n. For further discussion, see Bendavid (1958) and Yeivin (1985: 283332). Neither scholar properly differentiates between phonetic and phonemic vowel length.
3.3.3.1.6. Let us return to the chronology of the disappearance of

pharyngeal-laryngeal gemination. In the earliest stages of the process, before r and somewhat less regularly before , pata, iriq, and qibbu change to
qama, ere, and olam, respectively. E.g., varOh: the head < *harros; ba:h:
the father < *haab2 ; reBE he blessed < birrek; raEBE he explained; r;bOm}
blessed; la:gom} deled. This change exhibits the original lengthening of
these vowels in response to the loss of gemination; the syllable structure of the
language at this stage did not permit short vowels in open (even unstressed)
syllables. In other words, at the time of the disappearance of the doubling of r
and , no originally short vowels were allowed in open syllables.
3.3.3.1.6n. There are cases of pata, as well as iriq and even qibbu, before an originally
doubled aleph, e.g., raEB" explaining Deut 27:8.
3.3.3.1.7. In the next stage of the process, and h lost their ability to geminate. The date for is judged to be intermediate, since the effects on neighboring vowels are less consistent than those seen with r and : iriq preceding
that has lost gemination tends to remain, whereas pata alternates with
qama. Pata and iriq preceding h that has lost gemination, as a rule, do not
change. In the nal stage, when lost the ability to geminate, the originally
short vowels (pata, iriq, and qibbu) were generally preserved, because, it
seems, et preserved that ability until a time when the quantitative differences
between vowels had disappeared (see 3.5.4.2, p. 110) and even originally
short vowels could stand in open (unstressed) syllables.
3.3.3.1.7n. The shift of iriq to ere before occurs (1) always in the nif al prex-tense
and related forms of verbs I- (qlEj:ye it will be divided); in these cases it is grammatically
conditioned; (2) often in verbs I-n-II- (tj"ye he will descend); and (3) generally after mI
& E from the month). The shift occurs only rarely within morphemes (rj"aE he
from (vd,jOm
was late Gen 34:19).
In connection with the example reBE and others with postvocalic bgdkpt letters: we do
not know whether or not the shift of stop to spirant preceded or followed the loss of
laryngeal-pharyngeal gemination. Since we are concerned here with the loss of gemination, the transcription contents itself with the explanation of this feature only.
3.3.3.2. Furtive pata

3.3.3.2.1. In Tiberian vocalization e, i, o, u preceding h, , and in wordnal position develop the glide a; as a glide this pata furtivum is unstressed.
It is usually written under the laryngeal-pharyngeal: H'l &a God, j'Wv& m:
anointed, ['re& friend, though its proper place is between the laryngealpharyngeal and the preceding consonant.
3.3.3.2.1n. The term pata furtivum stolen pata may be a mistranslation of pata
gnub2 a, which may have meant the pata of the stolen (i.e., inserted letter), as if a" were
introduced before the laryngeal or pharyngeal: Ha"la*, ja"Wvm:*, [a"re*.
3.3.3.3. Laryngeals/Pharyngeals
84
3.3.3.3. Inuence on Neighboring Vowels

3.3.3.3.1. Final laryngeals and pharyngeals (and sometimes r) may inuence the preceding vowel and change it to a or . This feature is especially striking in verbs III-laryngeals-pharyngeals, in which the qal prextense and imperative almost always exhibit a preceding the laryngeal-pharyngeal: jl"vyi < *yislo. (In verbs III-aleph, the aleph in nal position has been
elided; thus a stood in an open syllable and the pata shifted to qama: ax:m}yi
< *yima.) Moreover, these verbs tend to substitute a for historically short e,
yet, as a rule, preserve historically long e (followed by pata furtivum) in
pause: [r'G;yi it will be withdrawn, pausal ['reG;yi.
3.3.3.3.1n. In the nite tenses of III-largyngeal-pharngeal verbs, ere (and olam) preceding the third radical has to be accounted historically short, as demonstrated by parallel
pata; note the three-way contrast TEyi he will give versus rmOvyi he will preserve versus
bK"vyi he will lie. In pause these vowels have to be considered long by pausal lengthening,
as demonstrated by the parallel pausal form bK:vyi, with qama. Thus ere (with a following pata furtivum) is preserved in verbs III-laryngeals-pharyngeals mainly in pause. Cf.
4.3.7.3.4n, p. 239.
3.3.3.3.2. Laryngeals and pharyngeals may also inuence a following full

vowel, as attested by the prevalence of a after the laryngeals and pharyngeals
in the prex-tense and imperative of verbs II-laryngeals-pharyngeals: r["b}yi it
will burn.
3.3.3.3.3. An originally short i may appear as under the inuence of a
following or preceding laryngeal-pharyngeal: dr'jy, he will be terried
< *yirad; /xp}j< his delight < *ipo. Aleph shows a special predilection for
, as reected by the preformative of the 1cs prex-tense: bzo[a< I shall leave
in contrast to bzo[T"/bzo[y' you/he will leave, and by verbs I-: sOaT< you will
collect in contrast to bzo[T".
3.3.3.3.3n. The shift of i to segol can also be seen when the spirants k and g would occur
after i: yDig}n, in front of me, yDik}n, my offspring.
3.3.3.3.4. The inuence of laryngeals and pharyngeals (but not of r) on a

following mobile swa is strong. In Tiberian vocalization this ultra-short
vowel is invariably replaced by a aaf vowel, as a rule reecting the vowel
reduced, i.e., aaf pata for original a (e.g., T<r]m"a you [mp] said; cf. rm"a:
he said); aaf segol for original i (e.g., ylEa to, the poetic form of la<; cf.
Arabic ila; note also k<ylEa, reecting the extended use of aaf pata; see
below) and aaf qama for original u/o (e.g., ylIj illness, /yl}j: his illness,
plural yyil:j).
3.3.3.3.4n. No aaf vowels are used in the other vocalization systems, and we do not treat
here the different behavior of these sounds in other vocalization systems. The use of a full
vowel, instead of the expected aaf, occurs in the Tiberian vocalization after initial aleph:
WpaE bake! (mp) Exod 16:23, instead of the expected Wpa*; ylIh:a tents, instead of the ex-
85
Laryngeals/Pharyngeals 3.3.3.3.8.
pected ylIh:a* (cf. ylIh:aB: in the tents). The form ylIh:a may also be interpreted as reecting a full vowel between two laryngeals-pharyngeals, as attested also in forms like
ytI/dy[Ih" I testied; ytI/ry[Ih" I roused.
Not all instances of aaf pata reect a (see above): Arabic imar suggests that in Hebrew rmOj donkey the aaf pata reects i. There are cases where the ultra-short vowel
varies: from aybIhE he brought we get, on the one hand, ynia"&ybIh he brought me, with aaf
segol, and, on the other, ynit:&aOybIh (in pause) you brought me with aaf pata. This
should not be surprising, since mobile swa, according to the Tiberian tradition, was pronounced a, rather than , so that aaf pata is phonetically identical to mobile swa. See
3.5.6.1.1n, p. 112, and 3.5.6.4.2n, p. 116.
3.3.3.3.5. A vowelless laryngeal or pharyngeal preceding a consonant may

be preserved (especially vowelless ), but in the Tiberian vocalization it more
often develops an auxiliary aaf vowel having the quality of the preceding
vowel: cf. ryDia}y' he will make glorious and yziay' he will listen; /Bj}r; its
breadth; /l[P: his work. Since the short vowel preceding the laryngeal or
pharyngeal is preserved in an open syllable, this phenomenon has to be very
late, stemming from a period in which short vowels were allowed to stand in
an open syllable. If such a aaf is followed by a (mobile) swa, the aaf shifts
to the corresponding short vowel, Wdm}[}y'* > Wdm}[y'* > Wdm}["y', thus avoiding the
sequence of two ultra-short vowels, which seems to be merely an orthographic device (3.5.3.4, p. 109).
3.3.3.3.5n. In the forms WGh}y,//Bj}r;, etc., the swa is also conditioned by the following stop
(g, b); cf. 3.3.2.2.2, p. 79.
3.3.3.3.6. There is a tendency to replace the swa by a aaf vowel when the
stress is shifted: bvj}y' he will think in contrast to Wbvj"y' they will think
< Wbvjy'*.
3.3.3.3.7. In exceptional cases the vowel preceding the laryngeal-pharyngeal is lengthened and the laryngeal-pharyngeal is followed by aaf pata (as
the most common aaf vowel): T:r]b"&[hE you transferred Josh 7:7, in contrast
to the regular T:r]b"&[h<; /l[PO his work Isa 1:31, in contrast to the usual /l[P:.
3.3.3.3.8. Since the laryngeals and pharyngeals are weakly pronounced,
the vowel following them is apt to assimilate the vowel preceding them. This
is regularly the case with the swa mobile of the short morphemes w and, b
in, l to, k as when they precede laryngeals or pharyngeals. The swa is
regularly assimilated to the aaf following the laryngeal or pharyngeal:
t/yniaw; and ships < *wniyyot; tm<aB< truly < *b"mt; wyd;b:[l" to their
servants < *lab2 aqaw; tr,c& [K" like ten < *krt.
3.3.3.3.8n. For a similar feature after the denite article, see 4.2.5.6, p. 181. The behavior of the interrogative particle h reects the same phenomenon.
The form t/yniaw; is pronounced according to standard Israeli pronunciation woniyyot,
and in the supposed Tiberian pronunciation wOO*niyyot; however, according to Sephardic
tradition it is pronounced waoniyyot.
3.3.3.4. Laryngeals; Pharyngeals; aleph
86
3.3.3.4. A Historical Question

3.3.3.4.1. The complexity of laryngeal and pharyngeal behavior cannot be
doubted. Kahle proposed accounting for this behavior in the framework of his
rather ingenious theory of Masoretic activity (cf. 3.3.2.2.6, p. 80). In his
opinion, the laryngeals and pharyngeals had disappeared from traditional
Jewish pronunciation and were restored by the Masoretes (Kahle 1959: 164
71). Traces of the restoration are reected in the use of aafs, etc.
3.3.3.4.2. It seems that if they had restored the laryngeals and pharyngeals,
they would have done so in a more uniform and comprehensible way. The
diversity of their marking, in our view, reects their endeavor to reproduce the
pronunciation they heard and used.
3.3.3.4.3. This is not to say that the laryngeals and pharyngeals were maintained uniformly across the entire Jewish world. In cities inuenced by Greek
these sounds disappeared, as Kutscher convincingly demonstrated. Where the
impact of Greek was less pronounced, the sounds were preserved, as shown
by, e.g., Arabic place names borrowed from Hebrew. (See Kutscher 1976: 67
96; 1965: 4150.)
3.3.3.4.4. Of the individual sounds in this class, the pharyngeals present
relatively few complications. As noted, eth (the unvoiced pharyngeal fricative) in Hebrew is the result of a merger of two Proto-Semitic sounds; for the
distinction between 1j and 2j, see 1.10.2.4, p. 32. For the possible preservation of this distinction as late as the third century b.c.e., see 3.2.4, p. 75. Ayin
(the voiced pharyngeal fricative) also represents a merger; for the possible
preservation of the distinction between 1[ and 2 [, as late as the third century
b.c.e., see again 3.2.4, p. 75. The two laryngeals, aleph and he, require detailed discussion on their own.
3.3.4. Aleph (Glottal Stop)

3.3.4.1. In the Writing System
3.3.4.1.1. Aleph serves as a vowel letter in nal position and sometimes
also in medial position, as a rule in roots in which it was once pronounced:
ax:m: he found < *maaa; t:ax:&m:you found < *maata; varOhead < *ras;
yvar; heads < *rasim < *raasim. In all these cases, by dint of conservative spelling, the a continued to be written even after it was no longer pronounced; it was therefore regarded as a mark for the preceding vowel.
3.3.4.1.2. Despite this change in status, only in a few cases does a nonorganic aleph (an aleph not part of the root) appear: gaD; sh (instead of the
usual gD;) Neh 13:16. The word raW;x" neck, always spelled with aleph
(k<yreaw]x" your necks), has to be interpreted as deriving from an etymon containing consonantal , perhaps *awar.
aleph 3.3.4.2.3.
87
3.3.4.2. Elision
3.3.4.2.1. Very early, perhaps even in Proto-Semitic, was elided by dissimilation at the end of a syllable that began with and the vowel of the syllable was lengthened. In other words, a shifted to a. In Hebrew, if the
resulting a was stressed, it became o, by the so-called Canaanite shift a3 > o
(3.5.9.2, p. 136): I shall say *amur > *a3mur > *omir, which in context
developed to rm"aO. The other forms in the prex-tense paradigm, which did not
have initial aleph and in which, therefore, the aleph closing the syllable
should have been preserved, were inuenced by the analogy of 1cs forms:
rm"aTO, rm"ayo. This prevalence of the 1cs form by analogy is found only in a few
verbs (called weak I-; 4.3.8.2, p. 240). Most verbs I- verbs (the strong I-
verbs) act like other I-laryngeals-pharyngeals verbs); the 1cs form was analogically inuenced by the other persons and the was restored in the 1cs:
sOaa< I shall collect (the arrows indicate the direction of analogy):
omar
*t"mar
*osep
t"sop
3.3.4.2.1n. In the derivation of rm"aO: for the stress position, see 3.5.12.2.18, p. 153; for the
dissimilation of u to i, see 1.19.81.19.9, p. 58; for the i vowel in the dissimilated form,
note pausal rmEaTO as well as rm<a&Yow'. The development of the form with a in the second syllable must be explained by the inuence of r (3.3.3.3.1, p. 84), the rareness of yaf il (see
4.3.5.2.3.2, p. 222), and perhaps through Philippis law (3.5.8.53.5.8.10, pp. 133
135).
In the forms rm"aTO, rm"ayo the aleph is only a vowel letter. In contrast, in rm"aO there is one
aleph only instead of the expected rm"aaO*. In terms of spelling, this may be because aleph is
avoided as a vowel letter after another aleph or because the aleph had already been lost
from the form before biblical orthography crystallized.
3.3.4.2.2. Later on, syllable-closing glottal stop was elided in other cases
as well. It is difcult to state the conditions for this change, since forms reecting the elision of the glottal stop interchange with those that have preserved it, and scholars are at variance. No account can explain all the forms
with sound shifts alone; analogy must also have played a role. The various explanations differ as to which forms are due to sound shift proper and which to
analogy.
3.3.4.2.3. The most likely explanation seems to us that the elision of the
glottal stop took place during the prevalence of a general penultimate stress
system and took place in stressed syllables. This explains why aleph is preserved in lk:am" food, m:am" force, and sOaT< you will collect, which all
had a glottal stop in an unstressed syllable, viz., *maklu, *mam()u,
*taspu, the stress being on the penult. In contrast, in forms such as *rsu
3.3.4.2.4. aleph
88
head, *mata you found, where the glottal stop follows a stressed vowel,
the aleph is elided: varO, t:ax:&m:. (These developments are distinct from nal
aleph: *maaa > *maa > ax:m: he found.)
3.3.4.2.3n. On penultimate stress, see 3.5.12.2.2, p. 144. For further details on the explanation given here, see Blau 1975: esp. 6768 (= Studies, 5465, esp. 5960); this paper is
summarized briey in Blau 1979d = Topics, 12025.
In considering the forms varO and t:ax:&m:, note the different development of the a preceding the aleph in these two words: t:ax:&m: reects only the shift a > a, whereas in varO this
a has shifted to o (according to the Canaanite shift, 3.5.9.2, p. 136). This means that the
Canaanite shift was still operating at this period, because only this can explain the o of
varO. The form t:ax:&m: maa3ta, rather than *maota, seems to be due to the paradigmatic
pressure of third-person forms that did not have the in syllable-nal position and therefore preserved it: *maaat, *maau. The elision of the in t<ax:m}, where the vowel preceding the aleph was not stressed, is due to the inuence of t:ax:&m:, etc.
3.3.4.2.4. After mobile swa, aleph alternates with forms in which both swa
and aleph, in pronunciation at least, are omitted: ymI/aT} : ymI/T twins;
yaIx}mO nding (mp): yafIjO sinning (mp) 1 Sam 14:33, pronounced oim. It
is likely that forms with aleph were considered more rened and those without it more vulgar. This is hinted at by forms like yaIx}m}ni found (mp) alongside forms like yaIx:m}ni. It seems that in vulgar speech yaIx:m}ni, through the
analogy to verbs III-y, became *nimim. The hypercorrect effort to use more
rened forms led, by analogy to yaIf}jO and to yaIx}m}ni. Thus oim : oim
= nimim : x, where the hypercorrect x is yaIx}m}ni. (See Blau 1970c: 30.)
3.3.4.2.5. More limited is the elision of the glottal stop at the beginning of
a syllable after a consonant (i.e., after a quiescent swa): lamOc < *imal
left; la[Em:vyi Ishmael < *Yismael.
3.3.4.2.5n. Bergstrsser 1.93, par. 15g, end, considers the elision of this aleph to be very
early, arguing that lamOc reects the Canaanite shift a3 > o, on the assumption that the etymon of lamOc is*imal. It is more likely to have derived from *imal.
3.3.4.3. Associated Vowel Shifts

3.3.4.3.1. A late and marginal feature is the shift of " (segol-aleph-aaf
segol) to e (ere), of a (a') to a (pata), and of O (a;) to O (qama). Because the shifts " > e and a > a occurred only after the consonantal text
had already become xed, the a is used in writing, although it is not pronounced. It is sometimes omitted altogether.
3.3.4.3.2. Moreover, the late date of the shift of a to pata is also indicated by the occurrence of this pata in an open syllable; in the biblical period
a in this position would have shifted to qama. That is, if quantitative differences existed, a would have been lengthened due to the elision of the aleph
and the following aaf, and the vowel would have shifted to qama. Examples: rmOalE while saying < *l"mor; WnyhE&lalE to our God < *l"lohenu;
ynidOal" to my lord < laqoni; ht<aTE she comes Mic 4:8; atEYew' and he came
aleph; he 3.3.5.1.2.
89
Deut 33:21; yriWsh: the imprisoned ones Eccl 4:14 < yriWsah;: yMIr'h: the
Arameans 2 Chr 22:5 < yMIr'ah:. In the last three cases the aleph is not
written.
3.3.4.3.2n. The form tyva re may belong with the cases of rmOalE and WnyhE&lalE if it is derived
from r"sit < *rasit. The tendency to replace a by is characteristic of both aleph and
s (cf. 3.3.3.3.3, p. 84).
3.3.4.4. Non-Radical Aleph

3.3.4.4.1. Between full vowels a non-radical glottal stop sometimes occurs. This seems to represent a combination of dissimilation and glide. Thus
in t/aBOri ten thousands (Dan 11:12; Ezra 2:69) the aleph may represent a
glide between the original two -os and also dissimilation of the w that originally served as a glide between the two -os (*ribbowot). Similarly, twon] pastures (cstr) is generally spelled with an aleph, t/an], reecting the same
combination of glide and dissimilation. yib:x} gazelles may also be spelled
yiab:x}; the quiescent aleph reects a pronunciation *b2 aim (cf. t/ab:x} shegazelles); the glottal stop may be seen as a glide (ai < ayi) or as the result of
a dissimilation of yi > i, or both.
3.3.4.4.1n. The opposite process, the assimilation of ia to iya, can be seen in the personal
name Eli(y)atha: the form ht:Y;l& Ia is found in 1 Chr 25:27, while the etymologically correct
form, ht:a:&ylIa, is given in 1 Chr 25:4.
3.3.5. He (Laryngeal Fricative)

3.3.5.1. In the Writing System
3.3.5.1.1. Within a word, he always marks a consonant. At the end of a
word, he tends to be a vowel letter; the comparatively few cases of consonantal h in this position are marked by a dot in the h, usually called mappiq
(3.5.11.8, p. 142). (The absence of the dot is marked, in the best manuscripts,
by a raphe). Consonantal h in word-nal position occurs in forms from III-h
roots (e.g., Hb"G; he was high; H'/bG; high), as well as in the 3fs pronominal
sufx H; (e.g., Hl: to her).
3.3.5.1.2. Word-internal non-consonantal he does occur a few times, in
two-part names spelled as one word, e.g., rWxhd;P} Num 7:54, 59, from hd;P*}
rWx; laEhc[ 2 Sam 2:18, from laE hc:[*. The he originally occurred at the end
of the rst word. The unease prompted by the quite exceptional occurrence of
h as a vowel letter within a word is reected by the variant spelling laEh}d;P}
Num 34:28, which exhibits both non-organic consonantal h and exceptional
syllable structure with qama in an unstressed and now closed syllable. The
reading laEh}d'P} has thus been adapted to the syllable structure of Biblical Hebrew (Blau 1970c: 3132; Yeivin 1968: 50, 83).
3.3.5.1.3. he
90
3.3.5.1.3. It is necessary to distinguish between the small class of III-h

roots, in which the nal radical is consonantal he, and the large class of III-y
roots, in which nal he serves as a vowel letter.
3.3.5.1.4. In the 3fs pronominal sufx hN;, the h is not consonantal (e.g.,
hN;n,y& aE she is not); the original consonantal h here has been assimilated to the
n (-nha > -nna). In h:ybI&a: her father it is the qama and not the (consonantal) h that is word nal.
3.3.5.1.5. As a (nal) vowel letter he marks segol (e.g., hd,c eld; hn,b}yi
he will build), ere (e.g., hdecthe eld of; hneB} build!), and qama, which
is especially frequent to mark the feminine ending of nouns (hK:l}m" queen)
and of the sufx-tense (hd;m}[: she stood), as well as in III-y verbs (e.g.,
hn;B:he built), in the directional h (e.g., ht:y]B"&h" homeward) and in cohortative h; (as hm:Wq& n; let us rise), further hT:a" you (2ms).
3.3.5.1.6. The spelling conventions are not entirely consistent. The construct of the dual and the masculine plural is spelled with y (e.g., yney[E the eyes
of; yneB} the sons of); the ere yod is homophonous with the ere he of hneB}.
The nal a of the 2ms sufx-tense, 2ms pronominal sufx, and 2fp and 3fp
prex-tense is, as a rule, spelled defectively, though it may be marked by nal
h : (contrast T:T"&n;/ hT:t"&n; you gave; l}/hk:l} to you; yy, &h}TI/hn;yy, &h}TIthey fp will
be). The 3fs pronominal sufx is always spelled defectively, h, no doubt in
order to preclude two consecutive hs: h:yr,&yv her songs, never hh:yr,yv*).
3.3.5.1.7. Much more restricted is the use of h for marking nal olam,
e.g., hyoh: to be (less frequently /yh:). Although the 3ms pronominal sufx -o is
usually spelled with waw (e.g., /nB} his son), the archaic spelling with h (reecting the h contained in ancient *-ahu, from which -o developed) is attested
as well, e.g., hrOy[I his wild donkey Gen 49:11.
3.3.5.1.7n. In forms like T:T"&n;/hT:t"&n; you gave; l}/hk:l} to you, the use of the vowel letter
(sometimes called a plene spelling) is common in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Qimron 1986:
2324).
3.3.5.2. History of Use in the Writing System

3.3.5.2.1. It is not clear how to account for the use of h as a vowel letter.
In past generations, when the Semitic languages were studied from the vantage point of Arabic, it was customary to posit for Hebrew a development
similar to that of the pausal form of the feminine ending in Classical Arabic. In this language the feminine ending -at in nouns (with case ending) in
pause shifts to -ah (as al-malikatu the queen [nominative], in pause almalikah; in pausal forms the case distinctions disappeared). In most modern
dialects (which tend to rely on pausal forms in their development), the nal -h
was dropped, yielding malika, etc. (This is usually pronounced with -a as
compensation for the dropping of the h.) According to the same model, Heb
malkat queen in pause should become *malkah and nally, with elision of
the h, hK:l}m" (the h marked with raphe to indicate its status as a vowel letter).
91
he as Vowel Letter 3.3.5.2.4.
The orthography, it was claimed, continued spelling hK:l}m" with h, although it

was no longer pronounced; the h can be seen as a conservative feature, a historical spelling. Thus the h became the mark of nal qama, and this spelling
was also applied to III-y verbs: hn;B:. From the latter, h as nal vowel letter
spread over the whole paradigm: hn,b}yi, hneB}, hyoh:.
3.3.5.2.1n. This model of the development of the vowel-letter use of he can be seen in
Bergstrsser 1.4546. The treatment of the vocalization of the Arabic vernaculars is somewhat simplied here.
3.3.5.2.2. This attempt to make the feminine ending the starting point of
the use of h as vowel letter has several weak points. (1) The feminine ending
cannot be the starting point of the development. In the Moabite inscription of
King Mesha, h is already used for marking -a in III-y verbs (hnb he built),
although the feminine ending of nouns is still -t (tmbh the high place). Thus
the use of h as a vowel letter marking -a in III-y verbs is earlier than the elision of the feminine -t ending. (2) Hebrew has no traces of pausal h. In Classical Arabic, the so-called pausal ha is used to prevent the loss of certain
nal vowels (in this case, the a of the feminine ending), since in that language
the pausal forms reect a historically later layer of the language, in which
nal short vowels in general and case endings in particular have largely disappeared. In Hebrew, to be sure, pausal elision of nal vowels is attested
(3.5.13.5, p. 155), but this feature belongs to an archaic layer of Hebrew. It is
preserved mainly in some common prepositions, like l: to you (ms) in pause
in contrast to l} in context; further, M:[I, T:aI, t:/a, B:. It was because of the
frequency of these prepositions that they were not inuenced by analogy and
preserved this archaic feature. See further Steiner 1979: 158ff. and 3.5.13.5,
p. 155; 4.2.3.3.24.2.3.3.3, p. 170. Later on, however, the language used
pausal forms that reect a more ancient stage than the context forms. At any
rate, in Biblical Hebrew there are no traces whatsoever of the use of pausal h
in order to preserve a nal short vowel in pause. These two arguments make
the possibility that the use of h as a vowel letter arose in Hebrew from the
feminine ending seem remote.
3.3.5.2.3. Nevertheless, the Moabite argument, for all its merits, is not
decisive. It is possible that the -t of the Moabite feminine ending -at might
have been preserved in nouns yet dropped in the 3fs sufx-tense (which is not
attested!), as is the case in Phoenician (where similarly the feminine nominal
ending is preserved, but not the 3fs verbal ending); thus the use of h as a
vowel letter might have spread from this verbal form. In fact, it is even possible to claim that the Moabite use of nal h as a vowel letter was borrowed
from another language (e.g., from Hebrew; so Cross and Freedman 1952: 6).
Further on Moabite, see also Blau 1979c = Topics, 34458.
3.3.5.2.4. A different origin may be indicated. The discovery of Ugaritic
has called attention to other possible sources. Ugaritic epic poetry is written
3.3.5.3. Elision of he
92
with an (almost) pure consonantal spelling. However, what is spelled mh,

and the directional sufx (e.g., arh toward the ground) is spelled with a h as
well. It seems likely that these Ugaritic words terminated in consonantal h. It
can be postulated that in Hebrew as well they reected consonantal h, and
that, even after they had disappeared in pronunciation in Hebrew, conservative spelling retained them. They were, therefore, understood as marking nal
-a, and thus the use of h to mark nal qama spread, promoted by forms like
hy;mIr]yi Jeremiah; hl: to her, discussed below.
3.3.5.2.4n. The enigmatic Ugaritic form hr[ occurs only in prose texts and only as part
of the numbers 1119 to denote the tens, parallel to BHeb hrec[<; nothing can be said
with certainty about this form. If the h was once consonantal, it could have inuenced the
use of h as a nal vowel letter.
3.3.5.3. Elision
3.3.5.3.1. In certain positions h is elided; since in some cases the results
of the sound shifts have been obliterated by the operation of analogy, the situation is complex (see Blau 1976: 2425). It makes sense that the h tended to
be preserved in slow (lento) speech, whereas it was more often elided in
quick (allegro) pronunciation, as it occurs in proper nouns, and especially in
exclamations.
3.3.5.3.2. The h is optionally elided in names that begin with the short
form of the Tetragrammaton: *yahu > *yaw > /y (e.g., t:n;/y, alongside
t:n;/hy]). A similar elision is found in names ending with the short form of the
Tetragrammaton: Why; > *yah > hy (e.g., hy;mIr]yi, alongside Why;mIr]yi).
3.3.5.3.2n. As a matter of fact, *yahunatan should have yielded *yhunatan, rather than
t:n;/hy]; the o instead of the expected u is due to a blend with the contracted form /y.
3.3.5.3.3. The h is elided in internal open juncture, i.e., when two morphemes form a single unit. The rst morpheme terminated in a(n originally)
short (including ultra-short) vowel, and the h opened the second morpheme.
3.3.5.3.3.1. Case 1. he is elided in the prex-tense and participle of hif il
and hof al: *yahaksil > lyvk}y' he will cause to stumble; *mahaksil > lyvk}m"
causing to stumble; *yuhamad > dm"[y; he will be presented.
3.3.5.3.3.2. Case 2. he generally elides in the denite article ha- after the
prepositions b, k, l in, as, to, e.g., yim"&VB" in the heaven; retention of he
is rare, e.g., yim"&Vh"B}. Note that this elision is not found after the conjunction w]
and.
3.3.5.3.3.3. Case 3. Rarely is he elided from the ha- of the hif il innitive
after the same prepositions, e.g., ayfIjl" to cause to sin Eccl 5:5 < *lhai.
3.3.5.3.3.3n. The original form of *lhai was *lahai; the last syllable is irrelevant
here.
3.3.5.3.3.4. Case 4. he regularly elides in the directional h: hx:r]a& " toward

the ground. (The he that is written is simply a vowel letter.)
Elision of he; Assimilation 3.3.5.4.1.
93
3.3.5.3.3.4n. Ugaritic spelling demonstrates the originally consonantal character of this

morpheme. This h was attached to the noun in the accusative, i.e., the immediate constituents of, e.g., hx:r]a"& were *ara + h; thus h stood at the meeting-point of two morphemes
and was therefore elided.
3.3.5.3.3.5. Case 5. he elides from the third-person pronominal sufxes in

which it occurred between two vowels, the rst of which was (originally)
short: /ryv his song < *siraw < *sirahu.
3.3.5.3.3.5n. Note that when he was preceded by a long vowel in a third-person pronominal sufx, it was preserved: h:ybI&a: her father; WhybI&a: his father. The last form exists
alongside the more advanced form wybIa:, in which the h was elided, both because of allegro pronunciation and since, in the wake of forms like wyr;yv his songs, the w was felt to
be the mark of the 3ms pronominal sufx. In the form WhaE&r]m" his sight < *marayihu, the
retention of the he is noteworthy: the elision of h after short vowels must have taken place
later than the monophthongization of ayi; otherwise, the h would have been elided.
3.3.5.3.4. There are a number of exceptions to these patterns, resulting

from various forms of analogy. Exception 1: A form like r;m:v he kept them,
instead of the expected *smarem < *smaraym < *smarahim, reects the aending preceding pronominal sufxes characteristic of the sufx-tense; cf.
ynir'&m:v/Hr;m:v/Wnr;&m:v he kept me/ her/ us. Exception 2: The monographic prepositions also show analogies. The form h<B: in them (used alongside B:, the
form expected according to the regular sound shift), was created by adding the
pronominal sufx h< to the base ba (by analogy to, e.g., k<B: in you [2mp],
exhibiting the base ba and the pronominal sufx k<). Exception 3: The predominant form of the 3fs pronominal sufx after originally short vowels is H;,
with consonantal -h, e.g., Hl: to her < *laha. The expected form reecting the
regular elision of consonantal h after a short vowel is quite rare (e.g., as hl: =
la Num 32:42). Because the form la had no sign of the 3fs sufx, such a sign
was added, viz. consonantal h (as it occurs in, e.g., h:ybI&a: her father, where
the h is also followed by -a).
3.3.5.3.5. The he may also be elided from third-person pronominal sufxes
when the sufx is preceded by the diphthong -ay, e.g., *sirayhu > *sirayu >
*sirayw > *siraww > wyr;yv siraw his songs.
3.3.5.3.5n. This elision must predate the monophthongization of ay; had the diphthong
shifted to e, the h would have been preceded by a long vowel and therefore would have
been preserved. The preservation of the h in h:yr,&yv, h<yreyv her, their songs is due to
analogy with h:ya<&r]m", h<yaEr]m" her, their sight (3.3.5.3.3.5n). It may also reect lento
(slow) speech.
3.3.5.4. Assimilation
3.3.5.4.1. In addition to these elisions, he can be assimilated to a previous consonant at a morpheme boundary. When a third-person pronominal
sufx is preceded by a consonant, the h is assimilated to this consonant. This
3.3.5.4.2. Assimilation of he; I-h Verbs
94
is the case when the h is preceded by the so-called nun energicum, which occurs with the prex-tense and imperative, e.g., WNr,&m}vyi he will watch him <
*yismrnhu. The assimilation is also found with some particles, e.g., hN;n,y& aE
she is not < *ennha. It is also found after -at, the sufx of the 3fs sufxtense used before pronominal sufxes (as WTb"&n;G} she stole it), alongside lento
forms with retention of the h, as in Wht}b"&hEa she loved him 1 Sam 18:28.
3.3.5.4.2. Some forms show the effects of analogy, like t"b:&n;G} she stole
them Gen 31:32, where we would expect geminated t and i (or its derivative) in the last syllable. The original *ganab2 athma should have yielded
*ganb2 athm (with the omission of the short a in an open syllable at a distance
of two syllables from the stress) > *ganb2 attm. This form would differ too
greatly from, e.g., WTb"&n;G} she stole it and so was remodeled according to it;
the form was also inuenced by forms like b:&n;G} he stole them. Another remodeled form of the 3fs sufx-tense is t<b"&hEa she loved you (2fs) Ruth
4:15, instead of the expected *ahebatki > *aheb2 atk > *aheb2 3tk.
3.3.5.4.3. he can also assimilate to a following consonant. When two
stress units were joined together (i.e., in originally external close juncture)
and the rst lost its stress, becoming proclitic, the juncture became an internal
open one and so the h terminating the rst stress unit may be assimilated to the
initial consonant of the second. This is the case with hyphenated hm": Wyh}YiAhm"
what will they be Gen 37:20, i.e., mayyihyu. The Ugaritic spelling, which is
purely consonantal, demonstrates the consonantal character of the elided he.
3.3.5.5. I-h Verbs

3.3.5.5.1. The verb hlk to go and other I-h verbs deserve special attention.
Let us begin with the qal imperative of hlk to go, from which h was elided:
lE. This form is identical to the qal imperative of I-w verbs, e.g., bv sit! Various other forms of that class also appear without the initial w, e.g., qal prextense bvye, qal construct innitive tb<v& ; cf. also the hif il prex-tense byv/y
he will place. By analogy to these forms, hlk developed qal prex-tense lEye,
qal construct innitive tk<l<,& and hif il prex-tense ylI/y he will lead, all
forms with h elided. The h of the original imperative *hlik < *hilik was elided
because it stood in a phonetically vulnerable position. The imperative was
originally disyllabic (*hilik, see 4.3.5.2.4.1, p. 224). It was reorganized by
analogy to the prex-tense *yahlik ( just as, e.g., the imperative *kutub write!
was reorganized according to bTOk}yi to become btOK}).
3.3.5.5.1n. The basic role of the qal imperative *hlik is suggested by the contrast of the
Moabite imperative l and prex-tense lhaw (Blau 1979c: 14546 = Topics, 34647; cf.
Blau 1973b = Studies, 8788).
3.3.5.5.2. In other verbs, like pOh turn!, the h was restored. This reects in
part analogy with the prex-tense: pOhy'; in part the restoration took place because a qal imperative with u as the characteristic vowel exhibiting elision of
95
I-h Verbs 3.3.5.5.6.
the rst radical, i.e., *pok, was quite isolated. In hlk, because of its frequency,
the analogy to the prex-tense did not operate.
3.3.5.5.3. Until the discovery of Ugaritic, it was customary (following Praetorius 1882) to start the explanation of the emergence of these forms with the
hif il: *hahlik, Praetorius claimed, shifted by dissimilation to *halik, which
became, through the Canaanite shift a# > o, *holik (with later spirantization,
ylI/h). Thus the I-h class coincided with I-w verbs (like byv/h) and showed
some analogical developments modeled on them. This theory had the virtue of
nicely explaining why it is the hif il that is completely conjugated as I-w.
3.3.5.5.4. The discovery of Ugaritic proved the theory wrong. Ugaritic
has qal imperative lk, qal prex-tense tlk, but the causative theme is saf el
shlk, with preservation of the h. Thus, because in the qal imperative and prextense both Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic have elided the h, the explanation of
the shift hlk > ylk has to start with these forms, and the loss of the h in the Hebrew causative theme has to be considered a secondary feature. Heb *hahlik
dropped its (second) h by dissimilation and thus tted the qal paradigm of lk,
tlk; in Ugaritic, on the contrary, shlk remained outside the analogy of I-w.
3.3.5.5.4n. Is it possible to explain the Ugaritic forms without reference to analogy? Gordon (1965: 86, 390) suggested the existence of two biradical roots denoting to go, viz.
hk, reected in Aram h:y] (and, one might add, in Gez hoka he moved), and lk, which
were combined to form the triradical hlk. This proposal is ingenious, but, pending further
material, it seems more prudent to posit (synchronically at least) two triradical independent roots, hlk and hwk.
3.3.5.5.5. In Ugaritic, surprisingly enough, hlm to strike has the qal

prex-tense ylm, whereas in the imperative the h is preserved. Tropper (2000:
160) attributes this elision of the h to the inuence of the following l, and
claims that other continuants (r, m) cause the elision of the h as well. However, the factual basis of this claim is rather frail, and Troppers theory does
not explain the preservation of the h of hlm in the imperative in contrast to its
elision in the prex-tense. There is a factor not mentioned by him that may be
relevant. If the interrogative particle h followed by dages originated from
*hal, reecting the assimilation of l to the following consonant after h (see
3.5.11.5n, p. 140), this may demonstrate the problematic nature of the sequence h-l, which caused the elision of one of the two consonants. Cf. also
4.2.5.1, pp. 179180, on the remote possibility that the gemination following
the denite article reects the assimilation of an original l.
3.3.5.5.6. Despite the attractiveness of the analogy explanation for Hebrew,
another one remains possible. We cannot completely exclude the possibility
that lE, etc., derive from an original biradical root, which was later augmented
by the initial augment h to triradical hlk. The hif il ylI/h would have been
formed on the analogy of I-w (I-y) verbs: bv : byv/h = lE : x; x = ylI/h.
3.3.5.5.6n. If this development is correct, the similarity to Aram h:y] and Gez hoka must
be considered accidental.
3.4. w/y
96
3.4. The Semi-Consonants

3.4.1. Introduction
3.4.1.1. The semi-consonants as a group and individually present some
complexities. Together they are characteristic of the diphthongs and incidentally triphthongs (3.4.23.4.5) and important groups of weak verbs (3.4.7).
The two semi-consonants present individual problems, especially waw
(3.4.8); yod is somewhat less troublesome (3.4.9).
3.4.2. Diphthongs in aw, ay

3.4.2.1. The diphthongs aw and ay are associated with some important
developments.
3.4.2.2. Originally aw, ay diphthongs were preserved in closed nal syllables bearing the main stress. Later they developed an unstressed anaptyctic vowel between w/y and the following consonant, a neutral segol after w
and an i after y: *mawt death shifted to tw,m:&, *bayt house to tyiB"&. Apparently the retention of these diphthongs and the later splitting into two syllables
(at least phonetically) was a Judean feature. In the North, e.g., in Samaria, ay
and aw were monophthongized: in the Samaria ostraca wine is spelled y, to
be read yen, contrary to Judean (biblical) yiy'. In a penult syllable that has been
opened by an anaptyctic vowel, pata, rather than qama, is regular, e.g., r["n' &
youth; r["v& door. By assimilation, a following w changes pata to the
Tiberian qama. Thus tw,m: & contains qama. (This assimilation, however, is
sporadic; it did not affect, e.g., wx" order!, where paradigmatic leveling may
have obstructed it; wq" line.)
3.4.2.2n. For details of the Judea-Samaria contrast, see Garr (1985: 35ff.)
3.4.2.3. Analogy has greatly interfered with these sound shifts. The opinions of scholars differ tremendously, and, as a result, we are uncertain as to
which words reect regular shifts and which exhibit analogy.
3.4.2.4. The syllables that take an anaptyctic vowel are only closed synchronically. Historically the nouns terminated in case vowels (and case vowels
still existed in Hebrew at the time of the elision of w/y, as demonstrated by the
behavior of hd,c eld; see below, 3.4.4.2, p. 98; 3.4.5.2, p. 99), and so the
diphthongs occurred in open syllables: *baytu, *mawtu (and also, see below,
*gayu valley, *sawu vanity). Accordingly, one has to posit for this period
the preservation of the diphthongs in stressed open syllables. After the elision
of the case vowels, the other aw, ay diphthtongs were monophthongized in
open stressed syllables (e.g., *niglayti > ytIylEg& }ni I appeared; see below,
3.4.5.5, p. 100). By that time, however, *mawt and *bayt already had closed
syllables in which the diphthtongs were preserved.
Diphthongs; Triphthongs 3.4.4.1.
97
3.4.2.5. The Northern monophthongization may also be reected in Amos

prophecy (spoken to a Northern audience!): QhE " aB: . . . yiq"& bWlK} a basket of
summer fruit . . . the end has come Amos 8:2. This would contain an even
more forceful play on words if vocalized according to Northern pronunciation: QhE " aB: . . . yq*E bWlK} (cf. Blau 1970c: 34, par. 9:1).
3.4.2.5n. As suggested by the different behavior of diphthongs in the South and the North,
the extent of monophthongization varied in the Northwest Semitic languages. In Ugaritic
(late second millennium b.c.e.) monophthongization is general, and in Mesha, too, it prevails (Garr 1985: 3738). On the other hand, ['/h is still transliterated into cuneiform
Akkadian a-us-si- in 728 b.c.e., and even the Septuagint, alongside the usual Wshe with
a simple vowel, has Aush Num 13:8. With this background of dialectal variation, one is
not surprised to nd exceptions in Biblical Hebrew, also caused by paradigmatic leveling;
see immediately below.
3.4.2.6. Unstressed aw, ay diphthongs are only preserved when preceding

another w, y: hWex" order!, yYij" life. Elsewhere, i.e., in unstressed closed syllables (including those with secondary stress) and in stressed and unstressed
open syllables, original aw, ay diphthongs have been monophthongized to o,
e, e.g., t/m the death of (cstr); tyBE the house of (cstr); /t/m his death;
/tyBE his house; Wnyde&y; our hands < *yadaynu. (This alternation of diphthongs
and monophthongs in the same paradigm was conducive to irregular preservation of w/y, on the one hand [as in /lwi[" his injustice], and abnormal monophthongization, on the other [as in r/v ox].)
3.4.3. Other Diphthongs in w/y

3.4.3.1. The semi-consonants w, y are preserved not only in word-initial
position (where w shifts to y), but also in syllable-initial position. Thus it is
better to derive Wqy; he will rise, etc., from a biradical root, rather than from
*yaqwumu, since in that form the w would probably have been preserved.
3.4.3.2. The diphthong uw shifted to u, e.g., *huwrad he was brought
down to dr'Wh, and iy to i, e.g., *yiyqa he will awake to qy" yi.
3.4.3.3. By regular sound shifts, we expect iw, uy to change to u, i, respectively, and such results are indeed reected in a few forms (cf. 1.16.2, p. 51):
*yiwkal to lk"Wy he will be able; cy Yiw& ' and he was put from *wayyym.
As a rule, however, since these forms deviated from the general pattern,
forms created by analogy using i, u prevailed, e.g., vr'yyi he will inherit from
*yiwras; t["d'W& m made known (fs) Isa 12:5, from *muydaat; cWYw'.
3.4.3.3n. The ktib2 t[dym may reect the original *midaat. This etymon applies, of
course, only if the rst radical of [dy is indeed originally y. See 4.3.8.4.4, p. 245.
3.4.4. Triphthongs
3.4.4.1. Triphthongs, in which y, w appear between vowels, were preserved
when the rst element is an originally long vowel, e.g., yiWdP} ransomed
3.4.4.2. Triphthongs
98
[mp]; bye/a enemy. In some cases the third element of the triphthong (such
as the nal short case vowel) was lost but the structure remained, e.g., yW;D'
< *dawwayu faint; wyt:s} < sitawu winter.
3.4.4.2. Triphthongs are not preserved if they begin with an originally
short vowel, although according to Biblical Hebrew syllable structure, later
they should have been lengthened. For example, consider the nal stressed
closed syllable of nouns, e.g., *adayu > hd,c eld: just as *maar lengthened its nal vowel, becoming rf:m: rain, so one would have expected *aday
to develop to *aday. Thus we can say that w, y were elided before short vowels were lengthened (i.e., *adayu became hd,c before the lengthening of the
second a occurred).
3.4.4.3. Triphthongs are elided if the rst element is an originally short
vowel, whether the second vowel is short or long. If the second vowel is long,
only the long vowel remains (-a/iyv > -v ), e.g., *ga#liyim exiled ones > ylI/& G;
*adayot elds > t/dc; *kilayim vessels > ylIKE; Rabbinic Heb *pirayot
fruit (fp) > t/rPE. A triphthong in which the third element was a (vy, vw preceding a, i.e., aya, awa, iya, iwa, uya, uwa) shifted in every position to qama:
*galaya he went into exile > hl:G;; *raiya he was pleased > hx:r;; *bayatim
houses > yTIB:; *iyarim towns > yri[:; *samaniya(t) eight (ms) > hn;/mv;
*galiya(t) exiled(fs) > hl:/G.
3.4.4.3n. The forms ylI/& G and t/dc need not be re-derived from the singulars hl</G and
hd,c.
The dages of yTIB: is quite exceptional, and tradition is at variance on its interpretation;
see Blau 198990: 10910 = Studies, 28485 n. 19.
3.4.4.4. The elision and qama shift is sometimes prevented by analogy.

Thus yvy;T} goats < *tiyasim, singular vyiT"&, reects the inuence of both the
singular with preserved y and the analogy to regular segolate nouns (e.g., r["n' &
youth, p abs yri[:n]). In the case of yriw;v oxen, it was the latter impact only
that preserved the w, since the singular r/v itself irregularly did not preserve
the w, presumably owing to paradigmatic leveling, e.g., to analogy with yri/v
my ox, etc., and/or to Northern inuence. Nouns like tyiz' & olive, with consonantal y in the singular, yet with (long) ere in the plural, ytIyze (instead of the
expected *zatim < *ziyatim) reect the inuence of construct forms like tyze
and sufxed forms like t}yze your olive.
3.4.4.4n. t/rPE, attested in mishnaic texts only, is spelled with y, i.e., t/ryPE, reecting invariable ere, even in construct, in accordance with the general trend, prevailing already in Biblical Hebrew, of shifting from short ere (and olam) to corresponding long vowels (see
3.5.7.6.11, pp. 131132). In contrast, the construct of ylIKE is ylEK}, exhibiting the original
short, changeable ere. The regular sound shift reected in ylIKE and t/rPE is of quite limited
occurrence. As a rule the y, w was analogically restored, e.g., yyib:x} gazelles from ybIx}, and
the analogy of forms with y preserved was extended even to the construct: yZi[I yyed;G} kids of
the goats. This extension is not found in the case of hw;cq " jug, p abs twocq} Exod 37:16,
p cstr t/cq} Num 4:7.
Triphthongs/Diphthongs 3.4.5.4.
99
3.4.4.5. A prominent set of exceptions to the qama shift is apparently furnished by some prepositions. la< to, l[" on, being unstressed functional
words, were truncated from *ilya, *alya. (The a ending is the adverbial
accusative ending; see 3.5.7.2.6, p. 122). There are fuller poetical forms of
the prepositions, ylEa, ylE[. Nevertheless, according to the shift aya > a, one
would have expected *"la, *la (as in Arabic ila/ ala) and, instead of
WnylEa
& E, WnylE[& : to us, on us, for instance, *"lana, *lana. In ylEa, ylE[, the nal
-a was elided before monophthongization, as happened to case endings in
construct in general (see below and 3.5.7.1.5, p. 120), and prepositions behave as nouns in construct (5.1.1, p. 283). As to WnylEa
& E, WnylE[& : , etc., I would suggest that we begin with the 1cs forms, *ilaya-ya, *alaya-ya, which by
haplology shifted to *ilayya/*alayya (as attested in Arabic) and then, because of the elision of nal short vowels, became yl"aE, yl"[: (cf. Sarauw 1908:
4041). From these forms the other forms with pronominal sufxes were rederived in Hebrew (and Arabic). In Hebrew the forms preceding nouns, ilay,
*alay, rst developed to (poetical) ylEa, ylE[, and later became, by elision of
the nal diphthong in unstressed function words, la<, l[".
3.4.4.5n. For the similar, yet even more complicated case of d[" even to, poetic yde[, see
5.1.4, pp. 284285.
3.4.5. Word-Final -aw, -ay

3.4.5.1. Consider the class of words that originally ended with a short
vowel plus semi-consonant followed by a case vowel. These show up in two
different forms in Biblical Hebrew; the construct and absolute form of nouns
are spelled differently. These differences arise from the fact that the casevowels were lost rst from construct forms and only later from absolute
forms (3.5.7.1.5, p. 120).
3.4.5.2. A word-nal triphthong composed of an originally short vowel
and yu, yi, wu, wi changes to segol (spelled h,), e.g., *saman! iyu/i > hn,/mv
eight (fs); *yagliyu > *yigliyu > hl<g}yi he will be exiled; *gal! iyu/i > hl</G
exiled; *adayu/i eld > hd,c; *mar! iyu/i teacher > hr,/m. (The nouns here
are the absolute forms. For construct forms, see immediately below.)
3.4.5.3. Careful attention to the developments again reveals their historical ordering. Forms like *smaniyu witness that the shift -ayu/-iyu > h, & was
later than the Canaanite shift -a3 > o. The a of *saman! iyu bore the stress when
it shifted to o, since only stressed a was affected by this change. It was only
later that y was elided, when the stress had shifted to the vowel right before it,
as proven by the fact that h,,& the product of this elision, is stressed.
3.4.5.4. There are some exceptions to this segol shift. One would expect
that ay]G' valley, aw]v vanity, both with quiescent aleph, i.e., with nal -ay,
-aw (= gay, saw) would have shifted to -, -o (i.e., *g, *so) as well. The diphthongs were preserved, apparently because, before the elision of the aleph,
3.4.5.5. Diphthongs
100
they stood in closed syllables. Later, when the aleph had been elided, the diphthongs came to stand in open syllables; but at that time the monophthongization no longer operated. Similar was the behavior of words like wq" line, wx"
order!, yj" alive, originally terminating in -ww and -yy respectively (*qaww,
*aww, *ayy), which, standing in closed syllables, preserved the diphthongs.
Again later, when ww, yy in word-nal position were simplied, the diphthongs came to stand in open syllables; again, the monophthongization was no
longer at work. In the construct forms, which bear only secondary stress, one
would expect monophthongization. This is indeed the case in ayGe the valley
of; yD' sufciency < *dayy, cstr yDe. Sometimes, however, due to the impact
of the absolute, the diphthong is preserved: cstr wq" the line of.
3.4.5.5. Words ending in -ayu, i.e., ending with a nal case vowel or verb
inection, show up in Hebrew with nal segol. Related forms that lost the case
vowel earlier or had no nal verb inection follow a different path: ay, aw in
open syllables in every position, even when bearing the main stress, changed
to ere, olam. In word-nal position, the ere is generally spelled he alongside
ye in the plural construct: cf. the homophones hneB} build! and yneB} the sons
of; *aday the eld of (cstr) > hdec. Also, in open syllables bearing penultimate stress, ytIylE&g}ni I appeared < *niglyti; Wnyney& [E our eyes < *aynynu;
further unstressed d[E/m appointed time < *mawid. In word-nal position,
not only -ay but also -iy shifted to ere, e.g., *mariy the teacher of (cstr) >
hre/m; *g(i)liy go into exile! > hlEG}; *r(a)ay be satised! > hxEr]. Why do we
nd construct forms here and corresponding absolute forms in the previous
paragraph (3.4.5.2, p. 99)? Because the case endings were lost earlier from
the construct than from the absolute (cf. 3.5.7.1.5, p. 120); at the time when
monophthongization operated, the construct had already dropped the case
endings.
3.4.5.5n. As noted, in the forms ytIylEg& }ni and Wnyney& [E, ay has shifted to e. When preceding
qama, e by assimilation changes to segol (see 3.5.10.4, p. 137): hn;ya<&r]TIw' and they (fp)
have seen; yn,&y[E your eyes (cf. k<yney[E); h:yl<[& : on her (cf. h<ylE&[ on them).
The imperative forms cited above require comment. It has been claimed that secondary
stress was a feature not only of the construct (this, indeed, caused the early elision of the
nal case endings), but also of the imperative, which was weakly stressed because of a
preceding vocative (see, e.g., Brockelmann 190813: 1.81, par. 42ffb; Bergstrsser 2.24).
This theory, however, is not convincing, since, e.g., Arabic ()uqtul < *qutul did not arise
from weak stress, but must be attributed to the analogy of the prex-tense.
3.4.5.6. The preservation of the diphthong in yd'c, the poetic form of hd,c,
is exceptional. Originally, it seems, the y was preserved in pausal yd;c (i.e., preTiberian aday) only because it followed a long vowel, which has been lengthened by pausal lengthening (see 3.5.13.2, p. 154). Initially, therefore, the
pausal form was yd;c, the contextual one hd,c. Because of the excessive difference between these two forms, they were not felt to belong to the same para-
101
Diphthongs 3.4.5.8.
digm. In ordinary style hd,c was used in pause as well, whereas in poetic
diction from pausal yd;c with qama a new contextual form, yd'c with pata,
was derived. (This reects the inclination of the diphthong ay to pata, rather
than to qama; the frontal consonant y gives preference to frontal pata to the
exclusion of the back vowel qama.) For details, see Blau 1997: 18687.
3.4.5.7. It may be possible to explain in the same way the preservation of
the y in yt"m: when? (in pause yt:m:, with pausal lengthening) from *matya
(with the nal adverbial accusative ending -a). In Arabic, mata (spelled tm),
has to be derived from *mataya as well, since *matay would not have
changed. The Hebrew pausal form was yt:m:, with preservation of the y following long a, lengthened owing to its pausal position. The contextual form was
*mata, reecting the shift aya > a. Again, the difference between pausal and
contextual forms was extreme. Since yt"m: was frequent in pausal position and
in exclamation, it was pausal yt:m: that prevailed and the new contextual form
yt"m: was derived from it.
3.4.5.7n. On the adverbial accusative, see 4.4.4.1, p. 266; the assumption of a nal vowel
that was elided is necessary (pace von Soden 1995: 203, par. 113k, who derives Akk mati
from *matay, rather than from *mataya), because at one point penultimate stress prevailed
in Biblical Hebrew, and only the supposition of such a vowel accounts for the current
stress on the ultima of yt"m:. This, however, neither requires nor excludes the idea that the
-aya, rather than -ay, ending is Proto-Semitic and not a later development.
Nothing certain can be stated of the form yz'a then, the use of which is restricted to
Psalm 124. One has not only to account for the preservation of the diphthong; one must
alsoand this is more difcultexplain the initial a". As a rule, pretonic a is lengthened,
whereas pretonic i is sometimes lengthened, sometimes reduced (see 3.5.7.6.13.5.7.6.2,
p. 129). Since in this case the rst vowel is reduced, one would have expected that it was
i; however, i shifts in this position to " (a; see above, 3.3.3.3.3, p. 84). Therefore, I am
inclined to consider yz'a to be a loan word from a neighboring dialect (cf., mutatis mutandis, Wagner 1966: 2122), reecting a syllable structure different from that obtaining in
Biblical Hebrew.
3.4.5.8. The group of sound changes just introduced (nal -ayu(i), -iyu(i) >
h,; -ay, -iy > he / ye) was rst presented, in a different formulation, by Jacob
Barth and much discussed by later scholars. Barth demonstrated that h,/he
arose not only from -ay(u) but also from -iy(u), as clearly reected by *samaniyu/i > hn,/mv eight (fs). The problem is how to account for the lowering of nal -iyu, -iyi to e and even more for the shift of nal -iy to , rather
than to i. For various attempts to provide an explananation for these changes,
see the literature cited below. With due reservations, I would like to propose
the following: since the inection of nouns and verbs terminating in -ay and
-iy to a great degree neutralized their differences when preceding long vowels
or a, words ending in -iyu/i and -iy were transferred to the category of those
terminating in -ayu/i and -ay, respectively. Thus, e.g., because of the formal
identity of t/py; beautiful ones (fp) < *yapiyot and t/dc elds < *adayot,
3.4.6. w/y
102
the expected s abs *yapi < *yapiyu, by analogy to hd,c, became hp<y;. Similarly, the expected s cstr *ypi < *ypiy (< *yapiyu) changed to hpEy] by analogy to hdec (t/dc: hd,c, hdec = t/py;: x; x = hp<y;, hpEy]). The form hn,/mc eight
(fs) < *samaniyu itself should have been *smoni instead, yet because hn;/mc
eight (ms) < *samaniyatu and yni/mc eighty < *samaniyim terminated in
the same endings as words ending in original -ayatu and -ayim (e.g., ha:r]ni
seen (fs) < *nirayatu/i and yc[n' made (mp) < *naaayim), it was transferred to the category of nouns terminating in h, like ha<r]ni, hc[n'. In proportional terms, ha:r]ni, yc[n': ha<r]ni, hc[n' = hn;/mc, yni/mc: x; x = hn,/mc.
3.4.5.8n. See Barth 188991: xxxxxxi, 200 n. 1; Brockelmann 190813: 1.144; BauerLeander 1922: 2015; Bergstrsser 1.100101, par. 17k; and especially Birkeland 1940:
4146.
Discussion of the expectation that -iyu/-iyi and -iy would have originally lowered to i is
hampered by a lack of evidence. No certain residues of this original shift have been preserved. It is certainly tempting to regard the construct yPI from hP< mouth as its reection,
yet in the monosyllabic nouns hP< and hc sheep different structures with changing vowels alternate, so that it is difcult to reconstruct the etymon of either. See Nldeke 1910:
17078.
3.4.6. Word-Final -Cw, -Cy

3.4.6.1. One nal development rounds out this complex set: w, y in nal
post-consonantal position shifted, after the dropping of the case endings, to u,
i: *tuhw(u) became WhTO& formlessness; *gady became ydiG, & (pausal form; the
contextual form, with stress-shift, is ydiG}).
3.4.7. Semi-Consonants and Weak Verbs

3.4.7.1. The semi-consonants are important in the study of the weak verbs.
Since the developments of w and y are, to a great extent, parallel, we shall in
the following treat w and y together. Due to the shift of initial w to y, the
classes of I-w and I-y verbs have partially blended; this is discussed further below (4.3.8.4.4, p. 245). In addition, III-w verbs have almost entirely shifted to
the III-y class, a feature attested in other Semitic languages and thus part of a
general drift. Since in these verbs w and y developed in the same direction,
many identical forms arose, from which, by proportional analogy, the III-y
verbs encroached on III-w verbs. Contrariwise, II-w verbs spread at the expense of II-y verbs. Since the prex-tense forms of qal II-y are identical to
those of hif il II-w/y, the qal tended to be superseded by the hif il, and sometimes the residue of the qal was absorbed by II-w (see 4.3.8.7.2.8, p. 255).
3.4.7.1n. For the whole complex of problems related to biradical and triradical verbs, see
4.3.1, pp. 187ff.
3.4.7.2. The development of II-w/y verbs from three radicals is complex,

and it is an arduous task to set up sound changes in order to account for the
103
w/y 3.4.8.4.
process. Consider the nif al prex-tense. In regular verbs Wrm}Vyi they will be
preserved derives from *yassamiru < *yansamiru, and so in II-w/y prextense Wg/S& yi they will retreat should reect original *yassawigu, exhibiting the
shift awi > o. If this shift was at work, one would expect the qal sufx-tense of
pattern pail to show this o. However, *mawit does not become *mot but tmE
he died.
3.4.7.3. Such irregularities of development lead us to propose that this
class of verbs is a blend of (a) original biradical roots with a short vowel between the two radicals, (b) original biradical roots with a long vowel between
them, and (c) triradical roots with w, y as second radical. Since sound shifts affecting w/y gave rise to forms that were identical to forms derived from biradical roots, by proportional analogy original biradical roots become II-w/y
roots (with consonantal w, y) and vice versa. Thus it is not feasible to separate
the results of the elision of w, y from original II-w/y verbs from forms reecting original biradical roots. As a matter of fact, it is impossible to state
whether a certain verb, let us say Wr to run, is to be derived from a triradical
root rw or from biradical rv (i.e., with a long medial vowel) or even rv
(with a short medial vowel).
3.4.8. The Semi-Consonant w

3.4.8.1. The standard pronunciation of waw is bilabial, rather than labiodental. The changes that affect waw result from this feature, i.e., from its character as a semi-consonant.
3.4.8.2. In Northwest Semitic, initial w had shifted to y. The few Biblical
Hebrew words that exhibit initial w (ww; hook, rz;w; guilty(?), dl:w; offspring)
have to be regarded as having come into Hebrew after this shift had ceased to
operate.
3.4.8.3. The most important exception to this shift is w and. The preservation of the initial w in the conjunction may be attributed to the fact that, during the operation of this sound shift, it joined the preceding word enclitically,
and thus phonetically it did not stand in word-initial but rather in word-medial
position, where it was not affected by this change (as if hl:y]l"w& ; /y day and
night were pronounced yomwalyla).
3.4.8.3n. Gordon, comparing Egyptian w, argues that Heb w was originally preceded by
another syllable, and the shift w > y in word-initial position took place before this syllable
was dropped (1965: 32 n. 3). This proposal, however, for all its ingenuity, is more than
doubtful, since the initial w is attested in most Semitic tongues and the loss of an alleged
preceding syllable in all of them would be too much of a coincidence.
3.4.8.4. Since the shift of initial w to y is attested in all the known Northwest Semitic languages (see 1.6.4, p. 17), it stands to reason that it is a feature of the common Northwest Semitic period. In fact, this shift is the only
3.4.8.5. w
104
feature that can, with reasonable certainty, be regarded as a shared innovation

of Northwest Semitic in the context of West Semitic.
3.4.8.5. In considering this characteristic feature of Northwest Semitic, it is
important to keep in mind the arguments made earlier about language relations (1.61.7, pp. 16ff.). It is likely that there was no period in which the
speakers of the languages we call Northwest Semitic lived together. It may well
be that the speakers of these languages split off from the West Semitic stock in
waves, emigrating into the Fertile Crescent, here coming into contact with
other languages; through various processes of linguistic contact and parallel
development, the Northwest Semitic language type known to us emerged. Accordingly, the shift w > y in word-initial position does not necessarily attest to
the existence of a common Northwest Semitic language at the time of its operation; it may well have emerged in one or some of these languages, from
which it spread to the others, nally to become their characteristic feature.
Thus we are free to posit that Northwest Semitic arose at the end, rather than at
the beginning, of the development. Such is our inclination.
3.4.8.5n. Other features suggested as shared innovations of the subgroup are not characteristic of all the Northwest Semitic languages. Let us review those mentioned by Bergstrsser
(1.163, par. 30b). (1) The shift of Heb vyu/i in word-nal position to segol and of vy to ere
are special Hebrew features. This is shown by the preservation of the y in Ugaritic III-y
verbs; and even the correspondence between Hebrew and Aramaic is partial. (2) Ugaritic
attests to case vowels in the construct (Huehnergard 1981), and Akkadian has no case vowels in the construct; thus the absence of the case vowels in the construct cannot be considered a common Northwest Semitic feature. (3) Philippis Law is a special late Hebrew shift
(3.5.8.8, p. 134); the substitution of a for i in closed stressed syllables that is found in Aramaic and even in Gez is a parallel feature, rather than a part of a common heritage.
3.4.8.6. As a result of the initial w > y shift, I-w verbs combine forms with
initial y (< w) and forms with medial w in the same paradigm. There was some
leveling as a result of this mixture (see 4.3.8.4.4, p. 245); even proportional
analogy was at work, because of many identical forms, transferring original
I-y verbs to I-w and vice versa.
3.4.8.7. The only generally recognized instance of a shift from I-y to I-w
is [dy to know, with some I-w forms (e.g., ['ydi/h to inform). This verb is
classed as I-y because it has a y even in languages that have preserved initial
w. There are, however, some indications of a form with original w in some Semitic tongues, so that one must not exclude the possibility of the existence of
a doublet wd, yd (Nldeke 1910: 2023).
3.4.8.8. The contrary process is more common; vry to inherit, e.g., is an
original I-w verb, as seen by the qal imperative vre and construct innitive
tvr,& (and attested by other Semitic languages), yet its qal prex-tense follows
the pattern of original I-y verbs: vr'yyi.
3.4.8.9. As a vowel letter, w marks both medial and nal u/o. This usage
stems from the shift of consonantal w to u, o ; the w continued being written
105
Vowels 3.5.1.3.
even after it had ceased being pronounced: *huwrad he was brought down
was still spelled drwh even after it was pronounced dr'Wh; *hawrid he brought
down continued to be spelled with w, even after it was already pronounced
dyri/h.
3.4.9. The Semi-Consonant y

3.4.9.1. The palatal semi-consonant presents fewer complexities than its
bilabial counterpart. yod is used as a vowel letter in both medial and nal positions, to mark (historical) i, e, . This usage arose from consonantal y that
had shifted to i, e, , e.g., *baytiy(a) > *bayti my house, becoming ytIyBE, but
still spelled with y; *siyr song, becoming ryv; *tirayna they (fp) will see,
becoming hn;ya<&r]T.I
3.5. The Vowels of Hebrew

3.5.1. Introduction: Vowel Systems
3.5.1.1. According to the Tiberian vocalization, there are seven vowel
signs that mark full vowels: pata a, qama O, ere e, segol , iriq i, olam
o, suruq/qibbu u. In the genuine Tiberian pronunciation, qama, independently of the structure of the syllable in which it occurs, is invariably pronounced O. According to the Sephardic tradition, however, its pronunciation
depends on the syllable structure; as a rule it is pronounced a (called qama
gadol), but in closed unstressed syllables, it is pronounced o (called qama
qaan/auf ). It is the Sephardic pronunciation that has preserved the original
distinction between long a and short u > o; in the Babylonian vocalization,
only a has shifted to O, whereas u has remained unchanged. According to the
Tiberian pronunciation, however, these two vowels have coalesced; for details, see below, 3.5.3.63.5.3.7, p. 109.
3.5.1.2. In addition, swa and three signs for ultra-short vowels (a" aaf
pata; " aaf segol; O" aaf qama) are used. swa (]) either denotes that the
consonant under which it stands is vowelless (quiescent swa) or indicates a
neutral vowel, usually pronounced as a very short " (= ; mobile swa). According to the Masoretes themselves, this was, as a rule, pronounced as a very
short a", in principle not different from aaf pata.
3.5.1.3. The mobile swa has, according to the Masoretes, various pronunciations. When preceding a laryngeal-pharyngeal, it is pronounced in accordance with the vowel of the laryngeal-pharyngeal. Thus h[:q}b:W and it will
hatch Isa 34:15 is pronounced, according to the Tiberian tradition, ub2 OqO " O;
[EQ}b"T} it will tear them Hos 13:8, is pronounced, according to the Tiberian
tradition, ta"b2 aqqe "em. When preceding y, it is pronounced ," e.g., yniWyM}d't} you
will liken me Isa 40:25, is pronounced, according to the Tiberian tradition,
ta"qammyuni
"
.
3.5.1.4. Tiberian Vocalization
106
3.5.1.4. One has to keep this variation in mind to understand certain features of the Tiberian biblical vocalization. Thus variant readings like
hN;l<k& }aTO, hN;l<k& aTO you will eat it reect, according to the Tiberian vocalization, the same pronunciation, toka"lnnO. Moreover, this pronunciation of the
mobile swa explains the rather frequent use of aaf pata between identical
consonants in many manuscripts, as in yr,&ra those who curse you Num
24:9, where many other manuscripts read yr,&r]a. Such variants have to be understood as graphic rather than phonetic, since both forms were pronounced
orr3ka; the pronunciation orr3ka is Sephardic and not Tiberian. The
same applies to a aaf qama preceding a laryngeal-pharyngeal followed by
a qama, e.g., h[:mva<w; and I heard Dan 8:13, spelled in other manuscripts
h[:m}va<w;; both, according to the Tiberian tradition, have to be pronounced
wOsmO"O. In Sephardic pronunciation the rst is pronounced wasmo"a,
the second wasm"a.
3.5.1.4n. The actual Sephardic pronunciation of yr,&ra is orr3ka, i.e., the Sephardim
pronounce the swa as . This feature must reect later lengthening of the original ultrashort . In the Yemenite tradition the ultra-short and full actualizations of the swa alternate
(Morag 1963: 15478), thus reecting the beginning of the process which, in Sephardi
pronunciation, led to the general pronunciation of the swa as a full vowel. Similarly, the
actual Sephardic pronunciation of h[:mva<w; wasmoa.
3.5.2. Tiberian Vocalization

3.5.2.1. Tiberian vocalization does not reect the various sources of the
vowels it represents. It is crucial to distinguish between the Tiberian vowels
and information available about these sources from the use of vowel letters,
other Jewish traditions, and comparative study. One has to bear in mind that
the Tiberian vowels only mark quality but not quantity.
3.5.2.1n. For details on the spelling of vowel letters, see Andersen and Forbes 1986 and,
working from their data, Blau 1995 = Topics, 2125.
3.5.2.2. In the case of a vowels, Tiberian vocalization did not distinguish

between qama gadol, which arose from a long vowel (either originally long
vowels, e.g., qam = q: he arose) or from original short a, which had secondarily shifted to long a (*dag > dag = gD; sh), and qama qaan, which developed from short u (*kull- > AlK:).
3.5.2.3. Similarly, in the area of i vowels, the vocalization did not differentiate between defectively written iriq, i.e., not followed by y, and fully written
iriq, i.e., followed by y. The Masoretes always marked i, whether originally
short or long, with a iriq, not interfering with the Holy Text, in which the i
vowel was either followed by a non-pronounced yod or not. Since it was originally long i that, as a rule, was followed by a y, which had initially been pronounced as a consonant (as *yiyra he fears > ar;yyi), originally long i in word-
107
Tiberian Vocalization 3.5.2.5.
medial position tends to be marked by yi; originally short i tends to be marked

by i (e.g., r/mz]mI psalm). (In word-nal position, the use of vowel letters is
mandatory, except in the cases of certain word classes.) Distinguishing the
background of the various i-vowels was not the aim of the Masoretes. Rather,
they preserved the text of Holy Scriptures meticulously, and the choice between fully and defectively written iriq was dictated by the transmitted text.
Thus we nd that sometimes (in a minority of cases to be sure) long i was
spelled defectively (e.g. yi/G nations).
3.5.2.3n. Although it is true that long i is spelled defectively in the biblical text, the converse is quite rare. Originally short i is, in reliable manuscripts at least, almost never
spelled with y; one of the very few exceptions is wyTIymIhw' and I slew him 1 Sam 17:35;
note also the inferior reading version yP"y[Ic my thoughts Job 20:2, in contrast with the
established reading yP"[Ic.
In vocalized Israeli spelling, originally long i is always spelled with a following y, since
in fact the spelling of vocalized Hebrew texts is based on biblical orthography, with regularizations.
3.5.2.4. The e vowels are also in part dependent on the system of matres
lectionis. A word-medial ere that arose by monophthongization of ay tends
to be spelled fully with a following vowel letter y, which was originally consonantal. Thus yney[E the eyes of < *aynay- is almost always spelled plene,
e.g., Isa 2:11; the defective spelling yne[E is rare, e.g., Isa 3:8. The defective
spelling of k<lEa to them, on the other hand, is quite frequent. In word-nal
position ere is spelled with a following vowel letter h, e.g., hneB} build!,
alongside ye in the plural construct: yneB} sons of. In contrast, ere that developed from originally short i is almost invariably spelled defectively; an exception is WnyneyqzE ] our elders Josh 9:11. Similarly, word-medial segol that arose
by monophthongization is, as a rule, followed by the vowel letter y; in wordnal position such a segol is followed by the vowel letter h: hn;yy,h}TI they (fp)
will be, hy,h}yi he will be. In word-nal position full spelling is mandatory. In
word-medial position rare cases of defective spelling do occur: hn;l<d& ]TIw' and
they (fp) drew water Exod 2:16. Segol that arose from short i or a is spelled
defectively.
3.5.2.5. The Masoretes on principle did not distinguish the u vowels on the
basis of etymology either. The modern use of qibbu to denote short u, and of
suruq to mark long u is of comparatively late date. Originally, qibbu and suruq were used without distinction to denote both kinds of u. When the Masoretes encountered a word in which no vowel letter w followed an u, they, by
necessity, vocalized u (what was later called qibbu), since they regarded it as
improper to add a w to the sacred biblical text. In case the text had such a w, they
inserted a point into the w (W; what was later called suruq), because the sanctity
of the biblical text compelled them to preserve the w. It is, again, only in accepted vocalized Israeli spelling that originally short u is always spelled with
3.5.2.6. Tiberian Vocalization; Sephardic Pronounciation
108
qibbu, originally long u with suruq. A similar tendency is, to be sure, reected in the Bible. This is, however, only a by-product of the fact that the use
of vowel letters in general and of w as mater lectionis in particular, emerged
from their consonantal use, which is associated with long vowels. Nevertheless, exceptions are by no means rare, especially cases of the defective spelling
of originally long u, e.g., l<bUG} your territory (in pause) Exod 13:7. Sometimes even originally short u is spelled fully, e.g., L:Wk all of them Jer 31:34.
3.5.2.6. The situation of the o vowels is simple. olam that arose by
monophthongization of aw tends to be spelled fully with a following w (/),
which was originally consonantal, e.g., d[E/m appointed time < *mawid; but
note d[EmO[B}] at the time of Deut 31:10. In contrast, o that arose from
(stressed) a and that, accordingly, was not followed by a consonantal w, is less
often spelled with /.
3.5.2.7. Originally short vowels occur chiey in unstressed closed syllables (e.g., j'TEp}m" key; yGij" feasts; because of the dages forte, this word is
divided into syllables ag-gim), including formerly closed syllables ending in
a laryngeal-pharyngeal, which have been opened (e.g., hl:[m" step < malO).
In addition, pata, not qama, is used in (1) every closed syllable, even if it is
stressed, in the contextual nite forms of the verb (as rm"v he kept), (2) in
construct nouns, e.g., dy' hand of, (3) in the stressed nal syllable of the absolute forms of nouns that originally ended in a double consonant, e.g., G'
garden < *gann, (4) in the stressed open penult syllables of words that originally ended in two consonants (as lj"n' & torrent < *nal). In this last position,
however, segol prevails generally (l<m<& king < *malk); pata is used before
laryngeals-pharyngeals.
3.5.2.8. In Tiberian vocalization iriq, ere, segol, olam, and qibbu/suruq
mark i, e, , o, and u, respectively, whether originally short or long. This usage does not cause any difculty in pronunciation, since the (originally) short
and long variants do not differ in quantity.
3.5.3. Sephardic Pronunciation

3.5.3.1. In the accepted Sephardic pronunciation, (originally) short and
long qama are pronounced differently. The short vowel, originating in u, as o,
and the long vowel, deriving from (original or secondary) a, as a. The following description, with the help of which qama gadol and qama qaan can be
distinguished, has its practical merits, the more so since it reects a linguistic
reality.
3.5.3.2. Qama qaan/auf, originally a short vowel, occurs (i.e., is pronounced according to Sephardic pronunciation o) in the following cases.
3.5.3.3. In closed unstressed syllables (like short vowels in general), e.g.,
tm"k}j:, the wisdom of, pronounced okmat; yniNej& : be gracious unto me! (because of the dages forte this word has to be divided into syllables: on-ne#-ni),
109
Tiberian Vocalization; Sephardic Pronounciation

qama 3.5.3.7.
pronounced onne#ni; q:Y;w& ' he rose, pronounced wayya#qom. Since a word preceding a maqqaf is totally unstressed, a qama occurring in a closed syllable
in a hyphenated word stands in a closed unstressed syllable and is therefore a
qama qaan, e.g., rcB:AlK: all esh Gen 6:12, pronounced kol-baar.
3.5.3.3n. If the qama in a hyphenated word bears a secondary accent, marked by meteg, it
is pronounced a: dyix"&AdX:h" he who has taken venison Gen 27:33, pronounce haa#qyiq. The a originated in a, not in u!
3.5.3.4. In formerly closed syllables, originally terminating in a vowelless laryngeal-pharyngeal, thus closing the syllable, which have now been
opened, since the laryngeal-pharyngeal is now pronounced with a aaf qama: e.g., /l[P: his doing, originally /l[}P:* (parallel to, e.g., /vd]q : his sanctity), to be pronounced poo"lo. Such a aaf qama shifts to qama qaan if it
is followed by swa. It seems that this is a mere orthographic device to avoid
writing a aaf vowel preceding a swa: k<l}[:P: your (mp) doing, pronounced
poolkm (3.3.3.3.5, p. 85).
3.5.3.4n. poo"lo is the accepted pronunciation in the teaching of Hebrew at universities, as
well as in modern Israeli Hebrew speech. In genuine traditional Sephardic pronunciation,
however, the form is pronounced pao"lo. Again, poolkm is the accepted pronunciation,
but in genuine Sephardic pronunciation, the form is pronounced paolkm.
3.5.3.5. In some nouns with original u in the rst syllable. Specically,

the rst qama in the plurals yvr;v roots and yvd;q : sanctities is qama
qaan/auf as well.
3.5.3.5n. This is again the accepted pronunciation in the teaching of Hebrew at universities, as well as in modern Israeli Hebrew speech. In genuine traditional Sephardic pronunciation, however, these forms are pronounced sarasim, qadasim. This is all the more
surprising since yvd;q h" the sanctuaries, spelled with aaf qama, is pronounced by the
Sephardim haqqodasim.
3.5.3.6. It has to be stressed again that the distinction between two kinds
of qama, qaan and gadol, does not reect the Tiberian vocalization, in
which every qama marks O. As we have seen, it does not exactly correspond
to the Sephardic pronunciation either, although the accepted reading of the
Bible in university teaching (and the pronunciation of Modern Hebrew) is
based on the Sephardic tradition.
3.5.3.7. The Sephardim are the only Jewish community possessing a living
tradition of differentiating between qama gadol and qaan. Among the Ashkenazim, who depend on the Tiberian vocalization, and the Yemenites, who ultimately rely on the Babylonian vocalization, every qama is pronounced as O.
Though the description provided of when to use short qama has its merits,
it has no connection with the Tiberian vocalization. The Tiberian vocalization
marks only qualitative differences and not quantitative ones (with the exception of the ultra-short vowels, viz., the mobile swa and the aaf-vowels).
3.5.4. Tiberian Vowels
110
3.5.3.7n. The neutralization of quantitative differences is of very late origin; it is perhaps

the last comprehensive sound shift that affected Tiberian Hebrew. For this, see below,
3.5.4.2.
3.5.4. Tiberian Vowels Once Again

3.5.4.1. Let us consider the Tiberian-Sephardic issue further. The Tiberian
vocalization is a rather exact one, in some cases marking sub-phonemic variations, like the spirantization of bgdkpt in certain positions or the alternation
of qama (qaan) and qibbu in closed unstressed syllables. Is it conceivable
that the Tiberian Masoretes would have used the same sign for long qama
(qama gadol) and short qama (qama qaan), had they wanted to mark
quantitative differences?
3.5.4.2. The only possible explanation for their usage of qama is that they
did not attempt to mark quantitative differences (with the above-mentioned
exceptions), because they had ceased being phonemic. I do not claim that in
the Tiberian tradition no length differences occurred, but rather that length
differences were automatic consequences of stress and syllable structure.
3.5.4.3. It stands to reason that vowels in stressed or open syllables were
automatically pronounced long. Since this process was automatic, the Masoretes considered it to be superuous to mark quantity by special signs. With
this in mind, we can understand why the Masoretes did not attempt to schematize the difference between suruq and qibbu or between iriq with y as a
vowel letter and without it. Their usage of the differences depended entirely on
the consonantal skeleton they received, rather than on the (original) quantity
of the vowel. There is, to be sure, a certain connection between the Tiberian
vocalization and length (as reected in earlier layers of Hebrew), but it is not
a connection that the Masoretes worked with directly or sought to maintain.
3.5.4.3n. The effects of stress and syllable structure can be seen in various medieval transliterations of biblical texts in Arabic script; see Hoerning 1889; Khan 1990.
3.5.4.4. Since the quality of a vowel may depend on its quantity, a Tiberian vowel may historically reect a vowel of a certain length. A case in point
is pata. Historical analysis and comparative Semitics demonstrate that, in
the decisive majority of occurrences, it continues a historically short vowel.
Nevertheless, even with pata there are exceptions. As mentioned above
(3.3.4.3.2, p. 88), the pata of ynidOal" to my lord < laa"doni has to be considered a (phonetically) long vowel, since it arose by the elision of the aleph.
Further, the pata of [B"x}a< nger must also, it seems, be considered an originally long vowel; it arose from the expected [B:x}a<*, with qama, by assimilation to the .
3.5.4.5. As a rule, however, pata is a short vowel and may be used for
gauging the (historical, not the Tiberian) length of other vowels. Thus in
the nite verb, pata occurs in closed syllables, even if it is stressed: rm"v he
111
Vowel Length; Proto-Semitic Vowels 3.5.5.2.
kept; bK"r]yi he will ride. Accordingly, we shall regard as similarly short the
ere and olam of the parallel patterns pEj: he wanted, lkOy; he could, and TEyi
he will give, rmOvyi he will keep. In addition, note piel forms with pata,
ere, and segol: rCBI he bore tidings, lBEqI he received, rB<Di he spoke; all
these forms, as suggested by the pata of rCBI, have to be regarded as having
(in context) a short vowel in their nal syllables. Similarly, in the light of tyiB"&
house; r["n' & youth (cf. also l<m<& king), it makes sense that ere and olam
of similar nouns are short as well, e.g., rp<sE& book; vd,qO& sanctity.
3.5.4.6. This view on vowel length is corroborated by an unexpected
source, the Greek transcriptions of names. In the case of a, these transcriptions have no way of distinguishing long and short a, since Greek has only one
corresponding vowel, the alpha. But in the case of e and o, Greek has a double
set of vowels: eta and epsilon, omega and omikron (h, e, w, o), respectively.
The transliterations of the Septuagint and especially of Origen conrm that in
these verbal and nominal patterns the vowels were short.
3.5.4.7. Thus we can clearly state a fact that we have alluded to often:
whenever vowel length is mentioned in this book, it refers not to the period of
Tiberian vocalization but to the preceding layers of the language and is historically reconstructed. According to reconstruction, for instance, qama qaan is indeed short, continuing Proto-Semitic u; it generally replaced earlier
u, except when preceding a doubled consonant, i.e., one with dages forte (or
azaq). Qama gadol, in contrast, was originally long, continuing either
Proto-Semitic long a or, in most cases, Proto-Semitic short a, which had been
lengthened. Even here exceptions occur.
3.5.4.8. There are cases (to be sure, very few) in which qama gadol, i.e.,
qama stemming from a, not from u, originates in a short a that remained
short through all the stages of the development of Tiberian Hebrew. This was
the case when qama arose from pata (i.e., from original a) through assimilation to a following labial, e.g., w,a:& wickedness; tw,m:& death (cf. the parallel
pata in tyiB"&; r["n'&); y; sea, even in construct, and even when the construct is
hyphenated: jl"M<&h" y; the Dead Sea Gen 14:3; jl:M<&h"Ay; Num 34:3.
3.5.5. Vowels: The Semitic Background

3.5.5.1. From a diachronic point of view, it is likely that in Proto-Semitic
(as in Classical Arabic) the phonemic system of vowels consisted of three
vowel pairs, three short, a : i : u, and three long, a : i : u.
3.5.5.2. In the structure of the Proto-Semitic short vowels one can detect, it
seems, an older binary system in which a was opposed to i/u, with i and u
acting as mere variants. Traces of this ancient binary structure are reected in
Biblical Hebrew as well. In the qal sufx-tense (see 4.3.5.2.2.1, p. 220) of
verbs denoting action, the second radical is followed by a (e.g., rm"v he preserved; t"n; he gave), whereas in stative verbs it is vocalized with ere,
3.5.6. Vocalic Phonemes
112
olam (< i, u, e.g., pEj: he wanted; lkOy; he was able). In contrast, in the qal
prex-tense, it is a that is characteristic of stative verbs (e.g., vyyi he will
sleep; lk"Wy he will be able), whereas ere, olam (< i, u) are typical of action
verbs (e.g., TEyi he will give; rmOvyi he will preserve). This state of things, to
be sure, is rather blurred, since a tends to prevail in the sufx-tense and o (< u)
in the prex-tense, yet its traces are clear enough to suggest an ancient binary
opposition a: i/u.
3.5.6. Vowels: The Hebrew Phonemes

3.5.6.1. The Basic System
3.5.6.1.1. The vowel inventory of Biblical Hebrew has increased considerably compared to that of Proto-Semitic. Whereas Proto-Semitic had, it seems,
the vowels a, i, u, a, i, u only, the inventory of full vowels in Biblical Hebrew,
according to the Tiberian tradition, consisted of a (pata), O (qama), (segol), e (ere), i (iriq), o (olam), u (qibbu/suruq), and all of them may be
phonetically long or short. Further, the ultra-short vowels (mobile swa), a"
(haaf pata), " (aaf segol), O" (haaf qama) occur.
3.5.6.1.1n. As noted above, reects the Sephardic pronunciation of mobile swa. According to Tiberian tradition it is, in the main, pronounced a", thus identical to aaf pata. See
3.3.3.3.4n, pp. 8485; 3.5.6.4.2n, p. 116.
3.5.6.1.2. Though it was relatively easy to establish the phonemic structure

of the Hebrew consonants, it is very intricate indeed to set up the phonemic
structure of the Tiberian vowel system. We must not, as shown above
(3.5.2, pp. 106ff.), rely on the presence or absence of vowel letters added and
omitted, i.e., distinguish between iriq, segol, ere, olam, and suruq/qibbu
with and without a following vowel letter.
3.5.6.1.3. It seems clear that pata, qama, iriq, ere, olam, qibbu/
suruq (a, O, i, e, o, u) are different phonemes. Note these sets of oppositions:
(1) va: va: aWh va: it is a trespass offering, he has certainly trespassed
Lev 5:19, va: guilty (OsOm vs. Osom vs. Osam vs. Osem); (2) vaE re,
vyaI man (es vs. is); (3) l[" on, l[O yoke, lW[ suckling, (t/)l[: giving
suck (fp) (al vs. ol vs. ul vs. Ol); (4) ry[I town, r[E awake, rW[* awake!
[for the last, cf. hr;W[& in the same sense], r/[ skin, r[: a Moabite town (ir vs.
er vs. ur vs. or vs. Or); (5) aI when, aE mother (im vs. em); (6) z[O
strength, z["strong, z[E she-goat (oz vs. az vs. ez); (7) ra"vni he remained,
ra:vni remaining (nisar vs. nisOr); (8) t/br]j: the ruins of (cstr), t/br]j" the
swords of (cstr) (Orb2 ot vs. arb2 ot).
3.5.6.2. The Problem of segol

3.5.6.2.1. The case of segol () is intricate. Among the ancient vocalizations of Hebrew, it occurs only in the Tiberian vowel system.
113
Vocalic segol;
Phonemes
swa 3.5.6.3.1.
3.5.6.2.2. It certainly has separate phonemic value in nal stressed position. Note these sets: (1) h[<rO shepherd, y[IrO my shepherd, h[:rO shepherdess (ro vs. roi vs. roO); (2) hn,q}mI cattle, hneq}mI cattle of (cstr) (miqn
vs. miqne); (3) hn,q : stalk, hn;q : he acquired, hnoq/: /nq: to acquire (qOn vs.
qOnO vs. qOno).
3.5.6.2.3. In other positions too, segol seems to be phonemic. Note this set,
with an oppposition to pata: (4) ha<r]a< I shall see, ha<r]a"* I shall show; cf.
: a<r]a" I shall show you (r vs. ar). But not all evidence points to phonemic standing. In the following set, to be sure, there is an opposition to
iriq/ere: (5) p<Y,w' and he turned (it; hif il), p<Yiw' and he turned (qal), p<aEw;,
p<TEw', p<New' and I, you, we turned (wayypn vs. wayyipn vs. waepn,
wattepn, etc.). Nevertheless, the segol in these cases may be considered an
allophone, whether of i (in case 4, ha<r]a<; cf. ha<r]TI, ha<r]yi you, he will see) or
of a (in case 5, p<Y,w', which parallels hn,p}y'* he will turn, for which cf. hq<vy' he
will water). In other words, the use of segol in these cases may reect the
cancellation of the opposition a : i.
3.5.6.2.4. If this interpretation of segol as (partly) allophonic is correct, the
only convincing phonemic use of non-nal segol is its occurrence with interrogative h in oppposition to qama with the denite article: (6) rWma:h< is it
said? Mic 2:7, rWma:h:* that which is said; cf. /ra:h: the chest (hOmur vs.
hOOmur). Yet, even rWma:h< may be regarded as an allophone of rWma:h"* (cf.
hT: a"h: are you?).
3.5.6.2.5. There are further data to be considered. Two other noteworthy
sets are (7) la< to, (a/Nq")AlaE (a jealous) God Josh 24:19, (an;A)la" (please,)
not! Gen 13:8 (l vs. el vs. al); (8) k<l: to you (fp), kEl: therefore (lOkn
vs. lOken). Regarding (7), since segol is opposed to both ere (< iriq) and
pata, it cannot strictly be considered an allophone of either. Little signicance can be attached to the pairs (9) lb<j<& cord, lb<jE& pang; (10) br,[<&
evening, br,[E& mixture, woof; since in this position segol and ere may interchange. Note simply (11) rd,ne/& rd,n, & vow.
3.5.6.3. The Problem of swa

3.5.6.3.1. The status of swa is an intricate matter, since it marks two different phonetic entities: the mobile or vocal swa, denoting an ultra-short vowel,
and quiescent or silent swa, which marks the absence of any vowel. The Masoretes did not and indeed could not neatly distinguish these two kinds of swa
by using different marks, since mobile and quiescent swa frequently interchanged, depending (among other factors) on the speech tempo and the varying conditions of stress. Since the pronunciation of the Bible text as regards
the alternation of an ultra-short vowel and zero largely depended on the reader,
and even the same reader would have varied in articulation in accordance
with changing circumstances, the presentation of an archetype of the biblical
3.5.6.3.2. Vocalic
swa
Phonemes
114
text differentiating the two kinds of swa was not feasible. Therefore, the
Masoretes did the only thing possible: they marked both kinds of swa with the
same sign.
3.5.6.3.2. There are conspicuous cases of the occurrence of an ultra-short
vowel (= mobile swa) where originally no vowel existed (= zero, quiescent
swa). Thus vD;q}m Isanctuary has a vowelless q: miqdas. (Pay attention to the
stop d, occurring after a vowelless consonant.) Nevertheless, we nd the
form of vd;Q}mI miqqas in Exod 15:17. Similarly we have, instead of regular
*hapino, the form /nypIX}h" to hide him, pronounced hapino in Exod 2:3;
instead of the expected *mamgurot, we have t/rguM}m" granaries, pronounced
mamgurot, in Joel 1:17.
3.5.6.3.2n. We do not deal here with the widespread phenomenon of a vowelless laryngealpharyngeal preceding a consonant, developing an auxiliary vowel marked by aaf (see
above, 3.3.3.3.5, p. 85). In this case it is not a quiescent and a mobile swa that alternate,
but a quiescent swa and a aaf. Note, however, that the variant reading (ylIA) qj"xyi he will
laugh (at me) Gen 21:6 for the standard (ylIA)qj"x}yi reects a genuine change of quiescent
to mobile swa, since the aaf is only used as an indicator for mobile swa. Another curiosity is b}f:q : your destruction Hos 13:14 instead of the expected *qobka > b}fq*: . Here
the aaf qama, preceding a (formerly mobile) swa, automatically changed to qama
(qaan). Thus in one word the originally quiescent swa (f}*) of the regular form *qobka
B}f}q*: changed to mobile swa ( > O" > O) and the originally mobile swa (B}*) to quiescent
swa (here, swa medium; see below, 3.5.6.3.6).
3.5.6.3.3. In forms like miqqas and hapino, the dages in the letters bearing the swa does not indicate gemination; rather, it means that the swa is mobile (which entailed the spirant pronunciation of the following bgdkpt). This
feature is quite rare when the letter following the swa is not a bgdkpt letter,
e.g., th"Q}yi the obedience(?) of, pronounced yiqhat Gen 49:10.
3.5.6.3.4. It is surprising to nd words in which the letter vocalized with
swa and dages is b, which, because of the dages, has to be pronounced as plosive, although it is preceded by a vowel. (Spirantization at a certain point
ceased to be productive in word-medial position; 3.3.2.2.5, p. 80.) There is
no reason to double the b. In the cases to be cited, the fact that it is preceded by
qibbu, rather than by qama qaan, may be interpreted as indicating doubling;
this, however, is unlikely: /lBsU his burden Isa 10:27, with aaf qama instead of mobile swa, pronounce subO"lo, instead of the expected *sub2 lo; cf.
/kB}SUmI from its thicket Jer 4:7, pronounce missubko.
3.5.6.3.5. The reverse phenomenon, the occurrence of a quiescent swa
instead of a mobile one, is common. Indeed it is not only single words but
whole word classes that reect this feature, dependent, it seems, on the speed
of recitation, the conditions of stress, and the consonantal environment.
3.5.6.3.6. Perhaps the most conspicuous category of words reecting the
shift of mobile swa to the quiescent one includes words with the so-called swa
medium, a special sort of quiescent swa, which arose by the reduction of an
115
Vocalic
swa
Phonemes
Medium 3.5.6.3.8.
original full vowel (and was, therefore, originally a mobile swa) and is preceded by a short vowel. Through the inuence of the reduced vowel, a following bgdkpt letter became spirantized and remained so even after the reduced
vowel has been omitted. At the time of the loss of the vowel, the stop-spirant
alternation of the bgdkpt letters was no longer automatic, so that the bgdkpt
letters did not automatically change back to stops after the vowel had disappeared. The vowel preceding this swa is short (for a possible explanation of
this phenomenon, see below).
3.5.6.3.6n. Phonetically only two kinds of swa exist, either mobile or quiescent; there exists no phonetic entity intermediate between an ultra-short vowel and zero. Nevertheless,
Solomon Hanau, the ingenious Hebrew grammarian from the rst half of the eighteenth
century who introduced the term swa medium into scholarship, considered it a phonetic reality. Following Bergstrsser 2.176 we use the term to refer to a (synchronically) quiescent
swa, preceded, like other quiescent swa, by a short vowel, yet apparently capable of bringing about the spirantization of a following bgdkpt letter, as if it were a mobile swa. It is indeed convenient to use this term to describe a quite complex synchronic situation.
In the various ancient sources other vowels appear instead of swa medium, reecting the
earlier stage when it was still a mobile swa. Such evidence is found in the Samaritan tradition, the Septuagint, the Hexapla, and the Dead Sea Scrolls; see Blau 1971a: 2633 =
Topics, 21017; Ben-ayyim 2000: 55 and n. 71. In the Tiberian tradition, too, there are
remnants of what we call swa medium being pronounced as mobile swa, marked by meteg,
as in hk:r;b}h " (the pata being marked by meteg) blessing? Gen 27:38, or marked by a
aaf, as in a variant reading of the same passage, hk:r;bh" and in bhzW and the gold of
Gen 2:12. The historical development of the swa medium was originally described by Eduard Sievers; cf. Bergstrsser 1.12021.
3.5.6.3.7. This swa medium is found in plural construct qal nouns. Thus
ykEl}m" the kings of arose from *malake (cf. ykIl:m} kings). The form is pronounced malke, with a spirantized k, because at the time the spirantization
was active the k was preceded by a mobile swa. Some qal innitives construct also show swa medium, e.g., after b, k, as in lpn]BI when it fell, lpn]KI
as one falls, pronounce binpol, kinpol, derived from lpn], pronounced npol.
3.5.6.3.7n. The qal innitives construct present a complex picture, since after l followed
by bgdkpt the form has a quiescent swa. Such forms as rBOvlI in order to break are due to
morphological reshufing on analogy to the prex-tense (rBOvyi he will break) rather than
to a genuine sound shift. The late date of this feature is indicated by forms like lPOn]lI that
I fall Ps 118:13; the n immediately preceding another consonant was not assimilated to it
because at the time of the action of this shift the n was still followed by a mobile swa. (Alternatively, one could suggest that this shift was still active, but that at the time of the vocalization of the biblical text its letters had already become hallowed and therefore the n of
lpnl could not be omitted. Cf. Ginsberg 192930: 12931.)
3.5.6.3.8. The replacement of mobile swa by quiescent swa is also reected

in the strong tendency (cf. above, 3.3.2.2.3, pp. 7980) to pronounce double
consonants followed by mobile swa as simple consonants followed by quiescent swa, e.g., y[Es}m" journeys of = mase Num 33:1, instead of the expected
*masse. Moreover, the addition of prosthetic aleph to words beginning with
3.5.6.4. Vocalic
swa
Phonemes
116
a mobile swa intimates that the mobile swa had become quiescent; the difculty of pronouncing a consonant cluster at the beginning of words then led to
the addition of the prosthetic aleph. Cf. ['/rz] arm (with mobile swa) and
['/rz]a< (with prosthetic aleph). Similarly, l/mT} : l/mt}a< yesterday.
3.5.6.4. Pronunciation of swa

3.5.6.4.1. The following ve rules of swa (rst proposed by Elijah Levita
(Baur), 14681549) may assist the student in differentiating mobile and quiescent swa.
(1) Swa is mobile in word-initial position, e.g., m:z] time,
(2) and quiescent in word-nal position, e.g., l"m: he reigned; T}a" you
[fs]).
(3) The rst of two consecutive swas is quiescent, the second mobile, e.g.,
h[:m}va<w] and I shall hear, pronounced wsma.
(4) After a geminate consonant, swa is mobile, e.g., WvQ}B"ask (mp)!, pronounced baqqsu.
(5) Swa followed by a bgdkpt stop, marked by dages (TPKDGB), is quiescent, e.g., [B"r]a" four.
3.5.6.4.2. The problem with the fth rule is that, as discussed in the previous sections (3.5.6.3.53.5.6.3.7, pp. 114115), a swa preceding a spirant
bgdkpt letter can be either mobile, (e.g., ht:y]h: she was, pronounced hayta),
or quiescent (e.g., ykEl}m" the kings of, pronounced malke). The main overall
problem in distinguishing these two kinds of swa is connected with the use of
meteg, a small perpendicular stroke under the consonant to the left of the
vowel, e.g., d;a:h: (the) man. Meteg may mark the counter-tone occurring in
the last open syllable of the word (excluding the pretonic syllable). Accordingly, a syllable marked by this light meteg is open and when followed by a
swa, the swa has to be considered mobile. Therefore, basically, swa after a
vowel with meteg is mobile, e.g., ht:y]h:, pronounced hayta, and swa after a
vowel without it is quiescent, e.g., hcb}KI ewe lamb, pronounced kib2 a.
Nevertheless, since the use of meteg in various Bible manuscripts is rather inconsistent, its presence or absence is not always a reliable guide. Therefore, it
is not easy for the student to distinguish between hm:k}j: wisdom with quiescent swa (in Sephardic pronunciation, with qama qaan: okma) and hm:k}j :
she was wise with mobile swa (and an optional light meteg with the rst
qama; in the Sephardic pronunciation, with qama gadol; akma).
3.5.6.4.2n. The mobile swa, according to Modern (Sephardic) Hebrew and as it is taught at
the universities, is a neutral (ultra-)short vowel (). It seems likely that this is its original
pronunciation, and in this book we have transcribed it accordingly. According to the Tiberian Masoretes its basic pronunciation is , identical to aaf pata; see 2.4.15n, p. 67.
Nevertheless, preceding y it was pronounced , and preceding laryngeals-pharyngeals as
the counterpart of the vowel of the laryngeal-pharyngeal.
117
Vocalic Phonemes
swa 3.5.6.5.3.
3.5.6.4.3. The biblical text reects frequent alternations between quiescent

and mobile swa. However, when the differentiation between these two
kinds of swa was felt necessary for proper understanding, allowing readers to
distinguish two words that differ only in exhibiting either mobile or quiescent
swa, they were carefully separated, in solemn slow recitation at least: e.g.,
War]yYiw' and they feared Exod 14:31, pronounced wayyiru (according to the
Tiberian tradition, wayyiru"u) versus War]Yiw' and they saw Gen 6:2, pronounced wayyiru; Wnvyi they will sleep Prov 4:16, pronounced yisnu versus
Wnvyi they will do again Job 29:22, pronounce yisnu. Accordingly, it appears
that, with regard to the occurrence of mobile and quiescent swa, the Tiberian
tradition reects a stage of transition: though the opposition of mobile versus
quiscent swa is dwindling, clear vestiges of it have been preserved.
3.5.6.5. The Problem of swa Again

3.5.6.5.1. Since, according to the Tiberian tradition, mobile swa, as a rule,
coincided with aaf pata, these two vocalization marks have to be regarded
as identical from both the phonetic and phonemic point of view. (This is the
case even though mobile swa has allophones preceding y and laryngealspharyngeals.)
3.5.6.5.2. It also seems clear that aaf segol should not be accorded separate phonemic status but should be considered an allomorph of aaf pata.
This is indicated by quite frequent alternations of these two aafs, as ynia"&ybIh
he brought me versus ynit& "aybIh you brought me; ylEa to, the poetic counterpart of la<, in contrast to h<ylEa to them; /da Edom, from which ymIdOa
Edomite is derived; cf. also hc[n' he was made versus ht:c[<n, she was
made, etc.
3.5.6.5.2n. Cf. also rWsaE bond, which has the plural yriWsa, instead of the expected
yriWsa*. In general, in the Tiberian vocalization the tendency to substitute aaf pata for
aaf segol prevails; see Bergstrsser 1.156, par. 28ld. Therefore, little signicance attaches to the occurrence of haaf pata versus aaf segol in the masculine plural imperatives Wn[ answer! 1 Sam 12:3 versus Wn[ sing! Num 21:17, Ps 147:7. Synchronically, at
least, answer and sing were, in all likelihood, felt to be closely related, and it is more
than doubtful that the different qualities of the aaf served to differentiate the two meanings and that (Wn)[/(Wn)[ reect more than mere allomorphs. This is even clearer in the
prex-tense form, where hn,[y' denotes both he will answer (e.g., Gen 41:16) and he will
sing (Jer 25:30, rather than hn,[y,*). To my knowledge, the only case of an opposition between haaf pata and aaf segol is the verb ylI[ ascend! (fs) Num 21:17 and the noun
ylI[B" (with the) pestle Prov 27:22; however, an opposition of verb and noun is not exact,
since the forms occur in different environments.
3.5.6.5.3. It is clear that aaf qama stands in phonemic opposition to

aaf pata/mobile swa (which, according to Tiberian tradition, were pronounced identically): ynia ships : ynia I; ymID peacefulness : ymID] peacefulness
of and ymID]* resemble! (fs) from hmd, cf. hmED] (ms); ylIj sickness, mp yil:j :
3.5.6.6. Vowel Phonemes; Vocalization Systems
118
ylIj ornament, mp yaIl:j < yyil:j*; t/br;j ruins : t/br;j swords; yni[ poverty : yni[*, construct of yni[: poor and answer! (fs) from hn[, cf. hne[ ms;
yaIr sight : yaIr] mirror.
3.5.6.6. The Transitional Character of Tiberian Hebrew

3.5.6.6.1. The phonemic function of the Tiberian vowel marks is somewhat blurred. Most vowel marks, to be sure, represent phonemes (including
even segol, at least in nal position). Some, however, refer to allophones:
thus, aaf segol and aaf pata make up a single phoneme. (Moreover, according to the Tiberian tradition, aaf pata is phonetically identical to mobile swa.)
3.5.6.6.2. In some cases the Tiberian tradition reects a period of transition: thus, swa marks two phonetic entities, zero and an ultra-short vowel,
which quite often alternate, indicating the partial neutralization of their opposition. In other cases, however, especially where this neutralization is apt to
cause confusion, chiey in solemn ceremonial reading, the difference between
them has been carefully maintained.
3.5.6.6.2n. The difference between aaf pata and mobile swa lies in the fact that the
aaf pata is monovalent, always pronounced a", in contrast to the multivalency of swa,
which may denote either a" (and even other ultra-short vowels when followed by a laryngeal-pharyngeal or y) or zero.
3.5.6.6.3. The transitional character of Tiberian Hebrew can also be seen in

the alternation of stops/spirants. Originally mere allophones, they tend outside word-initial position to become separate phonemes, although in many instances they preserve their character as allophones. See above, 3.3.2.2.1
3.3.2.2.4, pp. 7980.
3.5.6.7. Other Vocalization Systems

3.5.6.7.1. Different vowel structures are reected in the other vocalization
systems. In the Babylonian vocalization qama qualitatively differs from
pata: the former, it seems, as in the Tiberian tradition, represents O, the latter
a. Nevertheless, the distribution of the vowels is different: no segol exists, and
Babylonian pata corresponds to both Tiberian pata and segol. Proto-Semitic
u in closed unstressed syllable, which in the Tiberian vocalization tends to shift
to qama (qaan: O), has remained u, so that Babylonian qama corresponds to
Tiberian qama gadol only. In both the Babylonian and Palestinian vocalizations (as in the Tiberian one) the vowel signs, in general, mark qualitative,
rather than quantitative, differences (Yeivin 1985: 44). In both, aaf vowels
are wanting and often only the most important vocalization signs are marked.
3.5.6.7.1n. On Babylonian qama, see Blau and Hopkins 1985: 439 n. 19 = Middle Arabic, 217 n. 19.
Regarding the development of u in unstressed closed syllables, in the Tiberian tradition,
u tends to be preserved when preceding a double consonant: L:KU all of them.
119
Vowel Phonemes; Vocalization Systems 3.5.7.1.4.
3.5.6.7.2. One branch of the Palestinian vocalization system corresponds

to the Sephardi tradition: qama does not qualitatively differ from pata, and
the vowels corresponding to Tiberian ere and segol are not distinguished.
The (mobile) swa is pronounced .
3.5.6.7.2n. In the earliest stage of the Palestinian vocalization only one sign existed corresponding to both Tiberian qama and pata. See Yahalom 1997: 13. The pronunciation
of swa would have developed from neutral ; cf. 3.5.1.4n, p. 106.
3.5.7. The History of the Vowels

3.5.7.1. Short Vowels in Closed Syllables
3.5.7.1.1. We can begin reconstructing the development of various vowel
classes in Hebrew by studying short vowels in closed syllables. We will argue chiey from the behavior of the nouns (construct versus absolute) and
treat nite verbs (e.g., rm"v he kept) as having had a similar development.
3.5.7.1.2. In construct nouns, originally short vowels occur in closed
stressed syllables (e.g., dy' the hand of), whereas in absolute nouns these
syllables reect historically long vowels (dy;). (The contrast can also be seen in
absolute hd,c versus construct hdec the eld of; see 3.4.5.5, p. 100.)
3.5.7.1.3. There is one important group of exceptions: nouns (chiey
monosyllabic) derived from geminate roots have short vowels even in the
absolute (e.g., a" nose, wrath). The occurrence of pata in a" in a closed
stressed syllable, in contradistinction to non-geminate nouns with qama (dy;),
may point the way to a proper understanding of the pata in construct nouns
and, incidentally, in nite verb forms (e.g., rm"v he kept).
3.5.7.1.4. The noun a" exhibits double p (originally *appu < *anpu); only
in word-nal position is the double consonant simplied. Thus the vowel of
the noun was always in a closed syllable, even before the loss of case endings.
Accordingly, its exceptional behavior, distinct from that of other absolute
nouns, must, in all probability, be attributed to that fact. Other monosyllabic
nouns would have, at an earlier stage, had an open syllable preceding the case
ending (*yadu). In *yadu, as compensation for the dropping of the nal vowel,
the preceding vowel was lengthened: dy; originally *yad. This lengthening occurred only in originally open syllables, and since the a in *appu was in a
closed syllable, it remained short even after the dropping of the nal short
vowel.
3.5.7.1.4n. As a matter of fact, this development is only evident in the opposition of (originally short) pata versus (originally long) qama. The qualitative differences between
originally short and long ere and olam have been neutralized, and these vowel signs may
represent both originally short and long vowels. It is only with the help of the opposition
pata versus qama that the historical length of ere and olam can be reconstructed: the
ere and olam of, e.g., the sufx-tense forms pEj: he wanted, lkOy; he was able have to
3.5.7.1.5. Vowel Phonemes; Vocalization Systems
120
be considered short in the light of the pata of rm"v; the ere of the noun [E tree has to be
regarded as long in the absolute since it corresponds to dy;, yet short in the construct in the
light of dy'.
3.5.7.1.5. Thus it seems reasonable to posit that in construct (and the nite
verb) the nal short vowels were dropped at an earlier period than they
were from absolute forms. At this earlier period, no law of compensation yet
operated. When it started operating, the nal vowels in the construct forms
already stood in closed syllables and were, accordingly, not lengthened. The
case endings were dropped rst from the construct because the main stress on
a construct + absolute phrase is borne by the absolute noun. As for the reason
for the earlier loss of nal short vowels from the verb, one can only guess. On
the face of it, the simplest proposal seems to be that the nal short vowels in
the verb were redundant and, accordingly, more prone to drop. In the sufxtense 3ms form the nal -a was superuous. In the prex-tense, the opposition
between the indicative *yasmru and the jussive *ysmur was sufciently indicated by the difference in stress (see 3.5.12.2.14, p. 150, and Blau 1983 =
Studies, 7276).
3.5.7.1.5n. In referring to greater stress on absolute over construct forms, I am referring to
the language as it would have been spoken; in fact this is not the case according to the biblical cantillation marks, which reect the solemn ceremonial reading of the Bible.
3.5.7.1.6. Many other proposals have been made to explain the differences
between the development of short vowels in verbs and nouns. Bergstrsser
(1.116) argued that the stress pattern of verbs was different from that of
nouns: the nal vowel in nouns, at this period, was stressed, while in verbs it
was allegedly unstressed. Nevertheless, he did not take pausal stress in verbs
sufciently into account and was therefore forced to posit that the stress system in verbs differed only partially (1.162), hardly a convincing argument.
B. Stade (1879: 77) (and others) claimed that the different behavior of nouns
and verbs reects the tendency of the language to differentiate word classes.
Such an argument could be put forward even today, and only taxonomic phonetics could possibly claim that various parts of speech have to behave in the
same way. This does not mean, however, that we think that there is a justication for positing that sound shifts operate in different manner in various parts
of speech.
3.5.7.1.7. A number of scholars have claimed that the long vowels in (contextual) absolute nouns are due to an analogy with those in pausal forms
(Brockelmann 190813: 1.106; Bauer-Leander 1922: 187; Birkeland 1940:
20; Aartun 1981). This analogy allegedly has not affected verbs, since verbs,
as a rule, tend to stand in sentence-initial position and therefore occur less in
pause. Geminate nouns like *appu were not affected by pausal lengthening
since this lengthening allegedly operated only in open syllables. It was only
later, by analogy with the other nouns, that long vowels penetrated into the
121
Vowel Phonemes; Vocalization Systems 3.5.7.2.1.
pausal forms of nouns of the type *appu. (According to this thesis, original
pausal *app }a"* contained pata, since pausal lengthening allegedly occurred in open syllables only. This became a: in pause by analogy to forms
with the contrast of contextual pata, e.g., rm"v, and pausal qama, e.g., rm:v.)
3.5.7.1.8. The analogy thesis, however, is not only rather intricate but it
leaves certain data unexplained. Why do verbal forms governing pronominal
sufxes behave like nouns, exhibiting qama rather than pata, in their nal
closed syllable (e.g., Ha:r;B} he created her; Ht:anec you hated her)? I doubt
that verbal forms with and without pronominal sufxes differ much from
nouns in their sentence position, but this thesis would even suggest that verbal
forms governing pronominal sufxes stood in pause more often than those
without pronominal sufxes.
3.5.7.1.9. Further, the analogy thesis does not explain the distribution of
geminate nouns with pausal lengthening: those with original a (a") exhibit
pausal qama (pausal a:), yet those with original i (like tB" daughter < *bitt
< *bint) exhibit pata in pause as well (pausal tB"). Thus the correct explanation seems to be the one outlined earlier: the occurrence of qama in absolute
nouns versus pata in construct and nite verbal forms is due to the fact that
in the absolute the qama is the result of compensatory lengthening (for the
omission of the nal case vowel), a process that occurred in open syllables
only; construct and nal verbal forms had already lost their nal short vowels
earlier, so that at the time of the compensatory lengthening the pata already
occurred in closed syllable. Geminate nouns, like a", tB" preserved the pata
in contextual forms, because it stood, even before the omission of the case
endings, in a closed syllable (*appu, *battu).
3.5.7.1.9n. For the bat < *bitt development, see Blau 1981a: 68 = Topics, 4143.
3.5.7.2. Lengthening of Final a

3.5.7.2.1. The lengthening of historical short a took place in originally
closed and now open nal syllables that were opened by the elision of the nal consonant. The original feminine sufx -at, which became -a both in the
sufx-tense 3fs form (*samrat > pausal hr;m:&v [cf. hl:p:&n; she fell], contextual hr;m}v) and in absolute nouns (*asmatu guiltiness > hm:va"). At least in
part, this vowel lengthening was due to compensation for the omission of the
following consonant. According to Tiberian tradition, in which no quantitative differences were preserved, the traces of this lengthened a are reected in
the use of qama (gadol), which, almost invariably, continues a long a of the
pre-Tiberian period.
3.5.7.2.1n. On the feminine-singular ending -t: curiously, this ending underwent similar
treatment in many Semitic languages at different times, in parallel yet not identical development. This is, indeed, an interesting case of parallel development, which repeated itself
again and again. See Blau 1980 = Topics, 12637.
3.5.7.2.2. -a ending
Ending
122
3.5.7.2.2. Similarly, such a qama (gadol) occurs in nal open (stressed or

unstressed) syllables, like hT:a" you (ms), d]y; your (ms) hand, T:r]m"&v you
(ms) preserved. In these cases, it seems, the vowels were originally anceps,
i.e., sometimes long, sometimes short. They were maintained as long vowels
because preserving the paradigmatic distinctions (see 1.18.1, p. 55) required
not omitting the nal a, and the a could only have been preserved in this position when long.
3.5.7.2.3. The compensatory lengthening of a can also be seen in the
qama (gadol) in hx:r]a& " to the land (where the qama is not stressed), originally *rah; the h of direction, as demonstrated by Ugaritic, was originally
of consonantal character (see 3.3.5.2.4, pp. 9192). The h of direction was
attached to a noun in the accusative, i.e., to a noun terminating in short a, the
immediate constituents being *ara + h. The originally short a was lengthened in this case too, partly at least, due to compensation for the omission of
the h in pronunciation.
3.5.7.2.3n. A fuller explanation of the preservation of nal a by lengthening it in T:r]m"v,
etc., would involve other factors. E.g., Biblical Hebrew reects a tendency to preserve a
where it omits i and u (3.5.7.6.1n, p. 129; Steiner 1979: 16869 and n. 27). Thus a combination of factors (the anceps character of nal vowels, the greater stability of a, and paradigmatic pressure) led to the preservation of the nal a. Not all nal a-vowels were
preserved! The nal a of the sufx-tense 3ms was elided (*samara > rm"v) because no paradigmatic pressure existed.
3.5.7.2.4. The nal a in the prex-tense (where it originally marked volition) was maintained in the Hebrew cohortative (see 4.3.2.2.6, p. 192), because the paradigmatic pressure of the cohortative-jussive mood was pronounced, e.g., hr;m}va< let me preserve.
3.5.7.2.5. The nal a of the accusative case, which, after the omission of
nal i and u, occurred in the opposition -a (= accusative, including adverbial)
: W (representing nominative-genitive). In this opposition the paradigmatic
pressure was less manifest. On the one hand, the former genitive was superuous, since it was sufciently indicated by the preceding construct or preposition, and, on the other hand, the accusative, i.e., the direct object, was clearly
enough differentiated from the subject not only by word order (since it usually
followed the subject), but also by Ata<, the optional marker of determinate direct objects.
3.5.7.2.6. In adverbials, on the other hand, we nd a tendency to preserve
the -a ending, both when followed by -m, as in m:/y by day, n;m}a: verily,
and (more rarely) without m, as in hl:y]l" & at night (preserving the original paroxytone stress), hn;m}a: verily. As a rule, however, nal -a is elided in adverbials as well, such as /y /y every day, mEa: verily.
3.5.7.2.6n. The nal stress in hn;m}a: verily may suggest that the form developed from the
adverbial ending -ami; cf. El-Amarna riqami, q:yre vainly; the same applies to m:/y, n;m}a:.
123
Pretonic Lengthening 3.5.7.4.3.
3.5.7.3. Vowels in Open Penultimate Syllables

3.5.7.3.1. In open stressed penultimate syllables, original short vowels
were not lengthened. This is indicated by the fact that *samra she preserved, *yadka your (ms) hand shifted to hr;m}v, d]y;, respectively. The reduction of the penultimate a to mobile swa was only possible because it was
short. For details, see below (3.5.12.2.9, p. 148).
3.5.7.3.1n. Nothing relevant here can be inferred from segolate nouns like r["n' & youth,
tyiB"& house, because the nal syllable did not count phonemically; see 3.5.12.2.9n,
p. 148; 4.4.6.4, p. 274.
3.5.7.3.2. In open unstressed penultimate syllables, original short vowels were lengthened, in both absolute nouns and verbs, the so-called pretonic
lengthening: rb:D; thing; bn;[E grapes (the ere, parallel to the qama of rb:D;,
rather than to a pata, has to be counted as long); rm"v. In the last case, the
long pretonic qama is especially conspicuous, since the stressed syllable
contains an (originally) short pata.
3.5.7.4. The Problem of Pretonic Lengthening

3.5.7.4.1. This process of pretonic lengthening is one of the hallmarks of
Biblical Hebrew. Usually, in languages that tend to reduce short vowels in
open unstressed syllables, the syllable preceding the stress is reduced. This is
the case in Aramaic, the language that inuenced Hebrew more then any
other language (Aramaic bt"K} he wrote corresponds to Hebrew bt"K:). The
fact that, in contrast to Aramaic, where such syllables are reduced, pretonic
open syllables were preserved (regardless of length) in Hebrew demonstrates
the fallacy of the thesis that genuine Biblical Hebrew grammar is to be reconstructed by freeing it from Aramaic inuence (Beyer 1969).
3.5.7.4.2. It is true that Aramaic inuence was, indeed, comprehensive.
Nevertheless, one must not lose sight of two important facts. First, even if Hebrew was, in its late form, decisively inuenced by Aramaic, it was still a living language that continued to be spoken in parts of Palestine until ca. 200 c.e.
(see 1.4.6, p. 10). Second, because of the sanctity of the biblical text the Masoretes did everything they could to preserve the pronunciation of the text as
it was transmitted to them. Their success, even if only partial, is clearly demonstrated by the preservation of the pretonic syllable.
3.5.7.4.2n. Pretonic lengthening is a feature of nouns in the absolute. In the construct, because of its relatively weak stress, pretonic syllables were reduced: absolute rb:D; thing
but construct rb"D] (3.5.7.6.10, p. 131). As a matter of fact, it is the construct form that reects the syllable structure usual in other Semitic tongues (as in Aramaic and Arabic dialects) with reduced pretonic open syllables; cf. below, 3.5.7.6.10, p. 131.
3.5.7.4.3. How did pretonic lengthening come about? We think that it is

a reaction to Aramaic. To examine the issue more broadly: stressed syllables
3.5.7.4.4. Pretonic Lengthening and Gemination
124
are pronounced by consuming a greater amount of breath, so that the preceding syllable, with a reduced quantity of air at its disposal, is often pronounced
less intelligibly; in other words, it is blurred and reduced. The preservation of
the pretonic vowel in open syllables in Hebrew follows from the stress system, through which the amount of air alotted to pretonic syllables enabled
them to be pronounced clearly. How did it happen that they were also lengthened, thus giving rise even to forms like rm"v, in which the stressed syllable
contains an originally short vowel (pata) and the unstressed penult contains
an originally long vowel (qama)?
3.5.7.4.3n. There exist languagesClassical Arabic is one of themin which, because of
weakly centralizing stress, open unstressed syllables are preserved in every position. In
Hebrew it was only in pretonic position that such a syllable was not reduced.
3.5.7.4.4. Many attempts have been made to solve the riddle of pretonic
lengthening. (See Blau 1978b: 9397 = Topics, 106110.)
3.5.7.4.5. Some scholars (e.g., Grimme 1896: 3, 34) have gone so far as to
claim that pretonic qama and ere are not long and reect only a qualitative,
rather than quantitative, change of the original pata and iriq. This claim is
not acceptable: Septuagint transcriptions prove that such vowels were indeed
lengthened. The Septuagint transcribes pretonic ere in the proper nouns wc[E,
rd;q E with eta, which in these transcriptions denotes long e: Hsau, Khdar. (For
details, see Blau 1968b: 3034 = Topics, pp. 26771 and below.)
3.5.7.4.6. There is also internal evidence that supports the existence of pretonic lengthening. Pretonic gemination, i.e., the doubling of the consonant
following a pretonic short vowel (e.g., rySIa" prisoner), parallels pretonic
vowel lengthening (e.g., rysIa: prisoner). In terms of rhythm, a short vowel +
double consonant (as []ass[ir]) corresponds to a long vowel + simple consonant (as []as[ir]). Both the doubling of the consonant and the lengthening of
the vowel are devices for the preservation of the pretonic syllable. Accordingly, it stands to reason that the simple consonant is preceded by a pretonic
long vowel.
3.5.7.4.6n. Brockelmann attempted to infer the length of pretonic vowels from Nestorian
Syriac (Aramaic) and Arabic proper nouns that were borrowed from Hebrew (190813:
1.101). This moves in a vicious circle. Brockelmann, see below, attributed pretonic
lengthening in Hebrew to Aramaic inuence, which made it impossible for Hebrew
speakers to pronounce a short vowel in an unstressed open syllable and forced them to
lengthen it. If this is accepted, then we must also accept that the Aramaic Nestorians were
also compelled to lengthen pretonic vowels in open syllables if they wanted to preserve
them, even if they happened to be originally short. The same applies to Arabic, which
borrrowed Hebrew proper nouns via Aramaic, rather than directly from Hebrew. Brockelmanns treatment was, despite its implausibility, generally accepted; see, e.g., Bergstrsser
(1.117), Bauer-Leander (1922: 23839), Birkeland (1940: 9). For details, see Blau 1968b:
3034 = Topics, 26771.
125
3.5.7.5. Explanations for Pretonic Lengthening

3.5.7.5.1. One has to cope with the fact that pretonic short vowels in open
syllables have been lengthened. Generally speaking, there exist two main
trends of explanation of this very strange feature.
3.5.7.5.2. Explanation 1. One trend attributes the lengthening to the inuence of stress. Thus, some scholars are of the opinion that the now-pretonic
syllables once bore the stress and were lengthened because of it (pretone
lengthening does not exist, Goetze 1939: 443; see also Poebel 1939a, 1939b).
This theory encounters serious difculties. As we shall see, Biblical Hebrew
stress does not t such a reconstruction. Moreover, pretonic lengthening
occurs with wa and, e.g., hl:y]l"w& ; /y day and night (as observed by Brockelmann 1940: 370). Can we assume that in such expressions and was originally stressed, rather than the following noun? (However, this possibility cannot be excluded altogether.)
3.5.7.5.3. More convincing is Sarauws assumption (1939: 66) that pretonic lengthening was due to the effect of secondary stress. But even on this
assumption the difculty remains that in words like rm"v the main stress was
not strong enough to lengthen the nal a, yet the secondary stress did lengthen
the rst a. Accordingly, this theory must be rejected as well.
3.5.7.5.3n. On the difculty posed by forms like rm"v, see Brockelmann (1940: 348). The
possible counterargument that the rst a stands in an open syllable, the second in a closed
one, and the lengthening might have been dependent on the syllable being open, is not
convincing, since (also according to Sarauw 1939: 2526) forms like *samra she preserved reect a short penult vowel (as indicated by the fact that it was reduced when it
lost its stress: hr;m}v) in an open stressed syllable. Accordingly, following Sarauws view,
the a in the rst syllable of hr;m}v, allegedly bearing secondary stress, was lengthened,
while the vowel of the second syllable, though open as well, remained short in spite of the
main stress that affected it.
3.5.7.5.4. A related explanation is that of Cantineau (1932: 132), who regarded the lengthening of pretonic vowels as being due to a different phonetic
process, viz., to rhythm. Even if we admit the phonetic possibility of the inuence of the rhythm, we must not lose sight of the fact that it is only attested
as a marginal, optional feature, whereas pretonic lengthening is a major trait
of syllable structure.
3.5.7.5.5. Explanation 2. The second school of thought regarding pretonic
lengthening, the spiritual father of which was Brockelmann, attributes pretonic lengthening to the inuence of a foreign tongue (190813: 1.101).
Brockelmann compared loan words from Classical Arabic in Maghrebi
(Northwest African) Arabic dialects. In these dialects short vowels in open unstressed syllables are reduced, whereas in Classical Arabic they are preserved.
When speakers of these dialects attempt to pronounce such syllables in words
borrowed from the classical language, they lengthen them, because this is the
3.5.7.5.6. Pretonic Lengthening
126
only way for them to preserve them. Had they pronounced them with a short
vowel, they would have reduced it, since they were not able to pronounce a
short vowel in an open unstressed syllable. Therefore, e.g., Classical Arabic
mudir director was pronounced mudir by Maghrebi speakers, classical faraj
salvation, faraj; had they not done so, they would have uttered *mdir,
*fraj, respectively, which would be too different from the classical model.
3.5.7.5.5n. Brockelmann was followed, with minor and sometimes even major deviations,
by, e.g., Bergstrsser 1.117; Bauer-Leander 1922: 237; Birkeland 1940: 814.
3.5.7.5.6. The same kind of lengthening took place, according to Brockelmann, in late Biblical Hebrew, when Aramaic had already become the spoken
tongue, and Hebrew ceased being spoken and was only used in the synagogue. Jewish speakers of Aramaic, who no longer used Hebrew in everyday
speech, had lost, in accordance with Aramaic vowel structure, the ability to
pronounce short vowels in open unstressed syllables. Since the reduction of
these vowels in Hebrew ceremonial recitations and prayers would have entailed a complete change in the structure of Hebrew, the speakers-readers
were forced to lengthen the vowels when reciting in the synagogue, the only
place where, according to this proposition, Hebrew was still read aloud. Such
a lengthening, to be sure, could well occur also in a dead language, when recited for ceremonial purposes.
3.5.7.5.6n. Brockelmann assumed that by the beginning of the Hellenistic period Hebrew
was no longer spoken (190813: 1.9). Peculiarly, Bergstrsser (1.117), following Brockelmann, also postponed pretonic lengthening to the period when Hebrew had become a dead
language, although he rightly considered Rabbinic Hebrew the natural continuation of
BHeb, rather than a made-up articial tongue (1.131.14, pp. 46ff.).
The proper ordering of the relevant rules of Hebrew is not clear. By pretonic lengthening *dab2 ar thing shifted to dab2 ar, which is in the Tiberian tradition dObOr rb:D;. Did the
Tiberian shift a > O occur after or before pretonic lengthening? If the former, the development was *dab2 ar > (owing to pretonic lenthening) dab2 ar > dObOr. If, however, a shifted to
O before pretonic lengthening (note that in this case the shift occured when quantitative
vowel differences still obtained in the Tiberian tradition), the shifts occurred in the order
*dab2 ar > *dab2 Or > dOb2 Or > dOb2 Or.
3.5.7.5.7. The decisive argument against Brockelmanns thesis that pretonic lengthening occurred after Hebrew had ceased to be spoken is the fact
that after pretonic lengthening had ceased to operate, newly created open pretonic syllables containing a were reduced, rather than lengthened. This process is reected in forms like hr;m}v she preserved; Wrm}v they preserved;
r]b:D] your thing, all originally stressed on the penult, *samrat, *samru,
*dabarka, as shown by the pausal forms with paroxytone (penultimate)
stress, hr;m:&v, Wrm:&v, r,&b:D]. These forms reect in their rst syllables pretonic
lengthening, which occurred when they still had paroxytone (penultimate)
stress. When, later on, Hebrew ceased to preserve short vowels in open penul-
127
timate stressed syllables, stress moved to the next syllable, reducing the pretonic syllables, presumably through the inuence of Aramaic, rather than
lengthening them, as was characteristic of the preceding stage. There is no
reason whatsoever for a dead language, only read at ceremonial occasions, to
change its pronunciation in such an extreme way, unless it is imitating a prevailing vernacular. Accordingly, one must posit pretonic lengthening for a period when Hebrew was still spoken.
3.5.7.5.8. The view of Bauer (Bauer-Leander 1922: 23, 237) is in principle
quite similar, yet he transfers this lengthening, which occurred owing to the
fact that the pronunciation of short unstressed vowels in open syllables had
become impossible, to a very early period. According to his view, Biblical
Hebrew is a mixed language, in which Canaanite and Hebrew were amalgamated. At the time of the conquest of Palestine, the Canaanites spoke a Semitic
tongue of the ancient type, and the Hebrews, the new invaders, brought with
them a new type of Semitic language, some sort of Aramaic. In this dialect
short vowels in open unstressed syllables were reduced, while in Canaanite,
they were maintained in pretonic position. When the Hebrews wanted to pronounce such Canaanite words, which they took over, they were forced to
lengthen short vowels in open pretonic syllables.
3.5.7.5.9. There are problems with Bauers theory. First, it assumes that,
as early as the conquest of Canaan, short unstressed vowels in open syllable
had been reduced, which is quite unlikely (Bauers date is 1400 b.c.e.). Second, the theory that Hebrew is a mixed language, in which various special
qualities of the blended languages endured, is dubious.
3.5.7.5.10. Birkelands theory (1940: 814) is rather close to Bauers.
Birkeland also regards Biblical Hebrew as an amalgamated language and believes that pretonic lengthening stems from the time of the conquest of Canaan by the Hebrews. He assumes that it was the sedentary Canaanites who
spoke Semitic dialects of a later type, reducing short vowels in open unstressed syllables, whereas the Hebrews, being Bedouin and more conservative, preserved such vowels. This theory also has aws. It implies that it was
the Canaanites who were not able to pronounce such vowels and lengthened
them when they attempted to pronounce Hebrew words (cf. Brockelmanns
comments, quoted in Birkeland 1940: 12627). This pronunciation was then
taken over by the Hebrews. This rather intricate process is far from convincing. Moreover, Birkelands theory, like Bauers, sets a quite unlikely early
date for the reduction of short vowels in open penult syllables.
3.5.7.5.11. The dating of pretonic lengthening presents a set of problems. It
is more than doubtful that it was as early as the second half of the second millennium b.c.e. or as late as the period when Hebrew ceased to be spoken that
pretonic open syllables were lengthened. All these theories understand the
relevance of Aramaic: it was the syllable structure of that language (or
128
another Semitic language showing similar development) that had made it impossible for Hebrew speakers to pronounce short vowels in open unstressed
syllables.
3.5.7.5.12. It is indeed tempting to allow Aramaic a role in the process, especially since an even more far-reaching impact of Aramaic syllable structure,
from a period later than pretonic lengthening, is clearly attested in Hebrew.
Let us retain the core of Brockelmanns ingenious proposal: pretonic lengthening reects the reaction of speaker-readers of Hebrew to Aramaic and exhibits their attempt to keep Hebrew syllable structure distinct from that of
Aramaic.
3.5.7.5.13. At the stage when Aramaic syllable structure threatened to
overcome Hebrew, speakers of Hebrew were anxious to preserve (originally
short) vowels in open pretonic syllables and thus maintain a contrast with
Aramaic. Later on, after pretonic lengthening had ceased operating, Aramaic inuence had become so strong that newly emerging open pretonic syllables containing a were reduced. (Cf. 3.5.7.3.1, p. 123; 3.5.7.5.3n, p. 125;
3.5.7.5.7, p. 126.) This process is reected in forms like hr;&m}v she preserved, Wrm}v they preserved, &r]b:D] your thing, originally with penultimate
stress, *samrat, *samru, *dabarka, as demonstrated by the pausal forms
hr;m:&v, Wrm:&v, and r,&b:D]. These forms show pretonic lengthening in their rst
syllables, and the lengthening occurred when they were still paroxytone.
When, later on, Hebrew ceased preserving short vowels in open stressed penultimate syllables, stress moved to the next syllable, reducing the pretonic syllables, presumably through the inuence of Aramaic, rather than lengthening
them, as it was characteristic of the preceding stage.
3.5.7.5.13n. Alongside this later reduction of a, the vowels u and in part i were reduced in
genuine Hebrew (not inuenced by Aramaic) as well; for details, see 3.5.7.6.2.
3.5.7.5.14. Thus we assume two stages of the inuence of Aramaic syllable structure. The rst was characterized by pretonic lengthening, an attempt to preserve features differentiating Hebrew from Aramaic; this was
followed by the second, in which Aramaic syllable structure prevailed. This
development conforms to our new understanding of the continuation of Hebrew as a living tongue, in the form of Rabbinic Hebrew, until the end of the
second century c.e.
3.5.7.5.15. Can these two stages be dated? I am inclined to claim that pretonic lengthening emerged in the period of the Second Temple, when Hebrew
was still a living tongue, yet had already undergone decisive Aramaic inuence. Jews, who even in the cities of Judah had become more and more bilingual, speaking Hebrew and Aramaic, took over the Aramaic phonetic system
and were, therefore, no longer able to pronounce short vowels in unstressed
open syllables. They sought to speak genuine Hebrew (distinct from Aramaic)
129
by preserving short vowels in open penultimate pretonic syllables; because

they were unable to pronounce them (due to Aramaic inuence), they lengthened them. This chronology is supported by the Septuagint: there the use of
eta in pretonic syllables shows that in the third century b.c.e. pretonic syllables had already been lengthened. At a later time, while Hebrew was still
spoken, the Jews succumbed to Aramaic syllable structure and reduced open
pretonic syllables, as in Aramaic.
3.5.7.5.15n. See Blau 1968b: 3334 = Topics, 27071. As mentioned above (3.5.7.4.5,
p. 124), the Septuagint transcribes pretonic ere with eta (for long e) in the names rd;q,E
wc[E, thus Khdar, Hsau.
3.5.7.6. Pretonic Lengthening and Vowel Processes Related to a

3.5.7.6.1. The pretonic lengthening of open syllables is not found in all
possible instances. It is especially frequent in the case of a, less usual with i,
and quite exceptional with u.
3.5.7.6.1n. In fact, the lengthening of pretonic a is without exception. The form in Num
18:29, /vD]q}mI its hallowed part, cannot be derived from vD;q}mI sanctuary, if only because of its meaning; vD;q}mI never has a sense that would be appropriate. I am inclined to
derive the form from *maqdes/*miqdes. Another appparent exception, hm:yniP} within is
derived from yniP: face but shows reshaping due to analogy to ymIyniP} inner (so, e.g.,
Brockelmann 190813: 1.101 n. 1) or inuence from its prepositional use (e.g., 2 Chr
29:16, hwhyAtybE hm:ynip}lI into the house of God; cf. Grimme 1896: 40 n. 1). Other supposed examples are actually Aramaic loans.
Jean Cantineau introduced into Arabic dialectology the notion of a dialect diffrentiel, i.e., a dialect in which short a behaves differently from short i/u, exhibiting greater
stability (e.g., Cantineau 1960: 108). Such a dialect is Biblical Hebrew. Cf. 3.5.7.2.3n,
p. 122.
3.5.7.6.2. In Hebrew not only is a more stable than i/u (cf. 3.5.7.2.3n,
p. 122); differences also obtain between the more stable i and the less stable
u. In some cases, pretonic lengthening affects i as it does a, the result being
ere, which has to be interpreted as lengthened e, as in yxI[E trees; hn;v
sleep. In other cases, however, pretonic i is reduced: hd;r]yo coming down
(fs) < *yorida; yrim}s}m" nails < *masmirim.
3.5.7.6.3. Pretonic lengthening has its limits. In pretonic open syllables, a
is lengthened, but a preceding the pretonic a is reduced. Specically, reduction of a is found when a would have occurred in the second or fourth syllable
preceding the stress. The form *wa-adaqathu and his righteousness shifts
to /tq:d]xIw,] exhibiting (1) pretonic lengthening of (q)a > (q)a; (2) the reduction
of da, the second syllable preceding the stress, to d(); and (3) the reduction of
wa, the fourth syllable preceding the stress, to w.
3.5.7.6.3n. Note that this rule does not affect long syllables (those that are closed or have
long vowels) standing before an unreduced syllable, i.e., either a pretonic syllable or another long syllable.
130
3.5.7.6.4. Explaining the sequence of developments in 3.5.7.6.3 is not

easy. As a rule it is claimed that since the second syllable preceding the stress,
viz., da, has been reduced, it closes the preceding syllable, which, being
closed, preserves its short vowel: *ad. If one accepts this interpretation, the
shift of ()a(d) to ()i(d) has to be regarded as an attenuation (see 3.5.7.6.13,
p. 132). Nevertheless, the traditional explanation, not accepted by modern
grammarians, is somewhat different. The old rule of thumb says, Duorum
swayim concurrentium primus mutatur in chirek, i.e., when two (vocal) swas
meet, the rst turns into i. This implies that every unstressed open syllable
with a short vowel that precedes the pretonic syllable is reduced: *wdqato. The consonant cluster ()d() would then be opened by the auxiliary
vowel i: /tq:d]xIw].
3.5.7.6.4n. Since attenuation is restricted to closed unstressed syllables, to see it working
here would require that swa medium had become quiescent before attenuation operated.
Advocates of the traditional explanation include Brockelmann (1940: 364 n. 2) and
Bravmann (1977: 7, 17). Bravmanns theory of uctuating or hovering accent cannot
be accepted.
3.5.7.6.5. Although the traditional view of interpreting i as an auxiliary

vowel has often been ridiculed, it seems preferable to the overall reduction explanation. The traditional view eliminates the need to refer to attenuation, although it raises some problems with masculine plural construct segolates. In
any case there are forms that clearly have to be explained this way. Consider
b}yia your enemy, which arose from the underlying form b}y]a* (cf. ybIy]a my
enemy); r]x<yo he who created you < *yorka# < *yor3ka (cf. pausal a<&p}rO
he who healed you). These two nouns manifestly passed through a stage in
which they contained two consecutive consonants with mobile swa. In the second example, it was , rather than i, that opened the cluster, perhaps through
the inuence of the e of rxEyo.
3.5.7.6.5n. Not all participles with sufxes reect this history. The form jlEv he who
sends you 1 Sam 21:3 reects a later vowel structure, rebuilt in analogy to the absolute
j'lEv.
3.5.7.6.6. The shift of two mobile swas to i applies also to forms containing
the so-called swa medium, as in t/kvlI the halls of < *lskot < t/kvl.} The
masculine plural imperative forms can be explained similarly. Pausal WbtO&K}
write! (mp) has a historically long olam owing to pausal lengthening. The
original context form was *ktob2 u, with historically short olam, which by the
shift of the stress (see 3.5.12.2.6, pp. 146147; 3.5.12.2.8, p. 147) became
*ktb2 u, from which Wbt}KI arose. If we posit original *kutubu, it is more complicated to explain its development.
3.5.7.6.7. Another relevant category is forms with a largyngeal/pharyngeal
followed by a aaf (which is identical to mobile swa, even though it emerged
131
Two Mobile swas; Pretonic Lengthening 3.5.7.6.11.
from a quiescent one), before a consonant with mobile swa, as in *yazb2 u >
*yazb2 u > Wbz]["y' they will leave. Through the inuence of the laryngealpharyngeal, the emerging vowel is a, rather than i. For the special behavior of
construct nouns without pretonic lengthening, see 3.5.7.6.8 below.
3.5.7.6.8. The traditional explanation that when two swas collide, the rst
turns into iriq is sometimes difcult to justify. In particular, it is more difcult to account for such plural construct forms as t/bn]z' the tails of; t/pn]K"
the extremities of; ykEl}m" the kings of; yvd]j: the months of. According to
the accepted linguistic method, the original vowel has been preserved here;
the traditional explanation would have to posit paradigmatic leveling. Such
leveling seems apt, especially in segolates of the qatl/qutl pattern, in which
the a/u (o) vowels clearly stand out.
3.5.7.6.9. The derivation of the short vowel preceding swa medium from
two consecutive mobile swas is of special importance, since it accounts in a
simple way for the short, rather than long, vowel preceding an originally
mobile swa, which entailed spirantization of a following bgdkpt.
3.5.7.6.9n. This theory is based on the assumption of an early date of the spirantization.
Bergstrsser (1.40, 121, 165), to be sure, postulated a much later date, since, in his view,
spriantizaton is later than the disappearance of 2 (phonetically very close to k) and 2
(phonetically very close to g), which are still attested in the Septuagint. Nevertheless, it is
possible for a phoneme and its allophone to coexist (see 3.2.4.2, pp. 7576). Accordingly, it stands to reason that spirantization was, indeed, an early feature.
3.5.7.6.10. A major class of exceptions to pretonic lengthening is formed

by nouns in construct (see 3.5.7.4.2n, p. 123), as well as prepositions preceding nouns. These do not exhibit pretonic lengthening because the stress
falls on the following (governed) noun: *wa-adaqat and the righteousness
of shifts to *wdqat > tq"d]xIw]. Since the main stress is on the following
noun, in construct nouns and in prepositions all the open unstressed syllables,
including the pretonic one, were reduced. This is also the reason that the case
endings in construct were dropped earlier than in the absolute.
3.5.7.6.10n. The status of these exceptions is not uniform: in ceremonial recitation, as reected by the cantillation marks, these nouns serve as full musical units. The pattern we
have described would have been found in ordinary speech.
3.5.7.6.11. As a rule, pretonic lengthening is limited to the actual penultimate syllable. When (over the course of a derivation) the stress moves, an
(originally penultimate) short vowel can be reduced. It happens in rare instances that a new base with a long vowel is extracted from the form containing a pretonic lengthened vowel, and other forms are then derived from the
new base. Thus from hp:y; beautiful (woman), we have ytIp:y; my beautiful
woman. Usually, also, ere stemming from originally short i (as in yniqez] old
ones) is reduced in open syllables in construct (i.e., far from the stress). The
preservation of such a ere in the second syllable of ynevy] sleeping (p cstr)
3.5.7.6.12. Pretonic Gemination; Attenuation
132
indicates that the rst ere behaves as an originally long vowel, which must be
preserved in every position. In other words, a new base with this pretonic long
e (ynivy] sleeping ones) is formed, from which other forms are derived. This
process was furthered by the disappearance of the quantitative phonemic differences between vowels in the Tiberian system; short and long ere were no
longer phonemically distinguished. Thus forms like ynevy] also reect the tendency to preserve originally short ere in the whole paradigm, as if it were
originally long.
3.5.7.6.11n. The long and short vowels are not always treated in this way. The case of
qama is quite different. Originally long qama, when stressed, shifted to o (the Canaanite
shift; see 3.5.9.2, p. 136). Originally short qama, changing with the shift of stress, became much more frequent than unchanging qama (since the latter had shifted to o).
Therefore originally unchanging qama tends to be reduced like originally short qama.
Compare the form with the reduced vowel, n;[:h< b["B} in the darkness of the cloud Exod
19:9, in contrast to the form with the preservation of the qama, lf" b[:K} as the cloud of
dew Isa 18:4. For olam, see 3.5.9.1n, p. 136.
3.5.7.6.12. Pretonic gemination, i.e., the doubling of a consonant following the penultimate vowel, is parallel to pretonic lengthening; both processes
enable the preservation of an originally open penultimate syllable with a short
vowel. Unlike pretonic lengthening, pretonic gemination tends to affect the
noun base. A new base emerges, containing the geminated consonant, and is
the source of all the other forms: yLIm"G} camels k<yLEm"G} your camels; hZ;jUa
possession, t}Z;jUa your possession. In a few cases, however, the gemination only remains when the syllable is penultimate: rS:aI binding obligation
reects a geminated s preceding the stress, but Hr;s:a her binding obligation
has a simple s.
3.5.7.6.13. Let us turn to the developments of a in other environments. In
unstressed closed syllables, the pata is often preserved. However, sometimes
it appears as i, by the process of so-called attenuation, e.g., *sabat > Tiberian
h[:b}v seven. This limited shift is quite late, as hinted by, e.g., the differences
in Greek and Latin transcriptions. Further, in the Babylonian vocalization, a is
better preserved (cf. Tiberian h[:b}v, Babylonian sb2 a). As a rule, attenuation
does not occur preceding i (e): singular glEz]m" fork, yet plural t/gl:z]mI; j'TEp}m"
key, but jT"p}mI opening (cstr). If the attenuation had created a sequence of
syllables with i (e), the Hebrew tendency to dissimilate such sequences would
have undone the work of attenuation. There is also an inclination to preserve a
before a double consonant: hn;T:m" gift. Exceptions to attentuation are frequent,
also suggesting that the sound shift has not been completed.
3.5.8. The i and e Class Vowels (iriq, ere, segol)

3.5.8.1. In this and the following paragraph (3.5.8, 3.5.9), we will discuss some features of the remaining vowels of Hebrew; we will ignore i and u,
since they remain, as a rule, unchanged.
133
Pretonic
Short/Long
Gemination;
i; Philippis
Attenuation
Law 3.5.8.7.
3.5.8.2. In unstressed closed syllables i is preserved, e.g., h[:vTI nine. In

open and stressed closed syllables it shifts to e in both nouns and verbs.
3.5.8.3. Only by linguistic analysis is it possible to state whether a ere
stems from a (pre-Tiberian) short or long vowel. In absolute nouns, as a
rule, e in nal stressed syllables has to be accounted long, since it patterns like
a qama, e.g., zaqen old, cf. zaqan beard; [E wood, cf. gD; sh. This is
also true of pausal verbs, e.g., pausal ['mEv he heard, cf. pausal rm:v he preserved; and of irregular verb forms such as arey ; he was afraid, cf. ax:m: he
found. In contrast, ere is short in the construct ([E the wood of; cf. gD' the
sh of), in the contextual nite verb (pEj: he wanted; cf. rm"v), and, as a
rule, in 1geminate nouns (v tooth; cf. lG" wave).
3.5.8.4. This analysis is corroborated by additional evidence. (1) The Septuagint, when transliterating Hebrew names, uses eta in the nal syllable, reecting long e. (See Blau 1968b = Topics, 270.) (In geminates and segolates
the Septuagint uses epsilon for short e.) (2) In forms from III-laryngealpharyngeal roots for which we posit a short vowel (e.g., in contextual nite
verbal forms, jL"v he sent; cf. rBEv he broke), the e is assimilated to the following laryngeal-pharyngeal, to become a. In contrast, in the absolute state of
nouns, where the ere is supposed to be long, it remains, e.g., j'lEv sending.
(The same applies to pausal forms, in which pausal lengthening operated; see
3.5.13, p. 154.)
3.5.8.5. In closed stressed syllables i tends to shift instead to a: *bint > tB"
daughter (rather than *bet), *gint > tG" wine-press (rather than *get). This
process, rst described by F. W. Philippi, is known as Philippis Law. In a
sense, it seems the opposite of attenuation, but the processes are not analogous.
3.5.8.5n. For the original statement, see Philippi (1878), cf. Blau 1986 = Studies, 1216).
3.5.8.6. Philippis Law is limited in its application. It applies to the nal

syllables of construct forms, but not absolute forms (where the iriq shifts to
ere): cstr q"z], abs qez; ; cstr rx"j, abs rxEj: court. Further, it is well attested
in closed syllables with penultimate stress, e.g., hn;r]a"&VTI they (f) will remain, cf. raEVTI she will remain; hn;d]l" &TE they (f) will bear, cf. dlETE she will
bear. In two small noun classes, Philippis Law applies to absolute forms,
geminate and segolate nouns. These nouns originally terminated in two consonants, and therefore even before the loss of the case endings they contained
a closed syllable:* bittu > tB" daughter; *idqu > *adqu > qd,x<& (rather than
qd,xE&*) righteousness. Through the analogy of nouns like cstr q"z], abs qez; ,
geminate nouns like qe nest, which should have shifted to a (q' * in the absolute as well, <*qannu < *qinnu, since the a occurred in a closed syllable) were
reformed: qe in the absolute, q' only in the construct.
3.5.8.7. Analogy often interferes with the operation of Philippis Law in
closed syllables with penultimate stress. Thus hn;r]BE&cT} they (f) will wait was
exposed to the paradigmatic pressure from forms with ere, like WrBEcy]. (This
3.5.8.8. Philippis Law
134
analogy also affected forms with e in the nal syllable; cstr bqe [ the heel of
is found, rather than the expected *qab2 , due to the inuence of forms that
preserve ere, e.g., abs bqe [:.) The interplay of Philippis Law and paradigmatic pressure leads to such pairs as hn;k}l" &TE they (f) will go versus hn;k}lE & go!
(fp). As a result of analogy, the effect of Philippis Law on verbs in the Tiberian tradition has been greatly blurred. Nevertheless, e.g., in the nal syllable
of piel in the pausal form, e prevails (because of pausal lengthening, this
shift could not act), while in the nal syllable of the context form, a prevails,
inuenced by Philippis Law.
3.5.8.7n. In the Babylonian tradition, pata (or, more exactly, pata-segol, since segol is
not separately marked) tends to occur in closed syllables even where the Tiberian system
uses ere. This is due to four interdependent reasons: (1) Attenuation in the Babylonian
system is more restricted than in the Tiberian, so that in closed unstressed syllables a is
more frequent. (2) The action of Philippis Law is more comprehensive in the Babylonian
vocalization. (3) The Babylonian tradition tends to use pata(-segol) in the nal syllable
of verbs (Yeivin 1985: 381). (4) In the Tiberian vocalization, Philippis Law shifted i not
only to a but sometimes also to , which tends (in stressed syllables) to shift to ere (see
3.5.8.10).
On the piel forms: 4.3.5.4.2, pp. 229230. See Qimron 198586a, 198586b.
3.5.8.8. The date of Philippis Law and even its extent are controversial.
Philippi (1878) himself regarded it as Proto-Semitic, since it is attested in
Gez and Aramaic as well, though in limited ways. In contrast, Sarauw (1939:
75126) and, more recently, Beyer (1984: 140) considered it an extremely
late feature. (Beyer dates it to the eighth century c.e.!) Philippis view is too
far-reaching, generally, because of its absence from Akkadian and Arabic.
Moreover, the shift of i (e) to a in closed stressed syllables in Gez has to be regarded, it seems, as a parallel independent phenomenon. This seems to leave
Philippis Law proper as a common Northwest Semitic feature (Brockelmann
190813: 1.14748; Bergstrsser 1.149, par. 26h; 163, par. 30b). But even this
formulation is too strong! It seems rather that the shift in Aramaic is also a parallel development. In Hebrew Philippis Law must be later than pausal lengthening (Blau 1981a = Topics, 3649). Forms such as pausal vp"&N;Yiw' he refreshed
himself (cf. contextual vpEN;yi) are affected by Philippis Law, reecting a < i,
but not by pausal lengthening, because pausal lengthening preceded the pausal
stress shift to an originally closed ultima (see 3.5.13.4, pp. 154155). Since
pausal lengthening in all likelihood is a special Hebrew phenomenon, Philippis Law cannot be considered common Northwest Semitic.
3.5.8.8n. Let us review the rule ordering involved once more. We shall argue below for a
general penultimate stress at one stage in the history of Hebrew (see below, 3.5.12.2.2,
pp. 144145). At that time pausal *wayyinna#p s (a short prex-tense form after the conversive waw) originally bore the stress on its penult. Therefore, pausal lengthening affected na. Later on, pausal stress shifted to the closed ultima (see below, 3.5.13.4,
135
Philippis Law 3.5.8.10.
pp. 154155), and pausal lengthening had stopped operating. Accordingly, nal p es in
*wayyinnap s continued to have short e. That vowel was subject to Philippis Law, changing e (< i) to a, giving rise to vp"&N;Yiw'.
3.5.8.9. Another approach to dating Philippis Law is to ask when it

ceased operating. The usual view is that this occurred before nal case endings were dropped in the absolute. Otherwise, it is contended, the law would
have affected the last syllable not only of construct nouns and verbs (and segolate and geminate absolute nouns) but also of absolute nouns in general.
Thus, allegedly, at the time of its operation the i in *zaqinu, for example, was
still in an open syllable and, therefore not affected by it; since the construct
had already dropped its case ending, the i vowel was, therefore, inuenced by
Philippis Law. Nevertheless, this argument is based on a misconception. We
have argued rather (3.5.7.1.4, p. 119) that absolute nouns lengthened their nal, formerly open, syllables as compensation for the dropping of the case
endings. Thus at no time could Philippis Law affect ordinary absolute nouns:
as long as they preserved the case-endings, the nal i was still in an open syllable (*zaqinu), and after their dropping the vowel was lengthened (zaqen).
Therefore, the claim that Philippis Law operated before the dropping of the
nal case endings can neither be refuted nor proven.
3.5.8.9n. The ere in zaqen has to be considered long, since it corresponds to qama, e.g.,
in q; z;.
3.5.8.10. In the Tiberian vocalization, Philippis Law changes i not only to

a, but also to (segol). So far, no convincing explanation for this alternation
has been offered. It seems that may occur in this position without further
constraint: rB<Di he spoke; tm<a truth < *amint; lm<r]K" plantation <
*karmill; h<yneB} their (f) sons < *banayhinna; yNiM<&mI from me; yNiN,hI behold I.
Frequently, the pattern of segolate qil nouns changes to ql, as in lg<r,& foot
reecting *rigl > (because of Philippis Law) *rgl > lg<r,&.
3.5.8.10n. In the Babylonian vocalization, the pata represents both a and . Apparently,
the extent of this feature in the Tiberian tradition has been reduced by analogy to the quite
frequent cases (see below, 3.5.8.11) of segol that replaced ere in closed stressed syllable
when these syllables lost the stress. Thus, e.g., v* tooth (Babylonian san) was apt to
shift to v because of the opposition between, e.g., lEye he will go (ere in a stressed syllable) and l<Yew' (segol in an unstressed syllable), since ere was felt to t a stressed syllable
more than a segol.
Bergstrsser (1.149, par. 26i) attempts to limit the occurrence of to syllables terminating in (original) geminate consonants; this, however, is contradicted by forms like rB<Di.
In pausal rBEDi, Philippis Law did not operate, since the stressed vowel is long owing to
pausal lengthening. Nevertheless, in many cases the pausal vowel was adapted in quality
to the contextual one. Thus the contextual yNiM<&mI from me should correspond to pausal
*mimme#ni; the latter was rebuilt as yNiM<&mI, presumably with long segol. The segol may even
penetrate into open syllables: Ezek 23:48 hn;k<&t}M"zi your (fp) lewdness.
3.5.8.11. u/o
u/o Vowels;
Vowels a# > o
136
The rst segol in lg<r,& may be due to assimilation to the anaptyctic segol in the second
syllable, as in the case of qal > qal > ql, such as r,D,.
3.5.8.11. When a stressed ere loses its stress by the retreat of the stress or
by being hyphenated, it shifts to segol: lEye he will go, but l<Yew' and he went;
taE marker of the direct object; with, but Ata<; BE son, but AB<. In cases of
hyphenation the change is secondary, since the hyphenated form is derived
from the form without hyphen. Cases like l<Yew' are different: historically, the
penultimate stress is original, and l<Yew' is not derived from lEye (3.5.12.2.14
3.5.12.2.15, pp. 150152). Apparently, the original form had i in its last syllable, which, perhaps also by attraction to lEye , became l<Yew'.
3.5.9. The u and o Class Vowels (qibbu, suruq, olam, qama)

3.5.9.1. Pretonic u is either reduced (b/jr] open place < *ruab) or, even
more often, preserved by doubling the following consonant (da: red <
*adum, plural yMIdua), but only rarely lengthened. When pretonic u is reduced
it may preserve its coloring, being reduced to O* ( ), rather than to a mere mobile swa: dqOd]q : head, /dqd]q : his head; rPOxI bird, yriPxI birds. In a closed
unstressed syllable, u tends to shift to qama (qaan), although it may be preserved preceding a double consonant: *qurban > B:r]q : sacrice; L:KU all of
them.
3.5.9.1n. For the preservation of pretonic u, note the Rabbinic Hebrew forms, l/ky; able,
p ylI/ky], in good manuscripts lIWky]. Accordingly, it stands to reason that b/rq; close, p
ybI/rq} should be derived from *qarub, rather than from qara#b (as if reecting the Canaanite shift). In this case and others like it, the lengthened vowel has spread through the paradigm. Since this feature is comparatively rare in pretonic lengthening, I am inclined to
regard it as the replacement of short olam by long one (cf. 3.5.7.6.11, pp. 131132).
3.5.9.2. In the so-called Canaanite vowel shift, stressed a# shifted to o#.

This shift seems to have characterized the Canaanite dialects. The exact formulation of the shift is disputed. Some scholars have insisted that every a
shifted to o, i.e., that the shift was unconditioned. Those who make this claim
have problems coping with the fact that a survived rather often. Accordingly,
we limit this shift to stressed a and explain apparent exceptions as being due
to paradigmatic pressure: the shift created mixed paradigms, with a and with
o occurring side by side, and the differences were often leveled out (see
1.14.4, p. 48; 1.15.31.15.4, p. 49). In speaking of this shift, one has to
take into consideration Ben-ayyims important observation that in a single
sentence various degrees of stress existed, depending on the overall sentence
stress and on each words position in the word sequence, so that the same
word could be pronounced sometimes with o and other times with a (Benayyim 2000: 8386). Accordingly, many words with a, even stressed a, remained. In fact, traces of the original alternation of unstressed a : stressed o
survive, though admittedly in extremely few cases: ylIam:c left (adj) : lamOc
137
a ! > o; Tiberian
u/o Vowels 3.5.10.4.
left; perhaps also yvn;a men (if indeed it is the plural of v/na and the a was
originally long) : v/na man.
3.5.9.2n. On the Canaanite shift, see Blau (1970a: 914, 1922 = Studies, 2530, 3538).
The problem of forms side-by-side showing and not showing the Canaanite shift can also
be solved by supposing Biblical Hebrew to be a mixed language (cf. Bauer-Leander and
Birkeland), but this is a dubious theory. The absence of the Canaanite shift from Ugaritic is
one of a number of reasons to separate Ugaritic from Canaanite. The words for left were
not paradigmatically leveled because they were not strictly part of the same paradigm.
3.5.9.3. The Canaanite shift, because of its dependence on stress, is important for the history of the Hebrew stress in a way that no other sound shift is.
Since a shifted to o only when stressed, forms that show the effects of the shift
may reect an ancient stage of stress. A word like rbE[O passing, containing o
in a now unstressed syllable, indicates that at the time of the shift this syllable
was stressed, thus enabling the reconstruction of an ancient stress system. For
details, see 3.5.12.2.18, p. 153.
3.5.10. The Tiberian Vowels

3.5.10.1. Thus far we have dealt with the reection of the Proto-Semitic
vowels in Biblical Hebrew. Now it will be expedient for providing an overview to turn the tables and deal with the various Tiberian vowels according to
their Proto-Semitic origin.
3.5.10.2. As a rule, pata stems from a. Only seldom and in the last stage
of the development of Hebrew does it reect historical long a: ynidOaw' and
my lord < ynidOaw'. Owing to the action of Philippis Law (3.5.8.53.5.8.10,
pp. 133ff.) it appears in stressed closed syllables instead of PS i as well.
3.5.10.3. Segol stems from a and i. It reects original a in, e.g., k<d]y, your
hand from dy;; gj:h< the feast, the denite article being basically h"; the rst
syllable in r,D,& way, cf. yKIr]D' my way. Segol quite often represents historical i inuenced by laryngeals-pharyngeals, as well as by spirant g@/k, as yxIp}j<
my delight from p<jE&, cf. yrip}sI my book from rp<sE&; yTIk}l< my going, cf.
yTIb}v my sitting; lD'j}y, he will cease, cf. bK"vyi he will lie; hl:g}h<hl:g}hI he
exiled.
3.5.10.4. Segol may also have arisen from the monophthongization of nal
triphthongs; in these cases it is generally written with the vowel letter h following: hx<r]yi he will be pleased < *yirayu/*yirawu; hx</r pleased < *roiyu/
*roiwu. Word internally, (half-low) segol supplants (half-high) ere by assimilation to a following (half-low) qama: h:yk<&r;D] her ways, parallel to WnykE&r;D}
our ways.
3.5.10.4n. In the second syllable of the segolate nouns, rp<sE&, p<jE&, and r,D,&, the segol opens
the nal consonant cluster, *sip r/*ip /*dark.
3.5.10.5. Tiberian
u/o Vowels
Vowels; dages
138
3.5.10.5. ere arose from i in closed stressed syllables (jE arrow; cf. yXIjI
my arrow) as well as in open pretonic ones (yniqez] old people). It also
emerged by monophthongization from -ay: hxEr] be pleased! < *raay;
h<yreb}Di their words < *dabarayhum; by analogy ere also emerged from -iy:
hneB} build < *biniy.
3.5.10.6. iriq represents i < iy (ryv song), as well as short i in closed unstressed syllables (yXIjI my arrow). In closed unstressed syllables it may also
correspond to Proto-Semitic a, from which it arose by attenuation (3.5.7.6.13,
p. 132): h[:b}v seven < *sabat.
3.5.10.7. Two vowels, originally differing in both quantity and quality, coalesced in qama O. One is the so-called qama gadol, pronounced according to
the Sephardic pronunciation a and corresponding to Proto-Semitic a and a.
This vowel continues a that did not shift to o, either because it was unstressed
or was inuenced by analogy (3.5.9.2, p. 136). This vowel also corresponds to
Proto-Semitic short a in closed stressed syllables of absolute nouns (3.5.7.1.4,
p. 119) as well as in open stressed and pretonic syllables (3.5.7.3.2, p. 123).
The other vowel is the much rarer, so-called qama qaan, pronounced according to Sephardic tradition o and corresponding to Proto-Semitic u, occurring in
unstressed closed syllables (3.5.3.2, pp. 108ff.).
3.5.10.8. olam has a fourfold origin: (1) from (short) u in closed stressed
syllables; (2) from stressed a through the Canaanite sound shift; (3) from unstressed a by analogy; and (4) by monophthongization of the diphthtong aw.
3.5.10.9. Qibbu and suruq (the same vowel, see 3.5.2.5, p. 107) correspond to (short) u (especially preceding a geminate consonant) and (long) u.
3.5.11. On dages, mappiq, meteg, and maqqaf

3.5.11.1. Dages, a dot in the middle of a letter, has two main uses, the
heavy and the light dages. The heavy dages (dages forte) doubles (or at least
lengthens) the marked consonant; the border between the syllables is in the
double consonant. Thus Yeq I he conrmed is syllabied qiy-yem. Since a letter with the heavy dages reects the same consonant twice, the rst time with
zero (i.e., quiescent swa), a double consonant can only occur in an environment that would enable the use of a quiescent swa, i.e., after a full vowel. (On
pretonic gemination, see 3.5.7.6.12, p. 132; cf. 3.5.7.4.6, p. 124)
3.5.11.1n. In fact, it is difcult to decide whether the consonant with heavy dages is really
pronounced twice (as cases like WNt"&n; we have given = nOtan + nu might suggest) or only
lengthened (as one might infer from instances like yTIr'&K: I made a covenant). It seems more
likely that the latter case, standing for kOrat + ti, reects lengthening, since genuine doubling of stops is rather exceptional. It stands to reason that in careful recitation genuine
doubling was more frequent than in quick reading. Nevertheless, the assumption that the
heavy dages, in general, only lengthens the consonant seems likely. Bergstrsser (2.122)
called attention to the fact that forms like WrxO&n]yi they will guard with the preservation of
139
Heavy
u/o Vowels
dages 3.5.11.5.
the vowelless n (in contrast to WrX}yi, reecting the regular assimilation) are more frequent in
pause. He assumed that these pausal forms did not reect living speech. See also
3.5.11.4n. At any rate, WrxO&n]yi was longer than WrX}yi with lengthened x.
3.5.11.2. Pausal forms, in general, fullled an important function in the

solemn reading of the Scriptures, and, accordingly, pausal forms tended to be
longer than contextual ones. This feature is reected not only by the use of
vowelless n but also by (1) pausal lengthening, which caused longer forms to
prevail in pause (3.5.13.2, p. 154; pausal Wrm:&v in contrast to Wrm}v in context), (2) the use of III-y verbs preserving y in pause (3.5.12.2.17n, p. 152;
4.3.8.6.10, p. 252), and (3) the frequency of yqlun in pause (4.3.3.2.3,
p. 205). Cf. yniWbb:s} g" yniWBs" they have surrounded me, indeed they have surrounded me Ps 118:11, using a longer form in pause.
3.5.11.3. Heavy dages usually does not appear in the last consonant of a
word. The most obvious environment for it would be in geminate roots, and
word-nal geminates usually simplify: qall light becomes lq". Exceptions to
this limitation include T}a" att you (fs), T}t"n; nOtatt you (fs) gave, perhaps
by paradigmatic pressure from hT:a" you (ms), T:t"&n; you (ms) gave. These
forms may also be interpreted as reecting simple t with plosive pronunciation (at rather than att; nOtat rather than nOtatt), again by paradigmatic pressure. If this proves true, these forms can be attributed to a late stage in which
the automatic spirantization of bgdkpt outside word-initial position had
ceased operating (3.3.2.2, pp. 79ff.).
3.5.11.4. Simplication of gemination (and dropping of the heavy dages)
is also found word-internally. A double consonant followed by (ultra-short)
mobile swa is often simplied. This may occur with any consonant except
bgdkpt. It is, however, especially frequent with y (e.g., yhIy]w' and it was
< *wayyhi) and m (e.g., yvq]b"m}h" those who demand < *hammb2 aqqsim
Exod 4:19). It occurs frequently when the swa is followed by a larngealpharyngeal (e.g., y[Es}m" the travels of < *masse). It occurs almost regularly
if the swa precedes a consonant identical to the formerly doubled sound (cf.
Wll}h" praise! [mp]).
3.5.11.4n. The bgdkpt letters with heavy dages in this position may be interpreted as reecting a plosive pronunciation of the simple consonant, rather than a doubled or lengthened
pronunciation. This would mirror a late stage in the history of Hebrew, when the plosive
pronunciation had become possible after vowels as well (3.3.2.2, pp. 79ff., especially
3.3.2.2.4, p. 80).
3.5.11.5. Since a swa under a letter with a heavy dages has to be accounted a vocal swa (see [4] sub 3.5.6.4.1, p. 116), this dot is used to mark
that the swa below a simple letter is vocal (often in an exceptional way), e.g.,
WhWn Q}t"n]W and we shall draw him away Judg 20:32 (instead of the expected
WhWn q}t"n]W*, the q being vocalized with silent swa); lmOT}aImE from yesterday
1 Sam 10:11. Recourse to this way of emphasizing the vocal nature of the swa
3.5.11.6. dages
u/o Vowels
140
is taken particularly when the following consonant is one of the bgdkpt letters,
in order to bring out its (expected or unexpected) spirant pronunciation:
ne/b@ X}[I your (fs) sorrow Gen 3:16; ybE@ Q}[I the heels of Gen 49:17; /nypI@ X}h" to
hide him Exod 2:3 (where the regular form is *hapino). Similarly, it seems,
dages in a letter with a swa after interrogative ha < h marks that this swa
(which is according to its position a swa medium) is to be pronounced as a mobile swa: tn,tO&K}h" (is it) the coat? Gen 37:32; hn;mEVh" (is it) fat? Num 13:20.
3.5.11.5n. The regular form of the word for yesterday is lmOt}a, with a quiescent swa. Prima
facie, it appears that the dages in the t does not denote its plosive pronunciation.
The dages in ybEQ}[I indicates that the swa medium is to be pronounced as a mobile swa
(). This feature is comparatively frequent, e.g., ybEN][I the grapes of Deut 32:32; h<tEtOVqw" ]
and their bows Neh 4:7.
In the case of the interrogative h, when the vowel of the interrogative particle is a, a
meteg may be added to indicate the mobile nature of the swa: hk:r;b}h" a blessing? Gen
27:38, to be pronounced hab2 rOkO.
This last point raises the question of the form of the interrogative h. After the interrogative h > ha, dages may occur before a full vowel (very rarely; bf"yYih" will it be good?
Lev 10:19) and preceding an aleph it is vocalized with qama (d;a:h: [is it] a human being? Deut 20:19). Do these forms reect a variant of the interrogative particle, entailing
the gemination of the following consonant (heavy dages )? It has been suggested that the
Hebrew interrogative particle has a twofold origin: h corresponds to the Arabic interrogative particle a, while the form with gemination matches Arabic hal, with the assimilation
of the l. For this attractive, yet somewhat uncertain, proposal, see Yellin 1933; cf.
3.3.5.5.1, p. 94 on the possibly problematic nature of the sound sequence h-l. If Yellins
proposal proves to be true, we could interpret every dages after the interrogative ha, even
with swa, as a heavy dages; see above, however, on the use of meteg to mark mobile swa.
3.5.11.6. The light dages (dages lene), used only in the bgdkpt letters,
marks their plosive pronunciation. The spirant pronunciation is denoted by the
absence of the dages or, more accurately, by a line on top of the letter, called
raphe. (For details, see 3.3.2.1.1, p. 78). The remaining, rare uses of dages
are often interpreted as heavy dages, yet their comparatively frequent occurrence in res makes this assumption precarious. A dot is used in a few cases
in pause after a stressed penultimate vowel: WLde&j: they ceased Judg 5:7;
this dot may indicate pausal gemination, rhythmically identical with pausal
lengthening. In (non-pausal) hN;a:& please!; hM:l:& why?; hL<aE& these; hM:hE&
they (m), hN;hE& they (f)/hither, hM:v& there, thither, the dot may mark penultimate stress.
3.5.11.6n. Some forms are difcult to account for. Note the exceptional occurrence of segol
for ere in hNehI behold in yn'dOaAaN; hN,hI behold, please, my lords Gen 19:2. Since aN; has
lost its stress by hyphenation, this example does not reect regular conjunctive dages
(3.5.11.7). It seems that the n of nO has been geminated by a heavy dages, thus closing the
preceding syllable nen in hinnennO; the syllable closing has led to the shifting of ere to segol (although ere is possible in this position).
A number of the words with penultimate stress noted here are curious. The most intriguing is hM:l:& why. When preceding a, h, [, it shifts the stress to the last syllable (los-
141
u/o Vowels
dages 3.5.11.7.
ing the dages!), hm:&l:, perhaps in order to preserve a clearer pronunciation of the following
laryngeal-pharyngeal, since the laryngeals-pharyngeals, greatly weakened in pronunciation, were apt to become even more blurred when not directly preceded by the stress. This
omission of the dages when the word does not have penultimate stress prima facie ts the
assumption that the dages marks the stress. The fact that the doubling in at least hM:v& and
hN;hE& they (and through the inuence of hN;hE& also hM:hE&) and perhaps hL<aE& agrees with the
comparative Semitic evidence (cf., e.g., Arabic tamma, hunna, Aramaic yLE&aI) does not refute the theory that the dages marks the stress, since it may have in these words a double
origin. It is even possible that the marking of stress by dages started in such words.
3.5.11.7. The so-called conjunctive dages is more or less regular. This is a

dot in the rst letter of words with initial stress (including monosyllables),
used when they are preceded by a word ending in unstressed qama or segol:
L: hL<aE&AymI who are these for you Gen 33:5; /L hc[:&ye it shall be done to him
Exod 21:31; x<Q& < yl<[
& : wrath on you 2 Chr 19:2. There are cases with res,
e.g., [R; hm:Wa&m} anything bad Jer 39:12. In Babylonian vocalization, in those
few cases in which it is attested, the dot occurs between the words; in the Palestinian vocalization, it is found sometimes in the last letter of the rst word.
These positions, in addition to the use of this dot in res, imply that it does not
indicate doubling.
3.5.11.7n. The regular conjunctive dages is preceded by a word that either has penultimate
stress (either originally so or in order to avoid a sequence of two stressed syllables; cf.
3.5.12.2.15n, p. 152) or, being hyphenated, has no stress. The phrase B: hj:m}cniw] and let
us rejoice in you Song 1:4 is not an exception (pace Bergstrsser, 1.66, par. 10s), since the
rst word is set off by a disjunctive accent (pasa), so that the dages has to be accounted a
light one. (For another supposed exception, Gen 19:2, see 3.5.11.6n, p. 140.) Nonetheless, irregular conjunctive dages is not rare, as in hx:WrN; yr,&ja" let us run after you Song
1:4, where the second word is not stressed on its rst syllable; or in the frequent phrase
rmO&aLE hv&mOAla< to Moses saying, where the rst word ends in a stressed segol and the second does not have initial stress. (The phrase is found in Exod 6:10, 29; 13 times total in Exodus, 25 times in Leviticus, and 31 times in Numbers; the words occur without the conjunctive dages only in Num 17:27; 32:25.)
Hebrew (or, more accurately, Aramaic) ate meraiq, literally that which comes from a
distance, is used in the Masorah to describe those cases of conjunctive dages in which the
two stress occurrences of the words involved are remote from each other; diq, literally
condensed, describes cases where they would have been close, if the rst word had not
lost its stress, either by being hyphenated or by the shift of the stress to the preceding syllable (in order to avoid the immediate sequence of two stressed syllables). In older texts of
the Masorah, however, these two terms are used without differentiation.
For instance, in Exod 21:31 /L hc[:&ye , one would have expected the stress on the ultima of
hc[:&ye. The stress has shifted in line with the tendency, when a word stressed on its ultima
precedes a word stressed on its rst syllable, to avoid the immediate sequence of two
stressed syllables (cf. 3.5.12.1.3, p. 143; 3.5.12.2.15n, p. 151); generally, the stress of the
rst word moves to the open penultimate syllable. An ultra-short penult does not count,
such as r/b yder]/yA[I with those who go down into the pit Ps 28:1, where r does not count
as a syllable. A (mobile) swa under the letter bearing the conjunctive dages opening the
second word similarly does not count; the word nonetheless behaves as if it bore the stress
on its rst syllable: yriP}Ahc[O that which produces fruit Gen 1:12.
3.5.11.8. mappiq,
u/o Vowels
meteg, maqqaf
142
Bergstrsser (1.65), following Grimme, surmised that the conjunctive dages marks the
shortening of the nal vowel of the rst word. Nevertheless, as we have seen (3.5.3.7,
p. 109), the Tiberian vocalization does not mark quantitative differences. So why should it
mark such a difference in this case?
3.5.11.8. The consonantal pronunciation of nal h is also marked by a

dot in the letter, the so-called mappiq (3.3.5.1.1, p. 89). In a few cases internal aleph is also marked by such a dot, to emphasize its consonantal pronunciation: WybIY;w' and they brought Gen 43:26. In some marginal manuscripts
this usage is much more frequent.
3.5.11.9. Meteg, a perpendicular stroke under the letter to the left of the
vowel sign, basically serves as a marker that attention needs to be paid. Its
main importance is that it may mark, inter alia, secondary stress on full vowels in the last open syllable of a word, excluding the pretonic syllable (here,
the mobile swa counts as a syllable), or the secondary stress before that secondary stress, as in hm:k}j: she was wise (in contrast to hm:k}j: wisdom with
qama qaan); War]yyi they will fear (in contrast to War]yi they will see); d;a:h:
the man; k<tE/[Wbv your weeks; t/n/Tj}T"h"m E from the lowest (in which
the two closed syllables ta, hat do not count). Since meteg marks open syllables, and qama gadol rather than qama qaan stands in such syllables, it
may be used as an aid for distinguishing these two sorts of qama, as reected
above in the hm:k}j: : hm:k}j: pair. Since the use of meteg is not xed, its absence
is not always a certain indication for qama qaan.
3.5.11.9n. We say may mark, rather than marks, because the use of the so-called light
meteg varies from manuscript to manuscript, and only in late manuscripts does its usage
become more regular. Even the same scribe is not consistent in its application in different
manuscripts and even in the same manuscript. Accordingly, the meteg can only be used as
an aid, not as a sure indication. We must especially beware lest we infer too much from the
absence of the meteg, e.g., for differentiating qama gadol and qama qaan (3.5.1.1,
p. 105; 3.5.3.1, p. 108; 3.5.3.7, p. 109).
3.5.11.10. Maqqaf, a hyphen connecting words, denotes that the word preceding it is proclitic and devoid of the main stress. Note that meteg, indicating the secondary stress, may occur in hyphenated words, since words connected by maqqaf behave as one word. Thus in Wnl: &ArT:p}Yiw' /lArP<s"N]w' and we told
him and he interpreted for us Gen 41:12, the absence of stress in the words
preceding the hyphen is indicated by the use of segol and qama qaan in their
last syllables (rather than ere, olam). Since they consist of closed syllables,
no meteg occurs with them, in contrast to Wnl: &Art"P : he interpreted to us Gen
41:13. Under special circumstances, meteg may occur in a closed syllable,
even without any syllable intervening between it and the main stress, to mark
the qama as qama gadol: dyix"A& dX:h" he who has hunted game Gen 27:33.
143
Stress 3.5.12.1.3.
3.5.12. Stress
3.5.12.1. Introduction
3.5.12.1.1. The stress system is transmitted by the cantillation marks of
biblical vocalization. Their main purpose was not to mark stress, but rather to
guide the recitation and chanting of the holy text in the synagogue. Although
the cantillation marks are essentially a musical system, each mark generally
stands under or above the stressed syllable of a word, since the prominent syllables in chanting are the stressed ones. Thus the stress system can easily be
inferred. (Secondary stress may be marked by the light meteg; see 3.5.11.9.)
Some of the cantillation marks, however, are either prepositive, i.e., are put
over or before the rst letter of the word, or postpositive, i.e., on or after the
last letter. In some manuscripts, in order to indicate a word that has penultimate stress even with these marks, they are repeated on the stressed syllable.
This, however, is only common with the most frequent of them, i.e., the postpositive pasa.
3.5.12.1.1n. The cantillation marks are also of importance for syntax. Since the recitation
depends on sentence structure, the cantillation marks also act, to a certain degree, as punctuation marks.
3.5.12.1.2. In Biblical Hebrew, ultimate stress prevails, although penultimate stress is also frequently attested. (Penultimate stress is always expressly
marked in this book.) Stress is phonemic, since words with ultimate stress contrast to those with penultimate stress WnB: they built: WnB:& in us/ *they understood; hm:&q : standing (fs)/standing grain: hm:q& : she stood up.
3.5.12.1.3. Does Biblical Hebrew allow antepenultimate stress? Such is
allegedly attested in the forms ha:l}h:& out there, hl:haO&h: into the tent. However, these would only have antepenultimate stress if the status of a syllable is
accorded to the mobile swa/aaf (hO!-l-O/hO--h*-lO). (The stress on the
rst qama of ha:l}h:& indicates that it originally could not have been followed
by a quiescent swa; otherwise the qama would have been shortened to pata
in ancient Biblical Hebrew, as was the case with yTIm}q&;" see 1.15.4n, p. 49. The
qama has to be considered qama gadol according to the accepted Sephardi
pronunciation, because it is stressed.) It is possible to treat a consonant + mobile swa as a syllable, as in the application of the light meteg (see 3.5.11.9).
However, a consonant followed by a mobile swa does not constitute a syllable
with regard to conjunctive dages (3.5.11.7n, p. 141). If the sequence consonant + mobile swa is not counted as a syllable, the words in question here may
be considered to have penultimate stress (hO!-lO/hO--h*lO). This description
seems preferable, since the shift of stress to a preceding open syllable in order
to avoid the immediate sequence of two stressed syllables also disregards
mobile swa/aaf, e.g., r/b yder]/yA[I with those who go down into the pit
3.5.12.1.4. Cantillation Marks; Stress
144
Ps 28:1; br,j:& yne[fO&m} pierced with a sword Isa 14:19. Thus it is more agreeable
to the general stress system to regard these forms as having penultimate, rather
than antepenultimate, stress. Otherwise they would represent a totally abnormal shift to the antepenult in order to avoid the immediate sequence of two
stressed syllables, whereas it is otherwise the penult to which the stress recedes in these cases.
3.5.12.1.4. According to the Tiberian system, twenty-one of the twentyfour books of the Bible use the so-called prose cantillation marks, whereas
three (Psalms, Proverbs, and Job, except its prosaic framework) apply the poetic marks. Every word has one accent (in exceptional cases two). Words
joined by hyphen (maqqaf ) are treated as a single unit; usually they are joined
in pairs, and the rst of the two words lacks a cantillation mark. The dominating or separating marks divide the verse into sections; the servile or connecting marks join a word with the next. Every verse is divided by a strong
disjunctive accent into two halves (in the prosaic book, it is the etna), and every half may again be subdivided by weaker disjunctive accents into two parts,
and so on. This binary system characterizes the use of the accents more than
anything else.
3.5.12.1.5. Since sometimes one word may be marked by two accents, two
words connected by a hyphen and behaving as one word may also receive two
accents, the rst of which refers to the rst word.
3.5.12.2. The History of Hebrew Stress

3.5.12.2.1. The stress system of Proto-Hebrew must be reconstructed if
we are to understand the Biblical Hebrew vowel structure. The importance of
such a reconstruction exceeds the bounds of the history of Biblical Hebrew
stress and vowel structure proper and is of the greatest signicance for the
comprehension of the foundations of the languages morphology. The opinions
of scholars on the development of the Proto-Hebrew stress system are divided.
3.5.12.2.1n. For an important overview of various theories of BHeb stress, see Brockelmann (1940); see further Blau (1970b: 2728 = Studies, 4142 n. 2). Bergstrsser
(1.113ff.) proposed a system in which nouns and verbs were differently stressed; however,
this is contradicted by pausal stress, as admitted by Bergstrsser himself (1.162, par. 29i).
3.5.12.2.2. The core of the stress system we are going to propose is that in
Proto-Hebrew general penultimate stress prevailed. (We shall call this stage
ii, for reasons to be explained later.) This may be demonstrated simply. In Biblical Hebrew ultimate stress prevails. If those words that have ultimate stress in
pause are analyzed, the vast majority of them will be found to be words that
have lost their nal short vowels; words with penultimate stress in pause end in
either a long vowel or a consonant and have therefore preserved their primary
structure. Accordingly, if one adds the omitted short nal vowels to the words
145
Stress 3.5.12.2.3.
stressed on their ultima in pause, one has a pausal stress system in which the
vast majority of words are paroxytone (i.e., have penultimate stress). Let us
take a group of words with ultimate stress in pause: rm:v (in context rm"v) he
watched; rmOvyi he will watch; rmE/v watching; vmEj: ve (f); hVmIj ve
(m); hm:&q : standing up (f participle); standing grain; hl:yDib}m" separating (f).
These words once had and then lost nal short vowels, according to comparative Semitic evidence. The historical forms would have been *sama#ra,
*yismo#ru, *some#ru, *hami#ssu, *hamissa#tu, *qama#tu, *mab2 dila#tu. That is, they
would have had penultimate stress. In contrast, words now stressed in pause on
the penult, terminating in a long vowel or a consonant, have not lost a nal
vowel; in other words, their penultimate stress (at least in pause) is original:
Wrm:&v they watched; hr;m:&v she watched (< *sama#rat); yTIr]m:&v I watched;
Wnr]m:&v we watched; WrmO&vyi they will watch; Wnj}n;a we; ynia:& I; hT:a:& you
(ms); hT:[:& now; hl:yDi&b}hI (< *hib2 dilat) she separated; WlyDi&b}hI they separated; hm:q& : (< *qa#mat) she stood; Wmq:& they stood; d,&y; your hand. Thus, we
propose that, since words with penultimate stress have preserved the original
place of stress, and those with ultimate stress have lost their nal vowel (and
they too would have exhibited penultimate stress, before their loss of nal
vowels), penultimate stress was once all-embracing. At this stage, stress could
not have been phonemic, since its place was automatically xed and thus no
oppositions could develop.
3.5.12.2.2n. This system grows out of a theory rst suggested, as far as I know, by Mayer
Lambert (1890). Jean Cantineau, without knowing of Lamberts work, arrived at the same
conclusions more than forty years later (1931, 1932). Christian P. E. Sarauw (1939: 58),
again without knowing of Lamberts work, reconstructed a system which, though differing
in some important points, was not too different from what we are proposing. His assumption that stress preceded the last consonant of the word led him into difculties in explaining the stress of the 3fs of the sufx-tense in qal, originally *samarat she preserved,
which should have had, according to his system, ultimate stress from the beginning.
For the forms rmOvyi, rmE/v, and the like, the quantitative difference between pausal and
contextual forms does not nd expression in the Tiberian vowel marks. In forms like
*sama#ra, the second syllable reects pausal lengthening: rm:v.
In d,&y; the nal qama seems to represent an anceps vowel (see 3.5.7.2.2, p. 122).
3.5.12.2.3. This quite straightforward starting point allows us to account

adequately for the stress of most Hebrew words. As we shall see, most of the
exceptions can also be easily explained. Moreover, a plethora of seemingly
chaotic features, which scholars have found difcult to account for, turn out
to be systematic and neatly regulated by this simple assumption of general
penultimate stress. It goes without saying that these features were to some extent blurred by analogy. Nevertheless, the theory of general penultimate
stress is not only likely, being based on such a clear and simple argument, but
also pivotal for the proper understanding of Biblical Hebrew phonology and
morphology.
3.5.12.2.4. Stress
146
3.5.12.2.4. The stage of general penultimate stress (what we dubbed stage

ii), was followed by another stage (let us call it stage iii), in which stress became phonemic. (We shall turn later to stage i.) As a matter of fact, at this
stage stress itself did not move: it remained on the syllables which bore it at
stage ii. Nevertheless, the phonetic environment of the syllables changed, as
did the relative place of the stress: at this stage nal short vowels dropped.
Accordingly, words in pause terminating in a long vowel or a consonant remained unchanged and their stress remained penult: Wrm:&v, hr;m:&v, yTIr]m:&v,
Wnr]m:&v, WrmO&vyi, Wnj}n;a, ynia:&, hT:a:&, hT:[:&, hl:yDi&b}hI, WlyDi&b}hI, hm:q&,: Wmq:&, d,&y;. In words
that dropped a nal short vowel, the stress, though not moving, came now to
stand on the ultima. The words *sama#ra, *yismo#ru, *some#ru, *hami#ssu, *hamissa#tu, *qama#tu, *mab2 dila#tu (with penultimate stress) now became rm&"v,
rmO&vyi, rmE&/v, vm&Ej:, hV&mIj, hm:&q,: hl:y& Dib}m" (with ultimate stress). At this point we
encounter phonemic oppositions of stress, e.g., hm:&q : standing up (f participle);
standing grain, from original *qamtu, and hm:q&,: she stood (sufx-tense),
from basic *qa#mat.
3.5.12.2.4n. In *sama#ra the rst syllable reects pretonic lengthening, the second, pausal
lengthening. Pausal lengthening occurs in the other words of this group as well, and pretonic lengthening occurs in some of them.
3.5.12.2.5. Let us reconsider our starting point, words with penultimate

stress in pause. Many of the forms cited have penultimate stress only in pause
and have ultimate stress in context. Consider these forms: pausal paroxytone:
Wrm:&v, hr;m:&v, WrmO&vyi, hT:a:&, hT:[:&, d,&y;; contextual oxytone: Wrm}v, hr;&m}v, Wrm}vyi,
hT:&a", hT:&[", &d]y;. We began with pausal forms because they are, as a rule,
more archaic in Biblical Hebrew than contextual forms. We cannot argue this
on the basis of the penultimate stress preserved in pause; that would be arguing in a circle, since we seek to prove the originality of pausal penultimate
stress. We can argue it, however, on the basis of the preservation of pausal
vowels lost in context. Again, contrast the contextual forms Wrm}v, hr;&m}v,
Wrm}vyi, &d]y;; and the pausal forms Wrm:&v, hr;m:&v, WrmO&vyi&, d,&y;. It is obvious that the
forms containing the unreduced vowels are more original (and this is also
demonstrated by comparative evidence).
3.5.12.2.5n. Most pausal forms are more archaic; the major group of exceptions is forms
that show pausal stress shift to a nal, originally closed syllable. See 3.5.8.8n, pp. 134
135, and 3.5.13.4, pp. 154155.
3.5.12.2.6. The evidence of contextual forms leads us to posit another

stage of stress (let us call it stage iv): originally paroxytone words in context with stressed short vowels in open syllables shifted their stress to the
ultima. Thus such forms as *samru, *samra, *yismru, yad3ka take on the
shape we actually nd in Biblical Hebrew: Wrm}v, hr;m}v, Wrm}vy,i d]y.; Why did
this development take place? It is a clear example of analogy. In stage ii most
words terminated in short vowels. Thus in stage iii words with ultimate stress,
147
Stress 3.5.12.2.8.
which arose by the omission of these short vowels, far outnumbered those
with penultimate stress. They propelled the stress shift from the penult to the
ultima. Two word groups are especially important in this respect.
3.5.12.2.6n. In *samru the rst syllable contains long a owing to pretonic lengthening,
the second short a, since, as a contextual form, it was not affected by pausal lengthening.
The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to the other forms cited.
3.5.12.2.7. The rst group of stage iv words are those words consisting of
(or terminating in) two closed syllables; these are invariably stressed on the
nal syllable. According to the assumption of general penultimate stress, such
words were stressed on their penult during stage ii (and preserved with such
stress during stage iii). These words would include the short prex-tense
(without the nal short vowel) of qal, piel, pual, hitpael, hif il, hof al as
well as the imperative of piel, hitpael, hif il. This stress pattern, however,
totally disappeared in both context and pause. The forms are now stressed on
the ultima, e.g., rmO&vyi he will watch; rPE&s"y]w' and he told; vBE&l}Y'w' and he
dressed; vBE&l}h" get dressed! Accordingly, I am inclined to posit a stress shift
from a closed penult to a closed ultima.
3.5.12.2.7n. The short prex-tense is the form used after the conversive waw; see
4.3.3.3.3, p. 206.
3.5.12.2.8. The second group of stage iv words (obligatory stress shift from
the penult to the ultima) are words with a stressed short and open penult
followed by another open syllable. This is the pattern to be assumed for the
contextual forms *samru, *samra, *yismru, *yadka, which appear in
Biblical Hebrew with ultimate stress: Wrm}v; hr;m}v; Wrm}vyi; d]y;. We have to assume that short, open, stressed penultimate syllables remained short during
stages ii and iii; then, in stage iv, the stress shifted to the ultima and the vowels
were reduced to mobile swa. Only on this assumption can one understand the
behavior of WlyDi&b}hI; hl:yDi&b}hI; WlyDi&b}y', which exhibit long penult vowels even in
context and, therefore, preserve penultimate stress. This behavior contrasts
with that of *samru; *samra; *yismru, which appear as > Wrm}v; hr;&m}v;
Wrm}vyi. Similarly, the pausal forms of Wrm}v; hr;&m}v; Wrm}vyi; &d]y;, viz., Wrm:&v;
hr;m:&v; WrmO&vyi; d,&y; contain, owing to pausal lengthening, a long penultimate
syllable and therefore preserve paroxytone stress; however, the contextual
forms had short penultimate vowels and, therefore, their stress shifted to the
ultima.
3.5.12.2.8n. Exceptions to this pattern in stage iv are extremely rare. The form hr;B"&d]mI to
the wilderness of is secondary, based on analogy with the ordinary construct form (without directional h), rB"d]mI the wilderness of . For details, see Blau (1992 = Studies, 8993),
where the historical development of this feature is studied in the context of general penultimate stress. Forms like ynir'&m:v he preserved me; yniT"&r]m"v you preserved me perhaps
reect analogy to tyiB"& house; yiy' wine (cf. perhaps Israeli Hebrew hn,/mv eight, in contrast to Biblical Hebrew hn,/mv, inuenced by nouns like vd,q&). In the case of yniT"&r]m"v, one
3.5.12.2.9. Stress
148
also has to take into consideration the fact that the regular form *smartni would have
lost the external mark of the 2ms and might have been avoided on these grounds. It is possible that yniT"&r]m"v emerged rst, prompted by the desire to avoid *smartni, and then, by
analogy, ynir'&m:v was formed. The form WnT:&r]m"v, reecting pausal lengthening, is found in
both context and pause; here the pausal form has superseded the contextual one, as sometimes happens (see below, 3.5.12.2.9n). Here, too, the loss of the external mark of the
2ms in the regular form *smartnu# is relevant. Perhaps one should also take into consideration the anceps character of the nal a in T:r]m"&v.
In d,&y; the segol is long, owing to pausal lengthening and, therefore, the word remained
paroxytone. Similarly, the segol of the plural context form yd,&y; your hands is long (this is
also indicated by the vowel letter yod) and stressed, as is ybI&a: in contrast to the contextual
form d,&y;* > &d]y;.
3.5.12.2.9. Special attention should be paid to the fact that the now pretonic a in *samaru!, *samara#,*ani ! has not only not been lengthened, contrary
to the rule of pretonic lengthening; it has even been reduced. Let us review
the history of Hebrew in the Second Temple period and after (cf. 3.5.7.5.14
3.5.7.5.15, p. 128). First, Hebrew underwent pretonic lengthening; we have
attributed this to strong Aramaic inuence at the time of the Second Temple.
Hebrew speakers reacted against this inuence by lengthening pretonic syllables, in order not to reduce them in accordance with Aramaic syllable patterning. At a later stage, pretonic syllables in a did undergo reduction, after
the Aramaic inuence had become so strong that Hebrew speakers ceased
struggling against it. Words of the type Wrm}v, hr;&m}v, ynia have to be ascribed to
this later period. This is shown by forms like Wrm}v and hr;&m}v themselves.
During stage iii *samru, *samra had shifted to *samru, *samra with
long a in the rst syllable by pretonic lengthening. During stage iv, the long avowels were preserved, although the stress moved away, because long vowels
are maintained in every position; however, the now pretonic -ma- was reduced in accordance with Aramaic syllable patterning.
3.5.12.2.9n. In stage iv (and elsewhere), it is only open syllables that constantly attract the
stress. Nothing certain can be said about closed syllables (although the two syllable types
are basically of the same weight).
At rst glance, one could claim that segolate nouns demonstrate that closed syllables do
not attract the stress (e.g., l<m<& rather than *ml3k). However, it appears that the opening
of the cluster (lk of *malk) was an early phonetic fact; the syllable formed by the epenthetic vowel, however, did not count phonemically and therefore did not attract the stress;
see 4.4.6.4, p. 274.
Segolates from III-y roots and therefore ending in an open nal syllable do attract the
stress, e.g., *lay jaw > *liy > *liy > *li > yjI&l}. The pausal forms of these nouns,
however, remained paroxytone, because the penultimate syllable was long owing to
pausal lengthening: yjIl<.& Sometimes these pausal forms superseded the contextual ones
(cf. 3.5.12.2.8n.), e.g., ytIP<& simple-minded, rather than *pti; WhTO& formlessness, rather
than *thu. Forms like hg<h<& moaning are secondary, newly built on analogy with r,D,&, etc.
(See Bauer-Leander 1922: 579, par. 72qu.)
At this stage, pre-Tiberian Hebrew still distinguished short and long vowels, as demonstrated, e.g., by the different behavior of long and short a in *samru > Wrm}v. The long a
149
Stress 3.5.12.2.12.
was preserved as such, and the short a was reduced. Thus we can say that the disappearance of the quantitative opposition between vowels, characteristic of the Tiberian vowel
system (see 3.5.2.1, p. 106), is later than stress stage iv (which is itself quite late, reecting decisive Aramaic inuence). Stage iv has to be regarded, in fact, as probably the last
comprehensive sound change to affect Tiberian Hebrew. Its late origin is also reected by
the different behavior of originally long and short vowels in Tiberian vocalization. Thus
hyphenated ben between and tok midst preserved ere and olam, whereas taE object
marker; with and lKO all became Ata< and AlK:, respectively, thus suggesting that they
were taken over as such from the pre-Tiberian period (which distinguished between long
and short vowels) and had not yet been integrated into the close-knit structure in which
originally long and short e and o behaved in the same manner. (In closed hyphenated syllables, ere and olam were shortened in medieval solemn recitation of the Bible; yet even
in these cases the quality of ere, olam is maintained; see Steiner 2001: 220 n. 72.)
Note that this nal reduction did not remake Hebrew in the image of Aramaic. One important difference remained: in Aramaic, short stressed vowels in open syllables were
maintained, even when the last syllable was open, whereas in Hebrew, as a rule, they lost
their stress and were reduced.
3.5.12.2.10. In stage iv the stress shift to the ultima was a veritable sound
shift for the two words groups just discussed (words consisting of or terminating in two closed syllables and words terminating in an open syllable with
short vowel followed by an open syllable). In other cases, stage iv was a mere
tendency, sometimes occurring, sometimes not.
3.5.12.2.11. An interesting example of the tendency of stress to shift to the
ultima away from a long vowel in an open penult is the contextual form ykI&noa:
I; cf. pausal ykInoa:. Comparative evidence shows that the o arose from long a,
and since the Canaanite shift acts on stressed a, we have proof that penultimate stress is original. This is also suggested by the long qama in the rst
syllable, which is maintained even in the context form, in which stress is distant: in the original paroxytone form the qama was pretonic and accordingly
lengthened. Since in ykInoa: the penultimate vowel was long in both pause and
context, the different behavior of these two forms (penultimate stress in pause,
ultimate stress in context) must be attributed to the analogy of the many pausal
forms with paroxytone stress, in contrast to oxytone contextual froms (cf.
pausal Wrm:&v; hr;m:&v; WrmO&vyi; d,&y;; contextual Wrm}v; hr;&m}v; Wrm}vyi; &d]y;).
3.5.12.2.12. In other cases the tendency to oxytone stress inuenced cases
of stress shift from a closed penult to an open ultima. As a rule, closed syllables in this position preserved penultimate stress, as in the contextual forms
of geminate verbs, e.g., WLq"& they were slight; WLq"&ye they will be swift; WBs&O
turn around (m); WBsO&y; they (m) will turn around; hB:s"&n; she gathered herself; WBs"&n; they gathered themselves. It can also be seen in forms like Wnr]m"&v
we watched; hn;r]mO&v keep watch (fp)!; hn;r]m"&VTI they (fp) will be watched.
However, we also nd alternations such as pausal hT:a:& you (ms), hT:[:& now,
and contextual hT:&a", hT:&[". The latter, consisting of t[E time + directional h,
has two indications of its original penultimate stress. First, directional h is
3.5.12.2.13. Stress
150
basically unstressed; therefore, the stress could not have been originally on
the ultima. Second, the word shows the effects of Philippis Law (the e [i] of
t[E shifts to a), which operates in stressed syllables, and thus the rst (penult)
syllable had to be stressed originally.
3.5.12.2.12n. Because Philippis Law affects short i (e) only, it could not inuence pausal
hT:[:&, since pausal lengthening acted before Philippis Law (see 3.5.8.8, p. 134); therefore
one would have expected *etta, rather than hT:[:&. Accordingly hT:[:& has to be regarded as a
newly built form, derived from the original contextual form hT:&[", on analogy with forms in
which qama in pause corresponds to pata in context (as, e.g., pausal rm:v, contextual
rm"v).
3.5.12.2.13. One of the effects of stage iv and related shifts was to give Hebrew a new exibility. Now there were words with one syllable structure
(closed penult and open ultima) in two different stress patterns (paroxytone and
oxytone). This exibility was exploited in the grammaticalization of the 1cs
and 2ms sufx-tense verb forms. The paroxytone (unshifted) simple forms
serve to mark the past (yTIr]m"&v I watched, T:r]m"&v you watched), while the
forms with nal stress are used after the conversive waw (yTI&r]m"vw] I will
watch, T:&r]m"vw] you will watch). Again, it is possible to demonstrate that this
contrast is latelater than pretonic lengthening: the qama following the rst
radical, despite its remoteness from the stress, is preserved, because when the
form was still paroxytone, the vowel was pretonic and accordingly lengthened.
3.5.12.2.13n. Perhaps it was for rhythmic reasons that oxytone stress became characteristic of the sufx-tense preceded by conversive waw. For this and other possibilities, see
Blau (1971a: 1524 = Topics, 199208). If, indeed, an open long syllable has a stronger
tendency to maintain the stress than a closed long syllable, one would understand why
forms like ytIrO&xEhw' and I shall cause distress remained paroxytone.
3.5.12.2.14. Having just introduced the verb-form system in relation to the

theory of penultimate stress, let us treat the short prex-tense, which can also
be properly understood only through the history of the stress system. This
form (e.g., yismor, no nal vowel) has two fundamental uses: it may denote
the jussive (e.g., avd]T" may it produce grass Gen 1:11) or the past. The past
use has persisted only after the conversive waw (e.g., lDeb}Y'w' and he separated Gen 1:4), except in poetry. At stage ii (general penultimate stress, subsistence of nal short vowels), the opposition between the regular prex-tense
(*yismru; see 4.3.2.2.144.3.2.2.15, pp. 196ff.) and the short one (*ysmor) was redundantly marked, not only by the presence or absence of the -u
ending, but also by the difference in stress position. The regular prex-tense
was stressed on the syllable preceding -u, as *yismru, and the short prextense was stressed *ysmor. This difference of stress was not phonemic; rather,
it was automatic. At stage iii, with the dropping of the nal short vowels, the
difference in stress position remained (in most cases) the only mark of the
opposition, and thus stress became phonemic: short prex-tense *ysmor as
151
Stress 3.5.12.2.15.
opposed to the ordinary prex-tense rmO&vyi. Later, the stress in the short prextense also shifted to the closed ultima (a shift that had become obligatory when
the paroxytone syllable was closed as well), and both prex-tense forms converged upon rmO&vyi. Nevertheless, the penultimate stress of the prex-tense
after conversive waw has been preserved in many of its occurrences where
the penultimate syllable was open: s<a:&Yew' and he was gathered (alternating
with sE&a:Yew'); rm<aYow' and he said; bvY;w' and he returned.
3.5.12.2.14n. We said above that in most cases the difference in stress position was the
only feature distinguishing short and regular prex-tenses. This requires a qualication.
There are forms with a long vowel preceding the last radical, as in hif il, and these maintained a further distinction between the two prex-tense forms, even after stress had
shifted to the ultima in the short prex-tense as well. In these forms the long vowel was
basically preserved only in the regular prex-tense (lyDib}y'); the thematic vowel was short
in the short prex-tense (lDeb}y', lDeb}Y'w'). The reason for the different behavior of these forms
is that in Proto-Semitic (and in Pre-Hebrew) no long vowels were tolerated in closed syllables. Accordingly, in the short prex-tense, which as a rule ended in a closed syllable,
the vowel in this syllable was short: *yabdil (in contrast to *yabdilu in the regular prextense). This form developed later to *yb2 del lDeb}y'*, to shift in stage iv to lDe&b}y' (as opposed
to lyDi&b}y', in which the long vowel was maintained in an open syllable through stage ii).
Later, from stage iii on, long vowels could occur in closed syllables as well, many of
which emerged with the omission of the nal short vowels: *yab2 dilu > lyDi&b}y'. Then, by
analogy, long vowels even appeared in originally closed syllables, as in the imperative Wq
rise! instead of the expected *qom (cf. the short prex-tense qO&y;), by analogy to Wqy;.
Forms like s<a:&Yew' and bvY;w' are somewhat puzzling. Why is there a long vowel (qama) in
a stressed open syllable in these forms, rather than the expected s<a"&Yew'*, bvY'w'*, maintaining, as usual in stage iii, a short vowel in an open stressed syllable? (In stage iv these forms
would have shifted to *wayyesp, *wayysb2 , with reduction of the former stressed syllable.) The qama may reect (1) blending with the original oxytone forms of the regular
prex-tense (sE&a:ye, bWvy;), where the length is due to pretonic lengthening, and (2) the inuence of parallel pausal forms, in which, by pausal lengthening, stressed vowels were
lengthened. Moreover, forms like *wayyesp lack the characteristics of the (nif al) verbal pattern and were, therefore, exposed to paradigmatic pressure.
3.5.12.2.15. To summarize this application of the theory of penultimate

stress to the short prex-tense. This form, preceded by the conversive
waw, was originally stressed on the penult. There was no recession of the
stress in the prex-tense after conversive waw; instead, the original stress
was retained. As a matter of fact, this retention is limited to open syllables:
closed syllables did not retain the stress, because, as a rule, the nal syllable
was closed as well, and the shift of stress to the ultima in words terminating in
two closed syllables acted, as noted above, as a veritable sound shift. Thus
such forms as *ysmur, *ybdl, *ydbbr he will tell, *yitgddl he will
magnify himself invariably shifted their stress to rmO&vyi; lDe&b}y'; rBE&d'y]; lDe&Gt
" }yi. No
paroxytone prex-tense forms with stressed closed penult remained.
3.5.12.2.15n. One must beware of confusing two different phenomena: (1) the penultimate
stress on open syllables in the prex-tense following the conversive waw and (2) the
3.5.12.2.16. Stress
152
penultimate stress on open syllables in order to avoid a sequence of two stressed syllables
(see 3.5.11.7n, p. 141). Number 2 reects the recession of the stress and a change in an
original oxytone pattern, while number 1 reects the retention of the original paroxytone
stress, the oxytone stress being due to a later development. Therefore, despite the synchronic similarity of these features, they exhibit diachronically opposite processes. Moreover, the avoidance of the immediate sequence of two stressed syllables belongs to parole,
rather than to langue. Strikingly, no traces of the original penultimate stress have been preserved in the other use of the short prex-tense, viz. the jussive, or in the imperative. (The
jussive l: q:y;w] and it shall be established for you Job 22:28 is no exception; here, the
stress has shifted to the penult in order to avoid the sequel of two stressed syllables, the
underlying form being qO&y;.) Were the jussive and imperative more inuenced by the oxytone ordinary prex-tense than the forms after conversive waw, because the latter referred to the past? See Blau (1971a: 2223 = Topics, 2067).
3.5.12.2.16. The assumption of general penultimate stress allows us to explain the vocalization of the conversive waw preceding the prex-tense.
Since many forms of the short prex-tense were disyllabic, their (stressed) penult coincided with their rst syllable (rmOvy*i ), in other words, with the syllable
directly following the conversive waw. The original vocalization of connective waw (historically identical to conversive waw) was pata (see 5.2.1,
p. 285), which was generally reduced to mobile swa (rm"&vw)] because of its distance from the stress. Preceding a stressed syllable it was not only preserved
but even extended by pretonic lengthening to qama, under certain circumstances: hl:y]lw" & ; /y day and night. The conversive waw immediately preceding the prex-tense, vocalized pata plus doubling, has to be interpreted as an
example of pretonic gemination (see 3.5.7.4.6, p. 124; 3.5.7.6.12, p. 132):
*way-ysmor > rmO&vYiw.'
3.5.12.2.17. Another feature illuminated by the theory of general penult is
the behavior of prex-tense forms terminating in the 2mp and 3mp sufx -un,
originally (as demonstrated by Arabic) *-una. In stage ii (general penultimate
stress), these forms ended in stressed -u#na; in stage iii (loss of nal short vowels), the ending changed to stressed -u#n. Later, by pretonic lengthening, the
vowel preceding -u#n was lengthened (4.3.3.2.3, p. 205). This was the case
not only with a (Wla:vyi they will ask), but in pause also with i (WpsEa:ye they
will gather) and even u (Wfql}yi they will gather up).
3.5.12.2.17n. For details, see Blau 1975: 7071 = Studies, 6263; further, Studies, 71.
This discussion also applies to the 2fs -in ending, which is much less frequent.
As stated above (3.5.7.6.1, p. 129), pretonic lengthening of u is exceptional. It occurs
preceding -un by analogy of pausal forms with -u ending, in which the stressed(!) u > o
subsisted (WrxO&n]yi they will keep). As a matter of fact, the sufx -un is especially frequent
in pause, and it stands to reason that it was inuenced by pausal forms with -u ending.
Outside pause, pretonic lengthening is attested with a only (Wla:vyi) and a too may be reduced even with (smaller) disjunctive accents: War]yTI you will fear Exod 9:30 with zaqef
qaan, no doubt in the wake of the parallel War]yyi. I have not found cases of the preservation
of pretonic u or even i outside pause.
153
Stress 3.5.12.2.19.
3.5.12.2.18. With stage iv we have reconstructed stress as it is reected in

the biblical text. We have not yet dealt with the rst stage of stress, which preceded the stage of general penultimate stress. Whereas the theory of general
penultimate stress is rmly based on the attested biblical stress system in
pause, the reconstruction of stage i is somewhat vague. It is based, in its entirety, on the assumption (which, to be sure, is quite well founded; see 3.5.9.2,
p. 136) that only stressed a shifted to o. Stress stages ii, iii, iv, with which we
have dealt, do not explain how the second syllable of /vl: tongue and r/fyqI
smoke and the rst syllable of rmE/v were stressed, as they must have been,
since the words have o, which arose from stressed a#. Accordingly, we have to
assume that, in the Pre-Hebrew of stage i, words containing long vowels were
stressed on the long vowel nearest to the ultima. On such an assumption /vl:,
r/fyqI, and rmE/v were stressed originally on a (*lasa#nu, *qita#ru, *sa#miru) and,
therefore, that vowel shifted it to o. No other unequivocal details can be ascertained as to this rst stage of stress.
3.5.12.2.18n. Two models for stage i have been suggested; for further discussion and references, see Blau (1979d: 4951 = Topics, 12022; 1975: 6266 = Studies, 5458). The
usual one is the stress system accepted in the reading of Standard Literary Arabic (based
on the prevailing stress pattern of the Syrian-Lebanese dialect group). In this model,
words lacking long syllables (i.e., syllables containing long vowels or closed syllables)
are stressed either (1) on the antepenult or (2) (according to another model) on the syllable
preceding it or (3) (according to still another pattern) on the rst syllable (*waadqatu/
*wadaqatu/*wadaqatu). This hypothesis, however, is decient for Pre-Hebrew. It was
propounded at a time when Arabic was thought to reect Proto-Semitic in some way. It
has been demonstrated that this system in Eastern Arabic dialects is late, later than that of
the Maghrebine (Western) Arabic dialects (Mayer Lambert 1897; Blau 1972b = Middle
Arabic, 297305). Therefore, it is tempting to posit a stress pattern more akin to that prevailing in Maghrebine (Western) Arabic dialects. In these dialects, a word with no long
syllables is stressed on the ultima. This corresponds to the penult in Standard Literary
Arabic (as also in Pre-Hebrew, in which, at this stage, nal short vowels were preserved;
the additional nal syllable adds one in counting): *waadaqtu. The assumption of this
(quasi-)Maghrebine stress system has an additional advantage: it explains better the transition to general penultimate stress in stage ii. According to the Maghrebine stress model,
even in stage i the stress was often paroxytone, not only when the penult was long (as it is
also according to the quasi-Lebanese stress model), but also in words lacking long syllables; it was only in words containing long syllables preceding the penult that the stress
was not paroxytone. From a stress system containing so many paroxytone words, it was
only a small step to general penultimate stress.
3.5.12.2.19. Accordingly, we posit the following stages for the development of the BHeb stress system. Stage i: In words containing long vowels, the
long vowel nearest the ultima was stressed. Stage ii: General penultimate
stress. Stage iii: The stress did not move; nal short vowels were omitted; alternations of oxytone and paroxytone words developed, and thus stress became phonemic. Stage iv: A tendency to oxytone stress prevailed; in two
cases it developed to a veritable sound shift: the stress invariably moved from
3.5.13. Pause
154
an open short penult vowel to an open ultima, as well as from a closed penult
to a closed ultima. Pretonic lengthening ceased, and newly emerging pretonic
open syllables containing a short vowel were reduced.
3.5.13. Pausal Forms

3.5.13.1. Words in pausal position are those that precede a break in reading; they are marked by strong disjunctive cantillation marks, either at the end
of the verse, indicated by the cantillation mark sof pasuq (lit., the end of the
verse), or in the middle of the verse, in the main marked by the cantillation
mark etna. In the preceding sections, we have discussed these forms, and, as
we have seen, they are different from contextual forms. They often maintain a
more archaic stress pattern and preserve syllables dropped in context.
3.5.13.2. That pausal forms reect a linguistic stage more archaic than the
contextual ones is easily demonstrated. The paroxytone pausal forms Wrm:&v
they watched; hr;m:&v she watched; WrmO&vyi they will watch correspond to
the oxytone contextual forms Wrm}v; hr;&m}v; Wrm}vyi. As we have said before:
from a diachronic point of view, we cannot speak of a retreat of the stress in
pause. On the contrary, the original stress structure was preserved in pause
and tended to change in contextual forms. Nevertheless, changes occur in
pause as well. As can be seen in the forms cited, the stressed syllable of the
pausal form is lengthened (3.5.11.2, p. 139). As a matter of fact, it was this
lengthening that preserved the original syllable structure; nevertheless, the
lengthening itself is a change. Therefore, as a rule, we regard stressed syllables in pause as long, even when the vowel of the corresponding contextual
form has to be considered short. Consider the pausal tyiB:& house; ["P:& beat,
time, where the qama indicates that the rst syllable is (historically) long, in
contrast to contextual tyiB"&; ["P"&, which contain (historically) short pata in the
rst syllable. Thus the rst vowels of rp<sE& book; vd,qO& sanctity, when standing in pause, have to be regarded as long, yet in the same forms used contextually the vowel must be taken as short.
3.5.13.2n. The quantitative difference obtained in the pre-Tiberian period; it does not,
however, apply to the Tiberian vocalization, which, as stated (3.5.2.1, p. 106), does not
mark quantitative differences.
3.5.13.3. Pausal and contextual forms sometimes differ in the quality of

vowel, and not only in its quantity. Consider, e.g., pausal r,D;& way, with
(long) qama, in contrast to contextual r,D,&. This applies to tyiB:&, ["P:&, in contrast to tyiB"&, ["P"&, as well, since, in the Tiberian vocalization, qama and pata
differ qualitatively.
3.5.13.4. Archaic stress is sometimes preserved in the contextual form.
In words terminating in originally closed syllables preceded by an open penultimate syllable, the context form often preserves the archaic stress pattern,
155
Pause 3.5.13.5.
viz. penultimate stress; in pause, owing to what we call pausal stress shift, the
stress shifted to the nal syllable, which was already closed in Proto-Semitic.
Thus the pausal form with ultimate stress is later. The stress of contextual
rm<aYow' and he said is original, since penultimate stress is primary in words
that have not lost nal short vowels, including the short prex-tense form;
from the beginning they terminated in a consonant. The stress in the pausal
form rm"&aYow' is later. Forms like these lead us to posit a pausal stress shift from
the penult to the closed ultima. The pata in words like rm"&aYow' demonstrates
that this shift is later than pausal lengthening. Had pausal lengthening still
been operating during the action of the pausal stress shift (or after it), it would
have lengthened the pata of the now stressed syllable to qama.
3.5.13.4n. Pausal stress shift is mainly attested in the short prex-tense preceded by conversive waw. See further Blau 1981a = Topics, 3649. All the occurrences involved originally closed syllables. No cases reecting pausal stress shift exist in which the last syllable
became closed by the omission of nal vowels (during stress stage iii); by denition, because of general penultimate stress, such words, after the omission of the nal vowels, had
become oxytone without changing the original place of the stress. The only possible cases
that could have indicated that stress did not shift except to originally closed syllables
would be segolate forms. These words originally terminated in a consonant cluster that
was opened by an anaptyctic vowel (like *sifr > rp<sE& book), which, however, did not attract stress in pause. One could claim that the stress did not shift to the last syllable in
pause, because at the time of the pausal stress shift this syllable was still open, since the
case endings had not yet been elided. Nevertheless, nothing certain can be inferred from
these forms, since it is likely that the anaptyctic vowel did not count phonemically (see
3.5.12.2.9n, p. 148). Therefore, it cannot be proven that the pausal stress shift preceded
the omission of nal short vowels, although this is quite likely.
We specify that the penultimate syllable in the pausal stress shift is open, because if the
preceding syllable was closed, i.e., if the word ended in (or consisted of) two closed syllables, the stress would have shifted to the last syllable in context as well (see 3.5.12.2.7,
p. 147).
3.5.13.5. In pausal forms in Classical Arabic, nal short vowels are elided,
and pausal forms thus represent a later structure than contextual forms. Traces
of a similar omission of nal short vowels in pause have been preserved in
Biblical Hebrew as well. These are mostly found in some common prepositions, like pausal l: to you (ms) in contrast to contextual l} in context; cf.
M:[I, T:aI, t:/a, B:). These prepositions were so frequent that they resisted
the effects of analogy and preserved this archaic feature (cf. 3.3.5.2.2,
p. 91), although these pausal forms were identical to the 2fs forms of these
prepositions. This stage of the pausal omission of nal short vowels preceded
the stage of pausal lengthening and was superseded by it.
4. Morphology
4.1. Introduction
4.1.1. Morphemes, Free and Bound
4.1.1.1. Morphology deals with the form of words. It is, however, not
simple to give a satisfactory denition of what a word is in Hebrew; this is
true of many other languages as well. Although it is very easy to identify the
core of a word, it can be intricate indeed to distinguish its limits. It is therefore
more expedient to introduce the notion of a morpheme, i.e., the smallest element carrying sense, and dene morphology as the part of grammar that deals
with the form of morphemes. We distinguish between free morphemes, to wit,
elements that can stand alone and between which other elements can be inserted with relative ease (thus between the two free morphemes hy;h: he was
and l/dG; great other free morphemes can be put, such as vyaI man 2 Kgs
5:1 l/dG; vyaI hy;h: he was a great man), and bound morphemes, which do not
stand alone and which cannot be separated by other elements (thus the bound
morpheme T}- in T}r]m"&v has to follow the morpheme rm"v without interruption).
4.1.1.2. One has to distinguish carefully between morphemes and phonemes. If we deal with t in r/T turtle dove as opposed to d in r/D generation, we are analyzing phonemes. In this case, t has no meaning in itself; it is
only by its opposition to d that r/T and r/D are differentiated; and similarly
with other pairs of words that differ only by the occurrence of t in one word
and d in the other. However, when treating t in T}r]m"v as opposed, e.g., to
T:r]m"&v, we do not regard the t as a sound, a phoneme; instead, we are dealing
with the form of the free morpheme rm"v, which is changed to T}r]m"v by the addition of the bound morpheme -t; this bound morpheme -t has a meaning of its
own, viz., it marks the 2fs form (in contradistinction to T:- in T:r]m"&v, which denotes the 2ms form).
4.1.1.3. As we have seen, T}r]m"&v contains at least two morphemes, i.e., rm"v
plus T}, in contrast with the 3ms form rm"v, which, prima facie, consists of one
morpheme only. Nevertheless, it is possible to claim, because of the opposition to T}r]m"v and T:r]m"&v, that rm"v has to be analyzed as containing the morpheme rm"&v plus a zero morpheme, marking the 3ms form. Moreover, it
could be claimed that Hebrew (and Semitic) roots, at least verbal ones (in
which the derivation from triradical roots and the use of patterns are especially obvious [see 1.5.11, p. 14; 4.3.1, pp. 187ff.]), have to be analyzed as
consisting of two discontinuous bound morphemes, the root morpheme and
the pattern morpheme. rm"v, e.g., consists of the root smr and the pattern
156
157
Parts of Speech 4.1.2.2.
a-a-zero, which marks the 3ms form of the sufx-tense, and T}r]m"v contains
the root smr and the pattern a-a-t, which marks 2fs form. This notion of discontinuous root and pattern morphemes cannot, however, be employed for
primary words such as ynia I, which consist of one morpheme only, reecting
neither a clear root nor an obvious pattern. In this case, word and morpheme
are identical.
4.1.2. Parts of Speech

4.1.2.1. The standard division of words into parts of speech ultimately goes
back to Aristotle. The accepted division of the parts of speech is: (a) nouns,
divided into substantives, adjectives, numbers (numeralia), and pronouns;
(b) verbs; and (c) particles, divided into adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions,
and interjections. It is not difcult to nd aws in this division, because it is
based on no uniform criteria. Some parts of speech, however, can easily be set
up in BHeb by formal standards: e.g., verbs, which are characterized by tense
structure; or substantives, the plurals of which are marked by -im/-ot and the
possibility of having possessive pronominal sufxes attached. In contrast to
substantives, adjectives, the part of speech closest to substantives, which also
form plurals (and invariably also feminine, which applies only to a part of the
substantives), can be attached to pronominal sufxes only when substantivized. Moreover, the root structure of adjectives (e.g., qz;j: strong, l/dG; big)
is more pronounced than that of substantives, especially primary substantives
(such as hP< mouth, D; blood). Other parts of speech, however, cannot be
dened by their formal properties. They are dened by their syntactic function
(conjunctions connect nouns, verbs, adverbs, and sentences), by their distribution (prepositions invariably precede substantives, pronominal sufxes, or
[as a rule syndetic] sentences), or by their meaning (interjections denote natural exclamations). Small wonder that the accepted categories are not clearly
dened and are apt to overlap: thus, cardinal numbers in Hebrew (and other
Semitic languages) have substantival qualities, whereas ordinals are clear adjectives. However, subtantives and adjectives are assigned to different categories, yet cardinals and ordinals are lumped together.
4.1.2.1n. English adjectives do not form plurals, making the distinction between substantives and adjectives quite easy. In Hebrew, too, there is a difference between the plural
formation of substantives and adjectives. In adjectives y-i always refers to plural masculine, t/- to plural feminine, whereas among substantives exceptions occur. Moreover, only
adjectives may govern adverbs (as dam} dbEK: very heavy), and substantives may not
(dam} tyiB"&* *very house does not exist).
4.1.2.2. Contrary to what is fashionable, it does not seem justiable to

establish the same universal categories of speech for all languages. In each
language, only those parts of speech exist that are morphologically or syntactically marked.
4.1.2.3. Pronouns
158
4.1.2.3. The basic, Aristotelian division into parts of speech works well in
Hebrew for basic and common structures. However, great difculties arise because the boundaries between many parts of speech are blurred, and it is an
arduous task to state for these marginal cases to which parts of speech they belong. It is almost impossible to distinguish in every case between substantive
and adjective and participle. Is qez; in qez; h: r;b}a"w] and Abraham (was) old Gen
24:1 an adjective or a substantive (cf. yn,qez] your ancestors Deut 32:7) or a
participle? In this special case, it may even be claimed that the form has to be
parsed as a sufx-tense. And when is yni[: poor a substantive (a poor person,
the poor in a collective sense), and when is it an adjective? In a language (almost) without special morphemes to mark adverbs, where are the exact border
lines between adjectives and adverbs derived from them? Perhaps the most
expedient solution is to set up, in addition to the categories mentioned, mixed
categories, such as adjective-adverb or substantive-adjective.
4.1.2.4. In spite of all these doubts, it will not be feasible, in a general introduction such as this, to deviate from the accepted parts of speech in matters
of general terminology. Accordingly, the following study is based on the accepted divisions.
4.2. Pronouns
4.2.1. The Basics of Pronouns
4.2.1.1. Pronouns are deictic elementselements that point to something
or someone with reference to a speech situation. This being the case, they are,
to a great extent, affective and thus related to interjections. Like interjections,
they are in their origin somehow outside simple speech that indicates facts.
Therefore, they are exceptional in their structure as well. Like interjections,
they have not been transferred to triradicalism (cf., e.g., aWh, hE, hz,). Moreover, they are the only part of speech in which compound words occur. Semitic languages, in general, and Hebrew, in particular, are characterized by a
lack of compound words. The construct construction cannot properly be
called a compound, because of the comparatively great formal and semantic
independence of its parts. Other Hebrew compounds are quite marginal (e.g.,
compounds with negatives, such as l["Y'lIB} worthlessness, presumably composed of ylIB} without and l["y'* worth, and perhaps also hm:ylIB} nothingness, if indeed originally it meant without anything); in these cases one can
really claim that the exception proves the rule. The sole real exceptions in the
Semitic languages are proper nouns (such as rz,[<&ylIa, laEn]b}y') and pronouns.
4.2.1.1n. The beginnings of the univerbalization of construct constructions are reected by
the plural t/mv yvn]a" people of reputation 1 Chr 5:24, where the plural marker is added
not only to the construct, as usual (vh" yvn]a" Gen 6:4; cf. also vAylIb} yneB}AG' people without reputation Job 30:8, where the noun governed by the construct is itself a compound,
159
Independent Personal Pronouns 4.2.2.2.1.
opening with negation), but also to the governed noun. A further step toward univerbalization is exhibited by t/ba: tyBE relatives on the fathers side (e.g., 1 Chr 7:7), where the
plural marker (-ot) is added to the end of the (quasi-) compound only, rather than to the
construct (ba: yTEB:*).
4.2.1.2. Various pronominal elements join and separate in ever-changing

variations. Thus, e.g., hz,L:h" consists of three demonstrative elements: h" (with
following doubling) and l: and hz,. One of the reasons for the combination of
these elements is their emotional character. Words with affective load are apt
to lose their affectivity and become worn out, thus necessitating their renewal.
Because of their emotional character and their frequency, pronouns tend to be
shortened (e.g., by the elision of their nal vowel), and the combination of
various pronominal elements restores them to normal length.
4.2.1.2n. On the compound character of Semitic pronouns, see Jakob Barths classic work
Die Pronominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen (1913). W. Fischers excellent Die
demonstrativen Bildungen der neuarabischen Dialekte (1959) is limited, as its name indicates, to demonstratives in the Arabic dialects. Nevertheless, it provides the Hebrew linguist with much help in understanding the mechanism of the constantly changing combinations of pronominal elements.
On the loss of nal short vowels, note that Classical Arabic, which as a rule preserves
nal short vowels, often elides them from pronominal elements.
4.2.1.3. Historically later than the deictic use of pronouns is their anaphoric use (i.e., their use as a cross-referencing element, referring back to
something mentioned before, as ar;B: yhIla l<x<&B} /ml}x"B} d;a: h:Ata< yhIla ar;b}Yiw'
/ta and God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him
Gen 1:27). Only rarely does Biblical Hebrew show the anticipatory anaphoric
(or proleptic) usage, i.e., the reference to something mentioned later, as h<l:
laEr;cyi yneb}lI to the children of Israel Josh 1:2. Under the inuence of Aramaic, this construction became one of the hallmarks of Rabbinic Hebrew.
4.2.2. Independent Personal Pronouns

4.2.2.1.1. The independent personal pronouns are used primarily in the
original nominative function, i.e., as subject and predicate. Less often, the independent personal pronouns serve to emphasize a preceding pronominal sufx, ynia:&Ag' ynikE&rB: bless me as well! Gen 27:34. In other syntactical functions
(i.e., in the original accusative function after verbs and the original genitive
function after nouns and prepositions), pronominal sufxes are used; see
4.2.3ff., pp. 168ff.
4.2.2.2. First-Person Singular Independent Pronouns

4.2.2.2.1. The rst-person singular pronoun has two forms: in pause ynia:&,
ykInoa:, and in context ynia, ykI&noa:. The use of two forms for the same function is
4.2.2.2.2. Independent Personal Pronouns
160
quite remarkable; it is found in other Semitic languages (e.g., Ugaritic, Old

Akkadian). In later Biblical Hebrew, ynia spread at the expense of ykInoa:, eventually superseding it entirely in Rabbinic Hebrew. We have already demonstrated that, in accordance with the pausal forms, both these pronouns originally had penultimate stress and shifted their stress to the ultima only in the
fourth stress period (3.5.12.2.11, p. 149).
4.2.2.2.2. In Hebrew both ynia and ykInoa: terminate in -i, and this applies also
to the 1cs ending of the sufx-tense (yTIr]m"&v) and to both the genitival and accusatival pronominal sufxes (ydiy;, ynir'&m:v). In the other Semitic languages,
however, this uniformity does not obtain. In Arabic, for instance, I is ana
(spelled with nal alif ), I wrote katabtu, my hand yadi, he saw me
raani. When one language exhibits variety in a certain pattern, in contrast
with uniformity in the other language, it appears to imply that the variety is
original and the uniformity is due to analogical leveling (the principle of archaic heterogeneity, 4.3.3.4.2[a], pp. 208209). There were two stimuli for
the spread of the nal -i. The rst were the pronominal sufxes -ni and -i
(originally -iya; see 4.2.3.2.1, p. 168); the second was analogy to the form
ykInoa:, which ultimately arose from *anaku (cf. Akkadian, Ugaritic; the nal
vowel was, it seems, anceps), becoming by the Canaanite shift *anoku, and
then developing by the vowel dissimilation o - u to o - i (see 1.19.9, p. 58)
into ykInoa:. Through the threefold impact of -i, -ni, and ykInoa:, *na) shifted to
ynia, and *samartu (< samarku, by analogy with T:r]m"&v, etc.) to yTIr]m"&v.
4.2.2.2.2n. As a rule, o - u tends to shift to i - u (see 1.19.8, p. 58). It was, it seems, because of the inuence of the pronominal sufxes terminating in -i that ykInoa: was preferred
over the expected *aniku.
The role of the pronominal sufxes is complex. In other Semitic languages, it was the
impact of the pronominal sufxes alone that generated anaki. See Tropper (1993: 292),
pace Blau (1979c: 147 = Topics, 348). Indeed, in Samaritan Hebrew anaki, rather than
*anoki, is transmitted; this form would have arisen from *anaku through the inuence of
the pronominal sufxes.
The change in the sufx-form is especially noteworthy, since it took place even though
the difference between the 1cs and original 2fs (yTIr]m"&v*; traces of this are still preserved;
see below, 4.3.3.4.1n, p. 208) was blurred as a result.
4.2.2.2.3. Thus Hebrew ynia did not originally terminate in i. Its original
form was *ana (with anceps nal vowel), as in Arabic, Ethiopic (i.e., Gez,
where it always terminates in short a), and Aram ana. It was to this ana (with
nal long vowel) that the sufx *-ku, also occurring in the sufx-tense (see
4.3.3.4.1, p. 208), was attached, giving rise to *anaku > ykInoa:.
4.2.2.2.3n. The Proto-Semitic form of the pronoun may have been *ana, possibly containing the same a that occurs as the prex of the prex-tense 1cs. In Arabic, the nal
vowel of the form is written long, but it is, as a rule, scanned in poetry as short. In Aramaic
the rst vowel has been shortened owing to internal Aramaic development; the nal vowel
is long.
161
Independent Personal Pronouns

atta/att 4.2.2.3.2.
4.2.2.2.4. Since in Aramaic na prevails, whereas in Canaanite inscriptions nk is attested, Bauer and Leander (e.g., 1922: 24849), in accordance
with Bauers theory that Biblical Hebrew is a mixed language, posited that
Biblical Hebrew ykInoa: stems from its Canaanite layer, whereas ynia originates in
the Aramaic stratum. This view is groundless. The whole theory of a mixed
language is somewhat dubious (see 3.5.9.2n, p. 137), and, further, both forms
of the 1cs personal pronoun are attested in other Semitic languages as well,
and it stands to reason that they reect a Proto-Semitic doublet.
4.2.2.3. Second-Person Singular Independent Pronouns

4.2.2.3.1. The second-person singular pronoun shows gender; the pausal
forms are hT:a& :/ hT:a& ", T}a:, and the contextual hT:&a", T}a". The feminine occurs six
times with the ktib2 yta, i.e., atti, and the qre T}a". In the early books of
Judges and Kings this atti has to be interpreted as preserving the early form
*anti attested in other Semitic languages. The same form occurring in later
books (Jeremiah and Ezekiel), in all likelihood mirrors Aramaic inuence, in
which ytna/yta persisted. The same feature thus has to be analyzed in different ways in accordance with the age of the texts in which it occurs. This example highlights the difculties in any historical reconstruction of Biblical
Hebrew. Had we not known the age of these texts, we would not have been
able to differentiate among these occurrences of yta. In the light of our limited knowledge of Biblical Hebrew, there is no doubt that in many cases we
offer a somewhat simplistic explanation where the development was in fact
much more intricate.
4.2.2.3.1n. See Kutscher (1982: 3031, par. 41). Since anti occurs in stories originating in
the Northern (Israelite) part of Palestine (as opposed to Judah), Kutscher suggested that it
stems from a Northern dialect in which anti had persisted. Samaritan Hebrew atti may
also reect this Northern dialect; it may, however, also exhibit Aramaic inuence. Only
Aramaic inuence is relevant to the prevalence of yta in the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls
(Kutscher 1982: 109, par. 180).
4.2.2.3.2. The behavior of masculine hT:a", which as a rule preserves its nal vowel, is different from feminine T}a", which drops it. We have already
called attention to Biblical Hebrews being a differential dialect, one that
preserves a in positions in which i/u are omitted (see 3.5.7.6.1n, p. 129;
3.5.7.2.3n, p. 122). The reason for the persistence of the nal vowel in one of
the two pronouns hT:a", T}a" is clear: originally, the 2s opposition between masculine : feminine was marked by the opposition of anceps a : i. The dropping
of one of these nal vowels would not have altered this opposition phonemically; either a : zero or zero : i would have sufced. And there was indeed paradigmatic pressure to preserve one of these vowels. As a result, many Semitic
languages, even in their later development, keep one of the nal vowels intact,
thus maintaining the opposition and indicating that but for the paradigmatic
4.2.2.3.3. Independent
atta/att Personal Pronouns
162
pressure both vowels would have been elided. In Aramaic and many modern
Arabic dialects it is the feminine anti, etc., that survived, whereas the masculine shifted to ant, etc. It stands to reason that the 2fs sufx of the prex-tense
and the imperative -i (to which the element -ti is related; as yrim}vTI) inuenced
the sufx-tense and the pronoun to preserve its -i. In Biblical Hebrew, however, which was a differential language with a strong predilection for preserving a rather than i (and u), it was the a of hT:a" that was maintained. Cf.
3.5.7.2.3n, p. 122; 3.5.7.6.1n, p. 129.
4.2.2.3.2n. Three times (Num 11:15; Deut 5:27; Ezek 28:14) T}a" as masculine form is attested; further, there are ve cases of ktib2 ta, qre hT:a". Origen has six times aqqa and
only once aq (Ps 89:39, where the traditional text has hT:a"). In the Dead Sea Scrolls hta
by far prevails, with ta occurring only once (Qimron 1986: 57, par. 321.12). One wonders
whether to attribute this ta to the impact of T}a" used as the masculine form in Aramaic and
Rabbinic Hebrew.
Regarding the preservation of gender in these pronouns, note that in some Arabic dialects, the paradigmatic pressure was not strong enough and the nal vowels were altogether dropped, so that the masculine and feminine forms became identical. See the
illuminating analysis of the (parallel) sufx-tense endings in Jastrow (1978: 216-28).
4.2.2.3.3. The original forms of hT:a" and T}a" were *anta and *anti (with
anceps nal vowels). The n is still preserved in the Southwest Semitic languages. In all likelihood, the an is the same pronominal element that occurs in
the rst person. Accordingly, one is tempted to analyze *ana (with nal anceps vowel) as original *ana, which became *an by dissimilation of the second glottal stop. If this is correct, one will identify this a with the 1cs prex
of the prex-tense (rmva< < *asmur). Thus, an in the rst person terminated either in -a of the prex-tense or in -aku (for which see 4.3.3.4.1, p. 208) of the
sufx-tense, whereas to the second person the endings -ta and -ti, occurring in
both the sufx- and prex-tense, were sufxed (see 4.3.3.4.1, p. 208).
4.2.2.3.3n. In a sense the n is preserved also in Aramaic (yta, ytna), where, however, it
may reect later dissimilation, in cyclic form restoring the original form.
As a rule, -ta, -ti marking the 2s of the independent personal pronouns and -ka/-ki
marking the 2s of the pronominal sufx are regarded as alternating pronominal elements,
a phenomenon quite frequent in this part of speech. Kienast has ingeniously proposed that
the masculine pronominal element of the second person was -ka, the feminine one -ti (and
similarly in the plural; see Kienast 2001: 4849). Since the gender opposition was sufciently indicated by the vowel difference, the contrast of t : k was leveled out, with t sometimes prevailing and k in other cases.
4.2.2.4. Third-Person Singular Independent Pronouns

4.2.2.4.1. The 3s independent pronouns in Hebrew are aWh and ayhI. In
some Semitic languages these pronouns begin with s (Akkadian, most Epigraphic South Arabian dialects except Sabaic), in the others with h. Some
generations ago it was the accepted view (e.g., Brockelmann 190813: 1.302
3) that the original Proto-Semitic forms were *hua and *sia. Since the oppo-
163

h : s 4.2.2.4.2.
sition of h : s was redundant, the contrast being sufciently marked by u : i,

the forms were analogically leveled. In some languages the s-forms prevailed;
in others, including Hebrew, the h-forms. This theory was based on the Modern South Arabian dialect of Mehri, to a great extent, in which indeed the masculine begins with h, the feminine with s (!). Nevertheless, one should not rely
too much on Mehri, since in this dialect s may shift to h, under conditions not
yet established, so that both genders may well reect Proto-Semitic s. The situation becomes even more intricate through the occurrence of another sibilant
alongside s. In Old Akkadian, the personal and demonstrative pronoun as well
as the causative verbal theme begin with and only the relative pronoun begins with s. To account for this alternation it has been proposed that originally
opened the masculine, s the feminine form, and later the difference between
the genders (which was marked also by different vowels) was leveled out in
opposite directions. A further complication is presented by the arami dialect of Epigraphic South Arabian, where the masculine pronominal sufx
opens with s, the feminine with s. Again there are two different sibilants, but
South Arabian s does not correspond to Old Akkadian .
4.2.2.4.1n. On the contrast, see in general Kienast (2001: 5257, par. 43) and Diem (1997:
6264), with additional bibliography. For the Mehri form, one would have expected s !
The causative verbal theme is mentioned here, since it is built with the help of pronominal
elements prexed to the verb; see 4.3.5.7.3, p. 234. For the Epigraphic South Arabian
sibilants, we follow Beeston (1984); cf. 1.10.2.2n, p. 30. In arami s has fallen together
with t. However, it has to be interpreted as original s, since the alternation s : s is characteristic of the Sauri Modern South Arabian dialect.
4.2.2.4.2. It is impossible to draw clear limits between s-languages and hlanguages. As a rule, languages using the s-forms for the third-person pronoun also do so in the causative. Ugaritic, however, has h in the pronoun, s in
the causative. Besides, some h-languages having the h causative (with the
common variant in ) also have (original) st-patterns in the (reexive/reciprocal) t-form of the causative (Arabic, Gez, Sabaic; presumably because of the
phonetic difculty of forming a t-pattern verb from the h/ causative; in Arabic and Gez, the s had shifted to s). Moreover, in the same language group
different dialects may exhibit either h or s; as mentioned, Sabaic has h-forms,
the other Epigraphic South Arabian dialects s-forms. Should one posit ProtoSemitic dialectal differentiation between s, , s, and h-forms in the thirdperson pronouns and s, , h, and aleph forms in the causative, which were in
different ways continued in the individual languages? At any rate, the most
plausible explanation for the alternation of s- and h-forms is to understand
them as different pronominal elements; as noted above (4.2.2.4.1), such variation is characteristic of pronouns in general. Thus, most Semitic languages
use the d pronominal element, but, e.g., in Gez he/she is expressed by the
(addition of the) pronominal element -t- (wetu, yeti) and this is marked in
hu, hi; DualPersonal Pronouns
164
Akkadian by the pronominal element an. Similarly the 3s personal pronoun

may be indicated by different elements (s, , s, h). Even marking the causative verbal theme need not derive from h but may represent an independent
pronominal element.
4.2.2.4.3. As in Indo-European languages, the third-person pronouns differ
from the other persons in being originally demonstrative in function; this
meaning, like that of the denite article (see 4.2.5, pp. 179180), was weakened by excessive anaphoric use. The presumably archaic demonstrative usage of the third-person pronoun is still well preserved in Biblical Hebrew:
aWhh" /qM:h" that place Gen 22:14; and without the denite article attached to
the pronoun, aWh hl:y]L"B& " at that night Gen 19:33. In the Pentateuch, as a rule,
awhI is written for ayhI as a perpetual qre. The reason for this is unknown.
4.2.2.4.4. If the nal a of ayhI, aWh derives from a consonantal , one posits
*hua/*hia as etymon. Diem (1997: 6669) suggested *hiat for she, in accordance with the feminine ending of the sufx-tense -at (see 4.3.3.4.6,
p. 210).
4.2.2.5. Dual Independent Pronouns

4.2.2.5.1. The dual is generally an archaic feature, tending to disappear
with the progress of culture. This is the case, e.g., in the Indo-European languages, and also in modern Arabic dialects compared with Classical Arabic.
In the latter, the use of the dual is obligatory not only in substantives but in adjectives, pronouns, and verbs as well. In the former, however, it has become
limited to substantives and its use is more or less optional, often quite similar
to that prevailing in Biblical Hebrew.
4.2.2.5.2. In Biblical Hebrew the dual is limited to certain substantives. It
occurs in numerals (yin'v two, yit"&am: two hundred, yiP"&l}a" two thousand),
nouns denoting time (yim"&/y two days, yit"&n;v two years), nouns consisting
of two parts (yin 'z]am balances), and the double body parts (yid'&y; hands,
yil"g& ]r' feet, yip"&n;K} wings). The last category has justly been dubbed pseudodual, since it is only formally a dual; the forms have the dual ending but do not
function as duals syntactically. Instead, these duals may denote more than
two, as any ordinary plural (e.g., dj:a<l} yip"&n;K} vv each one had six wings Isa
6:2). Even nouns consisting of two parts (such as yin 'z]am cited above) cannot
be regarded as real duals, since the forms are not opposed to either a singular
or a plural.
4.2.2.5.2n. On the pseudo-dual, see Blanc (1970). Since this term is in vogue, there is no
point in using a term I have used elsewhere, ex-dual (Blau 1973a: 199 n. 94), although,
prima facie, pseudo-dual more appropriately describes place names such as yil" &vWry],
which never acted as duals.
4.2.2.5.3. The supersession of the dual by the plural is, it seems, due to the
cooperation of two forces. Modern speakers do not nd two different in prin-
165
Independent Personal
Dual;Pronouns
nnu 4.2.2.6.1.
ciple from higher numbers and, accordingly, tend to remove its archaic special
marking. In addition, languages often reect the general trend of replacing
synthetic constructionsconstructions in which bound morphemes are utilized (such as the dual, where number two is marked by a special ending)by
analytic constructions (characterized by free morphemes, as in the use of number two + the plural).
4.2.2.5.3n. Similarly, for instance, the Proto-Semitic accusative is marked by a special
ending. In Biblical Hebrew, however, this bound morpheme has been replaced before determinate nouns by a separate word (i.e., by a free morpheme), taE.
4.2.2.5.4. In the domain of pronouns the dual is totally absent from Hebrew. It is, however, not really certain that even in Proto-Semitic dual pronouns existed and that therefore their absence in Hebrew reects a later
development. In Classical Arabic, at any rate, the dual pronouns (antuma/
huma you/they both) give, prima facie, the impression of being late, being
derived from the plural (antum/hum), rather than from the singular (anta/
huwa). This is the case in Ugaritic, too, a language in which even the 1d pronominal sufx (-ny) is attested, a form that is missing in Classical Arabic. Accordingly, one wonders whether one should not posit a circular development:
in Proto-Semitic the dual was only used with nouns. In some Semitic languages it was expanded to pronouns, adjectives, and verbs; it was later limited
to certain classes of substantives.
4.2.2.5.4n. The dual forms of the sufx-tense, in both Classical Arabic and Ugaritic, are
also derived from the plural and seem late. It is true that if the singular forms anta/huwa
originally terminated in a long a, that would have blocked the derivation of the dual from
them.
It is not certain whether the Proto-Semitic dual was restricted to special classes of
nouns, as it is in Hebrew, or occurred with every substantive. The latter is more likely,
since it ts the archaic tendency towards the special expression of two. Cf. Fontinoy
(1969).
4.2.2.6. First-Person Plural Independent Pronouns

4.2.2.6.1. The rst-person plural forms are two in number, Wnj}n'a, Wnj}n'
we. The ancient form, according to comparative Semitic linguistics, is not
the usual Wnj}n'a (though forms with initial aleph are also attested in other Semitic dialects, such as Phoenician and Biblical Aramaic) but Wnj}n', which occurs only ve times in the Bible (and is attested in the Lachish letters as well).
Wnj}n'a was, it seems, formed from Wnj}n' by analogy with the singular ynia. The
secondary character of the prosthetic aleph is also demonstrated by internal
analysis, viz., its vocalization with aaf pata; were it original, it would have
been vocalized with qama owing to pretonic lengthening. Rabbinic Hebrew
went even further with the analogy to ynia, substituting Wna:& for Wnj}n'a. In the
Bible, this form is attested only once as a ktib2 in Jer 42:6; the qre is Wnj}n'a. If
attm, atten! Personal
O
Pronouns
166
it does not reect the inuence of later copyists, who already in their spoken
language used Wna:&, it can be interpreted as already existing in the spoken language at the end of the First Temple era; not being considered to belong to the
standard, Wnj}n'a was substituted in its stead (Kutscher 1982: 31, par. 42).
4.2.2.6.2. The Akkadian and Gez correspondences of (a)nanu have i (or
its development) in the rst syllable. Since it is easy to derive a from i preceding but not vice versa, it stands to reason that the Proto-Semitic form was
*ninu (with anceps nal vowel; cf. above, 3.5.7.2.2, p. 122).
4.2.2.7. Second-Person Plural Independent Pronouns

4.2.2.7.1. The second-person masculine plural form is T<a". The feminine form TEa" is attested in Ezek 34:31 only, and hn;TE&a", with simple nun, occurs four times. In the Babylonian vocalization pata-segol prevails in the 2p
(and 3p) forms for both Tiberian ere and segol. The opening of these forms
(att- < *ant) is identical to the 2s forms.
4.2.2.7.2. Much more complicated is the termination of these pronouns.
Hebrew, as well as the other Semitic languages, reects a real medley of
forms, both here and in 3p forms (which rhyme with 2p forms), the corresponding pronominal sufxes, and the sufx-tense terminations. This miscellany came into being by the combination of different pronominal elements
and their mutual leveling. The original pattern of the masculine was, it seems,
antumu (as preserved in Arabic in sandhi), terminating in the plural ending
-u, prevailing in the third-person plural of the sufx-tense and in the secondand third-person plural of the prex-tense and in the imperative (Wrm}v, Wrm}vTI,
Wrm}vyi, Wrm}v) and presumably also occurring in Proto-Hebrew noun plurals
(yvar; heads, in the nominative < *raasu[ma]). The m of the 2mp as well as
the n of the 2fp are presumably pronominal elements.
4.2.2.7.2n. On the variety of elements involved in the forms, see also Blau 1975: 7172 =
Studies, 6364. With Arabic antumu, cf. also Gez antmu; in Gez both short u and i
shift to .
4.2.2.7.3. The basic pattern of the feminine was *antina, terminating in

the feminine plural -a ending. This -a is also preserved in Akkadian attina, as
well as in the Akkadian and Gez conjugations and in some remnants of the
Hebrew sufx-tense, partly preserved as ktib2 (see 4.3.3.4.10, p. 212) and
perhaps of the imperative (see 4.3.3.1.2n, p. 203). From this form Hebrew
hn;TE&a" may be directly derived; with omission of the nal anceps ending, we arrive at TEa".
4.2.2.7.3n. The -a may also be an original element in the marker of the Hebrew fp noun,
t/-, to be derived from *-at. In Hebrew there is a tendency toward preserving nal -a (see
3.5.7.2.3n, p. 122; 4.2.2.3.2n, p. 162), but it is not surprising that it is elided from pronominal elements (see 4.2.1.2n, p. 159).
167
attm,
Pronouns
atten! O 4.2.2.7.5.
We have derived the nal -a ultimately from the feminine forms, which ended in the fp
markers -a/-na (and have mentioned marginally the possibility of internal Hebrew development). This, however, is not the only derivation possible. In some Semitic languages
(Phoenician, Ugaritic, Spanish Arabic), pronouns of the third person may terminate in
-(a)t. It is possible to posit this ending for Hebrew as well in the third person and to derive
the long form (also) by the word-nal shift of -at to -a, as attested in the feminine ending
of nouns and verbs (see 1.5.13, p. 15; 3.5.7.2.1, p. 121; 4.3.3.4.7, p. 210; 4.4.2.4,
p. 264). Since in other Semitic languages this feature is almost entirely limited to the third
person, its occurrence in the second person would have to be explained as the result of
analogy. This, of course, does not add to the likelihood of this kind of development. We
refrain from broaching the question of the use of -a in the function of oblique cases.
4.2.2.7.4. The segol in T<a" (pata in the Babylonian vocalization) in contrast to the ere in TEa" / hn;TE&a" is strange and can be accounted for only by positing a chain of analogical formations. On the one hand, long forms terminating
in -a alternated with short forms in which it was elided (as hn;TE&a," TEa)" . On the
other hand, pronouns with doubling of the nal consonant (consisting of the nal -n plus the fp -na ending) occurred alongside forms with a simple n (hN;h,E&
hn;B<&r]qI their [fp] interior Gen 41:21). These alternations gave rise to a great
variety of forms, not all of them attested in Biblical Hebrew, though they may
be reconstructed with fairly high certainty, since they occur in parallel forms
and have often left traces. Moreover, since the opposition between the masculine and feminine pronouns (*antumu : *antina, antinna) contained redundant features, being triply marked (u : i, m : n(n), -u : -a), the forms were to a
great extent leveled; the masculine form was signicantly adapted to the feminine. These developments complicated the situation considerably.
4.2.2.7.4n. On the analogical formation, see once more Blau 1975: 7172 = Studies, 63
64. The Hebrew fp ending na is attested in the imperative and the prex-tense (hn;r]m&v,
hn;r]m&vTI); in Classical Arabic it is found in the sufx-tense as well. In Hebrew pay attention to the alternation of the two fp a markers (in hn;TE&a", without geminated nun) and -na
(contained in hN;hE&).
4.2.2.7.5. In accounting for the vocalizations, it seems expedient to start

with the Babylonian forms, which are simpler, since they invariably contain
a. This a arose rst through the operation of Philippis Law on i in a closed,
stressed syllable. This occurred rst in feminine forms, which originally
ended in -nnO, as seen in hnnO, corresponding to Tiberian hN;hE& < *hin+na,
terminating in the feminine-plural -na ending. The shift then spread to the
masculine forms, which, according to comparative evidence, originally contained u in open syllable and terminated in -u but were rebuilt in analogy with
the feminine forms and shifted, through the action of Philippis Law, to
-mmO (as *hmu > *hmma > hmmO, parallel to Tiberian hM:hE&). Thus the
gender differentiation was marked by the opposition m : n only. The situation
according to the Tiberian vocalization is much more intricate. In order to understand it one has to posit, as stated, the existence of a great variety of forms,
! mO, hen! nO;

4.2.2.8. Independent
hem
Personal
Sufxed
Pronouns
Personal Pronouns
168
only some of which are attested: hm:TE&a"*, hM:T<&a"*, hM;TE&a"*, TEa"*, T<a", hn;TE&a",
hN;T<&a"*, hN;TE&a"*, hn;T<&a", TEa", T<a"*, and similarly in the 3p.
4.2.2.7.5n. Note that both Tiberian hM:hE& and hN:hE& contain ere. This ere can be accounted
for in two ways: (1) either it was preserved by analogy with forms containing ere in an
open syllable, which therefore were not affected by Philippis Law (like hm:TE&a"*), or (2) by
deriving it from *hmmO/*hnnO, reecting the shift of iriq to segol according to Philippis Law, and later the shift of segol to ere, because of the tendency to use ere, rather
than segol, in stressed closed syllables. The second of these would exhibit a circular development, restoring the original ere.
For the unattested hm:TE&a"*, cf. hn;TE&a". For the unattested hM:T<&a"*, cf. Samaritan attimma.
In the Dead Sea Scrolls, too, the long forms prevail. They may continue the long forms attested in Biblical Hebrew, yet they may also be regarded as the result of late internal Hebrew analogy (cf. similar forms in modern Arabic dialects; see Kutscher 1982: 96, par.
157). Cf. also the very interesting 3s pronouns occurring in the Dead Sea Scrolls: hawh,
hayh. The above-mentioned hM:T<&a"* would reect the shift of iriq/ere to segol by Philippis Law. With TEa"*, cf. hE. For unattested hN;TE&a"*, cf. hN:hE&.
4.2.2.8. Third-Person Plural Independent Pronouns

4.2.2.8.1. The third-person plural forms, masculine and feminine, are
hM:hE&, hE, hN;;hE&. Their terminations partly correspond to the second-person plural; see 4.2.2.7, pp. 166168; on the alternation of h and s in various Semitic
languages, see 4.2.2.4, pp. 162164.
4.2.3. Sufxed Personal Pronouns

4.2.3.1.1. The independent personal pronouns in Biblical Hebrew, as noted
above, are used in the original nominative function, i.e., in the main as subjects and predicates. In other functions (in the function of the oblique cases)
i.e., governed by nouns and prepositions (genitive function) or by verbs
(accusative function)pronominal sufxes are used. The genitive and accusative sufxes are generally identical, except in 1cs forms.
4.2.3.2. First-Person Singular Sufxes

4.2.3.2.1. The rst-person singular sufx is -i after nouns and prepositions, but -ni after verbs: ydiy; my hand, yBI in me, in contrast to ynin;q: he acquired me. It is tempting to derive both forms from one stock and assume that
the -n- of -ni arose to avoid hiatus. Just as from the place name /lyv the gentilic noun yni/lyv is derived, the n bridging over the hiatus *silo-i, thus allegedly from *qana-i, ynin;q; developed. This attractive explanation is not devoid of
difculties. As we have seen (3.5.12.2, pp. 144ff.), one of the most powerful
explanations of Hebrew syllable structure is the hypothesis that, once general
pretonic stress obtained, words stressed on their penultimate lost their nal
vowel; those with ultima stress preserved it. Accordingly, paroxytone ynin;q: has
169

-i, -ka /-ki 4.2.3.3.1.
not lost any nal vowel, the original form of the accusative pronominal sufx
being -ni without an additional nal vowel (not *-niya). Nevertheless, oxytone forms like ydi&y; elided the nal vowel; comparative evidence suggests that
the original form of the sufx was -iya. Haplology determines the form of yd'y;
my hands: *yaday-iya becomes *yadayya and eventually yd'y;, after omission
of the nal short vowel.
4.2.3.2.1n. For the usual hiatus explanation, see Brockelmann (190813: 1.5152; 307).
In Arabic, note that kitabiya -l-jadid my new book occurs alongside kitabi -l-jadid;
note the omission of the case vowel preceding -iya/-i.
In Arabic, following a long vowel or a vowelless y, the sufx has the form -ya; after a
long vowel the long vowel displaces the following short i (*yada-iya my hands [nominative] > yadaya); after a vowelless y the i is omitted owing to haplology (*yaday-iya my
hands [in the oblique case] > yadayya).
The -niya form is tricky. In Hebrew and Ugaritic *-iya and ni are distinct (Tropper
2000: 21520). In contrast, in Arabic, -niya occurs under the same circumstances in which
-iya is used; it appears that here -niya is due to analogy with -iya.
4.2.3.2.2. Because -iya and -ni likely have different origins, they presumably reect different pronominal elements. The alternation of such elements
should not surprise us; we have met their interchange in independent pronouns as well (see 4.2.2.2, pp. 159ff.).
4.2.3.3. Second-Person Singular Sufxes

4.2.3.3.1. In Proto-Semitic, the second-person singular sufxes, masculine and feminine, were *-ka/*ki with anceps nal vowels. We have dealt in
the preceding chapter (above, 4.2.2.3.2, p. 161) with the tendency toward
preserving at least one of the two vowels in order to maintain the gender opposition. Again, as in the case of the independent pronoun (see 4.2.2.3.2,
p. 161), the opposition in Biblical Hebrew was preserved by maintaining the a
of ka, whereas in Aramaic and many modern Arabic dialects it was the i of ki
that was kept. As a matter of fact, the preservation of the nal a was necessary
for maintaining the gender opposition only after long vowels (and this is indeed the situation in Rabbinic Hebrew, where -ka was primarily preserved
only in this position): ybI&a: / ybIa: your (m/f) father. After short vowels, however, the opposition was sufciently indicated by ere preceding the feminine
sufx -k: dey; your (f) hand. This ere arose from the case ending -i by assimilation to the nal -ki. From the case endings u, a, i, (*yaduki, *yadaki,
*yadiki), *yadiki prevailed, partly through assimilation, partly by paradigmatic pressure, because of the tendency to preserve the gender opposition.
Verbal forms were analogically inuenced by the nominal ones (like rem:v).
Accordingly, in this case the preservation of the nal a in -ka was redundant.
4.2.3.3.1n. The remnants of -ki attested in Biblical Hebrew run parallel with the remainders of yTIa" treated in the preceding chapter (4.2.2.3.1, p. 161). Its occurrence as ktib2 in
-ka /-ki
Personal Pronouns
170
an early text of Northern origin (2 Kings 4) may represent an archaic feature or a Northern
(Israelite) form, which has perhaps preserved the Proto-Semitic pronominal sufx,
whereas its attestation in late psalms (such as Ps 103:4 ykIre&F}["m}h" . . . ykIy] Y;j" [the rst form
occurs in pause] your [f ] life . . . he who crowns you) reects Aramaic inuence (see
Hurvitz 1972: 11619). I refrain from broaching the subject whether or not Aramaic
reached late Biblical Hebrew directly or (also) through Northern channels (see Rendsburg
and Rendsburg 1993: 39296, who, however, tend to exaggerate Northern inuence),
since this sort of differentiation is almost impossible.
For details cf. Blau (1982c = Topics, 13845). The segol in the pausal masculine form
(d,&y;) is surprising; one would have expected *yOqO!kO in pause, *yOqkO in context. It
seems far-fetched to derive it from *yadika and to assume that, for the lack of paradigmatic pressure (since the gender was sufciently indicated by -*ka), the case vowel was
not assimilated to the nal vowel. The more likely explanation seems to be that the singular d,&y; was inuenced by the dual/plural yd,&y; (through partial assimilation of the ere to
qama) *yOqek! O < yadayka.
4.2.3.3.2. Prepositions, which originally were construct nouns in adverbial

function, terminated in the adverbial accusative case ending -a. In some frequent prepositions, therefore, -a was preserved preceding -k(i): l:, B:, M:[I,
T:aI, t: /a to, in, with, together with you (f), you (f, as direct object). (These
forms are also identical to the pausal masculine forms; see 4.2.3.3.3 below.)
In the case of nouns with pronominal sufxes, three alternatives ran parallel (as
*yaduki, *yadaki, *yadiki), and the assimilation was strong enough to make
*yadiki prevail, yet not strong enough to change prepositions, e.g., *laki to
nonexistent *liki. Less frequent prepositions, however, were attracted by the
analogy of ordinary nouns (and in some cases, such as bybIs: around, the
prepositions were still felt as nouns).
4.2.3.3.3. Traces of the archaic elision of the original, nal short vowels of
the masculine sufx in pause have been preserved, mainly in some very common prepositions, such as l: to you (ms; pausal) in contrast to l} in context;
additional pausal forms include M:[I, T:aI, t: /a, B:. It was because of the frequency of these prepositions that they were not inuenced by analogy but preserved this archaic feature. Note, however, that because this pausal masculine
form was identical to the usual feminine form, it abolished the gender distinction (cf. 3.5.13.5, p. 155). The unusual form hk:t& :a (Exod 29:35) instead of
t:a is uncertain; one wonders whether it is an ancient form maintaining the nal qama or whether it perhaps represents contamination of t:a with t}a.
4.2.3.3.3n. Only rarely does pausal masculine A: occur in cases where it is not sufxed to
a preposition; see, e.g., d;m}VhI that you will be destroyed Deut 28:24; n;[: he answered
you Isa 30:19 (see Jer 23:37 for an example of the same word, n;[:, in context).
4.2.3.3.4. Pronominal sufxes added to a noun in the dual/plural are preceded by *-ay (the former dual ending): yd,&y;, yid'&y.; The feminine sufx is -k
after dual/plural as well: *yadayki > *yadayk > (by opening of the nal cluster) > yi d'&y;.
171
-kaPronouns
/-ki; -hu 4.2.3.4.1.
4.2.3.3.4n. Because of the frequency of pronominal sufxes after nouns denoting double
body parts (yd,&y; your hands, yn,y[E your eyes), the Proto-Semitic dual ending *-ay superseded the plural ending *-i.
Since it was only in closed syllables that the diphthong ay developed an anaptyctic
vowel (ayi; see 3.4.2.2, p. 96), one has to assume that ay persisted after the -i of the feminine pronominal sufx was elided (*yadayki > *yaqayk > yid'&y;).
4.2.3.3.5. The striking word structure of r]b:D] your (m) speech and the
more original stress pattern of pausal r,&b:D] has been dealt with above (see
3.5.7.5.7, p. 126). In Rabbinic Hebrew, the 2ms pronominal sufx has the
form -; after short vowels. Based on this fact and on transliterations of the
form, P. Kahle assumed that -; is the genuine Hebrew form, -] the Masoretic
restoration, in accordance with his theory that the Masoretes changed their
tradition under the inuence of Classical Arabic grammar (see 3.3.2.2.6,
p. 80). Actually, even without taking the basic improbability of this theory
into consideration, the structure of r]b:D] is not aberrant at all. Its pattern exactly matches the verbal patterns hr;m}v, Wrm}v, and as stated (see 3.5.7.5.7,
p. 126), both have to be interpreted as emerging from the fourth stress stage,
according to the special sound shifts obtaining at that period. Moreover,
Kahle was wrong in his claim that Babylonian and Palestinian biblical texts
attest the pronominal sufx -;: in biblical texts proper, these vocalization systems use the same pattern r]b:D] as the Tiberians. It is only in post-biblical
texts vocalized according to these systems that -; occurs, and as a result, in
quotations from the Bible as well, which may be pronounced as in Rabbinic
Hebrew, according to their context. Nor should the Greek and Latin transcriptions be used as proof for the articiality of the r]b:D] pattern. They simply reect the vulgar, i.e., the later (Mishnaic), form of the 2ms pronominal sufx.
And, indeed, even the consonantal text of the Bible, although rarely to be sure,
attests - by using nal h as a vowel letter (hk:aB when you come to Gen
10:19, i.e., in the direction of); for details, see the masterful study by Ben
ayyim (1954). In addition, this spelling is frequent in the Dead Sea Scrolls,
thus proving that - precedes the supposed activity of the Masoretes, who allegedly were emulating the Arab grammarians.
4.2.3.3.5n. See the nal rendering of Kahles view (1959: 17179).
Sievers (1901: 28891) may be right in one detail. He claims that the rhythm of the
poetic passages of the Bible demands that the 2ms pronominal sufx - be unstressed in
context as well. It is indeed possible that (a part of ) biblical poetry reects a stress system
preceding the fourth stress period, in which - had become stressed. Though this is possible, our limited knowledge of biblical poetry does not enable us to state anything with
certainty. At any rate, even if Sieverss theory proves right, this by no means intimates that
the vocalization of this pronominal sufx is articial.
4.2.3.4. Third-Person Masculine-Singular Sufxes

4.2.3.4.1. The third-person masculine singular sufx derives from the
same base as the independent personal pronoun aWh. Its original form, -hu, has
-hu /-ha
Personal Pronouns
172
been preserved after long vowels, as attested in WhyPI& (alongside wyPI) his
mouth, WhyTI&r]m"v (alongside wyTIr]m"v), WhWnr]m"v, Whde&c his eld, Wha&:r; he saw
him, WhaE&r]yi he will see it, and in analogy to III-y verbs such as Whre&m}vyi. Since
the 3ms of the sufx-tense originally terminated in a (see 4.3.5.2.2.4,
p. 221), which in pause became lengthened, Wh- was preserved in pause after
long a (e.g., Whr;&m:v). But after short a the h was elided and the emerging diphthong aw was monophthongized to /-: *samarahu > *samaraw > /rm:v. It is
this /- that serves as the usual pronominal sufx of the 3ms after singular
nouns; from the three original forms -uhu (in the nominative), -ihu (in the
genitive), and -ahu (> -aw > o; in the accusative), it was -ahu > -o that had the
upper hand through the analogical inuence of verbal forms of the thirdperson singular of the sufx-tense such as /rm:v and prepositions that originally terminated in the adverbial accusative ending -a (/l to him, /M[I with
him, etc., which inuenced the emergence of /ryv his song). The archaic
spelling h-o (as hry[I his foal Gen 49:11), which attests the original consonantal h (-ahu > o), still occurs in the biblical text.
4.2.3.4.1n. See above, 4.2.2.4, pp. 162164, where the alternation of initial h and s in the
comparable 3s pronominal forms is discussed.
4.2.3.4.2. After the dual/plural -ay ending of plural nouns (cf. 4.2.3.3.4,
p. 170) the h was elided and -aw arose: *sirayhu > *sirayw > wyr;yv, pronounced sirOw. If the sufx is directly preceded by a consonant, the h is
progressively assimilated to this consonant; this is the case when the h is
preceded by the so-called nun energeticum (after the prex-tense, the imperative, and some particles, such as WNr,&m}vyi < *yismr!nhu; WN;n ,yaE he is not
< *en!nhu), or by -at, the 3fs form of the sufx-tense (as WTB"&n;G } she stole it).
4.2.3.4.2n. After the prex-tense, -e!hu is used in prose mainly after (historical) short
forms (i.e., the jussive and forms opening with the conversive waw), as in Whq &nE iYew ' and
He made him to suck Deut 32:13. Otherwise, -!nnu prevails, as in WNa<&r;q}yi it will happen
to him Gen 42:4. In elevated style, as in Whn]b<&b}sy] He will encompass him Deut 32:10, the
lento form -!nhu occurs. In these forms, the n, it seems, stems from an ancient energic
form of the indicative; for details, see Lambert (1903: 178-83); Blau 1978d = Studies, 94
104. For the alternation of h and n sufxes in Ugaritic, see Tropper (2000: 22123). In poetry, -e!hu occurs after all prex-tense forms, whether historically long or short.
Alongside allegro forms such as WTB"&n;G] she stole it Job 21:16, there are also lento
forms such as Wht}b"&hEa she loved him 1 Sam 18:28.
4.2.3.5. Third-Person Feminine-Singular Sufxes

4.2.3.5.1. The third-person feminine singular sufx has the basic form
*-ha, which, according to the clear evidence of the other Semitic languages, is
the original Proto-Semitic form. This -ha is preserved after long vowels: h: yPI&
her mouth, h: Wr&m}vyi they will guard her, h: ya<&r]m" her sight, h: a<&r]yi he will see
her, and also in analogy to III-y verbs such as h: r,&m}vyi.
173
-huPronouns
/-ha; -nu 4.2.3.6.1.
4.2.3.5.1n. See above, 4.2.2.4, pp. 162164, which deals with the alternation of initial h
and s in the 3s pronominal forms in various Semitic languages.
The form h: ya<&r]m" her sight < *marayiha inuenced the dual/plural forms *yadayha
her hands/*sirayha her songs > h:yd,&y; / h: yr,&yv. Without this inuence *yadayha/*sirayha
would have developed like *sirayhu > *sirayw > wyr;yv his songs (for which, see above,
4.2.3.4.2, p. 172), viz., *yadaya/*siraya. The restoration of the h was also inuenced by
the fact that it was felt to represent the third-person pronominal sufx.
The segol instead of the expected ere in the form h: r,&m}vyi is due to assimilation to the
following qama, for which, see above, 3.5.10.3, p. 137. In the sufx-tense, however, it
was the III-y verbs that were inuenced by the strong verb. Ha:r; he saw her was formed
by analogy to Hr;m:v he kept her, even though the former has long a before the pronominal sufx and the latter has original short a preceding the pronominal sufx.
4.2.3.5.2. After short vowels, however, the 3fs sufx has, as a rule, the
form H-;, as in Hr;m:v, Hl: to her, Hr;yv. If the sufx is directly preceded by a
consonant, the h is progressively assimilated to this consonant, under the same
conditions that apply to the h of the third-person masculine (see 4.2.3.4.2).
The alternation of h: - (and rare H-;) with hN;-; after the prex-tense parallels that
of the masculine Wh-e with WN-,; see above, 4.2.3.4.2; 4.2.3.5.1n.
4.2.3.5.2n. For rare forms terminating in h-; (with h as a vowel letter, as hl: = la Num
32:42), which, it seems, are more original than the usual forms with consonantal h, see
3.3.5.3.4, p. 93. The a preceding the h arose partly by assimilation to the nal a, or, more
accurately, by the prevalence of the a accusative ending owing to this assimilation. But
partly it was original, viz., in prepositions (which terminated in the adverbial accusative
ending -a) and in the 3ms form of the sufx-tense. The reason for the preservation of the
nal vowel after long vowels was that the pronominal sufx was not sufciently indicated
without the nal qama, because of the elision of the short a after the long vowel. After
short vowels, however, it was adequately marked by -a(h).
4.2.3.6. First-Person Plural Sufxes

4.2.3.6.1. The rst-person plural sufx -nu corresponds to the ending of
the 1cp independent pronoun Wnj}n'a. In Aramaic and Gez, both the pronominal sufx and the independent personal pronoun terminate in a/a. In Classical
Arabic, however, the independent personal pronoun has nal -u but the pronominal sufx has -a. As stated above (see 4.2.2.2.2, p. 160), according to
the principle of archaic heterogeneity, variety is, as a rule, more archaic than
uniformity, which is apt to arise by analogy. So, in contradistinction to Hebrew, -na has to be posited as the original Proto-Semitic form. In Hebrew,
*-na shifted to Wn- by analogy with Wnj}n'a. In Aramaic and Gez, the pronominal sufx analogically inuenced the independent personal pronoun. This
conforms to our general nding that in the rst and second persons the pronominal sufxes differ from the independent personal pronouns.
4.2.3.6.1n. In Akkadian, the independent pronoun terminates in -u, the pronominal sufx
in -i. In the Akkadian of Mari the pronominal sufx terminates in -e, and this may also be
the case in Ugaritic; see Tropper (2000: 224).
4.2.3.7. Independent
-kumu /-kina Personal Pronouns
174
4.2.3.7. Second-Person Plural Sufxes

4.2.3.7.1. The Proto-Semitic forms of the second-person plural sufxes
are *-kumu/*-kina, *-kinna (cf. the independent personal pronouns *antumu/
*antina, *antinna, 4.2.2.7, pp. 166168).
4.2.3.7.1n. For the possibility that the original forms were -kumu/-tina, -tinna, see
4.2.2.3.3n, p. 162; this proposal, however, is based on the assumption of a far-reaching
identity of independent personal pronouns and pronominal sufxes.
-kinna reects the addition of the feminine plural ending -na to -kin, whereas -kina
reects the addition of the feminine plural sufx -a (cf. 4.2.2.7.3 and note, p. 166). -kina
survived only in hn;k<&t}M"zi your (fp) licentiousness Ezek 23:48-49, where the nongeminated n reects its derivation from -kina, rather than from -kinna. Note, however, that
the vocalization of the k with segol is due to contamination with -kinna, whose i, preceding geminated n, shifted (by the action of Philippis Law) to segol; or is due to assimilation to qama.
4.2.3.7.2. The sufxes developed by leveling and elision of the nal vowel
to k<-& < *-kumu / k<-& < *-kina. Since in the period of the general paroxyton
stress *kmu/*-kna and *-knna were stressed on the rst syllable, k<-& /k<-&
retain the stress; therefore, it is customary to dub them heavy pronominal
sufxes.
4.2.3.7.2n. In contrast to the 2p sufxes, the stress on the 2ms sufx (as &r]yv) is secondary,
as indicated by the pausal form r,&yv.
The corresponding 3p pronominal sufxes h<&-/ h<&- also belong to this category of
heavy pronominal sufxes. Since the stress is more remote from the noun/verb to which
the heavy pronominal sufxes are attached, the noun/verb are more suitable for change
and the noun often assumes the form of the construct, as in k<r]b"D] your (mp) word,
h<yreb}Di their (fp) words, corresponding to the construct forms rb"D] word of , yreb}Di words
of. Remarkable are forms such as k<r]b"D] / k<r]b"D] with pata preceding the spirant k, in
contrast with qama followed by the other pronominal sufxes (r]b:D], /rb:D], etc.). To understand these forms, one must, it seems, start with proto-forms such as *dabarukmu /
*dabariknna, in which the pronominal sufxes containing u/i made u/i prevail among the
case endings u/i/a (as *dabarukmu, *dabarikmu, *dabarakmu). Since pretonic u in
open syllables is as a rule reduced and i is also often shortened in this position, k<r]b"D]
arose with swa medium preceding spirant k. Accordingly, the identity of db2 ar (+ km)
with the construct rb"D] is accidental. The hypothesis that the 3p pronominal sufxes were
originally independent (as if, e.g., *hum were used not only in nominative but also in accusative and genitive function) and that it is for this reason that they are preceded by construct forms, seems far-fetched, in spite of the attestation in the Mesha inscription line 18
h bjsaw and I dragged them. The hypothesis is even more unlikely since it forces us to
posit an auxiliary hypothesis in which the pronominal sufxes of the 2p were later attracted by the analogy of the 3p forms, because of their similarity.
4.2.3.8. Third-Person Plural Sufxes

4.2.3.8.1. The Proto-Semitic forms of the third-person plural pronominal
sufxes are *-humu/*-hina, *-hinna. They run parallel to the pronominal suf-
175
-humuPronouns
/-hin(n)a 4.2.3.8.2.
xes of the second-person plural, with which they form the class of the heavy
pronominal sufxes (see 4.2.3.7.2n). The Proto-Semitic forms shifted by elision of the nal vowel and then leveling of the remaining vowel to h<-/h<-,
on the one hand, and to -/-, on the other. The forms h<-/h<- occur, in the
main, after long vowels (h<ybIa their father, h<yriP} their fruit, h<yPI their
mouth, h<yvar; their heads, h<ytE/ba their fathers), -/- after (originally)
short ones. The vowel preceding the sufx is qama in the sufx-tense and
most nouns. In the sufx-tense, the qama occurs because the third-person singular masculine originally terminated in -a. In nouns -a- prevailed through the
greater stability of -a, the inuence of the sufx-tense as well as prepositions,
which basically ended in the adverbial accusative -a (as t:a them); thus
r;m:v he preserved them, m:v their name, t:/ba their fathers.
4.2.3.8.1n. For the alternation of h and s in Semitic languages, see 4.2.2.4n, pp. 162164.
Nouns originally terminated in the case endings a/i/u. With the elision of nal short
vowels, the case system collapsed and the case vowels in word-medial position became
mere variants.
The form t:/ba their fathers stems from < *ab2 otahum. It alternates with the secondary formation h<ytE/ba < *ab2 otayhum, which was inuenced by h<yaEr]m" < *marayihim;
cf. above, 3.3.5.3.5n, p. 93.
4.2.3.8.2. This distinction between long and short vowels followed by alternative forms of the pronominal sufx often became rather blurred and the various forms inuenced each other. On the one hand, h<-/h<- is attested after
(originally) short vowels; thus, alongside B: in them, h<B: occurs. Additional
examples include h<l: to them, h<t}a< them (as direct object), h<B}l}j< their
fat, h<B}lI their heart. On the other hand, -/- are quite frequent after original
long vowels, as yTIr]m"v. Further examples include the prex-tense of III-y
verbs such as aEr]yi he will see them. Inuenced by these forms, strong verbs
with heavy sufxes are shaped similarly, e.g., rem}vy,i so that the suffxes -e/ -e
have become characteristic of the 3p pronominal sufxes attached to the prextense. Rarer forms are attested as well, such as masculine hm:hE&y-e (hm:hE&ylEaE their
pillars), /m-;, /my-e (/my;r]PI their fruit, /mytE&/mB: their heights), feminine hn;-;, hn;-,
(hn;LK: & U they all, hn;B<&r]qI their interior, stemming from -hina with simple n, as
do the following forms as well), hn;h-} ; (hn;h}LK: & U they all), further hn;h-<& (hn;h<&ytEYowGi ]
their bodies), hE-& (hEt}P: their secret parts); the etymon -hinna is reected in
hN;- e (hN;mE&j}y'l} for their having breeding heat Gen 30:41).
4.2.3.8.2n. By analogy to the sufx-tense, sometimes prex-tense forms such as vB:l}yi he
will put them on occur.
The segol in the feminine sufx hn;-, is due to contamination with forms stemming from
the etymon -hinna, in which i occurring in a stressed closed syllable had shifted to segol
through the action of Philippis Law.
4.2.4. Demonstratives
176
4.2.4. Demonstrative Pronouns

4.2.4.1. Deictic and Anaphoric Functions
4.2.4.1.1. Demonstrative pronouns are still often used in what seems to be
the most archaic function of pronominal elements, to wit, the deictic function
(which perhaps developed from interjections). When they are used anaphorically (i.e., to refer back to something mentioned), they may lose their demonstrative function.
4.2.4.1.2. As we have seen (see 4.2.2.4.3, p. 164), the third-person personal pronouns were originally demonstrative pronouns and may still be
used as such. However, their original demonstrative meaning was weakened
and as a result they are sometimes added as subjects to the nite forms of the
verb even when not emphasized. They also may form a uniform paradigm
with the personal pronouns of the rst and second person.
4.2.4.1.3. Similarly, the denite article originated in a demonstrative pronoun, as is evidenced by the fact that it is still preserved in Biblical Hebrew
with nouns marking time (which often exhibit archaic behavior): /Yh" this
day, i.e., today; hl:y]L"h
& " this night, i.e., tonight. Later, the anaphoric use of
the denite article became obligatory and thus the transition from the demonstrative pronoun to the denite article had been completed. Thus, after ['yqIr;
rmament has been mentioned (['yqIr; yhIy] let there be a rmament Gen 1:6),
one need not, when mentioning the rmament a second time in verse 7, use a
demonstrative pronoun this rmament (hZ,h" ['yqIr:h:*). Instead, the addition of
the denite article in this syntactic environment has become obligatory in
prose and only ['yqIr:h: (and not ['yqIr:) may be employed.
4.2.4.2. Near and Far Demonstratives

4.2.4.2.1. The demonstrative pronouns referring to a near object are hz, and
feminine tazo , rarely /z/hzo (as usual in Rabbinic Hebrew), plural hL<aE&, rarely
laE. When referring to a remote object, the already mentioned third-person
pronouns are used (aWhh" /Yh" that day, hM:hE&h: ymIY;B" in those days; for the
denite article preceding the pronoun, see 4.2.4.3.3).
4.2.4.2.2. It is noteworthy that the pronoun referring to a near object exhibits z (= z2 according to other Semitic languages) in the singular, l in the plural.
Such an exceptional suppletive (metaplastic) paradigm, attested also in
many West Semitic languages, clearly indicates their common origin. Exceptional morphological features prove common descent more than anything else
(see 1.5.15, p. 15), since in such a case parallel development is almost inconceivable. Therefore, it stands to reason that it reects a Proto-Semitic feature
that was lost in Akkadian, where the plural was adapted to the singular.
4.2.4.2.3. We have already mentioned (4.2.1.2, p. 159) that hz,L:h" contains
three pronominal elements ha(n)+lO+zb. hz,L:h" itself has nal stress, yet its
177
Demonstratives 4.2.4.3.3.
original stress was on the penult, as indicated by the feminine WzLEh

& ," the shortened
epicene form zL:h," and the theory of general penultimate stress (3.5.12.2.2,
p. 144).
4.2.4.3. Adjectival Function

4.2.4.3.1. When a demonstrative pronoun occurs in adjectival function,
serving as an attribute to a substantive determined by the denite article, it
follows its head and itself receives the denite article: hZ,h" vyaIh: this man,
taZoh" hVaIh: this woman, hL<aE&h: yvN;h"/ yvn;ah: these men/women (for the
similar construction of aWh(h"), see 4.2.4.2.1).
4.2.4.3.2. For the proper understanding of this redundant feature in Biblical Hebrew, viz., the addition of the denite article to the demonstrative pronoun (as if the demonstrative pronoun itself were not determinate enough),
one has to compare the behavior of ordinary attributive adjectives following
their determinate head, as in l/dG;h" hEKh" the high priest. Even in this case the
addition of the denite article to the adjective is remarkable. Since the head of
the whole construction, hEKh", is determined by the denite article, there is,
strictly speaking, no need to determine the attributive adjective as well; the
denite article was added to the adjective-attribute by analogy to the denite
substantival head. This claim, however, that the denite article added to the
adjective-attribute is redundant, is only correct from a historical point of view.
Once constructions such as l/dG;h" hEKh" became xed, they were opposed to
sentences such as l/dG; hEKh" the priest is big. Accordingly, synchronically, it
is the denite article of the adjective (l/dG;h") that marks the opposition to
l/dG; hEKh" whereas the denite article of the substantive, originally the core of
the determination, has become redundant. And, indeed, the denite article of
the substantival head may be omitted (rarely in Biblical Hebrew, more often in
Rabbinic Hebrew), especially when the adjective is stressed, because the head
is considered less important from the point of view of information, as in
yVVh" /y (Gen 1:31), instead of the expected yVVh" /yh"*, the sixth day.
Originally, however, it was only by syntactic attraction that the adjective received the denite article, being attracted by the denite head.
4.2.4.3.3. Even more superuous is the attachment of the denite article
to the demonstrative pronoun, which is in itself determinate in meaning.
Moreover, in a phrase such as hZ,h" vyaIh: even the denite article attached to
the head vyaI is superuous (cf. in English this child, not *this the child).
One has to posit four stages of development:
(a) In the rst stage, no denite article is attached to either the head or the
(attributive) demonstrative pronoun: hz, vyaI. This construction is, in fact, the
rule in Rabbinic Hebrew. As is sometimes the case with late dialects, they
may preserve archaic features that are lacking in early dialects.
4.2.4.4. Demonstratives
178
4.2.4.3.3(a)n. Obiter dictu, this is one of the proofs that Rabbinic Hebrew does not derive
directly from Biblical Hebrew. Moreover, since in Aramaic the substantive-head is determined by the denite article, this is one of the proofs that Rabbinic Hebrew is no mere articial language that arose from Biblical Hebrew due to the impact of Aramaic.
(b) In the second stage, the denite article is added to the substantival head
only: hz, vyaIh:*. Examples of this construction are quite exceptional in Biblical Hebrew: hL<aE& [:h:AlK: all this people 1 Sam 2:23; aWh hl:y]L"B& " that night
Gen 19:33. The absence of the denite article from the demonstrative pronoun
is the rule in Biblical Hebrew, however, when the pronoun serves as an attribute to nouns determined by pronominal sufxes (in which case no attraction
occurred, since the denite article was not present): hL<aE& yt"ta these signs of
mine Exod 10:1.
4.2.4.3.3(b)n. This construction occurs in Semitic languages that are closely related to
Biblical Hebrew, such as Moabite (taz hmbh this high place) and Phoenician (z rpsh
this inscription).
(c) In the third stage, the denite article is added to both the substantival
head and the demonstrative pronoun (type l/dG;h" hEKh)" . This is the usual Biblical Hebrew construction.
(d) In the last stage of development, occurring only sporadically in Biblical
Hebrew, the denite article is attached to the adjective only: yVVh" /y.
4.2.4.4. Local, Temporal, Presentative Senses

4.2.4.4.1. The deictic force of hz, is well preserved in the local sense, as al
hvdeq} hz,b: ht:y]h: there was not there a harlot Gen 38:22; hZ,mI rdeg;w] hZ,mI rdeG; a
hedge from here and a hedge from there Num 22:24.
4.2.4.4.1(b)n. In Num 22:24, note that hz, is repeated and refers to both the near location
and the more remote one. The reason seems to be that hz, focuses the interest on its rst occurrence and switches it afterward onto the second, so that both places, one at a time, serve
(so to speak) as the nearer object.
4.2.4.4.2. It may also be used at the beginning of a sentence in temporal

sense in invariable form, without being concordant with the following nominal predicate: hn;v yric[< yLIAhz, now it is twenty years for me Gen 31:41, i.e.,
for twenty years.
4.2.4.4.2.n. As a rule, Hebrew pronouns as subjects tend to be concordant with the following substantive serving as predicate: ytIyriB} tazo this is my treaty Gen 17:10.
4.2.4.4.3. hz, may also occur at the beginning of the sentence as a presentative (behold): vyaIh: hvm hz, behold the man Moses Exod 32:1;
l/dG; Y;h" hz, behold, the sea is great Ps 104:25.
4.2.4.4.3.n. The usual presentative is hNe hI, itself a demonstrative element. This usage of hz,
reects the close afnity of demonstrative elements and interjections.
Demonstratives; Denite Article 4.2.5.1.
179
4.2.4.5. Comparative Analysis

4.2.4.5.1. Let us look at some of the demonstrative pronouns in Hebrew
and Arabic:
Hebrew
ms
fs
hz,
tazo/ /z
Arabic
qa
qi (> qihi)
With respect to gender, the masculine Heb hz, corresponds to Arab qa; the
feminine Heb /z corresponds to Arab qi . But with respect to form, Arab qa
parallels Heb /z (cf. Arab katib corresponding to Heb btE/K writing, due to
the Canaanite shift), and Arab qi matches Heb hz, (cf. hn,b}yi < *yabniyu he will
build in contrast to Arab yabni). Because of such irregular correspondences
of the opposite genders, it appears that in Proto-Semitic there was no gender
distinction between the various demonstrative elements; instead, all of them
alternated freely. It was only in the individual Semitic languages that the demonstrative forms were marked for gender, and this is the reason for the discrepancies among them.
4.2.4.5.1n. The correspondence of Arab qi with Heb hz, however, is by no means conclusive, since hz, may represent *zayu, parallel to hx<r]yi < *yirayu he will be satised as well.
4.2.4.5.2. For the same reason, as suggested by Barth (1913: 105, par.
43d), the t of tazo has to be considered an originally additional demonstrative
element, rather than being identical to the feminine ending t. As a matter of
fact, tazo consists of three demonstrative elements: q+aleph+t, and it was
only later, because of its nal t, which was reinterpreted as a feminine ending,
that the form became the marker of the feminine gender. This interpretation is
corroborated by, e.g., Arab qata yawmin one day, where qata certainly cannot be interpreted as feminine, because yawm is masculine.
4.2.4.5.2n. Since aleph as a vowel letter always indicates the earlier existence of consonantal aleph, it appears that tazo reects an original consonantal aleph ; cf. also the feminine demonstrative pronoun taz in Moabite, az in Phoenician and Old Aramaic (including
Samalian). Cf. Blau (1979c: 14849 = Topics, 34950). Barth (1913: 105, par. 43d), however, does not attribute an original consonantal value to the aleph of tazo. In addition, he
considers the t (i) of taz to be an original feminine demonstrative element, so that it always served as feminine, but not as the feminine ending.
Apparently, the original meaning of the Arabic phrase qata yawmin was that day,
which developed afterward to one day, just as Heb hZ,h" /Yh"K} yhIy]w' means one day Gen
39:11.
4.2.5. The Denite Article

4.2.5.1. The etymon of the denite article ha, with the doubling of the
following consonant, is not certain. When it was customary to explain the
4.2.5.2. Denite Article
180
Semitic languages according to Arabic, ha was compared with the Arab denite article al (the l of which assimilates to a following dental, sibilant, and r)
and interpreted as < *hal. According to this view, the l of *hal was assimilated
to the following consonant, and this is the reason for the doubling of the consonant following the denite article. On the one hand, this interpretation supposes the assimilation of l, which is exceptional in Biblical Hebrew, occurring
mainly in the irregular root jql. On the other hand, the assimilation of the l in
Arabic al- is not less irregular and can be accounted for by the extraordinary
frequency of the denite article; this explanation applies equally to Hebrew
ha(l). And indeed the possibility of the exceptional behavior of the sound sequence hl must not be entirely excluded; see 3.3.5.5.5, p. 95.
4.2.5.2. Barth (1913: 133, par. 55b) identied the Hebrew denite article
with the demonstrative element ha, which is frequent in Arabic (e.g., haqa
this). Since rhythmically long vowel + simple consonant are more or less
identical to short vowel + double consonant, ha + double consonant superseded
ha + simple consonant.
4.2.5.2n. In Biblical Hebrew, the demonstrative element has the form ahE, yet in Aramaic
ah: and ahE alternate.
4.2.5.3. In the ancient Arabic dialect of Liyan, the denite article, as a

rule, is ha-. But when it precedes laryngeals/pharyngeals, it takes the form
han, which was, it seems, the original form of the article, preserved in this position for phonetic reasons. Cf. also, e.g., the frequent demonstrative element
hn in Ugaritic. If there existed in Hebrew an article *han, it is easy to reconstruct its phonetic development.
4.2.5.4. As we have seen, the Hebrew denite article ha- differs from Arabic al-, and indeed the denite article varies throughout the Semitic languages. It may even be postpositive, as with Aramaic a and Epigraphic South
Arabian -n. Moreover, in Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Gez the denite article is
lacking altogether. Therefore, prima facie, it seems that the denite article is
a comparatively late feature (but see 4.2.5.5b, below, on generic determination), which arose in the various Semitic languages independently and in
some did not come into being at all. This is hinted at also by the fact that the
denite article is less frequent in biblical poetry, which on the whole is more
archaic than prose.
4.2.5.4n. Cases of the late disappearance of the denite article are also attested, e.g., in
Eastern Aramaic.
4.2.5.5. The two main functions of the denite article are:

(a) Individual determination, marking a special object out of many, as in
r["N'h" the boy out of many boys. This use is very often anaphoric, referring,
e.g., to the boy mentioned before, sometimes also to the boy understood from
context. It may also refer to unique objects, such as vm<V&h" the sun.
181
Denite Article; Relative Pronoun 4.2.6.1.1.
(b) Generic determination, referring to a species as such, e.g., bh: Z;h"w] s<K<&h"
silver and gold. The use of the generic article is to a great degree optional
(cf., e.g., bh: z;w] s<K<)& and even closely related languages vary in their usage.
Therefore, it is rather surprising that the Semitic languages agree so much in
its application, which, prima facie, suggests the common origin of determination. This, however, is contradicted by the different forms of the article in the
various Semitic languages.
4.2.5.5(b)n. For instance, the denite article is used much less in English than in German,
though both are Germanic languages.
4.2.5.6. The denite article has a variety of phonetically-conditioned

vocalizations when it precedes laryngeals/pharyngeals, which cannot be
doubled. The usual vocalization with pata becomes qama by compensatory
lengthening when the denite article precedes aleph and especially r: ba:h: the
father, varh: the head. The same is usually true when the denite article
precedes ayin: yi["&h: the fountain. The pata is, however, as a rule preserved
preceding h and especially . Preceding unstressed ayin, unstressed h, and
(stressed or unstressed) followed by qama, the denite article is vocalized
with segol. This segol has to be explained as due to assimilation to the qama,
both being half-low vowels. Because of the weak pronunciation of laryngeals/pharyngeals, vowels preceding and following them were in closer contact than vowels divided by other consonants, and thus the largyngeals/
pharyngeals promoted vowel assimilation. A case such as rh: h: the mountain
with qama has to be interpreted as total assimilation to the following stressed
h, with stress being more conducive to assimilation, whereas yrih:h< the
mountains reects partial assimilation only, with the inuence of the unstressed h being more restricted. For particulars, see Blau 1981b: 3638 =
Studies, 2123.
4.2.5.6n. The raising of pata to segol in the denite article can be contrasted with ere
becoming segol preceding qama. In the latter case, the ere is lowered to segol, whereas
in the former case, the pata is raised to segol.
4.2.6. Relative Pronouns

4.2.6.1. Syntactic Features
4.2.6.1.1. Relative clauses in Semitic in general, and in Hebrew in particular, differ in their structure from Indo-European (e.g., English) relative
clauses. In Semitic languages, the relative pronoun (if it is not altogether lacking) does not belong originally to the relative clause; it is instead part of the
main clause. This syntactic feature can be demonstrated by the case agreement of the relative pronoun with its head in Classical Arabic, e.g., raaytu -rrajulayni -llaqayni kana -l-bayti I saw the two men who were in the house,
4.2.6.1.2. Relative Pronoun
182
where (a)llaqayni is in the accusative in accordance with its function in the

main clause, and not in the nominative [*allaqani], as demanded by its position in the relative clause. In Biblical Hebrew, however, the relative pronoun
seems to have already started to become part of the relative clause, as perhaps
suggested by instances in which the relative pronoun is joined to the relative
clause by maqqaf and the cantillation marks: T:r]x"&y;Ahz, t:y;w]lI the leviathan
whom you have created Ps 104:26. In other instances, however, the relative
clause is sometimes still joined to its head with maqqaf: T:l}a:&G; WzA[" the
people which you have redeemed Exod 15:13. Nevertheless, one should not
overemphasize the importance of the location of the maqqaf, since one of the
main factors regulating the cantillation marks, in general, and the use of
maqqaf, in particular, is the musical rhythm.
4.2.6.1.2. The relative clause itself is quite similar to an independent sentence. Its independent character is reected by the fact that the retrospective
pronoun (see 4.2.6.1.3 below) may stand in the rst or second person, rather
than in the third, if the head of the relative clause is a rst- or second-person
pronoun: ytI&axE/h rva yh<&la . . . ykInoa: , literally, I am . . . your God who I
have(!) brought you out Exod 20:2; hm:y]r;&x}mI ytIa T<r]k"m}Arva k<yjIa sE/y ynia
literally, I am your brother Joseph, whom you have sold me to Egypt Gen
45:4 (note that rva is joined with maqqaf ).
4.2.6.1.3. The relative clause is, as a rule, connected to its head with a retrospective pronoun, as illustrated in Gen 45:4 (cited in 4.2.6.1.2 above).
Usually, the retrospective pronoun is in the third person, as in rva k<ybEy]aAlk:l}
t:/a ymIj:l}ni T<a," literally, to all your enemies whom you ght them Josh
10:25. Usually, the use of the retrospective pronoun is not obligatory except in
genitival function, i.e., when the pronoun depends on a noun or a preposition,
as in wyP:a"B} yYij" j'WrAtm"vni rva lK every one who has living breath in his nostrils Gen 7:22; WNM<&mIAlk:a yTIl}bIl} ytI&yWixI rva [Eh: the tree which I forbade you
to eat from it Gen 3:11. In accusative or nominative function, the retrospective pronoun may be lacking, as in rx:y; rva d;a:h: the man whom he created
Gen 2:8; ['yqIr:l: tj"T"&mI rva yiM"&h" the water under the rmament Gen 1:7 (in
which case synchronically rva serves to mark the prepositional phrase tj"T"&mI
['yqIr:l: as attributive).
4.2.6.1.4. The quite frequent use of rva for introducing substantive clauses
(as in ynib}lI hVaI jQ"tIAal rva . . . [yBIva"w] and I adjure you . . . that you do not
take a wife for my son Gen 24:3) appears to be secondary.
4.2.6.1.5. The syntactic structure of the relative clauses seems to be ProtoSemitic, as demonstrated by the similarities of the relative clause in the various Semitic languages. However, the shape of the relative pronouns varies in
the different Semitic languages and, therefore, they have to be regarded as innovations. This applies especially to rva.
183
Relative Pronoun 4.2.6.2.2.
4.2.6.2. Origins of the Relative Pronouns

4.2.6.2.1. In Biblical Hebrew, rva is the major relative pronoun, though it
is used less frequently in poetry than in prose. The relative v, followed by a
geminated consonantthe main relative and subordinating conjunction in
Rabbinic Hebrewis limited in Biblical Hebrew. v is attested in Deborahs
Song, in the story of Gideon, and in the Israelite sections of the Book of
Kings. Therefore it seems likely that v reects the vernacular of Northern Palestine, which was, as a rule, avoided; v was replaced by rva, because it was
not considered standard by the Judean scribes and redactors. It occurs also in
late Biblical Hebrew, as in Ecclesiastes, where it reects the beginnings of the
future Rabbinic Hebrew.
4.2.6.2.1n. See Kutscher (1982: 32, par. 45).
4.2.6.2.2. Opinions differ regarding the origin of these two pronouns.

(1) Some claim that v derives from rva, the connecting link being Phoenician va: by assimilation of the nal r, rva shifted to va, allegedly followed
by a geminated consonant, to become, nally, v. This proposal, however, is
not convincing. It is well known that relative pronouns develop from demonstrative pronouns (see 4.2.6.2.3, p. 184) and v is a well-known demonstrative element, especially in Akkadian, where it is attested not only in the thirdperson personal pronoun but also as a relative pronoun. Therefore, it is unlikely that it has a secondary character.
(2) Others suggest an inverse process: rva stems from v. v (followed by a
double consonant) shifted to va with prosthetic aleph (well attested before
sibilants; cf. hr;Wmva" nightwatch, ['/rz] / ['/rz]a< arm) followed by a double
consonant, which by dissimilation (cf. qcM<&D' / qcm<&r]D' Damascus) developed
to r plus simple consonant, thus giving rise to rva. It should not be argued
against this view that vs main attestation is in Rabbinic Hebrew. Not only
may late dialects preserve early forms (see 4.2.4.3.3a, p. 177) but, as suggested above, v might have been an early form which did not enter the standard register and is, therefore, limited in Biblical Hebrew.
(3) The most plausible view, however, is that there is no etymological
connection between these two relative pronouns, since a sound etymological
basis may be established for each of them. v, as stated, is a well-known demonstrative element. rva may be related to Heb yr'va my steps, Aram rt"a
place, Arab atar footsteps. rva originally introduced local clauses denoting where . . . (attested in Ugaritic and Akkadian), and the semantic shift
from where to relative pronoun, though marginal, is well founded.
4.2.6.2.2n. At rst, Ugaritic tr was misinterpreted as serving as a relative pronoun; nevertheless, see Tropper (2000: 798 par. 83.221; 905 par. 97.6). See also Akkadian asrum
place, asar place of; where, used as a preposition and subordinating conjunction.
4.2.6.2.3. Relative Pronoun
184
For the semantic shift from where to relative pronoun, cf. the literature adduced by
Brockelmann (190813: 2.566 n. 1); his strictures, however, are not convincing.
4.2.6.2.3. The demonstratives hz, / /z/Wz occur in poetry as relative pronouns: T:l}a:&G: WzA[" D]s}j"b} t:yjI&n; by Your mercy You guided the people whom
You have redeemed Exod 15:13; deM}l"a /z ytId[Ew ] ytIyriB} yn,b: Wrm}vyiAaI if your
sons will keep my covenant and my testimonies that I will teach them Ps
132:12; /B T:n]k"&v hz, /YxIArh" . . . rkz] Remember . . . Mount Zion on which You
dwelt Ps 74:2. The last example clearly reects the shift of a demonstrative
pronoun to a relative, a very common feature. It arose by shifting from coordinate clauses, which are more archaic than subordinate ones, to subordination. We may posit as the starting point two coordinated sentences: . . . rkz]
/B T:n]k"&v >hz, /YxIArh" Remember this Mount Zion. You have dwelt on it.
When these two sentences fused, the second sentence was felt as a (at rst
asyndetic) relative clause. Then, by shifting, the demonstrative pronoun which
stood between both sentences (the so-called apo koinou construction) was felt
as belonging to the following sentence and thus started functioning as a relative pronoun. The same may apply to Exod 15:13. Its original structure might
have been: T:l}a:&G; >WzA[" D]s}j"b} t:yjI&n; With Your mercy You have guided this
nation. You have redeemed (it), before it developed along the lines mentioned above.
4.2.6.2.3n. The shift from a demonstrative pronoun to a relative pronoun is well attested in
Indo-European languages; cf. English that.
In Exod 15:13, the fact that [" is formally indenite also indicates that Wz was originally a demonstrative pronoun and as such caused [" to be denite. This structure was
preserved even after Wz ceased to act as a demonstrative pronoun and became a relative
pronoun.
In Exod 15:13, note that Wz is still joined with a maqqaf to the preceding noun, its former
head.
4.2.6.2.4. Another clear case of the shift of a demonstrative to a relative

pronoun is the main Arabic relative pronoun, allaqi. It has a quite transparent
etymon: it consists of three demonstrative elements. The rst al is identical to
the Arabic denite article; the second is la, and the third, qi. Thus allaqi
clearly parallels Biblical Hebrew hz,L:h" this, which begins with a demonstrative element identical to the Biblical Hebrew denite article. The fact that one
of these two parallel words serves as a demonstrative pronoun and the other as
a relative indicates that relative pronouns often developed by shifting from demonstrative pronouns. The addition of the demonstrative pronoun from which
these relative pronouns developed was of course only possible with determinate heads (since demonstrative pronouns have very strong determinate force).
In this regard, allaqi has preserved an archaic feature: it can only be added to
determinate nouns.
page is 12 points short
185
Relative Pronoun 4.2.6.3.4.
4.2.6.2.4n. Note that, as stated in 4.2.6.1.1 above (pp. 181182), allaqi agrees with the
preceding head, as it did when it still served as a demonstrative pronoun.
In Arabic, the restriction in using asyndetic relative clauses with indeterminate heads
is late; it arose in opposition to the use of allaqi with determinate heads only. Originally,
asyndetic relative clauses occurred after both denite and indenite heads. Biblical Hebrew has, indeed, preserved asyndetic relative clauses after denite heads, as in h'/la vFYiw '
Whc[: and he forsook God who made him Deut 32:15 (h'/la, to be sure, though formally
indenite is determinate in the context).
4.2.6.3. Interrogative Pronouns as Relatives

4.2.6.3.1. In many languages, relative pronouns derive from interrogative
pronouns (cf. English who, which, what). The same applies to Biblical Hebrew ymI who?, hm" what?. The relative use of these interrogative pronouns
developed from two coordinate sentences, the rst of which served as a question: h<lEa vG'yi yrib:D] l["b"&AymI, originally meaning who has problems? He may
approach them Exod 24:14, came to denote he who has problems, may approach them; the meaning of bv y; drej:w] arey;AymI who is afraid and frightened?
He may turn back Judg 7:3, changed into he who is afraid and frightened,
may turn back; k<l: hc[a< yrim}a T<a"Ahm: whatever you say, I will do 2 Sam
21:4, arose from what do you say? I will do (it) to you.
4.2.6.3.2. In the original questions introduced by ymI / hm", the rheme (i.e., the
psychological predicate, the portion of the sentence that contains the main information) is the interrogative pronoun (the answer to which is the information
demanded). As a rule, however, nominal predicates are not in initial position,
so this construction creates a gap between the grammatical and psychological
structure. This gap is bridged by restructuring the sentence and opposing the
rest of the sentence to ymI / hm" by the use of yrip}SImI WNj<&m}a< ylIAaf:j: rva ymI Exod
32:33, originally meant who is he who has sinned against me? I will strike him
from my book, but shifted to whoever has sinned against me, I will strike him
from my book. In late Biblical Hebrew (and in Rabbinic Hebrew) v is used for
rva: hy,h}Yiv aWh hy;h:VAhm" that which was is what will be Eccl 1:9, which developed from what (is) what was? It (is) what will be.
4.2.6.3.3. ymI / hm" are not opposed with regard to gender but instead reect
the opposition person : non-person. This seems to be a very ancient opposition, though otherwise not preserved. Traces of it are found in the opposition
of the personal pronouns of the rst and second persons marked as persons; in
contrast, the third person (the unmarked term of the opposition) is not marked
regarding the distinction between person : non-person.
4.2.6.3.4. The interrogative relative pronouns ymI / hm" are substantivalthat
is, they do not refer to a head but are the heads themselves. The sentence AymI
vG'yi yrib:D] l["b"& is functionally identical to vG'yi yrib:D] l["b"& aWh rva vyaIh: the
man who has problems may approach; the interrogative heads a relative
4.2.7. Interrogative Pronoun
186
clause that functions as subject. In /lAar;q}YiAhm" t/ar]lI to see what he calls it

Gen 2:19, /lAar;q}YiAhm" serves as (substantival) direct object. rva itself is basically adjectival (i.e, it modies a head like an adjective) and thus usually has
attributive function, referring to the head of the relative clause. Like adjectives
in general, rva may be substantivized (and then we speak of substantivized
relative clauses), as in tmEw; . . . /TaI axEM:yi rva he with whom it is found . . . will
die Gen 44:9.
4.2.7. Interrogative Pronouns

4.2.7.1. For the interrogative pronouns ymI / hm" who?/what? (expressing
the opposition of persons to non-persons), see 4.2.6.3, pp. 185186.
4.2.7.2. In Ugaritic hm terminates in consonantal h, since in Ugaritic h is
not used as a vowel letter. It may well be that Biblical Hebrew hm" has a double
etymon, both ma and mah. Forms like /mK} as, yni/m&K: like me, etc., /ml} to,
/mB} in reect prepositions followed by original ma, which by the Canaanite
shift developed into mo, whereas the etymon mah is suggested by Ugar mh,
Arab mahma whatever as well as by the fact that in Biblical Hebrew the
word following ma has its rst consonant doubled, presumably by the assimilation of the h to the following consonant. In general, the vowel of hm" parallels that of the denite article, yet the occurrence of hm< is more frequent than
h< in the case of the denite article, and it is not easy to nd a reason for it.
4.2.7.2n. It seems rather unlikely that in Hebrew *mah shifted to ma and then to mo. Since
the shift a to o occurred in stressed syllables only, it is difcult to posit stress for the
prepositions /ml}, /mB}, /mK}, since prepositions do not bear main stress. Should one assume
that the shift occurred rst in prepositions with pronominal sufxes such as yni/m&K:, and then
spread from there rst to /mK} and afterwards to /ml}, /mB}? For the addition of -ma to prepositions, occurring in Ugaritic and Arabic, cf. Brockelmann (190813: 2.578, par. 372b)
and Tropper (2000: 780, par. 82.5).
See above (3.3.5.4.1, pp. 9394), where the assimilation of h at a morpheme boundary is discussed. In the case of hm", however, the assimilation of h is regressive, whereas in
all other occurrences it is progressive.
4.2.7.3. As in other Semitic languages, the interrogative pronouns are also

used as indenite pronouns: yniaE&r]Y'Ahm" rb"d]W and he will show me something
Num 23:3; perhaps also ymIAWrm}v, if it really means take care, whoever you
are 2 Sam 18:12.
4.2.7.4. It is expedient here to mention yaE, the interrogative element that
forms part of, e.g., hpyaE where, yaE / hk:yaE how. The same element occurs in
a less bound form hT:a:& hZ,mI yaE from where are you? 2 Sam 1:13. The interrogative phrase hZ,mI yaE may also be followed by a governed substantive (which
has the function of an adverbial of limitation, as demonstrated by the lack of
concord between hz, and the substantive): hT: a"& ry[I hZ,mIAyaE (not taZomIAyaE*)
from which town are you (literally, from where as to town are you?) 2 Sam
15:2, in contrast to Rabbinic Hebrew hT:a" ry[I /zyaEm.E
187
Biradicalism/Triradicalism of Verbs 4.3.1.3.
4.3. Verbs
4.3.1. Biradicalism and Triradicalism
4.3.1.1. We have already dealt with the general problem of biradicalism and
triradicalism (see 1.5.11, p. 14) and mentioned that, of all word classes, verbs
are the part of speech that was especially exposed to analogy. Accordingly, the
verbal themes are very few (the ordinary verbal themes being only seven, but
these can easily be reduced to ve, because two of them are passive forms of
two other patterns) and all of them, synchronically at least, manifestly reect
triradicalism. This is also indicated by the fact that whenever a verb is derived
from a biradical noun (hd;y; he threw from dy; hand, hn,B:aI I will get a son
from BE son), it is, of necessity, transferred to a triradical pattern.
4.3.1.1n. It is not certain that the derivations of these denominal verbs are correct.
4.3.1.2. Nevertheless, diachronically there is little doubt that some of the

verbal roots were originally biradical. Apparently, the prevalence of triradicalism is the result of a long and intricate development in which analogy
played a decisive part. At a prehistoric period, preceding Proto-Semitic, biradical and triradical (and even monoradical) roots coexisted. By a long development, which we are not able to reconstruct, the triradical roots prevailed,
and thus all the other roots became deviant. Therefore, the monoradical and
biradical roots were adapted to the triradical ones. Eventually the monoradical
and biradical forms diminished, and they completely disappeared in verbs, at
least synchronically. Even in nouns the residues of biradicalism are limited,
but they have not totally disappeared. As a result, it is possible to reconstruct
biradical (and monoradical) roots.
4.3.1.3. A whole series of primal biradical nouns has been preserved;
these nouns, based on their meanings, belong to the most ancient layer of language: dy; hand, gD; sh, D; blood, tl<D,& door, BE son, v name, hn;v
year, hp:c lip, language, tvq <& bow, etc. In his masterly paper on this subject, which, despite a century since its publication, has remained one of the
most important papers in the realm of Semitics, Nldeke (1910: 78109) demonstrated that these nouns are also being forced into the frame of triradicalism. Sometimes the feminine t is incorporated into the word: wyt:/tp}c, yt"/tl}D',
t/tvq}. In other cases, a nal or medial y/w is added to the root, as in hy;r]qI
town (derived from tr,q)<& , gY;D' gW;D' sherman from gD;. The nal radical is
doubled or, as above, a nal y is added to jE arrow, also yxIjE& (1 Sam 20:36,
37), and, as a rule, this noun has a geminated nal radical /XjI. Nouns having
one radical consonant only may be doubled in their entirety, e.g., the plural
t/YpIyPI edges from hP< mouth, the construct ymEymE from the plurale tantum
yim"& water, presumably reecting the archaic formation of the plural by
doubling.
4.3.1.4. Biradicalism of Verbs
188
4.3.1.4. A historical layer of biradicalism is reected in some weak verbs

(i.e., roots in which synchronically one of the radicals is realized as a long
vowel or is totally assimilated or elided). At least some forms of the II-w/y and
verba mediae geminatae cannot be explained by ordinary sound shifts. Therefore, it seems that at least some of these forms are of biradical origin and were
later absorbed into the framework of triradicalism (see 4.3.8.7.1.2, p. 252).
However, even if it were possible to derive all the forms of a class of verbs
from three radicals by positing sound shifts (as with verbs III-y, with perhaps
one exception, viz., the short prex-tense; see 4.3.8.6.7n, p. 251), this would
not warrant that this was the historical development. It is also possible that, at
a certain period, triradical and biradical roots coexisted, and, because of the
impact of some sound shifts, some features of these two groups became identical. Therefore, nally, the two groups blended, and it may well be that what
appears to us as the result of sound shifts was, in fact, due to the analogy of biradical forms (see Blau 1977c: 2729 = Topics, 26062; 1968b: 4243 = Topics, 27980). In addition, Nldeke (1910: 179206) adduced examples of the
alternation of verbs I-n/w/y/ , thus making their derivation from an original
biradical root by a n/w/y/ prex quite plausible (as, e.g., the derivation of
bXEy't}TI you will stand and byxIn] prefect from the biradical root b).
4.3.1.5. Often one gets the impression that some strong roots also had a
biradical origin. This is surely the case with roots that have identical rst and
second radicals. It seems that not only verba mediae geminatae with identical
second and third radicals (partly) derive from biradical roots (such as ll"G;,
lGel}Gi to roll from the biradical base gl, rKEr]k"m} dancing from the biradical
root kr), but also those words with identical rst and second radicals (such as
rK:KI loaf, presumably < *kirkar, reecting assimilation of the rst r, again
from kr), and the same may apply to roots with rst and third identical radicals
(such as yrik}T" robe, again from kr). The basic meaning of the biradical root
kr in all these cases was perhaps to be round.
4.3.1.6. Similar views concerning originally biradical roots were expressed
with respect to strong roots that do not have identical radicals. As a rule
(though not always), the rst two radicals are considered the biradical base
and the third radical is the extension. And, indeed, it is possible to compile a
long and, prima facie, impressive list of roots having related meaningsroots
that differ from each other in the third radical, such as prr to split, prd to divide, prz to open(?), prk to rub, prm to tear, prs to break, pr to let
loose, pr to break through, prq to tear apart, etc.all allegedly derived
from the biradical root pr. Yet, even if this supposition should prove true with
regard to some of these roots, it cannot be demonstrated that it was indeed true
in an individual case. How is it possible, for instance, to know if, e.g., pr indeed stems from biradical pr? It could have also arisen, e.g., by the blending
of prr and p. Moreover, in some cases it is possible to prove that the connec-
189
Biradicalism; Tenses 4.3.2.2.1.
tion of some roots with the others is secondary. At rst sight, one might claim
that both py to open and p to break derive from the same biradical root
p. However, it is possible to prove with the help of other Semitic languages
that py reects p1y, but p reects p33.
4.3.1.7. Moreover, J. Kurylowicz (1972: 6, par. 1) has justly called attention to the fact that no sufxes corresponding to the third radicals are attested
in the Semitic languages, and, therefore, the whole theory of the rst two radicals being the biradical base is very weakly founded. It is much more reasonable to posit the two last radicals as the biradical base, because prexes with
n, etc., are indeed attested. The heyday of the theory that the rst two radicals
constitute the biradical base was in the second half of the nineteenth century
when, e.g., F. Mhlau and W. Volck, in their editions of Geseniuss lexicon to
the Old Testament (beginning with the 8th edition, 1878) have, according to
Bergstrssers pun (191829: 2. 3) diese Anschaung . . . durch und damit ad
absurdum gefhrt (in a somewhat pedantic English translation, spoiling the
pun, by overdoing the use of this method, they showed its absurdity). Nevertheless, even today many works are based on this assumption.
4.3.1.8. Interjections and pronouns have not been adapted to the triradical
scheme (see 4.2.1.1, p. 158), nor have the very frequent monoradical prepositions K} / l} / B} as/to/in or the biradical preposition mI from.
4.3.1.8n. The preposition mI also occurs in doubled forms as, e.g., in yNiM<&mI from me <
*minmin-ni. Only the assumption of the pronominal sufx -ni (rather than -i < *-iya) accounts for the penultimate stress.
4.3.2. Tenses
4.3.2.1.1. Scholars are very much at variance regarding the Hebrew verbal
forms. There are two main schools of thought: (1) the Hebrew verbal system
indicates tense, and (2) it indicates aspect. There are also differences, which
are sometimes quite disparate, among scholars within the two approaches. In
the following, we will rst delineate the theory that in our opinion is the most
likely one and will later adumbrate a few of the many other views.
4.3.2.2. Tense Approach

4.3.2.2.1. Our starting point is that Biblical Hebrew marks the same tenses
as do many modern Indo-European languages, including English, viz., past,
present, and future. We do not think that the main function of the verbal forms
is to mark aspects, i.e., the way of looking at the action of the verb, whether it
is looked upon as still continuing (the imperfective aspect) or as just stating
that it was performed (the perfective aspect). It was the alleged use of the
same form to refer to different tenses that induced scholars to discard the
4.3.2.2.2. Tenses
190
notion of tenses altogether and replace it with aspects. However, verbal forms
in biblical narrative prose do refer to tenses in a very consistent manner in the
vast majority of cases. The only complicating factor (which, indeed, misled
many scholars) involves a double set of tenses, because of the existence of
the so-called converted tenses, opening with the so-called conversive waw.
Accordingly, past is marked by the sufx-tense or wa+prex-tense, and
present/future by the prex-tense or w+sufx-tense.
4.3.2.2.1n. We use the names converted tenses and conversive waw because they are
time-honored. The term conversive waw may also be used as stating a synchronic fact, although, from the historical point of view, it should have been called preserving waw,
since after waw the archaic usage of the tenses has been preserved. It is, however, not expedient to change the terms every time that the theory changes. At any rate, we reject the pretentious name consecutive waw because it simply is not true that the action is represented
as a consequence of a preceding action. This view forced scholars to interpret waw at the
beginning of biblical books as a sign of their close connection with the books that precede
them, either now or originally!
The conversive waw attached to the prex-tense has a form that is different from that
of the conversive waw preceding the sufx-tense (which is identical to the ordinary connective waw). Nevertheless, according to the transcriptions of Origen and the Samaritan
tradition, there is no difference in the vocalization of the waw. The reason for the exceptional form of the conversive waw preceding the prex-tense (viz., w' followed by the
gemination of the next consonant) is, it seems, that many forms of the short prex-tense
preceded by the conversive waw (and it is the short prex-tense that originally followed
the conversive waw; see 4.3.3.3.3, p. 206) were disyllabic. Therefore, at the period of
the general penultimate stress, they were stressed on their rst syllable (e.g., *ysmor). Accordingly, wa, the basic form of the conjunction w, was not reduced, because it preceded the
stress by one syllable only. It could have undergone pretonic lengthening, but the lengthening was replaced by pretonic doubling (see 3.5.12.2.16, p. 152; 5.2.2, pp. 285286).
4.3.2.2.2. On the one hand, if the analysis of this double set of verbal forms
shows that the interchange of these doublets is accidental, this would buttress
the theory that the Biblical Hebrew verbal forms primarily mark aspects, because the theory of tenses would not then be able to explain the facts. On the
other hand, if it is possible to nd the conditioning of this interchange of verbal forms, this would be a blow to the theory of aspects, since the rival theory
is able to explain the facts in a satisfactory manner. And indeed it is possible to give a satisfactory explanation for this alternation of the indicative
forms in classical biblical narrative: the forms with conversive waw are
used in a syntactic environment in which it is possible to apply connective
waw. Otherwise, the simple forms occur. Let us, for instance, analyze Gen
1:27: t:a ar;B: hb:qnE ]W rk:z; ,/ta ar;B: yhIla l<x<&B} ,/ml}x"B} d;a:h:Ata< yhIla ar;b}Yiw'
and God created man in His image, in Gods image He created him, male and
female He created them. In this verse not only do the waw-tense and simpletense alternate, but all these forms are derived from the same verb, denoting
exactly the same meaning. However, the alternation is clearly regulated by the
possibility of applying connective waw: the rst arb is sentence initial, where
191
Tenses 4.3.2.2.3.
connective waw can stand. Accordingly, the waw-tense is used, and because it
refers to the past it is the waw with the prex-tense. In the two following
clauses, however, the same lexical verb is preceded by an adverbial expression (yhIla l<x<&B)} or by a second object (hb:qnE ]W rk:z); , and no and can separate
an adverbial/object from its verb. Therefore, in the last two cases simpletenses are used. The situation is similar in a sentence referring to the future:
br,j:& k<yreja" ytIqyrihw ' yi/Gb" hr,z;a k<t}a<w] and I will disperse you between the nations, and I will unsheath the sword against you Lev 26:33. In the preceding
verses the afictions of the country were told, and in our verse its inhabitants
are dealt with. Therefore, the object k<t}a<, being the theme of our verse, has
received initial position. Since no waw can intervene between object and verb,
the verb hr,z;a is in simple-tense; the following verb, however, is in initial position, where the addition of and is possible, and, therefore, the waw-tense is
employed.
4.3.2.2.2n. The reason for the initial position of the adverbial phrase and second object in
the second and third clauses of Gen 1:27 is quite clear: arb is repeated three times. In the
rst clause, being an innovation, it stands in sentence-initial position, as is usual with nite
verbs introducing innovation (i.e., with verbs that serve as both grammatical and psychological predicates); in the two following clauses the use of arb is a mere stylistic device,
not conveying any new information. Therefore, other words, giving the main information
(i.e., serving as psychological predicates, rhemes), are placed in front of the verb.
4.3.2.2.3. This quite rigid alternation of simple- and waw-tenses to mark

narration in classical prose is the most signicant feature of the biblical tense
system. The number of deviations in which waw and is followed by the
simple-tense is comparatively small. It stands to reason that such an extreme
application of waw-tenses whenever it is possible to use and has to be considered a literary feature. And, indeed, in the not too extensive inscriptions of
Arad, cases of waw with simple-tenses are twice attested, thus demonstrating
that in the spoken language, whenever the usage of waw and was possible,
both waw-tenses and simple-tenses could be used.
4.3.2.2.3n. It has even been claimed (M. Lambert 1893: 5562) that anomalous cases of the
waw+sufx-tense in the 3ms referring to the past are false vocalizations of innitives absolute, which were spelled defectively and interpreted as past.
For the Arad examples, see Blau 198283: 20 = Studies, 110. One case is undisputed,
viz., Aharoni (1975: 18, Inscription 3, lines 23) whynnj wxw . . . t give . . . and ananyahu
has ordered you. The writer used wx, connective waw with the sufx-tense rather than the
conversive waw with the prex-tense, regardless of whether the form is interpreted as referring to the past or is considered an epistolary perfect that describes the situation from the
point of view of the addressee (cf. the literature adduced by Gogel 1998: 267 n. 27). The
other instance is Inscription 16, lines 34 ytjlw tybm ytaxk t[w, which, in my opinion,
cannot designate and now, when I leave your house, I will send, since, if the writer had not
yet left the addressees house, he would have addressed him orally, rather than writing to
him. Therefore, it has to be interpreted . . . when I left your house, I sent, viz., as connective waw attached to the sufx-tense.
4.3.2.2.4. Tenses; Modes
192
4.3.2.2.4. In order to complete the description of indicative tenses in classical biblical narrative, it has to be stated that the simple prex-tense (and,
when the use of and is possible, waw + sufx-tense) may not only be used
for marking present/future but also iterative or continuous past, thus reecting a combination of tense and (the imperfective) aspect, which describes the
situation as still continuing; e.g., Wc[y' hk:K: . . . hK:hIw] and (every time) he thrust
. . . so were they (always) doing 1 Sam 2:14.
4.3.2.2.5. This is therefore the structure of indicative tenses in classical
prose:
Past:
Present/Future/IterativeContinous Past:
sufx-tense / waw + (short) prextense

prex-tense / waw + sufx-tense
The relations among these forms are quite complex. Not only may the tenses
be indicated both by simple tenses and waw-tenses according to the structure
of the sentences, but past may be expressed by the sufx-tense or by the waw+
prex tense (if iteration and continuity are not emphasized), or by the prextense or by waw + sufx-tense (if iteration and continuity are not emphasized).
Were it not for the fact that the prex-tense and waw + sufx-tense may be
used to indicate the iterative-continuous past, we would have claimed that
these forms are non-past as opposed to the past (sufx-tense and waw + [short]
prex-tense).
4.3.2.2.6. However, the verbal system is not only temporal and partly aspectual (as we have seen in the case of the iterative-continuous past) but also
modal (see Steiner 1996: 25361). To the modal system belongs the volitive,
which consists of three heterogeneous elements: the rst person is expressed
by the lengthened prex-tense (the so-called cohortative), the second by the
imperative and the short prex-tense (functioning as jussive), and the third by
the short prex-tense. The cohortative terminates in the sufx O < a < a
(hr;m}va<, hr;m}vni let me preserve!, let us preserve!). The preservation of this
nal a, which was apparently anceps, was due to the paradigmatic pressure to
maintain the opposition volitive : indicative. If this sound shift had acted
blindly, without the interference of other factors, the a would have been elided,
as was the case, e.g., with the 3ms of the sufx-tense (*samara > rm"v) because
no paradigmatic pressure existed. The modal structure becomes even more intricate because of the optional use of (conversive) waw+sufx-tense in
modal sense: Wrm:&vw] . . . rb:AWrB}x}yiw] . . . vMEjIw] r,a:&h:Al[" ydiqIP} dqEp}y'w] and let him
appoint ofcers over the land and take the fth part . . . and they will store
grain . . . and keep (food) Gen 41:3435; WNl"&w] . . . hb:r]q}niw] l} come and let us
draw near . . . and let us lodge (/to lodge) Judg 19:13. Even more important is
Modes 4.3.2.2.7.
193
the fact that the ordinary prex-tense (often preceded by the connective waw),
being the unmarked term of the opposition ordinary prex-tense : lengthened/
short prex-tense, may be used in a modal sense, frequently paralleling lengthened/short prex-tense. Some examples: yil"&aE a/ba: aN;Ahb:h:& come now, let me
come in unto you Gen 38:16; HB: ylIn;w] taZoh" ysIWby]h"Ary[IAla< hr;WsI&n;w] aN;Ahk:l}
come now, let us turn in into this city of the Jebusites and lodge in it Judg
19:11; ysI/y hkw ] yhIla l}Ahc[y' hKO may God do so unto you and may He so
add 1 Sam 3:17.
4.3.2.2.6n. In addition to its use as a jussive, the short prex-tense refers to the past when
it occurs after the conversive waw. Note that, whereas in the indicative system it is
obligatory to use the sufx-tense after waw to indicate the present/future, in a modal context the sufx-tense and the prex-tense alternate after waw.
It may well be that the preservation of the nal -a on the cohortative was also due to the
fact that the cohortative frequently precedes an; pray, as in aN; hx:Wr&a: let me run 2 Sam
18:19. Since the cohortative coalesced with an;, its nal -a occurred in word-medial position
and was maintained. (Cf. Blau 1977c: 30 = Topics, 263, where the possibility is also mentioned that forms such as aN; hx:Wr&a: were inuenced by the energic prex-tense *aruana,
which was decomposed into two words: arua na.) Moreover, one also has to take into
consideration the greater stability of a (cf. 3.5.7.2.3n, p. 122).
4.3.2.2.7. Accordingly, the extended modal structure, including the unmarked ordinary prex-tense, is as follows:
First-person singular/plural: lengthened prex-tense / (waw+) ordinary prextense / waw+sufx-tense.
Second-person singular/plural: imperative / (waw+) ordinary prex-tense /
waw+sufx-tense / short prex-tense.
Third-person singular/plural: short prex-tense / (waw+) ordinary prextense / waw+sufx-tense.
Let us illustrate this full volitive system by the verb lyDib}hI he separated in
hif il:
1s
2s
3s
1p
2p
3p
hl:yDi&b}a" I will separate
lyDib}a"(w]), yTI&l}D'b}hIw]
lDeb}h" separate!
ylIyDi&b}h"
hl:yDi&b}h"a, lDeb}T"(w]), T:&l}D'b}hIw], lyDib}T"(w]);

ylIyDi&b}T"(w]), T}l}D'b}hIw]
lDeb}y' may he separate!

lDeb}T"
lyDib}y', lyDib}y'(w]), lyDib}hIw]; lyDib}T"(w]),

hl:yDi&b}hIw]
hl:yDi&b}n' we will separate
lyDib}n'(w]), WnL}D'&b}hIw]
WlyDi&b}h" separate
hn;l}De&b}h"
WlyDi&b}t"(w]), T<l}D'b}hIw]; hn;l}De&b}T"(w]), T<l}D'b}hIw]
WlyDi&b}y' may they separate WlyDi&b}y'(w]), WlyDi&b}hIw], hn;l}De&b}T"(w])

hn;l}De&b}T"
a. The lengthened form of the imperative.
4.3.2.2.8. Tenses
194
Even in this paradigm, which was specially chosen from the verbal theme
hif il in order to emphasize the formal differences of the forms, some forms
are identical to the ordinary prex-tense. Moreover, in other verbal themes the
formal differences between the ordinary prex-tense and the short prextense (i.e., the jussive; and, in some cases, also between prex-tense and the
cohortative) have been neutralized, so that, synchronically, we move mostly
in a vicious circle.
4.3.2.2.7n. In the 1s and 2ms forms of waw +sufx-tense, the ultimate stress on the sufxtense demonstrates that it is preceded by the conversive waw. Cf. 4.3.2.2.16n, p. 198.
The use of the short prex-tense (the jussive) in the second person when it is not negated is not very common; it occurs, e.g.: laEr;cyi yneb}lI dyGet"w] bq[y' tybEl} rm"at hK (pay attention to the plene spelling of dyGet"w]!) so shall you say to the house of Jacob and tell the
children of Israel Exod 19:3; ljE/T ymIy; t["b}v . . . T:&d]r'y;w] and you are to go down . . . tarry
seven days 1 Sam 10:8.
4.3.2.2.8. Whereas during the period of classical prose the use of the wawtenses was, it seems, a living feature, it fell into desuetude after the destruction of the First Temple. In Rabbinic Hebrew it does not exist at all. Therefore,
in the late books of the Bible simple-tenses after connective waw become
more frequent. Since the short prex-tense is the basic form after conversive waw and since it forms a paradigm with the lengthened prex-tense for
expressing the volitive mood, in later books conversive waw with the
lengthened prex-tense, in analogy to the conversive waw with the short
prex-tense, became more frequent. In other words, because lDeb}T", lDeb}y' occur
in one paradigm with hl:yDi&b}a", by the analogy of lDeb}T"w', lDeb}Y'w', the rst-person
forms hl:yDi&b}a"w,; hl:yDi&b}N'w' became more and more widespread.
4.3.2.2.8n. On the use of the waw-tenses in classical prose, see the qualications expressed in 4.3.2.2.3n, p. 191, based on the Arad inscriptions.
Although the conversive waw with the lengthened prex-tense became more widespread in late Biblical Hebrew, it occurs in early passages as well, At the same time,
Chronicles does not use it, and even changes ht:r&ik}a"w; and I will destroy (2 Sam 7:9) to
tyrik}a"w; (1 Chr 17:8).
4.3.2.2.9. An additional feature with which we have not yet dealt is the use
of the sufx-tense of stative verbs as present tense, as a sort of conjugated
adjective: yTIn]q "&z; an;AhNehI behold, I am old (= qEz;) Gen 27:2; yc[m" Wld]G;Ahm"
yt< bvj}m" Wqm}[: dam} . . . how great (= ylI/dG] ) are Your deeds, . . . very deep
(= t/QmU[) are Your thoughts Ps 92:6.
4.3.2.2.10. Scholars are at variance not only regarding the analysis of the
tense structure in Biblical Hebrew but also regarding its historical roots.
Some particulars, however, are quite clear in our opinion. First, the participle
does not fully take part in the tense structure. Sentences with a participle as
the predicate have to be regarded as basically nominal clauses, without special
time indication and, as a rule, refer to the present. This analysis is substanti-
195
Tenses 4.3.2.2.13.
ated by the fact that participial predicates are negated with yaE as are nominal
predicates, whereas the prex- and sufx-tenses are negated with al . Second,
the short prex-tense not only has a jussive sense but may mark the past as
well. This is clearly reected in the preservation of the short prex-tense in
the sense of the past after the so-called conversive waw. As already stated,
the waw is not historically conversive; rather, it preserves the ancient usage
of past reference. When this usage started disappearing, it vanished rst when
standing alone, i.e., in open syntagmas; it was, however, preserved in closed
syntagmas, viz., mainly when coming after waw (which, at that time was a
mere connective waw, being only later reinterpreted as conversive [which it
really is synchronically]).
4.3.2.2.10n. In Arabic, too, verbal forms following and were felt to be closed syntagmas
in which archaic constructions were preserved. So the archaic usage of the negation of the
sufx-tense with la was maintained after wa and.
In Arabic the past usage of the short prex-tense was preserved in closed syntagmas,
as is the case after the negative lam (which was also felt as converting the prex-tense)
and in conditional clauses. In Akkadian, however, the parallel iprus serves as the normal
marker of past.
4.3.2.2.11. How has it happened that the same form marks both jussive and
past? According to Bergstrsser (191829: 2.10), the short prex-tense is the
most ancient verbal form, formed at a time when it was only opposed to nominal clauses. Since nominal clauses, as a rule, denoted simple statements and
referred to the present without modal signication; the opposed term, i.e., the
short prex-tense, served both as jussive and as marker of the past.
4.3.2.2.11n. For other suggestions, see the literature adduced by von Soden (1995: 128,
par. 79a*) and Kienast (2001: 196, par. 178.3).
4.3.2.2.12. Indeed, in archaic poetry the short prex-tense is sometimes

still used as referring to the past, even when not following wa: yMI[" tlbUG] bXEy'
He established the borders of nations Deut 32:8; yim"&vAmI [Er]y' He thundered from heaven 2 Sam 22:14 (compare Ps 18:14, reecting a later recension, which already has [Er]Y'w' in accordance with later usage).
4.3.2.2.13. Another certain point of departure is, in our opinion, the abovementioned use of the sufx-tense of stative verbs in the sense of the present
tense, as a sort of conjugated adjective. In Akkadian no tense parallel to the
sufx-tense exists. Nevertheless, a rather similar half-verbal form is well attested, the so-called stative, which, having the form paris/parus, as do most
stative verbs in Biblical Hebrew, corresponds to Biblical Hebrew stative verbs
in both form and meaning. Accordingly, we will consider the stative sufxtense as a Proto-Semitic heritage, whereas the ordinary sufx-tense derived
from action verbs (which did not exist in Akkadian, although it is attested in
most West Semitic languages), is a West Semitic innovation, which presumably emerged when the short prex-tense started losing its past reference and
4.3.2.2.14. Prex-Tense
196
remained alive in modal usage only. It was then that the sufx-tense derived
from action verbs came into being, to mark the past instead of the short prextense. However, it is also possible that originally the short prex-tense denoted the ordinary past, whereas the sufx-tense of action verbs denoted the
present perfect.
4.3.2.2.14. On the other hand, the problem of the ordinary prex-tense is
very intricate. As to its form, internal reconstruction of Biblical Hebrew attests to a nal short vowel. Thus, e.g., the ordinary prex-tense of the hif il
verbal theme of II-w/y verbs such as yqIy; he will raise has a long vowel, in
contrast to the jussive qEy; with an originally short one. This distribution is
convincingly explained by the assumption that in Proto-Semitic and ProtoHebrew no long vowels could stand in closed syllables. Accordingly, forms of
the *yaqim type (without nal vowel) were shortened, becoming *yaqim, and
later qe y;. In the ordinary prex-tense, however, the long vowel was preserved
because it stood in an (originally) open syllable, viz., *yaqimu. And, in fact, in
Classical Arabic the (ordinary) prex-tense terminates in nal -u, as in yaktubu; it stands to reason that this was the case in Proto-Hebrew as well. However, great difculties arise because of the existence of another prex-tense,
used as indicative, in both Akkadian and Gez: in Akkadian it is iparras (the
initial i arose from ya because of an internal Akkadian development; the last
syllable may have other vowels); in Gez it is ynaggr (where it opposes a
jussive/subjunctive which is formed as an ordinary prex-tense yngr). As a
result of the comparison of these two forms, we have to posit a form with
geminated second radical marking present/future indicative. Since this form
is attested in East Semitic (Akkadian) and Southwest Semitic (Gez [see Kienast 2001: 3069, par. 259], as well as in Berber dialects), it is difcult to
imagine that it arose by parallel development (although this too has been
claimed). Instead, it appears that it is a Proto-Semitic feature, preserved in
Akkadian and Gez, two Semitic languages on the opposite ends of the Semitic map. The difculty is to assess the historical relation of this *yaqail to
*yaqulu. It has, for instance, been suggested that both forms should be regarded as Proto-Semitic (von Soden 1959: 26365). *yaqail perhaps was
durative present-future (in accordance with the doubled second radical, if in
fact it is iconic [onomatopoetic]), whereas *yaqulu was momentary (terminative) present-future. If this proves to be true, one will perhaps posit that after
the semantic differences between these two forms referring to present-future
had been neutralized, one of the forms was independently dropped in the various languages. As a rule,*yaqail disappeared, because of its similarity to the
piel theme. In Akkadian and Gez it was yaqulu that disappeared; in Akkadian yaqulu has been preserved in subordinate clauses denoting statements,
i.e., in a closed syntagma. Should this theory prove to be correct, it would imply that yaqulu is not a West Semitic innovation but instead belongs to an
197
Tenses 4.3.2.2.16.
older layer of Proto-Semitic and was displaced in Akkadian and Gez by the
other Proto-Semitic prex-tense yaqavl, so that *yaqulu > iprusu was only
maintained in indicative subordinate clauses, viz., in closed syntagma.
4.3.2.2.14n. It has been claimed that remnants of *yaqail have been preserved in Biblical
Hebrew, e.g., in forms that were reinterpreted as piel, or in I-n verbs in which allegedly the
preservation of the n in yaqul indicates that they were originally *yaqail. However, these
theories, for all their ingenuity, are improbable. See, e.g., Bloch 1963: 4150.
4.3.2.2.15. Perhaps one could assume that in the earliest stage of ProtoSemitic, besides the imperative and timeless nominal clauses (as a rule referring to the present), the short prex-tense (derived from the imperative)
emerged to serve as the marked term in the opposition short prex-tense :
nominal clause (see 4.3.2.2.11, p. 195). This opposition was twofold, obtaining in the realm of both tense and mood. In opposition to nominal clauses that
were timeless (and thus related to the [general] present), the short prex-tense
came to mark the past (the tense opposition), and contrary to nominal clauses
that, as a rule, expressed statements, it served as a jussive (the modal opposition). Later, the indicative present / future yaqulu was derived from the short
prex-tense yaqul (cf. Bergstrsser 191829: 2.12). Alongside the punctual
present-future yaqulu, the durative present-future yaqavl was formed by
iconicity but later disappeared in Biblical Hebrew (and the other West Semitic
languages) because of its similarity to the D verbal theme.
4.3.2.2.15n. For the archaic character of the imperative, cf. its similarity to the construct innitive in many themes in BHeb, thus perhaps hinting that the imperative might originally
date back to a period in which verbs and nouns were not yet differentiated. Kienast (2001:
200, par. 181.1), on the contrary, derives the imperative from the short prex-tense. The imperative was, to be sure, inuenced in its form by the prex-tense; this inuence, however,
occurred at a later period, when the imperative and the short prex-tense coexisted.
Yaqulu was semantically opposed to yaqul. Before the emergence of yaqulu, present
and future senses were expressed by nominal clauses only. In contrast to nominal clauses,
which were basically devoid of temporal and modal reference, yaqulu came to denote
present and future by means of a special verbal form.
4.3.2.2.16. The sufx-tense was originally outside the tense system proper,
since it represented conjugated adjectives, as is the case with the Akkadian stative and also with the sufx-tense of stative verbs in Biblical Hebrew referring
to the present (see 4.3.2.2.9, p. 194). In the West Semitic languages the ordinary sufx-tense was derived from this stative to mark the past of action verbs,
originally, it seems, as a present perfect (see 4.3.2.2.13, p. 195), which is
somewhat close to stative, since it denotes a state in the present resulting from
an action in the past. So, two tenses referred to past, the short prex-tense
yaqul and the sufx-tense. Because of the similarity of yaqul to the ordinary
prex-tense yaqulu (especially in languages in which the nal short vowels
were dropped), its function as a past tense disappeared, and only residues of it
4.3.2.2.17. Tenses
198
survived in Biblical Hebrew, especially after waw. The sufx-tense, in somewhat rare cases, referred to the future, e.g., in wishes, which were described
as if the thing wished for had already been fullled. In Biblical Hebrew this
feature is especially frequent in prophecies (the so-called prophetic perfect),
prophesying events as if they had already happened (whereas in Classical Arabic it is restricted to wishes and oaths). This was, it seems, one of the sources
of the use of waw with the sufx-tense in the sense of the prex-tense (i.e.,
marking present/future, iterative-continuous past, and volition). The other
sources include the use of the sufx-tense of stative verbs denoting the present
and the paradigmatic pressure of the waw with the prex-tense to establish a
parallel feature in the sufx-tense. Moreover, the opposition past : present was
sometimes blurred by the use of the sufx-tense to mark present perfect (as,
e.g., ylIG]r'm} Wnyyih: al we have not been/we are not spies Gen 42:31).
4.3.2.2.16n. The use of the waw+sufx-tense was later than that of waw+prex-tense. An
even later feature occurring in the waw+sufx-tense was the nal stress of yTI&r]m"vw], T:&r]m"vw].
Were the stress original, the qama of the rst syllable would have been reduced. See
3.5.12.2.13, p. 150.
4.3.2.2.17. We have not yet dealt with the tense system in poetry. As a
matter of fact, one has the feeling that no system at all exists but, instead, a
conglomerate of forms. The prosaic usage of the simple-tenses and wawtenses is well attested; however, especially in later poetry, the use of the sufx-tense referring to present and future and that of the prex-tense referring to
the past occurred quite frequently and were conducive to the possibility of using, as a matter of fact, any tense form in every syntactical environment: ['yv/h
/vd]q: ymEVmI Whne[y' /jyvm} yyy The Lord will save (sufx-tense) his anointed, he
will answer (prex-tense) him from his holy heaven Ps 20:7; h[:r;b} T:j}l"&v yPI&
yTIvr'&jh<w] t:yc&[: hL<aE& ypID&AT<TI M}aIAb<B} rBEd't} yjI&a:B} bvTE hm:r]mI dymIx}T" n]/vl}W
yn,y[El} hk:r][<a<w] jykI/a /m&k: hy,h}a<At/yh t:yMI&Di you gave (sufx-tense) your
mouth to evil, and your tongue framed (prex-tense) deceit, you sat (prextense) and spoke (prex-tense) against your brother, you slandered (prextense) your mothers son, you have done (sufx-tense) this and I kept silence
(waw+ sufx-tense), you thought (sufx-tense) that I was (prex-tense) like
you, (yet) I will reprove (prex-tense) you and set (waw+long prex-tense)
(what you did) before your eyes Ps 50:1921; q}vY'w' . . . yrixU [Q"b"y] . . . jEn]Y'w'
and he led (conversive waw+prex-tense) them . . . he split (prex-tense)
rocks . . . and gave drink (conversive waw+short prex-tense) Ps 78:14-15.
This rather extreme alternation of verbal forms, however, does not mean that
the feeling for time and mood distinctions had disappeared; prose usage attests that it did not. It was a literary feature of poetry and especially of late poetry. There seems to have been some sort of licentia poetica not to pay
attention to time differences.
199
Tenses 4.3.2.3.2.
4.3.2.2.17n. The use of the sufx-tense to refer to the present and future already occurred
in classical prose in stative verbs and in the prophetic perfect (which is, of course, comparatively frequent in prophecies); the sufx-tense was also used to refer to the present
perfect.
Originally the prex-tense referred to the past in its short form, but because of the farreaching formal coincidence of the short and the ordinary forms, this usage was extended
to the prex-tense in general.
4.3.2.3. Bauers Approach

4.3.2.3.1. So far, we have elaborated on one theory, which despite all the
detractors is, in our opinion, the most likely one. Nevertheless, theories to interpret Biblical Hebrew tenses synchronically and historically are almost as
many as there are scholars. One of the central problems of any historical explanation is the relation of the Biblical Hebrew tense system to the Akkadian.
As stated, in addition to the imperative and the stative, Akkadian, in contradistinction to most West Semitic languages, has two prex-tenses: one, iprus,
refers more or less to the past; the other, ipar(r)as, to the present/future (for
the bracketing of the second r, see 4.3.2.3.2 below).
4.3.2.3.1n. As a matter of fact, B. Landsberger (as reported in von Soden 1995: 12930,
par. 80a) has succeeded in discovering a third prex-tense, iptaras (formally identical to
the t-verbal theme derived from qal *yaptaras > iptaras), which mainly serves as the
present perfect in a sort of consecutio temporum. The origin of this t-form perfect is not
clear.
4.3.2.3.2. H. Bauer (Bauer-Leander 1922: 26872, based on Bauer 1910)

historically identied iprus with the prex-tense in general (not with the short
prex-tense, as we have done) and iparas with the sufx-tense qal. He considered the doubling of the second radical in ipar(r)as to be secondary and surmised that this original *iparas was not originally conjugated with prexes
but with sufxes. In his opinion, West Semitic, having as a rule one sufxtense and one prex-tense, preserved the original Proto-Semitic tense system.
Akkadian *iparas with the prex i (< ya), instead of the original attachment of
sufxes, was due to a special Akkadian development. The starting point, in
Bauers opinion, for this development was the t-verbal theme derived from
qal iptaras, which originally was conjugated by sufxes, like the parallel
West Semitic forms. This iptaras was reinterpreted as representing *yaptaras
> iptaras (reecting the Akkadian sound shift ya > i). By this reinterpretation
(which occurred rst only in this verbal theme), iptaras, which was conceived
of as the 3ms of the prex-tense, was rebuilt and conjugated as a prex-tense
(taptaras, niptaras); this form then spread to the other verbal themes as well.
4.3.2.3.3. Tenses
200
4.3.2.3.3. Accordingly, in Bauers opinion, the formal correspondences

between Biblical Hebrew (as a typical representative of the West Semitic languages) and Akkadian are as follows:
Akkadian iprus
Akkadian ipar(r)as
BHeb *yaqul(u) (prex-tense)

BHeb *qaal(a) (sufx-tense)
4.3.2.3.4. It is, however, only formally that these forms correspond, whereas their meanings are diametrically opposed: iprus marks past, yaqul(u)
(the prex-tense) present/future; ipar(r)as designates present/future, qatal(a)
(the sufx-tense) past. What is the reason for this contradiction? Bauer also
regarded the prex-tense as the oldest tense form and, as a matter of fact, he
was the rst to emphasize the precedence of the prex-tense. He regarded the
form as the oldest tense, not only because of its connection with the imperative but also because it is less transparent than the sufx-tense. The sufxes of
the latter are, to a great degree, identical to the pronouns, whereas the prexes
of the prex-tense are difcult to explain. There obtained, accordingly, a period in which only one verbal form existed alongside the imperative, viz., the
prex-tense. As the only verbal form, the prex-tense did not denote any special time reference. The sufx-tense (qatal, iparas) came into being later, by
the combination of a participle with pronouns. First, these two verbal forms
were used in free alternation, and it was only after Akkadian had separated
from the other Semitic languages that they were differentiated. Nevertheless,
this differentiation went in opposite directions in Akkadian and the West
Semitic languages. This different development was caused by the different
manners of action (Aktionsart) of the verbs, which are either durative or momentary (or both) according to their inherent meanings. Many verbs, according to their inherent meaning can only indicate either momentary action (as to
arrive, to kill, to fall asleep) or durative action (as to walk, to live, to sleep). In
Bauers opinion, durative verbs tended to refer to present/future (I walk, live,
sleep now), whereas for momentary verbs it is more natural to refer to the past
(it is more natural to refer to arrival, killing, falling asleep in the past than to
catch the exact moment in which it happens in the present). In Akkadian, in the
new iparas tense it happened that durative verbs prevailed and, therefore, it
acquired time reference to present/future, limiting iprus to the past. In West
Semitic, however, qatal(a) (the sufx-tense) was inuenced by momentary
verbs, acquiring the meaning of past and conning yaqul(u) (the prex-tense)
to present/future.
4.3.2.3.5. In spite of the elegant, straightforward, and logical structure of
Bauers theory, it cannot be accepted, especially for the following two reasons:
(a) We know today that in both Akkadian iparras and Gez yOqattOl the
doubling of the second radical is an essential part of the forms. This, of course,
201
Aspect 4.3.2.4.1.
prevents the identication of iparras with West Semitic qatal(a).

(b) As stated above (4.3.2.2.16, p. 197), the Akkadian stative, in both
form and meaning, is identical to the sufx-tense of Biblical Hebrew (and of
West Semitic in general), which was derived from the stative verb. Any theory
of the Semitic tenses has to take this feature into consideration.
4.3.2.3.5n. In contrast to our view, W. Leslau (1953: 16466) regards the South Ethiopian
forms without gemination as original and the gemination as secondary.
4.3.2.4. Aspectual Approaches

4.3.2.4.1. The two theoriesthe one accepted by us and Bauershad one
basic approach in common despite the great differences between them: both
regarded the Hebrew and Semitic tenses as referring to time (past, present, future). This, however, is not at all the only accepted view. Many scholars assume that the Semitic tenses in general and the Biblical Hebrew forms in
particular have no time reference but instead mark aspect. The notion of aspect has been worked out in the Slavonic languages, where, however, contrary
to the assumption of its adherents in the realm of the Semitic languages, it is
connected to time reference. According to the prevailing theory of aspect in
Semitic languages, the Semitic speaker either looked at the verb as describing
its action during its happening (the imperfective aspect) or simply stated that
such an action took place (the perfective aspect). With some simplication,
one could claim that the prex-tense (even when following waw) is imperfective, the sufx-tense (even when following waw) perfective. Thus, both the
prex-tense and the waw+prex-tense describe actions while they are happening, without referring to the actions as past, present, or future: rdeqAhM:l:
LEh"t}a< why am I going mourning Ps 43:2; yhIlah:Ata< /nj LEh"t}Yiw' and
Enoch walked with God Gen 5:22. Similarly, both the sufx-tense and the
waw+sufx-tense only state the fact of the happening of the action, without
any time reference: j'noAL<h"t}hI yhIlah:Ata< Noah walked with God Gen 6:9;
and k<k}/tB} yTI&k}L"h"t}hIw] and I will walk among you Lev 26:12. The person
who is used to verbal forms conveying time reference has the impression that
the very same forms refer to one time in one instance and to another time in
another instance, depending upon the context. Various theories were invented
to explain why the same form marks past in one example and present/future in
another example. However, in the opinion of these scholars, these forms do
not inherently denote any time reference; they mark subjective aspect, in accordance with the speakers viewpoint.
4.3.2.4.1n. See, e.g., S. R. Drivers famous Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew
(3rd ed., 1892), and C. Brockelmann (1951: 13554). For a general (and not always accurate) survey, see C. Brockelmann (1956: 3739). Cf. also D. Cohen (1989) and the literature adduced there, as well as the literature cited by Kienast (2001: 187).
4.3.2.4.2. Aspect
202
4.3.2.4.2. We have general and special objections to this theory. Generally

speaking, this theory assumes that the employment of the verbal forms depends completely on the speakers subjective viewpoint of the situation. Accordingly, we do not possess any objective criteria for verifying the theory,
since, contrary to the Slavonic languages, aspect in Hebrew is not connected
with time reference but is absolutely devoid of it. This is certainly a delicate
assumption, though admittedly not entirely impossible.
4.3.2.4.3. As to special objections, we do not think that one can discard the
use of the conversive waw and regard forms with and without waw as identical. We hope to have demonstrated that, at least in classical narrative prose,
the alternation of simple and waw-forms (sufx-tense/waw+prex-tense, on
the one hand, and prex-tense/waw+sufx-tense, on the other) is quite regular, depending on their syntactic environment. It is the sufx-tense/waw+
prex-tense, on the one hand, and the prex-tense/waw+sufx-tense, on the
other, that have the same reference. Moreover, one must not overlook so many
clear cases in which the sufx-tense/waw+prex-tense refer to the past in opposition to the present/future reference of the prex-tense/waw+sufx-tense,
as e.g.: h[r]P"As/k T:&t"n;w] N,K"Al[" b}yvhw' v& arAta< h[r]p" aCyi ymIy; tv l&v d/[B}
WhqE&vm" t:yyih
: rva /varih: fP:vMIK" /dy;B} within three days Pharaoh will lift up
(future, prex-tense) your head and restore (future, waw+sufx-tense) you
unto your place, and you will deliver (future, waw+sufx-tense) Pharaohs
cup into his hand, after the former manner when you were (past, sufx-tense)
his butler Gen 40:13; hc[y' rj:m: rmalE d[E/m yyy cY;w' . . . tWmy; al w ] . . . yyy hl:p}hIw]
tmEAal laEr;cyiAyneb} hneq}MImIW yir;&x}mI hneq}mI lK tm:Y;w' tr;jM:mI hZ,h" rb:D;h"Ata< yyy c["Y 'w' . . .
dj: a< and the Lord will distinguish (future, waw+ sufx-tense) . . . and it will
not die (future, prex-tense) . . . and the Lord appointed (past, waw+prextense) a set time, saying: tomorrow He will do (future, prex-tense). . . . And
the Lord did (past, waw+prex-tense) this thing the following day and all the
cattle of Egypt died (past, waw+prex-tense), and of the cattle of the children
of Israel not one died (past, sufx-tense) Exod 9:46; . . . kE hy;h:Aal wyn;p:l}
KEAhy,h}yi al wyr;ja"w] before it, it was (past, sufx-tense) not so . . . , nor will it be
(future, prex-tense) so after it Exod 10:14. These examples, as well as
many, many others, not only indicate that the sufx-tense/waw+prex-tense
refer to the past and that the prex-tense/waw+sufx-tense refer to the future,
but they show again that there is no difference as to time reference between
sufx-tense and the waw+prex-tense on the one hand, or between the prextense and waw+sufx-tense on the other. The waw-forms are applied whenever the syntactic environment enables the use of the connective waw; otherwise, the simple verbal forms are employed. This clearly demonstrates that
for the most part Biblical Hebrew verbal forms have distinct time reference,
rather than (exclusive) aspectual function.
203
Marking of Persons 4.3.3.1.2.
4.3.3. The Marking of Persons in the Imperative,

the Prex-Tense, and the Sufx-Tense
4.3.3.1. Person-Marking on Imperative
4.3.3.1.1. The imperative occurs in the second person only. It has only sufxes and no prexes. The ms is devoid of any sufx; the mp has the ending -u
(for which, cf. 4.2.2.7.2, p. 166).
4.3.3.1.1n. According to comparative evidence, the ms imperative in Proto-Semitic also
terminated with its last radical. In Biblical Hebrew, however, this feature cannot be reconstructed by internal evidence. Through the inuence of the (ordinary) prex-tense, the ms
imperative as well as the corresponding short prex-tense behave as if they had terminated
with a vocalic ending: they are stressed on their last syllable, as if they had omitted a nal
vowel (according to the assumption of a general penultimate stress). Thus, we nd rmE&VhI
rather than *hissamer and lDe&b}y', rather than yb2 del. Furthermore, they terminate with a
vowel before a pronominal sufx (as ynire&m}v; ynilE&yDib}Y'w').
4.3.3.1.2. The fs sufx ends with -i; the fp sufx ends with -na. The sufx
-na occurs, as rule, in both the imperative and the prex-tense, spelled with nal -h: hn;r]m&v, hn;r]m vTI ; nevertheless, its defective spelling is also attested, as
in ax<&m}W and nd! Ruth 1:9; k}lE& yt"nob} (!)hn;b}v& return, my daughters; go!
Ruth 1:12; hr;m: ylI ar,&q} ymI[n; ylI (!)hn;ar,&q}TIAla" do not call me Naomi; call me
Marah! Ruth 1:20; ax<&m}tIAyKI when they will nd Deut 31:21. It is not out of
the question to vocalize these forms without the nal qama, i.e.,*um!n,
*lkn (with anaptyctic ), *qr!n, tim!n. It is, however, only very rarely
that the vocalization attests to the omission of the nal -a: ["m"&v hear! Gen
4:23.
rmv
yrim}v
Wrm}v
hn;r]m&v
4.3.3.1.2n. The fs - i is connected, it seems, with the corresponding personal pronouns and
pronominal sufxes *anti/*-ki; see 4.2.2.3.3, p. 162; 4.2.3.3.1, p. 169.
Some Semitic languages (see 4.3.3.4.10, p. 212) have nal -a for the fp, which is perhaps preserved in Biblical Hebrew, possibly through Aramaic inuence: t/Nn'av yvn;
yix:&l:jAl[" hr;/gjw' hr;[&w] hf:v&P} t/jf}B hz;g ; r] t/Nn'av (!)Wdr]jI . . . t/jf}B (!)hn;z]G 'r]TI . . . (!)hn;m}q&
you careless women, rise . . . you condent women, you will tremble . . . be perturbed,
you careless women; tremble, you condent women; strip and make yourselves bare and
gird up your loins! Isa 32:911. Scholars are at variance concerning the original distribution of these two endings and which was earlier. In Biblical Hebrew, as a rule (see
4.3.3.4.9, p. 211), the 3fp of the suffix-tense has disappeared altogether (as happens occasionally in the prex-tense and the imperative as well; cf. above, in this note, Wdr]jI) and
has been supplanted by the mp, whereas the ending of the imperative and the prex-tense
is -na. In Akkadian and Gez it is the -a ending that is attested (which is perhaps identical
to the ancient nominal fp to which the feminine marker t was later added, giving rise to -at
> BHeb -ot). In Classical Arabic, -na is attested. For Proto-Aramaic one perhaps has to
posit -a for the sufx-tense and -na for the prex-tense (and possibly the imperative). For
4.3.3.2. Marking of Persons
204
diverse views, see, e.g., Brockelmann (190813: 1.559; 567; 574); Bergstrsser (1928: 12,
esp. n. 1); Z. Ben-ayyim (1951: 13539); J. Huehnergard (1987a: 26677); T. Muraoka
and B. Porten (1998: 1017, esp. 103; 105; and nn. 461 [which according to p. xl should be
corrected to read Kutscher (1970) for Kutscher (1971)], 468, 483, 494). According to
the principle of archaic heterogeneity, one is inclined to posit for Proto-Semitic the sufxes
-a/-na, according to the somewhat dubious distribution reconstructed for Proto-Aramaic.
For the alternation of -a/-na in the domain of the pronouns, see 4.2.2.7.34.2.2.7.4
(pp. 166167). The ending -a in the prex-tense (which was secondary according to the
Proto-Semitic distribution of the sufxes -a/-na proposed here) occurs in: hn;ge[:TE you will
shut yourselves off Ruth 1:13; hn;m"&a:TE they will be carried by a nurse Isa 60:4; see Blau
1997: 187.
Concerning the forms with n without the nal h, see Bergstrsser 191829: 2.1920.
However, Brockelmann (190813: 1.559, par. 260e, note) regards the defective spelling of
-na as genuine and ["m"&v as an incorrect vocalization for the regular [}m"&v = hn;[}m"&v. Bauer
and Leander (1922: 362) consider the alternation of -na/-n to be authentic, and they may
well be right.
The form a<r]qI call! Exod 2:20 reects, it seems, adjustment of the regular hn;ar,&q} /
ar,q} to other forms of the paradigm such as War]qI, yaIr]q.I
4.3.3.2. Person-Marking on the Prex-Tense

4.3.3.2.1. The prex-tense possesses both prexes and sufxes. Its sufxes are identical to those of the imperative; we will deal with the attachment
of nal -n to these endings later, after having treated the prexes:
rmOva<
yrim}vTI
rmvTI
rmvTI
rmvyi
rmvni
hn;r]m&vTI
hn;r]m&vTI
Wrm}vTI
Wrm}vyi
4.3.3.2.1n. The -na sufx of the fp is also identical to the imperative form, and we have
posited it for Proto-Semitic as well (see 4.3.3.1.2n above). In this regard, however, scholars differ in their opinions.
4.3.3.2.2. The aleph of the 1s prex may be connected with a that possibly
occurs in the independent personal pronoun I *ana, see 4.2.2.2.3n, p. 160.
The n- of the 1p may be related to the corresponding independent personal
pronoun and pronominal sufx Wnj}n'(a), Wn-. The t- of the second person seems
to be identical to the t of the independent pronouns hT:a", T}a", T<a", T<a". The tof the 3fs is related to the feminine ending -(a)t. The etymon of the y- of the
3ms is opaque. As for the 3fp tqlna, its original form seems to have been
*yqlna with y- prex, as attested in many Semitic languages. In Biblical Hebrew, however, by the analogy of the t-prex of the 3fs tql and the 2fp tqlna,
tqlna in the 3fp with t-prex arose, while archaic yqlna was still preserved:
hn;m}j"&Yew' their mating occurred Gen 30:38; hn;r]V&y iw' and they went straight
205
Marking of Persons 4.3.3.2.4.
1 Sam 6:12. It also occurs in late Biblical Hebrew, hn;d]m&[y' ( . . . [!]hn;d]m&[T"w)'

(and they arose . . . ) they will arise Dan 8:22; however, its presence in late
Biblical Hebrew has to be attributed to Aramaic inuence, where the y prex
has been preserved.
4.3.3.2.2n. The result of Aramaic inuence on the 3fp form is a mixed (pseudo-correct)
form, with Aramaic prex (ya-) and BHeb sufx hn;- (in Aramaic the sufx is -an); see
Kutscher (1982: 41).
4.3.3.2.3. Alongside the regular sufxes -i, -u of the prex-tense, sometimes the 2fs sufx -in is attested (yqIB:d]tI hkw] and here you will remain close
Ruth 2:8). More often (about 300 times) the 2mp and 3p sufx is -un, e.g.,
WlD;j}y, they will cease Exod 9:29; Wla:vyi they will ask Josh 4:6, especially
frequent in pause. The structure of these forms, clearly differing from
yqIB}d]TI*, WlD]j}y, Wlavyi, can easily be explained by the assumption of general
penultimate stress (see 3.5.12.2.2, p. 144). The endings -un, -in, according
to the evidence of Classical Arabic, have to be derived from -una, -ina, with
nal -a. Therefore, it was -i/-u preceding -na that was stressed, and the a of the
preceding syllable, being affected by pretonic lengthening, was maintained as
qama. On the other hand, the -n-less forms were one syllable shorter, therefore originally stressed on the short a of: *tidbqi, *yedlu, *yislu from
which the stress shifted during the fourth stress stage (see 3.5.12.2.6, p. 146).
Again, the assumption of general penultimate stress proves decisive for the
understanding of Biblical Hebrew word structure. See 3.5.12.2.17n, p. 152.
4.3.3.2.4. As for the origin of the -n ending of in(a), -un(a): according to
the testimony of Classical Arabic, it served as the nal termination of those
forms of the ordinary prex-tense (viz., the indicative) that ended in long
vowels. After the short vowels had disappeared and, as a rule, the penultimate
stress of the jussive had given place to nal stress (see 3.5.12.2.14, pp. 150
151), indicative and jussive coincided in their simple (sufxless) forms. Accordingly, the feeling for the modal differences became blurred, and the sufxes -un/-u and -ina/-i became mere variants. In some Semitic languages
(such as Aramaic and some Arabic dialects), the -n endings prevailed; in
others, including Biblical Hebrew and most Arabic dialects, the -n-less sufxes had the upper hand (and in later Rabbinic Hebrew, the -n-forms disappeared altogether). In Biblical Hebrew, however, the -n-forms still lingered on
as stylistic variants, being considered to reect a higher register because they
were less frequent. One could also surmise that the use of the -n-forms is due
to Aramaic inuence, yet the fact that Chronicles sometimes uses -n-less
forms in contrast to its Vorlage, (e.g., W[d]ye they know 2 Chr 6:29, in contrast
to W[d]ye 1 Kgs 8:38) contradicts this assumption, at least to some degree.
4.3.3.2.4n. The -n-forms were preserved in Ancient Aramaic; see R. Degen (1969: 65). If
Akkad iprusu is, in fact, the historical continuation of the ordinary prex-tense (the
206
indicative; see 4.3.2.2.14, p. 196), its -ni ending would also point to the use of -n in the
(original) indicative. Note Arab -na in contrast to Akkad -ni! However, according to the
evidence from Classical Arabic, no -n(a) was added to the -u/-i sufxes in the jussive (the
short prex-tense); the (Arabic) subjunctive was similar; see 4.3.3.3.1n below.
4.3.3.3. Three Moods of the Prex-Tense

4.3.3.3.1. In Classical Arabic, which has preserved nal short vowels,
three moods of the prex-tense have been preserved: the indicative yaqulu,
the jussive yaqul (remnants of which have also preserved reference to the
past), and the subjunctive yaqula. This is primarily the system that has to be
posited for West Semitic in general and Biblical Hebrew in particular (for diachronic changes, see the following).
4.3.3.3.1n. A short summary of the situation in Classical Arabic is convenient: (1) The indicative terminates in -u in forms without a sufx (yaqulu, taqulu, naqulu), and in -na
after long vowels (yaquluna, taquluna, taqulina). The fp forms taqulna, yaqulna are
identical in all three variants of the prex-tense. (2) The short prex-tense, used mainly as
a jussive (and also as a past tense after the negation lam and in conditional clauses), terminates in W in forms without a sufx (yaqul, taqul, naqul ); no -na is added to the forms
terminating in a long vowel (yaqulu, taqulu, taquli). (3) The subjunctive terminates in a in forms without a sufx (yaqula, taqula, naqula); no -na is added to the forms terminating in a long vowel (yaqulu, taqulu, taquli). In Biblical Hebrew the archaic volitive
sense of this variant has been preserved; however, it has been restricted to the rst person;
for details see 4.3.3.3.4, p. 207.
4.3.3.3.2. Two features in Biblical Hebrew prove that the ordinary prextense, used as indicative, terminated in a (short) vowel. (1) It exhibits nal
stress, thus attesting to a nal vowel being dropped (see 3.5.12.2.14, p. 150).
(2) It may contain a historically long vowel in its nal (now closed) syllable
(in contradistinction to the short prex-tense). This indicates that the nal syllable was originally open; otherwise it would have shortened (as the short
prex-tense did) because long vowels were shortened in closed syllables in
Proto-Semitic and Proto-Hebrew. Classical Arabic shows that the vowel
dropped in Biblical Hebrew was -u in forms without additional sufxes.
4.3.3.3.2n. Compare, e.g., lyDib}y' in contrast to lDeb}y' (the former form reects original *yabdilu; the latter form arose from *yabdil ) or yqIy; he will raise (original *yaqimu) in contrast with qyE ; (original *yaqim). See 3.5.12.2.14n, p. 151; 4.3.2.2.14, p. 196.
4.3.3.3.3. The short prex-tense, used as jussive and as past tense (mainly
after the so-called conversive waw) had no nal vowel. This is attested by the
partly preserved penultimate stress, which still characterizes many forms after
conversive waw (type q<Y;w' and he rose), and the originally short vowel in
its nal (closed) syllable in contrast to the long vowel in the ordinary prextense (see 4.3.3.3.2 above); type qEy; let him raise, bv y; let him return).
4.3.3.3.3n. For penultimate stress indicating that no nal vowel has been dropped, see
3.5.12.2.4, p. 146.
207
Cohortative 4.3.3.3.4.
In the jussive form, the stress of the short prex-tense shifted to the ultima on the basis
of the general trend of shift to nal stress (see 3.5.12.2.14, p. 151) and the inuence of
the ordinary prex-tense: bv y; let him return < ya!sub.
4.3.3.3.4. The lengthened prex-tense terminating in -a is used as cohortative in the rst person (hm:Wq&a: / hm:Wq&n; let me/us rise!), in contradistinction
to Classical Arabic, where the parallel yaqula in all persons is used as subjunctive (somewhat similar to the modal usage of the French subjonctif ) and
is almost totally limited to subordinate clauses to express non-fact. Because of
this difference of usage and also because Biblical Hebrew reects long -a
(preserved from Proto-Hebrew), whereas Arabic reects short -a (perhaps explained as stemming from an anceps vowel), scholars frequently refrained
from historically connecting the Biblical Hebrew cohortative and the Arabic
subjunctive. It was often claimed that the cohortative corresponds to Arabic
yaqulan, an energetic form, which is closer to the meaning of the Biblical Hebrew cohortative at rst sight, yet differs from it in form (BHeb -a, Arab -an).
To bridge this difference, BHeb -a was explained as stemming from -an by
the pausal shift -an > a (yaqulan > yaqula), as attested in Classical Arabic.
However, not only is this pausal phenomenon limited to Arabic and, it seems,
totally absent from Hebrew, but Moran (1960: 119, esp. 9 n. 1) has demonstrated the existence of a form yaqula in the El-Amarna letters from Byblos
in a dialect that is very close to Biblical Hebrew. This yaqula form corresponds to a quite surprising degree to that of the biblical cohortative (though
it is not restricted to the rst person). In addition, the language of El-Amarna
attests the separate occurrence of the energetic, thus excluding the possibility
of deriving the Biblical Hebrew cohortative from the energetic. And, in fact,
the difference in meaning between the Biblical Hebrew cohortative and the
Arabic subjunctive is only apparent. The Biblical Hebrew cohortative (as well
as all of the other volitive forms, including the jussive) is not restricted to direct usage (x<&r]a"b} hr;B}[}a< let me pass through your land Num 21:22), but
also occurs indirectly, by attraction, as a sort of sequence of moods after a preceding direct volitive (hr;BE&d'aw' yim"&Vh" Wnyziah" hark, heaven, and let me speak/
so that I may speak/in order that I speak Deut 32:l), which, as demonstrated
by the instance adduced, very easily passes to subjunctive usage (see Blau
1971c: 14344 = Topics, 16566). Accordingly, it appears that Arab yaqula
is historically related to the Hebrew cohortative. Originally, it seems, this
form in West Semitic had a modal sense and occurred in all persons, as preserved in the ancient Canaanite of Byblos. In Biblical Hebrew it was restricted
to the rst person by the paradigmatic pressure of the imperative and the
jussive. In Arabic it was relegated from the indirect volitive to subordinate
clauses.
4.3.3.3.4n. Among the scholars who considered the Hebrew cohortative to be historically
connected with Arabic yaqula, were Bauer-Leander (1922: 3067); P. Joon (1923: 315
208
n. 1); P. Joon and T. Muraoka (1991: 382 n. 1); Blau 1971c: 14243 = Topics, 16465;
1977c: 2930 = Topics, 26263.
For arguments that the cohortative corresponds to Arab yaqulan, see e.g., Brockelmann (190813: 1.557; where read an > for a >), Bergstrsser (191829: 2.24). Cf. Kienast
(2001: 291, par. 248.1), who over-emphasized Brockelmanns remark (190813: 1.554,
par. 259Baa) concerning an exceptional Quranic form which, in Brockelmanns view, already reects the inltration of pausal yaqula into the context (nevertheless, cf. W. Wright
189698: 1.62, par. 99, rem. for a different interpretation). Kienast considers yaqula to be
a separate energetic form (Energicus III in Kienasts terminology), and derives the Biblical
Hebrew long prex-tense from it.
The occurrence of the lengthened imperative (such as hr;m}v) also suggests that the cohortative was not originally restricted to the rst person.
4.3.3.4. Person-Marking of the Sufx-Tense

4.3.3.4.1. As stated above (4.3.2.3.4, p. 200), the afxes of the sufxtense are clearer than those of the prex-tense. Since the West Semitic sufxtense corresponds historically to the Akkadian stative, in the following we
will compare their rst and second persons to the Akkadian stative as well as
to the personal pronouns (as they have been reconstructed above; see 4.2.2.2
4.2.2.8, pp. 159168):
1s
2ms
2fs
1p
2mp
2fp
*Personal
pronoun
Akkadian
stative
anaku
anta
anti
ninu
antumu
antin(n)a
-aku
-ata
-ati
-anu
-atunu
-atina
Gez
Arabic
-ku
-ka
-ki
-na
-kmu
-kn
-tu
-ta
-ti
-na
-tum(u)
-tunna
Aramaic Hebrew
t-e
yTI-
T}- /T:-
T:-
yTI-
T}-
an;-
Wn-
WT-
T<-
TE-
T<-
4.3.3.4.1n. The afxes of the sufx-tense terminate in the endings of the personal pronouns (without the initial an-).
The reconstructed nal long vowels of the personal pronoun are often shortened, i.e.,
they are anceps.
In Hebrew, the 2ms form is sometimes ht:- in plene spelling, especially in short words,
such as hT:t"&n; you gave.
In Hebrew, the 2fs form preceding pronominal sufxes is yTI- (yniyTI&r]m"v), which is
sometimes spelled defectively (as in ynitI&yMIri you have deceived me 1 Sam 19:17). Not infrequently the ktib2 has the ending yt-, the qre T}-, as in ktib2 ytdryw, qre T}d]r'y;w] Ruth 3:3.
4.3.3.4.2. Two questions arise:

(a) k in contrast to t. The majority of the Semitic languages have t in the
rst-person singular and the second person, yet Gez has k, whereas Akkadian
209
Person-Marking of the Sufx-Tense 4.3.3.4.4.
has k in the rst-person singular, t in the second person. We tend to think that
Akkadian reects the original Proto-Semitic situation, because it both reects
archaic heterogeneity and parallels the personal pronouns, which have exactly
the same distribution: k in the rst-person singular, t in the second person. By
paradigmatic analogy, in Gez k spread over the whole paradigm, whereas in
the other West Semitic languages t prevailed.
(b) a preceding the pronominal sufxes. In our opinion, the solution of
this question is quite similar: in Akkadian the sufxes are preceded by -a-,
which, however, is not attested in the other Semitic languages (but see the immediate sequence!). In this case it is only the personal pronouns that reect archaic heterogeneity: in the rst-person singular a occurs: *anaku (> BHeb
ykInoa:), but not in the rst-person plural and the second person. Therefore, we
tend to posit a as the ancestor of the stative/sufx-tense in Proto-Semitic in
the rst-person singular only. In Akkadian, this a spread to the second person,
as well as to the rst-person plural, whereas in the other Semitic languages,
through the inuence of the other persons, it disappeared in the rst-person
singular as well. We even think that vestiges of this -a- have been preserved in
Biblical Hebrew in verba mediae geminatae and II-w/y (as ytI/B&s", t:/B&s", Wn/B&s",
t<&/Bs", ytI/m&yqIh, etc.). It has often been claimed that this separating vowel
reects an analogy to the III-w verbs. However, in light of the scarcity and
early disappearance of this verbal class, it does not seem very likely that it
should have exerted such an inuence. It is much more plausible that it continues the -a- of the rst-person singular, spreading also to the plural and the
second person. It is quite easy to see why it was in these two verbal classes,
mediae geminatae and II-w/y, that the separating vowel was preserved: it
enabled them to conform to the triradical pattern, viz., to double the second
radical in the mediae geminatae (as ytI/B&sIh, in contrast to yTIb}s"&hE without the
separating vowel) and to maintain the long vowel after the rst radical in
II-w/y verbs (as ytI/m&yqIh, in contrast with yTIm}qh
& " E).
4.3.3.4.2n. The pronominal sufxes, to be sure, have k in the second person (see 4.2.3.3.1,
p. 169) and exhibit altogether different forms in the rst-person singular; these forms have,
it seems, to be considered different pronominal elements.
For the analogy of the separating vowel to the III-w verbs, see, e.g., Brockelmann
(190813: 1.636). Even Bergstrsser (191829: 2.141), who derived the sufxes of the
sufx-tense from the personal pronouns and therefore restricted the separating vowel a
to the rst-person singular for Proto-Semitic, regarded the anology to III-w verbs as an additional factor (in spite of his qualications).
4.3.3.4.3. For the preservation of the nal vowel in the second-person

singular masculine in contrast to its omission in the parallel feminine, see
1.18.1, p. 55; 4.2.2.3.2, p. 161.
4.3.3.4.4. In the rst-person plural of the personal pronouns, Biblical Hebrew and Akkadian exhibit -nu (Akkadian [a]nu), the other Semitic languages
4.3.3.4.5. Person-Marking of the Sufx-Tense
210
-na/-na, corresponding to the pronominal sufxes. Since it is the endings of

the personal pronouns that are attached to the sufx-tense, rather than the pronominal sufxes, we are inclined to posit -nu as original (-na being due to the
inuence of the pronominal sufx). Accordingly, it seems that these are the
original endings of the rst and second persons of the sufx-tense:
-aku
-ta
-ti
-nu
-tumu
-tinna
4.3.3.4.4n. The nal long vowels are anceps. Cf. in general T. Nldeke (1904: 1529).
4.3.3.4.5. The sufx of the third-person masculine singular was -a, as it

has been preserved in Classical Arabic, Gez, and Ugaritic. In Biblical Hebrew, it has been preserved (as in Aramaic) preceding pronominal sufxes (as
ynir'&m:v).
4.3.3.4.5n. It is lacking in the 3ms of the Akkadian stative, however. Therefore, R. Hetzron
(1974: 191) considered the lack of the -a sufx in East Semitic (Akkadian) to be an archaic
feature and to reect Proto-Semitic. He deemed this -a in West Semitic to be a shared
West Semitic innovation; cf. also Kienast (2001: 2034, par. 182.6). However, I. J. Gelb
(1961: 14653) has found remnants of the stative ending -a in the most ancient layer of
Akkadian. And, indeed, Sarauw (1939: 48) has posited for Akkadian the elision of nal
unstressed -a and inferred it from the absence of -a, not only in the stative but also in the
construct accusative ending (for which, cf. von Soden 1995: 101, par. 64a; see also p. 99,
par. 63e).
4.3.3.4.6. The sufx of the third-person feminine singular is -at, identical to the feminine marker in nouns (where it has case endings, whereas in the
verb it lacks endings). Accordingly, it has a nominal rather than a pronominal
ending.
4.3.3.4.6n. The absence of any ending following the verbal sufx -at (as indicated by comparative evidence and in contradistnction to the nominal sufx -at followed by case endings) is proven also by internal evidence, viz., the totally different behavior of this verbal
ending when preceding pronominal sufxes. The ms imperative is different, although it
had a W ending as well (see 4.3.3.1.1, p. 203, and note). Yet, as proven by comparative
evidence, the pronominal sufxes are almost entirely attached to the imperative in the
same way as to the ordinary prex-tense (which terminated in -u) through its inuence.
The same applies to the short prex-tense.
4.3.3.4.7. In many Semitic languages, this -at has shifted, as in Biblical

Hebrew, to -a. The constraints on this remarkable shift in the various Semitic
languages are different, and, accordingly, it has to be acknowledged that this
exceptional sound shift, surprisingly enough, repeated itself with minor differences in the different Semitic languages. Even two such closely related lan-
211
Person-Marking of the Sufx-Tense 4.3.3.4.9.
guages as Hebrew and Phoenician exhibit clear differences, and, therefore, the
apocope of -t even in these is not due to one common shift, as common sense
would demand, but to two separate shifts that were parallel in spite of clear
differences. This is the more striking since this type of apocope is quite exceptional. Nevertheless, it occurred independently in many Semitic languages, as
demonstrated by its variants in each language.
4.3.3.4.8. In Biblical Hebrew, for instance, the t of -at disappeared both in
the verb and the noun, whereas in Phoenician it disappeared in the verb only
but was preserved in the noun. In this special case, one could posit that in
Phoenician this shift, which affected nal -at only, operated when nouns still
had their case endings. Accordingly, it affected verbs, where the ending -at
was from its very beginning nal, but it did not affect nouns, where -at was
not in nal position, being followed by case endings. In Biblical Hebrew,
however, this shift continued (or started) operating later, when the case ending had already been elided and, therefore, nominal -at also stood in nal position, so that it was also affected by the shift -at > a (O). Nevertheless, things
are even more complicated if one takes into consideration this shift in Classical Arabic (where it occurs only in pause) and Aramaic. In these two languages, contrary to expectations, it is the verb, lacking any additional sufx
after -at from the very beginning, that preserved the ending; and the noun,
originally terminating in case endings, that lost it!
4.3.3.4.8n. Yet, the ending was preserved in construct nouns, because it was not in nal
position.
It seems that this shift in (Classical) Arabic and Aramaic initially affected -at only and
not -at. Accordingly, verbs and nouns that were originally III-y/w were not inuenced.
Since III-w/y verbs are a very powerful verbal class, they inuenced ordinary verbs to preserve their -at, whereas III-w/y nouns, which were less inuential, were themselves affected by analogy with the other nouns and lost their nal t. In BHeb, too, -at did not shift
to -a. For details, see Blau (1980 = Topics, 12637, and below, 4.3.8.6.4.1, p. 250).
4.3.3.4.9. The third-person plural has the ending -u, the well-known
nominal plural marker, which we already encountered with the imperative
(see 4.3.3.1.1, p. 203) and the prex-tense. No special form of the thirdperson feminine plural exists in Biblical Hebrew. This supersession of the
feminine plural by the corresponding masculine seems to be part of the drift
affecting Semitic languages at different stages of their development. It characterizes urban modern Arabic dialects as well, in which the masculine plural
supplants the feminine in general and not in the sufx-tense only. In Biblical
Aramaic, for instance, the qre, to be sure, has preserved the feminine plural;
nevertheless, the ktib2 reects its general supersession by the masculine (see
Z. Ben-ayyim 1951: 13539). The same applies to Rabbinic Hebrew, in
which the feminine plural also disappeared in the pronoun, the imperative,
and the prex-tense. Traces of this late development are found in Biblical
4.3.3.4.10. Marking of Persons; Innitives
212
Hebrew as well, especially with respect to the independent pronoun, but also
in the prex-tense and the imperative, as illustrated in the following: yTI[}B"&vhI
/l WdyGiT"Ahm" ydi/DAta< Wax}m}TI aI il:&vWry] t/nB} k<t}a< I adjure you (2mp pronoun), O daughters of Jerusalem, if you nd (2mp prex-tense) my beloved,
what you will tell (2mp prex-tense) him Song 5:8; l<m<&ybIaAta< yhIla aP:r]Yiw'
WdlE&YwE ' wyt:hm}a"w ] /TvaIAta<w] and God healed Abimelech and his wife and his
maidservants and they bore (3mp waw+prex-tense) children Gen 20:17;
t/Nn'av Wdr]jI be perturbed (mp imperative), you careless women Isa 32:11.
4.3.3.4.9n. The use of the masculine-plural pronominal sufx for the feminine sufx is
quite characteristic of late language; see, e.g., M. F. Rooker (1990: 7881), with additional literature.
4.3.3.4.10. In some rather rare instances, however, the archaic feminineplural form of the sufx-tense, viz., -a, occurs: hm:q:& wyn;y[Ew ] and his eyes were
xed (in a blind stare) 1 Sam 4:15; hcP:&t}ni t/dx:M}h"w] t/YriQ}h" hd:K}l}ni the cities
were conquered and the forts seized Jer 48:41. This ending is comparatively
frequent in the ktib2 , where the qre already has the masculine (common)
form (see M. Lambert 1891b): al Wnyney[Ew] hZ,h" D;h"Ata< Wkp}v/ hkp al Wnyde&y ;
(!)War; our hands did not shed this blood and our eyes did not see Deut 21:7.
4.3.3.4.10n. The fp ending -a also occurs in Akkadian, Aramaic, and Gez (see 4.3.3.1.2n,
p. 203); in Classical Arabic, however, the fp has the -na ending, as in the prex-tense and
in pronouns. Again, this uniformity has to be attributed to later analogical change.
Theoretically, at least, many of the cases of the archaic fp form may be interpreted as
reecting deviant concord. In late passages, as in Jer 48:42, the possibility of Aramaic inuence, on the face of it restoring the archaic Hebrew form, cannot be ruled out.
4.3.3.4.11. The above forms terminating in -a clearly show why the general drift toward the supersession of the feminine plural by the masculine
started in Biblical Hebrew with the sufx-tense: the 3fp had become identical
to the 3fs after the latter lost its nal -t. In light of the supersession of the
feminine plural by the corresponding masculine, the use of the masculine plural for the feminine was more natural than the blurring of number distinction
in the feminine forms.
4.3.4. The Innitive

4.3.4.1. Two Varieties of Innitive
4.3.4.1.1. In Biblical Hebrew two variants of the innitive are attested, the
construct innitive and the absolute innitive, so-called because in the qal
verbal theme the construct innitive rmv looks as if it were the construct of
the absolute innitive r/mv. Moreover, the construct innitive may be used, in
contradistinction to the absolute innitive, as construct and also may govern
pronominal sufxes (as in l<M<&h" tb<v& K} when the king was sitting, T}b}vB}
when you were sitting).
213
Construct Innitive 4.3.4.2.2.
4.3.4.2. The Construct Innitive

4.3.4.2.1. The construct innitive corresponds more or less to the use of
the innitive in Indo-European languages, including English: rmv to preserve. Even the frequent afxation of l} to the Hebrew innitive matches the
addition of to to the English innitive. Formally, it is usually identical to the
imperative and could thus perhaps hark back to a very archaic stage of the language in which verbs and nouns were not yet formally differentiated. Having
become a nominal form of the verb, the innitives nal vowel has to be regarded as lengthened (from an originally short vowel), as was the case with
every noun in the absolute. This is demonstrated not only by the comparatively frequent plene spelling of the construct innitive qal even in early
books, such as r/sal< to take prisoner Judg 15:10, but mainly by the frequent preservation of the vowel following the second radical in III-laryngeal/
pharyngeal verbs (as in j'lv to send, ['bEVhI(l}) to take an oath, instead of
changing it into pata, which is usual outside pause in genuine verbal forms,
illustrated by the imperatives jl"v, [b"VhI).
4.3.4.2.1n. It should be remembered that the name innitive construct is a name only and
not a very adroit one; it does not divest the construct innitive from being an absolute
form (pace Tropper 2000: 480, par. 73.512). It is (as mentioned above) only because in qal
the construct innitive rmv has the external form of the construct of the absolute innitive r/mv, and the construct innitive may be used as construct in contradistinction
to the absolute innitive that the former is dubbed construct, the latter absolute innitive;
cf. Bergstrsser 191829: 2.61, par. 12a*.
The innitives bk"v to lie, lp"v to be low contain (short) pata, rather than the expected (long) qama. It seems that these forms reect the inuence of Rabbinic Hebrew, in
which the (construct) innitive was restructured by analogy with the prex-tense.
4.3.4.2.2. The construct innitive is frequently governed by prepositions,

especially by l (as mentioned above, 4.3.4.2.1). Originally, this l} had a fully
prepositional meaning, as, e.g., in order to (e.g., ry[Ih:Ata< tar]lI yyy dr,Yew' and
the Lord came down to see the town Gen 11:5); later the l became a part of the
innitive, as happened also in French and English. This is reflected both by the
form and by the syntactic usage of the preposition. Formally, the l became integrated into the innitive. In some forms of the qal innitive, the l appears
to be in close internal juncture: the swa that begins the innitive behaves as a
genuine quiescent swa, and subsequent t, p, k, d, g, b letters are vocalized as
stops, e.g., lPn]lI to fall, as opposed to simple lpn] and lpn ]BI / lpn ]KI when falling. In Rabbinic Hebrew the univerbalization of the innitive with l is even
more progressed: the l is always attached to the innitive, even after other
prepositions, and the innitive is totally remodeled after the prex-tense (as
in TELImI from giving, formed after TEyi, in contrast with biblical tTEmI). The
special vocalization of the construct innitive in Biblical Hebrew after l, corresponding to the vocalization of the prex-tense (rKz]lI to remember,
4.3.4.2.3. Innitives
214
matching rKz]y)i is undoubtedly in the line of Rabbinic Hebrew (and may even
reect the impact of Rabbinic Hebrew on the Masoretes). At any rate, the quiescent swa after l is certainly a late feature, as demonstrated by the very fact
that in lPn]lI the n is not assimilated to the following consonant, because, when
this assimilation operated, the swa was not yet quiescent. This is without doubt
a genuinely biblical feature, as it is very well attested. Syntactically, it is frequently used without any function of the l, as in Gen'l} byfIymE playing well
1 Sam 16:17. Nevertheless, in this function, forms without l (or any other
preposition) are attested, as in Gen' bfImEW Ezek 33:32, in contradistinction to the
usage in Rabbinic Hebrew.
4.3.4.2.2n. Alternatively, we could regard the vocalization of the innitive lPn]lI as a late
Mishnaic feature superimposed by the Masoretes on the biblical text, because the biblical
text contained n, which had to be preserved because of the sanctity of the text.
4.3.4.2.3. After other prepositions the usage of the construct innitive is

similar to that of the gerund: hT<vmI hc[: . . . l<M<&h" tb<v& K} while sitting. . . , the
king made a celebration Esth 1:23. The gerundial use of the innitive with
l is frequent as well, as t/c[l" yhIla ar;B:Arva which God created in making Gen 2:3. Since the innitive has the dual nature of a noun and a verb, it is
characterized by both nominal and verbal government. As a noun, it may (as
mentioned above, 4.3.4.2.1n) stand in the construct state; as a verb, it may
govern an object. Both constructions may occur in the same phrase, as in
dwiD;Ata< lWav t/ar]kIw] and when Saul saw David 1 Sam 17:55. In Exod 17:1,
the noun [:h: in [:h: tTvlI yim"& yaEw] and there was no water for the people to
drink may be interpreted not only as nomen rectum of the construct (subjective genitive) but also as its subject. But in Num 35:6, j'xErh: hM:v& snul: that the
murderer may ee thereto, the separation of j'xErh: from snul: does not allow for
the interpretation of j'xErh: as nomen rectum but only as subject. This construction, which is rather rare, reveals the verbal character of the construct innitive, which may possess a subject just like a nite verb.
4.3.4.3. Absolute Innitive

4.3.4.3.1. The absolute innitive, as opposed to the construct innitive,
does not take pronominal sufxes and does not occur in construct. Its government is verbal (as is also well attested with the construct innitive), as in r/kz;
tB:Vh" /yAta< remember the sabbath day! Exod 20:8. It is comparatively rare
in genuine innitival constructions, such as b/fAal t/Br]h" vb"D] lka: it is not
good to eat much honey Prov 25:27. As a rule, it is used in other constructions.
4.3.4.3.1n. Although the absolute innitive does not govern pronominal sufxes in Biblical Hebrew, this feature is not necessarily an indispensible characteristic of the absolute
innitive as such. In Canaanite, clear cases of the absolute innitives governing pronominal sufxes are attested (see Friedrich 1999: 193, par. 267c).
215
Absolute Innitive 4.3.4.3.4.
It may even be that the absolute innitive is a verbal form without case endings, as
hinted at by the hif il absolute innitive form l[Ep}h" (see 4.3.5.7.5n, p. 235).
4.3.4.3.2. Preceding a nite verb to strengthen its action. Very often the
absolute innitive precedes a nite verb and intensies its meaning: l m:h
WnylE[& : l m}TI will you indeed rule over us? Gen 37:8. Before the discovery of
Ugaritic, the absolute innitive in this usage was considered to be an inner object, as Arab fataa fatan indeed he opened, without taking into account
the glaring difference in word order: in Arabic the innitive follows the nite
verb; in Biblical Hebrew it precedes it. There are also signicant morphological differences between the innitives in the two languages. However, in
Ugaritic constructions such as wmu wmit indeed you were thirsty occur,
where the absolute innitive exhibits the adverbial ending -u (which is also attested with the innitive in Akkadian), i.e., originally l m}TI l m: means in a
royal manner you rule. Accordingly, this strengthening usage of the absolute
innitive is essentially identical to its adverbial employment; see 4.3.4.3.3
below. For a transitional stage, see 4.3.4.3.3.
4.3.4.3.2n. Postposed absolute innitives are attested in Biblical Hebrew as well after participles, innitives, imperatives, and (of course) forms with conversive waw where this
feature is regular, and sometimes even with other verbal forms: reb: T:k}r'&BE you have indeed blessed (sufx-tense) Num 23:11; 24:10.
In Akkadian, the innitive with the adverbial ending is generally called locativeadverbial; see von Soden (1995: 1079, par. 66). In all likelihood, this adverbial ending is
preserved in Biblical Hebrew at}PI suddenly, v l}v the day before yesterday, with the
o stemming from u. Cf. also, e.g., Arab qablu previously, badu afterward; the special
status of this -u ending in Arabic is revealed by its preservation after prepositions (e.g.,
min qablu/min badu with the same meaning).
It may be claimed that, historically, the absolute innitive continues an inner object, at
least in cases in which the absolute innitive follows the nite verb. If so, then the
strengthening use of the absolute innitive would stem from two sources. And indeed, the
accusatival innitive in this construction is attested in Akkadian as well, although remarkably only with transitive verbs so far.
4.3.4.3.3. Adverbial usage. The adverbial use of the absolute innitive is

illustrated by, e.g., bfEyhE /jf: /ta tKa<w; and I crushed it, by grinding it well
Deut 9:21. A transitional stage between the strengthening of nite verbs and
the adverbial use is reected by cases such as hkb:W lEye /lh: indeed he goes
while weeping Ps 126:6, which exhibits two absolute innitivesthe rst,
derived from the root of the nite verb and strengthening it; the second, connected with the rst by and and used adverbially. Finally, such absolute innitives may develop into veritable adverbs, as in rhEm" quickly, hBEr]h" much.
4.3.4.3.4. Instead of the nite verb.
(a) The absolute innitive is used especially frequently for a command,
instead of the imperative: tB:Vh" /yAta< r/kz; remember the sabbath day!
Exod 20:8.
4.3.5. Absolute Innitive; Verbal Themes
216
(b) The absolute innitive is used in poetry instead of a nite verb: j'/fB:
w,a:& dylE/hw] lm:[: /rh: aw]vArB<d'w] WhT&Al[" they trust in vanity and speak lies; they
conceive mischief and bring forth iniquity Isa 59:4. It also occurs in prose to
continue a nite verb: yir;&x}mI r,a<&AlK: l[" /ta /tn;w] reb}a" wyn;p:l} War]q}Yiw' and they
cried before him, Bow the knee! and he made him (ruler) over all the land of
Egypt Gen 41:43. This construction is well attested in late style (as intentional imitation?), and amazingly, in this usage the absolute innitive may
precede a personal pronoun, a feature characteristic of Canaanite: ynia j'BEvw ]
and I praised Eccl 4:2; aWh /phn'w] it was turned to the contrary Esth 9:1.
4.3.4.3.4n. As stated above (4.3.2.2.3n, p. 191), M. Lambert (1893: 5562) even claimed
that the use of the absolute innitive was more frequent than is attested in our Bible. It
was sometimes misintepreted by the Masoretes, who vocalized it as the 3ms of the sufxtense, thus giving rise to cases of waw+sufx-tense referring to the past, contrary to the
general rule.
For the use of the absolute innitive to continue a nite verb in Canaanite, see Friedrich 1999: 19293, par. 267b. Many scholars (see Friedrich 1999: 192 n. 4), to be sure, regard this verbal form as a 3ms sufx-tense form in neutral usage, an ingenious proposal.
Nevertheless, it is best to refrain from this kind of far-reaching assumption, if one can understand this form by a much simpler supposition, viz., by its interpretation as absolute
innitive.
4.3.5. Verbal Themes

4.3.5.1.1. There are seven regular verbal themes in Biblical Hebrew: qal;
nif al; piel, pual, hitpael; hif il, hof al, structured in a rather asymmetrical manner. Only the D themes (i.e., the verbal themes with doubled second
radical, piel, pual, and hitpael) are complete: active piel, internal passive (marked by u(o)) pual, reexive-reciprocal t-form hitpael. In Aramaic, on the other hand, the t-pattern may be derived from qal and the
causative (h)af el (= BHeb hif il) as well, and the resulting themes are used as
passives instead of the internal passive formation. The system of verbal
themes is even more complete in Classical Arabic: every verbal theme has
both an internal passive and a t-form. Accordingly, the rather incomplete
structure of Biblical Hebrew verbal themes may be described according to the
following diagram:
Active themes
qal
piel
hif il
Internal passive
t-forms
n-forms
nif al
pual
hitpael
hof al
217
Absolute Innitive; Verbal

Qal Themes
Passive 4.3.5.1.3.
However, it appears that this asymmetrical structure stems from a more symmetrical one. And, indeed, some traces of such a system may be discovered.
4.3.5.1.1n. The ground-theme, from which the other themes are derived, is called qal; for
the reason, see 4.3.5.2.1.1, p. 219. For the terms used to refer to the other verbal themes,
see 4.3.5.34.3.5.8, pp. 227237.
For vestiges of the system of verbal themes, see Blau (1957b: 38588); cf. partly already I. Bursztyn (1929: 14546, par. 113).
4.3.5.1.2. Quite clear vestiges of the internal passive of qal have been preserved. Originally, the internal passive of qal was in general use, but it tended
to be superseded by reexive forms, in accordance with the general tendency
in the Semitic languages. Accordingly, the reexive of the qal, the nif al,
superseded the passive of the qal, and the Masoretes vocalized it as nif al
whenever they could do so without impairing the sacred consonantal text.
Therefore, in strong verbs, the internal passive of qal is reected only in the
sufx-tense (where it could not be vocalized as nif al because of the absence
of the n), as in r'f he was torn Gen 37:33, whereas in the prex-tense it was
vocalized according to the nif al (as reF:yi Exod 22:12, in accordance with the
later linguistic usage, rather than *yurap, the original internal passive form of
the qal). Generally speaking, whenever a verb used in qal has an apparent
pual passive form in the sufx-tense, without a corresponding active form in
piel and without a corresponding yfual in the prex-tense, it has to be considered the passive of qal. Thus the above-mentioned r'f has the active form
r'f:, rather than piel *erep, and its prex-tense is reF:yi (as mentioned),
rather than *yorap. Accordingly, it has to be considered a passive of qal.
4.3.5.1.2n. The qal passive was recognized already by medieval Spanish Jewish grammarians, viz., by Moses Ha-Kohen Gikatilla and Samuel ha-Nagid; see Har-Zahav 1953: 474
75. For its rediscovery by modern linguists, such as Bttcher, Barth, and Lambert, see
Bergstrsser 191829: 2.87, par. 15a.
Cf. 4.3.5.1.1 above for the replacement of the internal passive with reexive forms in
Aramaic; the same applies to modern Arabic dialects. This development was partly caused
by the blurring of the phonemic status of u (the main outer mark of the internal passive) in
many Semitic languages, making the distinction between active and passive unclear.
4.3.5.1.3. Similarly, if an apparent hof al form in the prex-tense is derived

from a verb having an active qal, but there is no corresponding active form in
the hif il and no corresponding hof al in the sufx-tense, it has to be analyzed
as an original passive of qal. Therefore vd'Wy it is threshed Isa 28:27 is the passive of qal, since its active form is vD; in qal, and there is no hif il corresponding to it, nor is the sufx-tense passive form *hudas attested. If vd'Wy were a
strong verb, it would no doubt have been vocalized according to the nif al pattern. Nevertheless, the consonantal text did not enable this vocalization.
4.3.5.1.4. Absolute
Qal Passive;
Innitive;
Qal T-Form
Verbal Themes
218
4.3.5.1.3n. Obiter dictu, the later passive sufx-tense nif al form of this verb has already
entered the consonantal text of the Bible: v/dn;w] Isa 2: 10.
4.3.5.1.4. Verbs that have pual in the sufx-tense and yuf al (on the face
of it, derived from hof al) in the prex-tense, corresponding to an active qal,
rather than to piel or hif il, are even more clearly qal passive forms. This is
the case with, e.g., jq"l: he took, forming the passive sufx-tense jQ:lU (e.g.,
Gen 3:23) and the prex-tense jQ"yu (e.g., Gen 18:4).
4.3.5.1.4n. Nevertheless, the nif al passive, attested already by the consonantal text, is
quite frequent in both the sufx-tense and prex-tense, as in jq"l}ni 1 Sam 4:22; jq"L:a< 2 Kgs
2:9.
4.3.5.1.5. It appears that the passive of the qal had a special participial formation. The patterns pual (dL:Wy born Judg 13:8; jQ:lU taken 2 Kgs 2:10)
and sometimes piol (d/Lyi born Exod 1:22) are attested. Presumably these
are related patterns. The rst was originally pual with a short nal vowel,
which by pretonic doubling and by the general lengthening of the last vowel
in absolute nouns became pual. The second was originally pual with a long
nal vowel, which by pretonic doubling as well as the Canaanite shift a ! to o
and the dissimilation of u preceding o to i shifted to piol.
4.3.5.1.5n. The ordinary qal passive participle lW[P: does not belong to this category.
It could even be claimed that both forms reect original pual with long a (and simple
), yet in the rst form the Canaanite shift was prevented in order to avoid the vowel sequence u-o (cf. the same development, e.g., in B:r]q: sacrice, which did not become
*qurbon). I posited original pual with simple , rather than pual, because it appears that
the pretonic gemination of the second radical is secondary, in order to preserve pretonic u
(as it is without doubt the case with the sufx-tense, such as jQ"lU).
4.3.5.1.6. The t-form of the qal has not been preserved in the Tiberian vocalization except in the root pqd, e.g., Wdq}P:t}hI they were numbered Judg
20:17; dqEP:t}Yiw' Judg 21:9. This pattern is perhaps also reected in place names
such as laT:va<, ['/mT}va.<
4.3.5.1.6n. It seems that the linguistic feeling for these forms has been blurred because of
their scarceness. This is perhaps reected by the use of internal passive forms with the
same sense in places where we would have expected the (formally) active t-form, as, e.g.,
Wdq}P:t}h: Num 1:47.
4.3.5.1.7. As demonstrated by hitpaqad, the t in this verbal theme was a

prex. Nevertheless, if the place name hqET}l}a< (meaning meeting place from
lqy to meet, as well attested in Classical Arabic) reects this pattern, then, in
the dialect that gave its name to this place, in contradistinction to Biblical Hebrew proper, the t was an inx, as attested in Moabite, Early Phoenician, Ugaritic, Early Aramaic (Tell Fekherye), Classical Arabic, and Akkadian.
4.3.5.1.7n. The t in laT:va<, ['/mT}va< is not an inx; it reects metathesis caused by the sibilant rst radical, as is the rule in hitpael as well; see 4.3.5.6.2, p. 233.
See Kutscher (1982: 58).
Absolute Innitive;
Verbal
Verbal
Themes;
Themes
Qal 4.3.5.2.1.2.
219
4.3.5.1.8. Much more dubious are the residues of the t-form of hif il: rb:T:TI
you will show yourself pure 2 Sam 22:27 (the parallel passage, Ps 18:27, reecting later redaction, has hitpael rr:B:t}hI; cf. hif il rb"h:l} to cleanse Jer
4:11); kET:yi (al yKIr]d'h) is (my way not) adjusted? Ezek 18:25 (cf. hif il:
2 Chr 27:6 [wyk:r;D]] ykIhE he adjusted [his ways]); bX"t"TEw' she took her stand
Exod 2:4 (cf. hif il byXIhI to set up); and hr,jt"T} you will contend Jer 12:5.
4.3.5.1.9. If the suggested internal reconstruction is indeed correct, then
we have to posit the following original Proto-Hebrew structure of verbal
themes:
Active themes
Internal passive
t-forms, originally
reciprocal
originally reexive
(later mainly passive)
qal
passive qal
hitpael
piel
pual
hitpael
hif il
hof al
hittaf el
nif al
4.3.5.1.10. The meanings of the various verbal themes are quite xed but
not to such a degree as to be predictable. We will return to this topic when
dealing with the diverse verbal themes.
4.3.5.2. Qal
4.3.5.2.1. Introduction
4.3.5.2.1.1. This verbal theme is called qal, i.e., light. According to the
medieval Arabic grammarians (whose method was adopted by the medieval
Jewish philologists and later inuenced Christian research), patterns are, so to
speak, weighed, and the more additional letters a pattern has, the heavier
it is. In the 3ms of the qal sufx-tense, the verbal theme is characterized by the
absence of additional letters (afxes); therefore it was regarded as light, qal.
4.3.5.2.1.1n. In Arabic, patterns are called wazn; in Hebrew, they are called misqal, i.e.,
weighing, weight.
4.3.5.2.1.2. In the wake of the Arabic and Jewish grammarians, the verbal
themes are customarily designated by the root pl, vocalized according to
the 3ms form of the sufx-tense. Accordingly, qal is often called paal, paal
being the most usual pattern of the 3ms form of the sufx-tense.
4.3.5.2.1.2n. In Classical Arabic, f l means to act, as does the cognate pl in Hebrew. The
grammatical terminology of Arabic l (and in its wake, Heb l["P&) verb is derived from
this verb.
4.3.5.2.2. Absolute
Qal Sufx-Tense
Innitive; Verbal Themes
220
4.3.5.2.2. Sufx-Tense
4.3.5.2.2.1. In the sufx-tense, verbs indicating action (e.g., rm"v he kept,
bt"K: he wrote) basically have the paal pattern (originally paal, with lengthened a in the pretonic syllable), whereas stative verbs (e.g., qEz; he was old,
fq: he was small, rgoy; he was afraid, lky; he could) have the basic patterns
pael/paol (originally pail/paul, with lengthened a in the pretonic syllable
and i/u in the nal closed stressed syllable shifting to e/o, respectively). These
e/o vowels have to be considered short, because they correspond to pata in
paal. Since in the sufx-tense the opposition between action verbs and stative
verbs is marked by the contrast of a : i/u (> e/o) after the second radical, they
have to be regarded as the characteristic vowels of the sufx-tense.
4.3.5.2.2.1n. Note the pata that is characteristic of nite verbal forms in the nal closed
stressed syllable (whereas nouns contain qama in this position). For details, see 3.5.7.1,
pp. 119ff.
The alternation of i/u as markers of the sufx-tense of stative verbs reects the archaic
Proto-Semitic binary opposition a : i/u. This is the case with this opposition in the prextense as well, in which also the characteristic vowel follows the second radical. Cf.
4.3.5.2.3.1.
4.3.5.2.2.2. As a rule, the stative patterns tend to be superseded by the active pattern, partly because of the frequency of the latter, and partly (in the
case of i > a) on account of Philippis Law. So it was owing to Philippis Law
that the rst and second persons of the sufx-tense of pael coincided with
those of paal (*zaqnti > yTIn]q&z" ;). However, *zaqint!m > *zqint!m > T<&n]qz" ]
was not affected by Philippis Law, because the i was in an unstressed syllable, but was attracted by the analogy of the other forms of the pattern which,
because of Philippis Law, contained a after the second radical. In principle,
Philippis Law inuenced only contextual forms of the sufx-tense of pael
but not pausal forms, since pausal lengthening preceded its action. So the second vowel of pausal pael was already long when Philippis Law started operating and this shift did not affect long vowels. Thus, pausal vbEl: he put on a
garment Ps 93:1 corresponds to contextual vb"l:, e.g., Lev 6:3. However, by
mutual leveling, e was retained in the context, and, also through the decisive
effect of the action pattern paal, sometimes in pause paal instead of the expected pael occurs: la:v he asked, e.g., Josh 19:50, alongside l}aEv he
asked you Gen 32:18; WnWl&aEv they asked us Ps 137:3.
4.3.5.2.2.2n. The retention of e through mutual leveling is always the case with qe z;, perhaps also through the inuence of the adjective qe z; used predicatively, which is often hard
to distinguish from the stative sufx-tense, used to signify state, rather than past tense.
4.3.5.2.2.3. Among the stative sufx-tense forms, it is paol that has become signicantly more rare. It occurs only in lky; to be able, rgo y ; to be
afraid, vqy ; to lay snares, fq:, to be small, lkv to be bereaved.
221
Absolute
QalInnitive;
Sufx- and
Verbal
Prex-Tense
Themes 4.3.5.2.3.1.
4.3.5.2.2.3n. For outwardly similar forms of II-w/y verbs, see 4.3.8.7.2.3, pp. 253254.
4.3.5.2.2.4. Since in the 1s, 1p, and 2ms of the sufx-tense the nal vowel
has been preserved (as Wnb}t"&K: / T:b}t&"K): , they are stressed on their penult, in accordance with the general penultimate stress that once prevailed. The nal stress
in the 2fs (T}b}t"K: < *katabti), 3ms (bt"K: < *kataba), and the 2p (T<b}t"K} / T<b}t"K}
*katabtumu/*katabtinna) attests to the elision of the nal vowels. The original
stress pattern of the 3fs and the 3p has been preserved in pause: Wbt:&K: / hb:t:&K: ;
the contextual forms have to be intepreted according to stress stage iv (see
3.5.12.2.6, p. 146). In the 2p, the rst radical has a reduced vowel: /T<r]m"v
T<r]m"v, because it is two syllables removed from the stress (prepenultimate).
4.3.5.2.2.4n. Reduction of the prepenultimate vowel occurs preceding pronominal sufxes
as well: ynir'&m:v. After the conversive waw, however, in the 1s and the 2ms the rst radical has preserved its qama: yTI&b}t"k:w], T:&b}t"k:w], because stress shifted to the nal syllable
after pretonic lengthening; therefore, the rst radical was already followed by long a,
which, accordingly, was not reduced.
4.3.5.2.3. Prex-Tense
4.3.5.2.3.1. According to the testimony of many Semitic languages, including Hebrew, three patterns existed in the prex-tense as in the sufxtense, and each was characterized by a different vowel after the second radical. As in the sufx-tense (see 4.3.5.2.2.1), here too a is opposed to i/u; however, in contradistinction to the sufx-tense, a is characteristic of verbs of
state, i/u of verbs of action. As emphasized by J. Barth (1894b: 46), originally there was a correlation between the characteristic vowel (i.e., the vowel
following the second radical) and the prex vowel: the characteristic vowel a
(typifying stative verbs) entails i in the prex, whereas the characteristic
vowel i/u (typifying action verbs) entails a in the prex, i.e., stative yif al in
contrast with yaf ul/yaf il of action verbs. In the ordinary strong verbs (i.e., in
verbs consisting of unchangeable radical consonants), this correlation has disappeared and the prex vowel i prevailed, partly through the inuence of the
yif al pattern, partly through the attenuation of a, and partly through assimilation to the prex y (ya > yi). Nevertheless, clear residues of the original opposition yif al : yaf ul/yaf il have survived in Biblical Hebrew in some verbal
classes: in I-laryngeal/pharyngeal verbs (such as *yasub > bv j}y' he will
think in contrast to *yidal > lD'j}y, he will cease); in geminate verbs (as in
the yaf ul/yaf il forms *yasubb > bsy; he will turn; gey ; he will defend [historically qal, rather than hif il, as demonstrated by the qal sufx-tense ytI/NG'
and the absolute innitive /nG; ] in contrast to *yiam > j"ye it will be warm
[but through the prevalence of the bsy; pattern, jy ; is attested as well]); and in
II-w/y verbs (as Wqy; he will rise/ ryvy ; he will sing, reecting yaf ul/yaf il
4.3.5.2.3.2. Qal
Absolute
Prex-Tense
222
in opposition to yif al *yibas, which, by the Canaanite shift a to o [which must

have begun to operate after the yif al pattern came into being] shifted to
v/bye he will be ashamed). It has been claimed that this feature is West Semitic (Bloch 1967: 2229): it is fully operational in Ugaritic, and vestiges of
it are preserved in the Ancient Canaanite of El-Amarna, in Aramaic (e.g.,
Blau 1969a = Topics, 300), and in ancient Arabic dialects (Bloch 1967: 22
29). However, it is perhaps more likely that what seems to reect shared
West Semitic innovation is, in fact, due to parallel development owing to
dissimilation.
4.3.5.2.3.1n. This feature, which correlates the prex vowel with the vowel of the stem, is
generally called Barths Law (Barth 1894b: 46, with additional bibliography) or, more
accurately, the Barth-Ginsberg Law, since it was H. L. Ginsberg who recognized the application of Barths Law in Ugaritic (see also Tropper 2000: 44752, par. 73.242). For its
presence at El-Amarna, see A. F. Raineys penetrating analysis (Rainey 1996: 2.6175).
However, in Classical Arabic, the prex vowel a of qal has prevailed by analogy.
As mentioned above (1.7.15, p. 22), the fundamental difculty in distinguishing between shared innovation and parallel development was justly regarded by A. Meillet
(1958b: 3643) to pertain to the very essence of comparative linguistics. How farreaching parallel developments in the Semitic realm may be is demonstrated by the independent, but nevertheless quite similar, development of the feminine sufx -at (see Blau
1980 = Topics, 12637). Accordingly, it is certainly also possible that the correlation between the characteristic vowel and the prex vowel arose independently in the various
West Semitic dialects (see Beyer 1984: 10812, without agreeing with all his examples); cf.
also Tropper (2000: 177, par. 33.222); Kienast (2001: 199, par. 179.7). This development
might have been rather intricate, as one may easily learn from H. Grotzfelds attempts
(1964: 2831) to reconstruct the shift of a > i (and later, in certain positions, the reduction
of a) in the dialect of Damascus, both medially and in afxes. At any rate, in East Semitic
(Akkadian), the prex vowel a prevails, whereas i occurs in the 3ms as well as in the 3p
(and 3d) as a result of the well-known Akkadian shift ya > i, whereas ni in the 1p may reect the inuence of the corresponding independent personal pronoun *ninu (see Blau
1978a: 32 = Topics, 319; pace R. Hetzron [1974: 18990 and 1976: 9495], who considers this heterogeneity of the prexes in Akkadian to be Proto-Semitic; D. Testen [1994:
42634], on the other hand, suggested that the prex vowel in Proto-Semitic had no morphemic character, and a developed after obstruents, i after resonants). At any rate, as
stated, I am inclined to attribute the emergence of the opposition yaf ul/yaf il : yif al in
various West Semitic dialects to parallel developments triggered by dissimilation.
4.3.5.2.3.2. The yaf il pattern has disappeared from the three prex-tense
patterns to a large extent. Synchronically, it does not exist at all in strong
verbs and has been preserved in weak verbs only: drey e he will go down (with
assimilation of the prex vowel to the characteristic vowel, instead of the expected *yareq), TEyi he will give. Two factors cooperated in ousting yaf il:
Philippis Law, shifting stressed i in closed syllables to a and transferring it
into the pattern having a as the characteristic vowel; and, even more, yaf il
was reinterpreted as hif il (which before the lengthening of the characteristic
i also had the form of yaf il). We have already mentioned the original qal prex-tense form gey :; that it was synchronically felt as hif il is demonstrated by
spread is long
223
Absolute Innitive;Qal
Verbal
Prex-Tense
Themes 4.3.5.2.3.4.
forms such as the hif il participle yNigim} that occur in Rabbinic Hebrew. The
originally qal prex-tense form ybIy; he will understand (cf. the qal sufxtense form hT:n]B"&, as well as the imperative and absolute innitive forms yBI)
was felt as hif il and new hif il forms were derived from it: ybIhE, ybImE, ybIh:,
bEh:. A remarkable case is the verb zkr (see Blau 1961: 8186): in qal (rk"z;,
rKz]y)i it not only has the ordinary meaning to remember but it reects vestiges of to mention as well, which, as a rule, is the meaning of the hif il
(ryKIz]hI, ryKIz]y'). It appears that originally the prex-tense of qal had i as the
characteristic vowel: *yazkir, as indicated by i being the characteristic vowel
of the noun *zikr > rk<ze, which is attested in other Semitic dialects as well.
Classical Arabic and Gez combine in qal both to remember and to mention (but compare Akkadian, which does not have the meaning to remember at all). It seems quite likely that originally in Biblical Hebrew, too, the qal
of zkr, prex-tense *yazkir, had two meanings, to remember and to mention. In Biblical Hebrew, however, qal mainly denotes only to remember,
and the meaning to mention is relegated to the hif il, with a few vestiges of
this meaning in qal. It seems that original *yazkir was reinterpreted as hif il in
the sense of mentioning only, presumably because it was understood as
some sort of causative verb (to mention = to cause to be remembered),
whereas in the meaning of remembering it remained in qal (where it was superseded in the prex-tense by the more usual yaf ul pattern: rKz]y)i .
4.3.5.2.3.2n. In the Tiberian vocalization, there was no difference between short and long
i; the neutralization of the quantitative differences between vowels is, however, a very late
feature.
For zkr qal with the meaning to mention, see /mvBI d/[ rBEd'aAalw] WNr,K}z]a<Aal I will
not mention Him nor speak any more in His name Jer 20:9; hj:yc&a: hy;m:&ha<w] yhIla hr;K}z]a<
yjIWr FE["t}tIw], which presumably must be translated I mention God and am troubled; I
complain and my spirit is feeble Ps 77:4.
4.3.5.2.3.3. The pausal forms ybIT&k}T,I WbT&k}T,I WbT&k}y i reect a more original
syllable patterning (stress stage ii) than the contextual forms ybIT}k}T,I WbT}k}T,I
WbT}k}y,i which reect stress stage iv. The same applies to the lengthened prextense, which has hb:T&k}a,< hb:T&k}ni in pause but hb:T}k}a,< hb:T}k}ni in context. The penultimate stress in hn;b}T&k}TI is regular, since the nal vowel has been preserved.
4.3.5.2.3.4. In both the sufx- and the prex-tense, the characteristic a
vowel is pata in context: bk"v, bK"vyi (in contrast to the pausal forms bk:v,
bK:vyi, in which, by pausal lengthening, the pata shifted to qama). Since the
ere/ olam of TEyi / bTk}yi correspond to the originally short pata in bK"vyi, they
have to be considered short (in the pre-Tiberian period). Similarly, the pata
of bk"v indicates that the corresponding e/o in qEz; / fq:, lky; must be interpreted
as reecting (pre-Tiberian) short vowels, the reason being that nal short
vowels were elided in verbs before they were elided in absolute nouns. During
the period of the elision of these vowels in verbs, the lengthening of the vowel
preceding the dropped vowel as compensation for its elision did not occur;
4.3.5.2.3.5. Absolute
Qal Prex
Innitive;
Tense; Imperative
Verbal Themes
224
this process only began to operate at a later period, when the nal vowels of
absolute nouns were elided; for particulars, see 3.5.7.1.5, p. 120.
4.3.5.2.3.4n. The last syllable of the imperative (which terminated in the third radical
without a nal vowel at the earliest stage) must also be considered originally short. However, the participles qe z; and l/ky; exhibit pre-Tiberian long e/o; see 4.3.5.2.5.1, p. 225.
4.3.5.2.3.5. Preceding pronominal sufxes, the characteristic a was lengthened (in the pre-Tiberian period) to a by pretonic lengthening, whereas pretonic
characteristic e/o were reduced (cf. 3.5.7.5.12, p. 128; 3.5.7.6, pp. 129ff.):
yni[E&m:vyi in contrast to ynineT}yi he will give me/ynire&m}vy.i In the Babylonian vocalization, pretonic o is also preserved (and lengthened); see Yeivin 1985: 46970,
par. 38.
4.3.5.2.4. The Imperative

4.3.5.2.4.1. The imperative paralleled the prex-tense in its vocalization
and thus originally also had three patterns: a, i, u, though the i-pattern would
later disappear. It appears that imperative qal was originally disyllabic as in
Akkadian and Ugaritic (see Blau 1977c: 3031 = Topics, 26364; Tropper
2000: 42526, par. 73.121), the same vowel being repeated after the rst and
second radicals: paal, piil, puul. This accords well with the fact that in Biblical Hebrew the vowel may occur not only after the second radical (rmv) but,
preceding pronominal sufxes, may also occur after the rst (ynire&m}v). It was
only later that the originally disyllabic imperative of qal was restructured
according to the prex-tense, thus becoming phonemically monosyllabic.
Similarly, the Classical Arabic imperative qul, qil, qal (with a word-initial
consonant cluster; when sentence initial, this cluster is pronounced with the
assistance of an auxiliary vowel: uqtul, iqtil, iqtal; when sentence middle,
with the help of the preceding vowel) has also been restructured by analogy
with the prex-tense.
4.3.5.2.4.1n. Tropper (2000: 425) identies imperative qal with the short prex-tense
without the prex. This is only correct synchronically. Historically, because of its archaic
character, the imperative could not have been derived from the (short) prex-tense. On the
contrary, it appears that the prex-tense stems from the imperative. Therefore, it is difcult
to argue that the original qal imperative opened with a consonant cluster, which contravenes Semitic phonetic structure. Tropper also considers the vowel after the rst radical in
imperative qal to be anaptyctic. In my view, this is a somewhat far-fetched assumption. It
seems more likely that it was only later that the originally disyllabic imperative of qal was
restructured according to the prex-tense, thus becoming phonemically monosyllabic.
4.3.5.2.4.2. The Biblical Hebrew prex-tense also inuenced the stress of

the imperative, since, assuming a general penultimate stress, it should have
been stressed *ktub. The nal stress is due to the impact of the prex-tense.
225
Absolute Innitive; Qal

Verbal
Participles
Themes 4.3.5.2.5.2.
4.3.5.2.4.2n. The short prex-tense should have borne penultimate stress as well (*yktub).
It was inuenced by the ordinary prex-tense (*yaktbu), and the stress shifted to the nal
syllable (*yaktb). It was this *yaktb > bT&k}y i that inuenced *ktub to become *kutb >
btK}. The same happened also in other verbal themes.
4.3.5.2.5. The Participles

4.3.5.2.5.1. The participle of action verbs in the paal pattern is poel, historically *pail; the participle of the stative patterns is an adjective, as a rule
identical to the 3ms of the sufx-tense: sufx-tense qEz;, rgOy;, participle qEz,: r/gy;.
There is, however, a difference in the length of the last syllable (in the preTiberian period): in the sufx-tense it is short (as demonstrated by the pata in
the parallel action verb sufx-tense bt"K:); in the participle, it is long, as it is in
every noun in the absolute (see 3.5.7.1.2, p. 119). Therefore, the transcription
of the forms according to the pre-Tiberian system, which differentiates long
and short vowels, is: sufx-tense zaqen, yagor, participle zaqen, yagor. However, these participles are basically identical to the sufx-tense, which actually
must be considered originally to have been a conjugated adjective; cf. the qal
participles q: rising, lq" light, identical to the sufx-tense in verbs II-w/y
and geminate verbs. However, in strong verbs these stative adjectival participles were being superseded by the l[E/P of action verbs ( just as the stative
sufx-tense was being replaced by paal). In some cases pael and poel coexist: j'kEv/ j'kE/v forgetting, [Ez; / [E/z vexed (in all likelihood pael was the
original form). In other cases poel alone serves as a veritable participle, pael
being clearly relegated to nominal function: kE/v inhabiting in contrast to
kEv inhabitant. Sometimes, however, pael has totally disappeared: from anec
he hated, only the participle anec survived.
4.3.5.2.5.1n. However, cf. cases such as Wxm}a: they were strong, participle/adjective
yMIa"; qz''j: (reecting the shift of pael to paal; even in pause qz;j:, rather than *azeq) he
was strong, participle/adjective qz;j:.
The stative pattern of the participle is identical to the 3ms of the sufx-tense, if one
does not take into consideration the original -a ending of the sufx-tense in contrast to the
case endings of the participle. Moreover, the participle has a (pre-Tiberian) long vowel in
its last syllable in contrast with a short vowel in the sufx-tense.
Note that the participle/adjective r/gy; exhibits plene writing, in contrast to the defective spelling of the sufx-tense lky;. This is only a hint, since full and defective spellings
alternate. And, indeed, the sufx-tense l/ky; is attested three times.
There is a certain tendency to adapt the ere and the olam in the nouns qEz; and rgOy;, as
also in other cases, to originally long ere and olam (i.e., those that have arisen by
monophthongization and, in the case of olam, also by the Canaanite shift a! to o). In other
words, there is a tendency to preserve the vowels even when the stress is remote: thus,
contrast the mp construct form ynevy] with yneq}zi. Such alternations occur even in the same
noun: pEj: delighting has both h<yxEp}j< and yxEpEj.
4.3.5.2.5.2. The participle has not yet been absorbed into the verbal system in Biblical Hebrew, and sentences with a participle as the predicate are
4.3.5.2.5.3. Qal
Absolute
Participles;
Innitive;
Innitives
Verbal Themes
226
ordinary nominal clauses. As a rule, such nominal clauses are negated (as are
predicate nouns) by yaE rather than by al , which negates verbs: WNn,yaE hs:r]p"W
syrip}m" and it is not dividing the hoof Lev 11:4, in contrast to hs:yri&p}hI al hs:r]p"W
Lev 11:6.
4.3.5.2.5.3. The passive participle of qal has the form paul (the a being
due to pretonic lengthening, i.e., original *paul). It apparently reects a
Proto-Semitic form together with its pendant *pail. It is formed mainly from
transitive verbs: rra to curse rWra:, and is not always restricted to qal: r'BE
he blessed (piel): WrB:. Nevertheless, sometimes it is also derived from intransitive verbs with neuter stative meaning and is thus more or less identical
to the active participle.
4.3.5.2.5.3n. The passive participle is not related to the participles pual /piol formed
from the passive of the qal; see 4.3.5.1.5 and 4.3.5.1.5n, p. 218. The form pil < *pail
is the ordinary passive participle of qal in Aramaic. In Hebrew, the form is used as a noun,
in the form of pail / pail with pretonic lengthening/gemination, cf. yriWsa l<M<&h" yreysIa
(ktib2 yrwsa!) the kings prisoners are imprisoned Gen 39:20.
The form *pail occurs even in Akkadian as a poetic form of the passive participle, see
von Soden (1995: 74, par. 55 i 11 a III ), which has not been taken into consideration by
Kienast (2001: 386, par. 336.1). In Arabic and Gez, the passive participle of qal reects
the secondary development of paul, viz., maf ul in Arabic and peul (< *puul [by vowel
assimilation] < *paul ) in Gez.
This stative use of lW[P: / ly[IP: is, it seems, even more archaic than their passive application, since it is characteristic of the Akkadian stative, from which the passive usage developed later in West Semitic. In Rabbinic Hebrew lW[P: has developed into a sort of
present perfect, describing an action that took place in the past but whose results are felt in
the present (as qlE/D rne ordinary present participle a burning lamp, qWlD; rne a lamp that
has been lit). This is, however, not yet the case in Biblical Hebrew. For details, see Blau
1952 = Studies, 31329.
4.3.5.2.6. The Innitives

4.3.5.2.6.1. As stated (see 4.3.4.2.1, p. 213), the construct innitive is, as
a rule, formally identical to the imperative, so that it was originally disyllabic
as well, containing the same vowel in both syllables: *quul, *qaal, *qiil (see
4.3.5.2.4.1, p. 224). The prevailing form is *quul > l[P} (which has to be analyzed as containing long o in the pre-Tiberian period, arising by secondary
lengthening from original short o < u, as is the rule in absolute nouns). l[P} is
formed even from verbs with characteristic a in the prex-tense: [m"vyi he will
hear, ['mv(lI). It appears that originally the prex-tense and the construct
innitive had the same characteristic vowel; with the restriction of the yaf il
prex-tense, the corresponding i-innitive fell into desuetude as well. In IIIlaryngeal/pharyngeal verbs, the o of the prex-tense and the imperative, being short, was assimilated to the laryngeal/pharyngeal to become a. In contrast, the long o of the innitive was preserved (jT"p}y', jt"P}: he will open,
open! in contrast to j'Tp}lI; see 4.3.7.3.5, p. 240), thus giving rise to the struc-
227
Absolute Innitive;
Qal Innitives;
Verbal Themes
Nif al 4.3.5.3.1.
ture of a in the prex-tense and the imperative in contrast to o in the construct

innitive. This pattern (a in the prex-tense : o in the construct innitive)
spread to verbs that had original a in the prex-tense, such as bK"r]yi he will
ride in contrast to the innitive bKr]lI, rather than *lirkab2 . The vowel a in the
innitive has only been preserved in bK"vlI to lie (alongside B}k}vB}), lp"vBI
when being low.
4.3.5.2.6.1n. The i-innitive was preserved mainly in weak verbs: ttEl: to give, taxEl: to
go out, ryvl: to sing. Strong i-innitive verbs have also been preserved according to
J. Barth (1889: 184), e.g., rc[}l" to tithe Deut 26:12.
It is remarkable that these a-innitives have pata rather than qama, in spite of its reconstruction above as a long vowel! It appears that the pata does not reect the archaic ainnitive but instead exhibits the inuence of Rabbinic Hebrew on the Masoretes. In Rabbinic Hebrew, the trend of development has been reversed and innitives (following l; as
always in Rabbinic Hebrew) with a as the characteristic vowel spread in the wake of prex-tenses with a (see Berggrn 1995: 100107). In Rabbinic Hebrew, the construct innitive was felt to be derived from the prex-tense and was restructured according to it (as in
jQ"lI to take, in the wake of the prex-tense jQ' y,i in contrast to biblical tj"q&l" :).
4.3.5.2.6.2. In Biblical Hebrew, some feminine forms of the construct innitive also occur, as yiM"&h" tv b&y] Ad[" until the waters were dried up Gen 8:7;
Ht:n;q}zi yreja" after becoming old Gen 24:36; Ht:a /tb:ha"B} because he loved
her Gen 29:20; ytIa ha:r]yil} to fear me Deut 4:10; tk<l<&l: k<yhEla yyyAta< hb:ha"l}
/bAhq:b}d;l}W wyk:r;D]Alk:B} to love the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways, and
to cleave to Him Deut 11:22. It appears that at one time these feminine forms
were more widespread, since they have been preserved mainly in the weak
verbs (ttEl: to give, td,r,&l: to descend, t/c[l" to make), where they were
favored because they gave sufcient body to the shortened form of these
verbs.
4.3.5.2.6.3. The absolute innitive is l/[P: < *paal. This pattern is well
attested in various Semitic languages, including East Semitic (Akkadian).
4.3.5.2.6.3n. In Arabic, faali with nal -i is attested. It seems that, in Arabic, the innitive
of many derived themes is derived from faal, such as if al / inal, which, in all likelihood, arose by dissimilation from *af al /*infaal. In Aramaic, by contrast, the a is preserved in derived themes, as in haf ala.
4.3.5.3. Nif al
4.3.5.3.1. As stated above (see 4.3.5.1.10, p. 219), the meanings of the
various verbal themes are quite xed but not to the extent that they are predictable. This applies to nif al as well. It is mainly connected with qal and originally, it seems, indicated the reexive meaning of the qal (jt"P: he opened,
jT"p}ni it opened itself), although sometimes it was also used in a reciprocal
sense (s"a: he gathered, Wps}a<n, they assembled). With the disappearance of
the internal passive of qal (see 4.3.5.1.2, p. 217), nif al became the ordinary
4.3.5.3.2. Absolute
Nif al Innitive; Verbal Themes
228
passive of the qal, in accordance with the general drift to replace the original
passive by originally reexive forms (dk"l: he conquered, dK"l}ni it was conquered). Occasionally, nif al relates to the piel/hif il, as in dBEKI he honored, dB"k}ni he enjoyed honor, he was honored; lyXIhI he delivered, rescued,
lX"ni he delivered himself, he was delivered. Sometimes its meaning does not
differ from that of the qal, as in hl:j: / hl:jn, to be sick, and it may even coexist
with qal in a suppletive paradigm: vG'ni : vG'y i to approach, lv/K/lvK: : lvK:yi
to stumble. In some cases, the use of nif al is original and it is not to be derived from any other verbal theme: D'r]ni he slept, ra"vni he remained.
4.3.5.3.1n. In verbs with suppletive qal / nif al forms, it seems that the qal forms were the
original ones. The Masoretes vocalized according to the later nif al, except in cases where
the consonantal text did not permit it; nonetheless, some cases of an original sufx-tense
nif al exist, such as lvk}ni (from lvk).
The hif il ryaIvhI to leave is, it seems, secondary.
4.3.5.3.2. The mark of nif al is n. In the prex-tense, the imperative, and,

as a rule, in the innitive the n, being vowelless and immediately preceding
the rst radical, is totally assimilated to it: btEK:yi, etc. The original vowel of the
n was, it seems, a, as preserved not only in I-y verbs (< w; e.g., dl"/n < *nawlad
he was born), II-w/y verbs (as g/sn; he turned away), and geminated verbs
(such as bs"n; he turned) but also in Akkadian and the Ancient Canaanite of
El-Amarna. The i of the strong verb is apparently due to attenuation.
4.3.5.3.2n. In Classical Arabic, the vowelless n immediately precedes the rst radical in
all forms of the parallel theme inqatala. According to the principle of archaic heterogeneity, it is tempting to claim that Biblical Hebrew (as well as Akkadian) has preserved the
Proto-Semitic feature of the alternation of n with a following vowel in the sufx-tense and
vowelless n in the prex-tense, whereas its homogeneous formation in Arabic is due to the
analogical inuence of the prex-tense. It is possible, however, that this alternation of n
followed by a (short) vowel (as attested by the Biblical Hebrew sufx-tense and participle
nif al) and vowelless n- (as exhibited by Arab inqatala and the prex-tense and imperative of BHeb nif al) reects a Proto-Semitic doublet; cf. BHeb BE son, v name in contrast to Arab ibn, ism.
4.3.5.3.3. In the prex-tense, the second radical has ere as the characteristic vowel. The pata in hn;b}t"&K:TI is due to Philippis Law. As in qal, the pausal
forms have preserved stress patterns older than the contextual forms, and vowels that were reduced in the latter during stress stage iv have been maintained:
hb:T:&k}ni, WbT:&k}ni, ybItE&K:hI, WbtE&K:TI, etc. At least synchronically, the participle is built
from the base of the sufx-tense (as are stative forms of the qal): bT"k}ni in the
sufx-tense, bT:k}ni (with qama, as usual in absolute nouns) in the participle.
The h of the imperative/innitive is somewhat surprising (as is the case in the
hitpael as well), since one would have expected prosthetic aleph. Is it due to
the impact of the hif il?
229
Absolute Innitive; Verbal Themes

Piel 4.3.5.4.2.
4.3.5.3.3n. Historically, to be sure, one must consider the sufx-tense to be a conjugated

nominal form in light of Akkadian. Accordingly, the participle is not derived from the
sufx-tense; rather, both reect the same nominal base.
Note the pata, which is characteristic of nite verbal forms in the nal closed, stressed
syllable (whereas nouns, including participles [bT:k}ni], contain qama in this position). For
details, see 3.5.7.1.2, p. 119.
4.3.5.4. Piel
4.3.5.4.1. It appears that originally the piel (i.e., the active form of the Dtheme, the theme with doubled second radical) was partly iconic (onomatopoetic), since the redoubling of the second radical expresses intensity, both
qualitatively (qal rb"v he broke, piel rBEv he broke entirely) and especially quantitatively (dq"r; he skipped about, dQEri he leaped again and again;
rb"q: he buried [one person], rBEq I he buried [several persons]; t:a rTEb"y]w'
rt:b: al rPXIh"Ata<w] . . . and he cut them [piel, because of the plural object]
. . . , and he did not cut the bird [qal, because of the singular object] Gen
15:10). Another source of the piel is its quite frequent denominative use, as
in rC[I to give tithe derived from rc[m" tithe, or NeqI to make a nest derived from the noun qE nest. A special case of the denominative piel is the
privative use (marking removal), as in aFEjI to remove af}jE (sin), i.e.,to expiate, or vrev to remove the vr,v& (root), i.e., to eradicate. Finally, the piel
frequently has a factitive use, i.e., causing someone to have a certain quality
(in contrast to the causative notion to cause someone to do something). This
factitive usage is derived from adjectives, including the participles of stative
verbs, as in vDejI to renew derived from vd;j: new, or dB"aI to make it extinct (dbEa), i.e., to destroy. However, in Biblical Hebrew the differences between the factitive piel and the causative hif il have become blurred, and it
is difcult to differentiate between, e.g., vDeqI / vyDiq}hI to consecrate, i.e., to
make it v/dq: (holy), on the one hand, and fVPI / fyvp}hI to strip someone of a
garment, the causative of fvP: to strip off ones garment, on the other. Eventually, the intensive signication of the piel may lose its special sense and supersede the qal without expressing strengthening (as in jb"z; / jB"zi to sacrice).
4.3.5.4.1n. According to the view expressed here, the D-theme is not uniform.
In an important paper, A. Goetze (1942: 18) established the factitive meaning of the Dtheme in Akkadian. For differing views, see E. Jenni (1968); S. R. Ryder (1974); F. Leemhuis (1977), as well as various papers (cf. e.g., J. Joosten 1998: 20230) and the relevant
paragraphs in the grammars.
The piel frequently supersedes the qal in Rabbinic Hebrew; see Z. Ben-ayyim 1958
62: 11220.
4.3.5.4.2. The 3ms of the sufx-tense reects a tendency toward using pata as the characteristic vowel (after the second radical) in context but ere in
pause. This alternation hints that the original vowel was i, which became a in
4.3.5.4.2. Absolute
Piel Innitive; Verbal Themes
230
context through the inuence of Philippis Law, whereas in pause Philippis

Law did not operate because of pausal lengthening. In three verbs the Tiberian
vocalization has nal segol in context: rB<Di he spoke, sB<KI he washed, rP<KI
he propitiated, reecting, it seems, a side-effect of Philippis Law (see
3.5.8.10, p. 135). The rst syllable of the sufx-tense invariably exhibits i. In
Arabic and Gez, both the rst and the second radical have a. Generally, following these languages, aa is posited as the basic pattern and the Biblical
Hebrew i (e) after the second radical is explained as being due to the analogical inuence of the prex-tense; i (e) after the rst radical is explained as reecting attenuation. The latter assumption, however, is not without difculties. The extreme inconsistency of attenuation clearly indicates that it is a very
late feature (see 3.5.7.6.13, p. 132); however, the i in the nal syllable is attested as early as El-Amarna (see Blau [1971c: 156 = Topics, 178, par. 3.5]
and Rainey [1996]: 2.31011), and i in both syllables in Phoenician proper
nouns. It is not impossible to regard the ii pattern as original and to consider
the faala pattern to be late, due to the analogy of the active qal pattern. It
seems preferable, however, to posit two basic forms from which the sufxtense of the active D-theme must be derived, one with aa, as preserved in
Arabic and Gez, and one with ii, corresponding to the uu stative (purrus)
in Akkadian (and in the causative theme suprus). If this assumption is valid,
the situation in the active D-theme to a certain degree resembles that of qal,
in which the Biblical Hebrew stative sufx-tense pael / paol corresponds to
the Akkadian stative paris/parus. Similarly, in piel, the sufx-tense l[EPI <
*piil corresponds to the stative purrus of the Akkadian D-theme, whereas
Arabic/Gez faala continues the active pattern aa.
4.3.5.4.2n. For the pausal forms, see E. Qimron (198586a: 80); I. Ben-David (1995: 120
21).
In the Babylonian vocalization, in accordance with its currency in the sufx-tense in
general, pata / segol prevails even in pause (see Yeivin 1985: 514), presumably by analogy with the contextual forms.
One should not pay too much attention to yhIla yniV& n'AyKI hVn'm} r/kB}h" vAta< sE/y ar;q}Yiw'
ylIm:[AlK:Ata< and Joseph called his rst born son Menasseh, because God has made me
forget all my trouble Gen 41:51, because Menasseh may have given rise to yniV& n' with a
after the rst radical.
For i in both syllables in Phoenician proper nouns, as in . . . sillhc, see Friedrich
1999: 89, par. 144.
The sufx-tense of the causative theme (in BHeb hif il ) also has two basic forms; see
4.3.5.7.4, pp. 234235.
For BHeb qittil corresponding to Akkad purrus, cf. BHeb aSEKI < Akkad kussu chair,
as well as adjectives denoting persons affected by bodily defects, such as rWe[I blind, corresponding to Akkad purrus.
For various views and details of the comparative evidence, see H. Torczyner (1910:
269311); cf. his improved Hebrew edition: N. H. Tur-Sinai (1954: 25683); Blau (1971c:
15258 = Topics, 17480); S. Izre'el (1978: 7478); Rainey (1996: 2.12; 30916 [with additional literature]); Huehnergard (1992: 20929); Tropper (2000: 55859).
231

Piel 4.3.5.4.4.
4.3.5.4.3. As is usually the case (see 3.5.12.2.43.5.12.2.5, p. 146), pausal

forms with penultimate stress, which occur not only in the sufx-tense but in
the prex-tense and the imperative as well (such as hd;BE&KI, WdB&EKI, WdBE&k"y], ydiBE&k"T},
WdBE&K"), reect a more archaic structure than the parallel contextual forms
(hd;B}KI, WdB}KI, WdB}k"y], ydiB}k"T}, WdB}K").
4.3.5.4.4. In the prex-tense (as in the imperative and innitive) the rst
radical is followed by pata, the second by ere, which corresponds to the reconstructed Proto-Semitic ai pattern. The Proto-Semitic vocalization of the
prex is u, as demonstrated by Akkadian and Classical Arabic on the opposite edges of Semitic. Since, however, after the emergence of the internal passive, u was felt to mark the passive, in Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic u was
eliminated and a substituted for it, as demonstrated by BHeb vQEb"a (rather
than vQEb"a* ) and Ugaritic abqt I will ask.
4.3.5.4.4n. Whereas pata rather than ere prevails after the second radical in the sufxtense in contextual forms as a result of Philippis Law, in the prex-tense, both in pause
and in context, only ere occurs. In the Babylonian vocalization, however, pata /segol
does occur in context, especially preceding r. It appears that, in the Tiberian tradition,
pausal forms, not affected by Philippis Law because of pausal lengthening and, therefore,
preserving ere, have superseded the contextual forms, in which i has shifted to a. In the
2fp and 3fp of the prex-tense (as well as in the 2fp of the imperative), the Babylonian tradition reects a by Philippis Law: wat-tdabbrna and they spoke, in contradistinction
to the Tiberian vocalization, in which forms with pata (such as hn;p}a"&n;T} the women commit adultery Hos 4:13) are quite exceptional and ere prevails (thus, hn;r]BE&d'T}).
In Gez the prex vowel has short e < u (although, theoretically, in this language i too
shifts to e).
The active form was, as stated, originally *ufail, the passive form *ufaal, the opposition being indicateded by i : a, and not by u, the usual mark of the passive.
Should one also assume that the rst a of the prex-tense of piel reects the impact of
the yaqattvl form (for which, see 4.3.2.2.14, p. 196) before its disappearance? R. Steiner
(1980: 51318) posited the prex vowel a only for Ugaritic, whereas for Biblical Hebrew
(as well as for Aramaic) he suggested i. This assumption may be buttressed by the prex
vowel i in El-Amarna in both the D-theme and the causative theme (see Rainey 1996:
2.134; 19094); however, as noted by both Steiner and Rainey, its attestation is somewhat
ambiguous. Steiner relies primarily on the Babylonian tradition of Biblical Hebrew; however, forms such as Babylonian edabber I will speak do not necessarily attest to an
original prex vowel i ; cf. e.g., qal imperative forms such as Babylonian ema be
strong! < *ma (see Yeivin 1985: 48283). If one nevertheless accepts Steiners suggestion of the prex vowel i in piel, one may perhaps derive it by analogy with pual. In
pual, original *yufaal shifted to *yfaal, which was restructured to l["pUy] with u as the
mark of the passive (see 4.3.5.5.2, p. 232). In the 1s, the aleph originally had the vocalization , being derived from u: dB"kUa*. By the well-known dissimilation of o . . . u > i . . .
u (see 1.19.8, p. 58) it shifted to * kubbad, and piel, which had the same prex vowel
as pual in all the other persons, viz., swa, was restructured according to it. This, however, is mere speculation. Troppers suggestion (2000: 545) that the Ugaritic prex vowel
a may represent an indenite reduced vowel contravenes the fact that vowels in this position are not reduced in Ugaritic (cf., e.g., the participle of the D-theme opening with mu-;
see 4.3.5.4.5 below).
4.3.5.4.5. Absolute
Pual; Hitpael
232
4.3.5.4.5. The participle begins with m, which originally had the vowel u,
based on the testimony of Akkadian, Classical Arabic, and Ugaritic (see Tropper 2000: 562).
4.3.5.4.5n. The parallel nouns in Gez have ma-.
4.3.5.5. Pual
4.3.5.5.1. The pual is the (internal) passive of the piel. Like the internal
passive in general (see 4.3.5.1.1, p. 216; 4.3.5.8.1, p. 236), its characteristic
vowel is u. Since u preceding a doubled consonant is, as a rule, preserved and
does not shift to qama qaan, forms with qama qaan preceding the second
radical are rare (in contradistinction to hof al): ymID;a:m} reddened.
4.3.5.5.2. According to the evidence from Classical Arabic, apparently the
original form of the sufx-tense was *puila with i in the second syllable.
The Hebrew a in these forms (dB"KU) seems to be partly due to the analogical
pressure of the prex-tense (dB"kUy]) and partly to the inuence of Philippis
Law. dB"kUy] itself arose, it seems, from *yupaal(u), as attested by Ancient Canaanite (see Rainey 1996: 2.180) and Classical Arabic yuqattal(u): the u in the
prex was reduced in open unstressed syllables and, because the passive was
felt to be closely connected to u, it was restructured to l["pUy] with u (after the
rst radical) as the mark of the passive. The participle, originally *muqattal,
developed in a similar way. No imperative is attested from pual, as expected
from a passive pattern. /t/N[U his being aficted Ps 132:1 perhaps reects a
construct innitive.
4.3.5.5.2n. It seems less likely to posit *yuquttal (u) as the original prex form from which
the Biblical Hebrew form can be derived directly; in this case, the Ancient Canaanite and
Arabic form ( yuqattal ) would then be due to the impact of the active ( piel ) prex-tense
with a after the rst radical.
4.3.5.5.3. As usual (see 3.5.12.2.43.5.12.2.5, p. 146), pausal forms with

penultimate stress, such as WdB:&KU, WdB&:kUy], reect a more archaic structure than
the parallel contextual forms with nal stress (such as WdB}KU, WdB}kUy]).
4.3.5.6. Hitpael
4.3.5.6.1. The hitpael is, as a rule, used as the reexive of piel: dBEKI to
honor, dBEK"t}hI to honor oneself. It may also denote reciprocal action: War;t}TI
you look on each other Gen 42:l; note that in this case reciprocity refers to a
verb in the qal: ha:r; to see. The possibility must not be ruled out that this
form was originally the t-form of qal and was transferred to the hitpael after
the t-form of the qal had fallen into desuetude. Denominative hitpael may
denote pretension, as in lDeG't}hI he pretended to be great, hL:j"t}hI he pretended to be sick.
233
Absolute Innitive; VerbalHitpael

Themes 4.3.5.6.4.
4.3.5.6.2. The t of the hitpael prex may be affected by changes. If the

rst radical is a sibilant, metathesis obtains (PET"vhI to pour itself); t partly
assimilates to ade (in addition to metathesis: qDef"x}hI to justify oneself) and
totally to a dental (aM:F"yi to dele oneself; WaK}D'yi to let themselves be
crushed; however, note Judg 19:22 yqIP}D't}mI beating violently).
4.3.5.6.3. Whereas in Biblical Hebrew the t of hitpael is devoid of a
vowel, in Arabic it is followed by a: taqattala. This may reect a ProtoSemitic doublet (cf. 4.3.5.3.2n, p. 228, as to nif al); cf. BHeb v name, BE
son, in contrast to Arab ism, ibn. Nevertheless, as in the case of nif al, it is
not unlikely that in Proto-Semitic, in the sufx-tense t was followed by a,
whereas in the prex-tense it was devoid of a vowel, as maintained in Gez,
which then, according to the principle of archaic heterogeneity, would have
preserved the Proto-Semitic feature. In Biblical Hebrew, the vocalization of
the prex-tense prevailed, whereas its homogeneous formation with a in Arabic is due to the analogical inuence of the prex-tense. The h of hitpael
may be primary; it may, however, be due to the inuence of hif il.
4.3.5.6.4. In the Babylonian vocalization, the second radical is followed by
pata/segol in context in the whole paradigm of hitpael (with the exception
of the participle, which reects ere), and by qama in pause (Yeivin 1985:
550ff.). That a was indeed the original characteristic vowel of both the
prex- and sufx-tense (as well as the imperative), is demonstrated by Semitic languages (Classical Arabic, Gez), on the one hand, and vestiges of the
Tiberian tradition (especially the occurrence of qama in pause), on the other.
In the Tiberian vocalization, by the inuence of the piel, ere has penetrated
the whole paradigm of hitpael; however, as stated, vestiges of the original
pata are well attested (N'a"t}hI he was angry Deut 1:37; qZ'j"t}niw] and let us
strengthen ourselves 2 Sam 10:12; gN'["t}hI delight yourself Ps 37:4). Moreover, the fact that qama prevailed in Tiberian vocalization in pause (e.g.,
n;/Bt}hI he considered Isa 1:3; WlL:&P"t}yi they will pray Isa 45:14; WvD;&qt
" }hI they
sanctied themselves 2 Chr 5:11) clearly suggests that the original vowel of
the second radical of hitpael was a. The (original) ere in the participle was
long (in the pre-Tiberian period), as in every absolute noun, but short in the
nite forms of the verbs, as proven by its alternation with pata.
4.3.5.6.4n. Even in the 2/3fp form of the prex-tense, alongside pata (hn;k}L"&h"t}TIw' they
walked to and fro Zech 6:7), which reects original pata on the one hand and the action
of Philippis Law on the other. ere is attested as well (hn;k}PE&T"vTI they are poured out
Lam 4:1).
Note that in hitpael as well the syllable structure of the pausal forms is more archaic
than that of the contextual forms!
The fact that the original vowel of the second radical was a in Tiberian demonstrates
that the principle of archaic heterogeneity has to be applied judiciously and must not be
carried to excess. Tiberian vocalization, to be sure, reects diversity, which however may
4.3.5.7. Hif
Absolute
il Innitive; Verbal Themes
234
easily be accounted for by the assumption of a as the characteristic vowel in both the
sufx- and prex-tenses, inuenced by the e of the piel.
4.3.5.7. Hif il
4.3.5.7.1. The hif il serves mainly as the causative of the qal. However,
the hif il may be stative as well, especially when derived from adjectives:
vyrijh< he was vrejE, i.e., mute, he was silent; yBIl}hI he was b:l:, i.e., white;
yqIz]hI he became qEz;, i.e., old; cf. also lyKIchI, derived from the substantive
lk<c& cleverness, i.e., to be clever, to understand. Close to the causative
sense is the declarative: to declare someone as such and such, as in qyDix}hI
to declare someone to be qyDixI, i.e., righteous, just; and similarly ['yvr]hI to
declare someone to be [vr;, i.e., guilty. Privative usage is rare, e.g., vyri/h to
disinherit, to exterminate, literally, to remove the hVrUy], i.e., the inheritance.
4.3.5.7.1n. Causative usage means causing someone to do something, such as aybIhE he
caused to come, i.e., he brought; lykIah< he caused to eat, i.e., he fed. For the difference between causative and factitive, cf. 4.3.5.4.1, p. 229.
4.3.5.7.2. The hif il is marked by h preceding the vowelless rst radical;

however, it is elided in word-medial position, i.e., after the prexes of the
prex-tense and the m- of the participle, as is the case with h on the border of
two morphemes (i.e., in internal open juncture; see 3.3.5.3.3.1, p. 92).
4.3.5.7.3. Many Semitic languages also have h in the causative, but others
have s. Even among the closely related dialects of Epigraphic South Arabian,
Sabaic has h, the other languages s. Moreover, in the t-form of the causative,
many h/aleph languages (viz., Classical Arabic, Gez, Sabaic, as well as modern South Arabian) exhibit st, presumably owing to the phonetic difculty of
adding t to h/aleph. The same alternation h/s occurs in the third-person personal pronoun (see 4.2.2.44.2.2.4.2, pp. 162163), usually parallel to the
causative theme; only Ugaritic has h in the pronoun, s in the causative. It
seems that this alternation reects an ancient dialectal feature that already existed in Proto-Semitic: h/s are presumably pronominal elements, identical to
those contained in the third-person personal pronoun, and their interchange
seems to be a morphophonemic, rather than a phonological, phenomenon. See
4.2.2.4, pp. 162163.
4.3.5.7.3n. In addition to h, some languages exhibit its phonetic alternative, aleph. Phoenician has y, presumably a secondary development (perhaps a glide that developed after
negative yaI?).
It is only in Aramaic that the t-theme is derived from the h /aleph form.
In Old Akkadian, rather than s begins both the saf el and the personal pronouns of
the third person.
4.3.5.7.4. In Arabic and Gez both the rst and the second radical have a.
Vestiges of a after the rst radical have been preserved in Biblical Hebrew in
235

Hif il 4.3.5.7.5.
I-w verbs: dylI/h to beget, which developed from *hawlid. Remnants of a

after the second radical may have been preserved after the second radical in
geminate verbs such as lq"hE to show contempt (if it does not reect the effect
of Philippis Law). As a rule, on the basis of the evidence from these languages, aa is posited as the basic pattern. In Biblical Hebrew, the pattern i (e)
after the second radical is explained as being due to the analogical inuence of
the prex-tense, whereas after the rst radical it is explained as reecting attenuation (cf. the parallel situation in the piel; see 4.3.5.4.2, pp. 229230).
This theory, however, is not without difculties (even more than in the case of
piel). The extreme inconsistency of attenuation clearly indicates that it is a
very late feature; nevertheless, the i in both the rst and the nal syllables is
attested as early as El-Amarna: hi-ih-b-e = ayBIj}h< he hid. Moreover, the
ere in the prex of geminate and II-w/y verbs stands in an open syllable (bsEhE
he turned, yqIhE he established), which is not affected by attenuation. As in
the case of piel, it is not impossible to regard the ii pattern as original and
to consider the af ala pattern to be late, owing to the analogy of the active qal
pattern. It seems preferable, however, to posit two basic forms from which
the sufx-tense of the active causative theme must be derived (see Blau
1971c: 15258 = Topics, 17480): one with aa, as preserved in Arabic and
Gez, and one with ii, corresponding to the uu stative (suprus) in Akkadian.
According to this theory, the situation in the active causative-theme to a certain degree resembles that of qal (as was the case also with piel), in which
the Biblical Hebrew stative sufx-tense pael/ paol corresponds to the Akkadian stative paris/parus. Similarly, in the hif il, the sufx-tense ly[Ip}hI <
*hif il corresponds to the stative suprus of the Akkadian causative theme,
whereas Arabic/Gez af ala continues the active pattern aa.
4.3.5.7.4n. Two basic forms are posited for the sufx-tense of the hif il in a manner similar
to the case of the piel; see 4.3.5.4.2n, p. 230, where extensive literature is cited.
4.3.5.7.5. The second radical may be followed by i, e, or a. The long i after

the second radical is very surprising indeed, since it appears in syllables that
were open in Proto-Hebrew in contradistinction to all the other Semitic languges. Accordingly, it is attested in dyBIk}hI < *hikbida, dyBIk}y' < *yakbidu, as well
as the construct innitive dyBIk]h" < *hakbidu. Since long vowels in closed syllables were shortened in Proto-Hebrew (and, it seems, in Proto-Semitic; see
3.5.12.2.14n, p. 151), the i in this position was shortened. This accounts for the
ere in the imperative dBEk}h" and the short prex-tense dBEk}y,' dBEk}Y'w' as well as for
i > a (Philippis Law) in yTId]B"&k}h,I etc. Since this long i in hif il can only be accounted for in II-w/y verbs (yqIh,E yqIy); , its occurrence in strong verbs can only
be explained by the assumption of analogy with II-w/y verbs.
4.3.5.7.5n. The absolute innitive, like the imperative, is dBEk}h", which is rather surprising.
If one posits that the absolute innitive had case endings, since it was a nominal form, it
4.3.5.7.6. Absolute
Hif il; Hof
Innitive;
al
Verbal Themes
236
should have contained i, standing in an open syllable. I wonder whether or not the absolute
innitive dBEk}h" arose through the inuence of the imperative. It could also be assumed that
the absolute innitive, because of its verbal nature, had no case endings. This, however,
goes against the evidence of the qal absolute innitive l/[P: < *faal, containing long a,
which could only occur in open syllables. It seems somewhat far-fetched to derive the absolute innitives of qal and hif il from different sources, as if qal paol was a nominal
form terminating in case endings, in contrast to the verbal character of hif il innitive
hapel with W ending. One could also posit that the absolute innitive was always without
case endings, but in the qal it terminated in the sufx -i, as reected by Arab faali. However, in III-laryngeal/pharyngeal verbs the absolute innitive reects a nal long vowel:
['mEVhI, ['mEvh" (see 4.3.7.3.4n, p. 240). Should one assume that the absolute innitive
hif il of II-w/y verbs (such as qhE : to establish) reects a biradical structure and that the
haf el of strong verbs was rebuilt on its pattern?
T<d]B"k}hI / T<d]B"k}hI in the 2p of the sufx-tense, stressed on its last syllable, is due to the
paradigmatic pressure of yTId]B"&k}hI, etc. However, the sufxless forms of the short prextense and the imperative (as well as the absolute innitive) contain ere rather than pata
according to Philippis Law, perhaps through the inuence of the pausal forms.
4.3.5.7.6. As in the piel, the original Proto-Semitic prex vowel of the

hif il prex-tense was u, in accordance with the testimony of both Akkadian
and Classical Arabic; however, in Ugaritic it was superseded by a (for the
possible reason, see 4.3.5.4.4, p. 231). However, BHeb dyBIk}y' with a may be
derived from both *yuhakbid and *yahakbid (cf. the participle dyBIk}m", which
may be derived from both *muhakbid and *mahakbid ). The parallel development of the piel (see 4.3.5.4.4, p. 231) prima facie attests to original
*yahakbid.
4.3.5.7.7. Since in hb:yTI&k}hI, WbyTI&k}T", ybIyTI&k}h", etc., the penultimate syllable
had a long vowel, the stress did not shift to the nal syllable even in contextual forms, contrary to other verbal themes.
4.3.5.8. Hof al
4.3.5.8.1. The hof al (huf al) is the internal passive of hif il, marked, as in
the pual, by u, which on this verbal theme precedes the rst radical. This u
however, as a rule, shifts in the Tiberian vocalization to qama (qaan); nevertheless, exceptions do occur, as in l"vhU to be thrown, alongside l"vh:. In the
participle, perhaps through the inuence of the m, u prevails: l:vmU, yet qama
qaan does occur, as in rz;vm: twisted. In I-laryngeal/pharyngeal verbs, the
rst radical is preceded by qama qaan even in the participle. However, in
verbs in which the u is followed by a doubled consonant (especially in I-n
verbs, such as vG'hU to be brought near from root ngs), only u is attested, because u is usually preserved preceding a doubled consonant.
4.3.5.8.2. According to the evidence from Classical Arabic, it appears that
the original form of the sufx-tense was *upila with i in the second syllable.
The Hebrew a after the second radical in these forms (dB"k}hU) is, it seems,
partly due to the analogical pressure of the prex-tense and partly to the inuence of Philippis Law.
237
Rare
Absolute
Verbal
Innitive;
Themes;
Verbal
I-Laryngeals
Themes 4.3.7.1.2.
4.3.5.8.2n. The original *i in the second syllable of the sufx-tense is still rarely preserved, as in hj:yNihUw] and she was granted rest Zech 5:11.
4.3.6. Rare Verbal Themes

4.3.6.1. In strong verbs, it is only rarely that the third radical is repeated:
hl:l}m}aU it languished Isa 24:4, and the same applies to the reduplication of
the second and third radicals: Wrm:&r]m"j they are in ferment Lam 1:20. Cf. also
hw;jT"vhI he bowed down, reecting, at least synchronically, the repetition of
the last radical w (the root is wjv; one w is represented by w, the second by the
nal h-;; cf. also tvq <& ywejf"m}KI about a bowshot away Gen 21:16).
4.3.6.1n. On the other hand, the same verb in Ugaritic synchronically reects the histaf el
of wy. Historically, however, the related Biblical Hebrew verb s to be bowed down
attests that the s was radical rather than afformative.
4.3.6.2. It is not certain whether forms such as r[Esy] it swirls Hos 13:3,
correspond to the verbal theme *paal with long a after the rst radical. The
form is well attested in Classical Arabic, Gez, and modern South Arabian
dialects, being, it seems, one of the characteristics of Southwest Semitic (cf.,
e.g., Kienast 2001: 23233, par. 198.5). For special patterns in II-w/y verbs
and mediae geminatae, see 4.3.8.7.5, pp. 256ff.
4.3.6.3. The conjugation of quadriradical verbs parallels that of piel,
pual: hN;m<s}r]k"y] it tears it off Ps 80:14, similar to hN;r,B}vy]; G;r]tUm} translated
Ezra 4:7, similar to rB:vm}.
4.3.7. Phonological Variations

4.3.7.1. I-Laryngeals/Pharyngeals
4.3.7.1.1. In the prex-tense (as well as the imperative and innitive) of
the nif al, the prex always has ere as compensation for the lack of doubling
of the rst radical. Even preceding , ere occurs, and this generally does not
give rise to vowel lengthening as compensation for the lack of doubling (see
3.3.3.1.3, p. 82): bvj:hE to be accounted. This applies also to r: der;y e to be
pursued.
4.3.7.1.2. The prex in the sufx-tense of nif al and hif il is vocalized
with segol, which arose from i (preceding the laryngeal/pharyngeal, by partial
assimilation; see 3.3.3.3.3, p. 84; this does not apply to I-r): db"[n,, dybI[h<.
hof al always has qama qaan, rather than u: db"[h:. When the laryngeal/pharyngeal is vowelless (with quiescent swa), it need not change (especially preceding b, g, d, k, p, t, even with aleph: yDia}y' to become red, ryDia}y' to make
glorious). It may, however, develop a aaf in accordance with the preceding
vowel: dybIam" to destroy, dybIah<; dm:[m: to be caused to stand. The vowel
preceding the laryngeal/pharyngeal with aaf is not lengthened, although it
now stands in an open syllable. It seems that this opening belongs to a late
4.3.7.1.3. Absolute
I/II Laryngeals
238
period in which short vowels could stand in open syllables, presumably because no quantitative differences between vowels obtained, and all classes of
vowels were able to stand in every kind of syllable. Forms with lengthening of
the preceding vowel are attested rarely, as in T:r]b"&[hE you transferred Josh
7:7; Wl[TEw' and you went up Ezek 36:3; hl:[h was offered Judg 6:28.
4.3.7.1.2n. It is also possible that the preservation of the short vowel is due to some extent
to the impact of forms without aaf, i.e., with quiescent swa, which alternated with the
aaf forms.
Note that the aaf after these lengthened vowels is aaf pata.
4.3.7.1.3. In the prex-tense of the qal, the difference between yiqal and
yaqul is well preserved (cf. 4.3.5.2.3.1, p. 221), but yaqil has disappeared.
The i of the prex of yiqal assimilates to the following laryngeal/pharyngeal,
to become segol (cf. 4.3.7.1.2 above): dr'jT< you are/she is terried whereas
the a of yaqul is preserved: vb jy' he binds. Aleph tends to segol: in the rstperson singular of the prex-tense, even in that of the yaqul pattern, it has segol: vbja<, and segol is indeed the usual vowel of the prexes of the yaqul
pattern of I-aleph verbs: rgoay, he gathers hn;r]goaT<; cf. the imperative of the qal
m"a be strong!, rgoa (in contrast to ld'j cease!, vbj in non-aleph verbs).
4.3.7.1.3n. However, preceding the vowelless second radical, the tendency is to use pata
pata, instead of the expected segol segol, especially in the yaqul pattern of I-aleph
verbs: yrig]a"T" Wrg]a"y' because of a (somewhat limited) inclination of haaf segol to change to
aaf pata with the shift of the stress; cf. /da Edom, ymIda Edomite.
4.3.7.1.4. Quite different is the conjugation of the very frequent verb hy;h:
to be, root hyy (and similarly hy;j: to live, root yy). The rst radical often
preserves the quiescent swa, and prexes frequently behave as if they did not
precede a laryngeal/pharyngeal: hy,h}TI, hy,j}yi, hy;h}ni, and even with swa medium:
t<yyih}wi, t,yyij}wi.
4.3.7.1.4n. yj" is formed according to the pattern of verbs mediae geminatae.
4.3.7.2. II-Laryngeals/Pharyngeals
4.3.7.2.1. For the differences in compensation for the doubling of the
second radical in piel, pual, and hitpael, see 3.3.3.1.6, p. 83. Accordingly, in contradistinction to the compensation for the doubling in raEPE he
gloried, ra"P he is gloried, raEP:t}hI he gloried himself, it is absent in jEni
he consoled, j"nu he was consoled, jEn't}hI he comforted himself. Note that
in pual the u preceding , h, , and r always changes to o, as in ylIh:bm} hastened, and the vowel preceding r in this position always changes: vreGe he
drove out, vreg;y]. i is sometimes preserved even when preceding aleph: aEni he
condemned; with a, pata and qama alternate: yx"an'm} / yx"an;m} those who condemn me.
4.3.7.2.2. For a mobile swa following , h, , or (yet not r), aaf pata is
regularly substituted: hl:av she asked, Wlavyi, ylIa/v.
239
Absolute Innitive;
II/III-Laryngeals
Verbal Themes 4.3.7.3.4.
4.3.7.2.3. The characteristic vowel of the prex-tense, etc., is, as a rule, a,

through assimilation to the preceding laryngeal/pharyngeal: l["m}yi he acts
treacherously; o is exceptional: l[m}TI.
4.3.7.2.4. Preceding a laryngeal/pharyngeal followed by swa medium, the
consonant cluster is opened (by assimilation to the laryngeal/pharyngeal) by a,
rather than by i as usual: ylIav ask!; Wfjv slaughter! (in contrast to ybIt}KI;
Wgr]hI kill!).
4.3.7.2.4n. This does not, however, apply to r.
4.3.7.3. III-Laryngeals/Pharyngeals
4.3.7.3.1. To this category belong not only III-/ but also III-h verbs (i.e.,
those few verbs that terminate in consonantal h, in nal position marked by
mappiq: Hb"G; to be high, Hm"T: to wonder, Hm"K: to faint, to tarry). However,
at the same time, III-r verbs behave as strong verbs (if one disregards a certain
inclination to a), and III-aleph verbs are veritable weak verbs.
4.3.7.3.1n. Cf. 3.5.11.8, p. 142; one must not mix up these genuine III-h verbs with the
III-y verbs, which very often terminate in the vowel letter h: hl:G: he uncovered; hn,q}yi he
will buy.
4.3.7.3.2. Vowelless laryngeals/pharyngeals do not generate aaf:

yTI[}m"&v I heard, etc. They are vocalized with aaf only preceding pronominal sufxes, perhaps because of the shift of the stress. The aaf is attested in
the 1p of the sufx-tense: WhWn[L"BI we have swallowed him Ps 35:25, as well
as before pronominal sufxes bearing stress (-, k<-, k<-): jl:va< I shall send
you 1 Sam 16:1; k<[vy ow] and let him save you Isa 35:4.
4.3.7.3.2n. Nevertheless, the 2p of the sufx-tense (as in T<&jl"v, etc.) is always without
aaf, despite the shift of stress, perhaps through the inuence of the forms in which stress
preceded the laryngeal/pharyngeal (as yTIj}l"&v, T:j}l"&v), as well as the inclination to preserve the occlusive pronunciation of the t.
The aaf is less frequent preceding t, presumably because of its propensity for occlusive pronunciation (which was preserved even in the 2fs of the sufx-tense after an anaptyctic vowel, such as T}j"l"&v, etc.; see 4.3.7.3.3 below).
4.3.7.3.3. In the 2fs of the sufx-tense an anaptyctic vowel a develops,

which does not, however, turn the following t into a spirant, presumably because of its propensity for occlusive pronunciation: T}j"l"v
& ; T}j"q&"l: you took
(in contrast to tj"q"&l: to take); T}j"l"v
& ni you were sent (in contrast to the participle tj"l"v
& ni).
4.3.7.3.4. Through the inuence of the laryngeal/pharyngeal, a preceding
ere, when it represents an originally short vowel (in the pre-Tiberian period),
has a propensity to shift to a: jL"v, jL"vy], jL"v.
4.3.7.3.4n. That ere represents an originally short vowel can be demonstrated by internal
reconstruction (see 3.3.3.3.1n, p. 84), on the strength of the parallel pata. This is the
4.3.7.3.5. Absolute
Laryngeals/Pharyngeals;
Innitive; Verbal I-aleph
ThemesVerbs
240
case in the contextual forms of the full verbal forms, i.e., in the sufx-tenses, the prextenses, and the imperative. On the other hand, the ere, whenever originally long, tends to
be preserved (and is, accordingly, followed by pata furtivum). This is the case in pause,
where the ere is long owing to pausal lengthening (as in ['mEVy i in contrast to [m"Vyi in context). Futhermore, this is the case in the nominal forms of the verb, i.e., in the participle
and the innitives (as in ['mE/v [in construct Y;h" [g'r disturbing the sea Isa 51:15, since
construct forms contain a short vowel in closed nal stressed syllables], j'LEvm}, and the innitive ['mEVhI in contrast to the imperative [m"VhI). Nevertheless, exceptions frequently occur in the construct innitive, such as jL"vl} alongside j'LEvl}, and even in hif il not only
j'ykI/h to rebuke Hab 1:12 occurs but also jk"/hl}h" is it to rebuke? Job 6:26.
4.3.7.3.5. In the prex-tense and the imperative of qal, through the inuence of the laryngeals/pharyngeals, the pattern yif al, fal prevails: [m"vy,i
[m"v (see 4.3.5.2.6.1, p. 226).
4.3.8. The Weak Verbs

4.3.8.1.1. Now we will treat verbs in which one of the radicals is apt to be
absent (with or without doubling of the following consonant) or to appear as
a long vowel. In this connection, we will return to the problem of biradical
roots.
4.3.8.2. Weak I-aleph Verbs

4.3.8.2.1. Regular I-aleph verbs behave as I-laryngeals/pharyngeals.
Some, howeverviz., db"a: to perish, lk"a: to eat, rm"a: to say, as well as two
verbs which also belong to III-y, i.e., hb:a: to be willing and hp:a: to bake
differ in the formation of the prex-tense of the qal (see the paradigm on
p. 297).
4.3.8.2.2. For the development of these weak forms, see above, 3.3.4.2.1,
p. 87. Note a pausal form such as rmEaT, which seems to reect an earlier stage
than rm"aT. It is reasonable to posit *tmur > *tamur > *tomur as the starting
point. By vowel dissimilation (see 1.19.9, p. 58) rmEaT arose. This form was
preserved in pause, in which because of pausal lengthening Philippis Law did
not act because it is restricted to short vowels. In context, however, where
short i appeared in a closed stressed syllable, it shifted to a and was also marginally inuenced by the rarity of the yaf il pattern and the following r. This
original state, however, has been blurred and pata is attested in pause as well,
as in rm"&aYow' (see 3.5.13.4, p. 154). At the same time, in zja to grasp, ere prevailed in context: zjEayo.
4.3.8.2.3. In some verbs, doublets of weak and strong formations occur, as
in zj<T&w' (spelled without aleph, 2 Sam 20:7) and it grasped alongside zjaY,w',
sET (spelled without aleph, Ps 104:29) you will collect in contrast to saT<.
241
Absolute Innitive; VerbalI-n

Themes
Verbs 4.3.8.3.3.
4.3.8.3. I-n Verbs

4.3.8.3.1. If the n is immediately followed by a consonant (which, in this
case, is the second radical, the n being the rst one), it is assimilated to it:
*npol > lPa<. But if the second radical is a laryngeal/pharyngeal, the n is not
as a rule assimilated: tj"n]TIw' and it went down Ps 38:3.
4.3.8.3.1n. The preservation of the n preceding laryngeals/pharyngeals does not establish
the existence of the weakening at an early period, although it is attested by the consonantal
text. The inclination toward refraining from doubling laryngeals/pharyngeals whenever
possible is widespread even in languages in which the doubling of laryngeals/pharyngeals
has been preserved. Thus, in the ofcial reading of the Quran, the tajwid, there is a tendency to assimilate a nal n to the rst consonant of the following word; but if the next
word begins with a laryngeal/pharyngeal, the assimilation does not take place.
The unassimilated form tj"n]TIw' occurs alongside tj"TE. The n is also assimilated to in
j"ni he had compassion, the nif al of nm < *ninam. Among the laryngeals/pharyngeals,
only assimilates to a preceding n. This fact provides an additional indication that lost
the ability to be doubled comparatively late (a conclusion also supported by the rarity of
compensatory lengthening of the vowel preceding a that should have been doubled).
4.3.8.3.2. In other cases, it is only rarely that no assimilation takes place.

O. Rssler (1961: 445; 1962: 12541) claimed that these forms did not assimilate their n because the n was originally followed by a vowel, occurring in
forms parallel to Akkadian iparras and Gez ynagger (cf. above 4.3.2.2.14,
p. 196). Accordingly, a form such as Wrx&n]yi they will guard Deut 33:9 reects
original *yanaar(u) or a similar pattern. If we could substantiate this theory,
it would be of no mean importance, because it would attest the existence of a
second prex-tense in a West Semitic language. However, Rssler failed to
demonstrate that these forms with n have a function which differs in any way
from the n-less forms. Therefore, we tend to adopt A. Blochs view (1963: 41
50) that the n-forms are merely dialectal and stylistic variants, and, in spite of
Rsslers qualications, one must also take into consideration Bergstrssers
claim (191829: 2.122) that n-forms are comparatively frequent in pause.
4.3.8.3.2n. Bergstrsser assumed that these pausal forms do not reect the living, spoken
language. Apparently, pausal forms in general fullled an important function in the solemn reading of the Scriptures, and, accordingly, pausal forms tended to be longer than
contextual ones. This feature is reected by pausal lengthening, which caused longer
forms to prevail in pause (pausal Wrm&vyi in contrast to Wrm}vyi in context), by the use of III-y
verbs with y in pause, and by the penetration of yqlun into the pause. Cf. also g' yniWB&s"
yniWb&b:s} they have surroundeed me, indeed they have surrounded me Ps 118:11. Accordingly, it is quite likely that Wrx&n]yi, being longer than WrX&yi* (because the latter contained a
lengthened rather than a doubled ), was preferred in pause.
4.3.8.3.3. The imperative of the qal with a as the characteristic vowel is

formed without n: vG' come near!, ac lift!. This occurs also with the construct innitive (which is then expanded by the feminine ending; or more correctly, which because of its shortness has preserved the feminine ending):
4.3.8.3.4. Absolute
I-n VerbsInnitive; Verbal Themes
242
*gast > tvG ,. This is also the case with the only verb that has preserved i as the
characteristic vowel: TE give!, tTE < *tint.
4.3.8.3.4. ntn is also exceptional in being the only verb in which n as the
third radical is assimilated to an immediately following consonant: T:t"&n;, yTIt"&n;.
These forms conform to the general sound shift according to which n was assimilated to an immediately following consonant in every position, including
n as third radical. As a rule, however, in III-n verbs the n was restored when
it immediately preceded a consonant: T:n]k"&v / yTIn]m"&ah< by analogy to forms in
which n was not immediately followed by a consonant and therefore survived
(such as hn;k}v/ k"v he/she dwelt, hn;ymI&ah< / ymIah< he/she believed). (Verbs
were especially liable to be affected by analogy because of their uniformity
and regularity.) However, in forms that were less subject to analogy, the regular sound shift survived, and n was assimilated to an immediately following
consonant even when it occupied the position of the last radical. This was the
case with nouns which, being less regular and uniform than verbs, were less
open to analogy (tB" daughter < *bint; tm<a truth < *amint, from the same
root mn from which the above-mentioned yTIn]m"&ah< is derived). Similarly, tn
was so frequent that it was not affected by analogy with the forms that preserved the n. As a result, forms such as yTIt"&n; with assimilated nun remained,
resisting the inuence of forms such as t"n;, hn;t}n;.
4.3.8.3.4n. In Phoenician, however, the original sound shift has been preserved and n as
the third radical is always assimilated. It has sometimes been suggested that the nal n of
ntn was not preserved because of dissimilation from the initial n and that Biblical Hebrew
was not affected by the assimilation of n when used as the last verbal radical (see P. Joon
1923: par. 17g; cf. also Z. S. Harris 1939: 3940, who, however, justly dissociates himself
from this view). Nevertheless, the assimilation of n when preceding a consonant in every
position, even when used as the last radical, is sufciently demonstrated by the assimilation of the n in nouns. Accordingly, in the case of ntn, dissimilation could have been, at
most, a marginal factor.
4.3.8.3.5. Different explanations have been given for the elision of the n in
the qal imperative and construct innitive. Scholars who derive I-n verbs
from triradical roots, including those with a as the characteristic vowel in the
prex-tense (and imperative) of qal, account for the elision of n in the imperative by analogy with the prex-tense (e.g., *ngas shifted to vG' by analogy
with vG'yi) and explain tvG,& through the inuence of I-w(y) verbs (tvG,& vG' corresponding to t["D'&, [D' / tb<v&, bv). This explanation, however, has to be able to
explain the problem of why the imperative of the pattern yiqol preserves the
n (lpn] rather than *pol).
4.3.8.3.6. Accordingly, it has been proposed (see, e.g., Kienast 2001: 350
52). that the verbs that elide the n do so only synchronically but historically
reect original biradical roots with n-augment. Nldeke (1910: 179201) has
called attention to the alternation of I-n/I-w/I-y/I- roots, which accordingly
243
Absolute Innitive;
I-n and
Verbal
I-y(w)
Themes
Verbs 4.3.8.4.1.
have to be interpreted as biradical roots with initial n-/w-/y-/ - augment. According to this theory, tvG,& vG' are archaic biradical forms that were later
transformed into the triradical scheme with the aforementioned augments.
However, Nldeke adduces this alternation also with verbs that have a yiqol
qal pattern, so the question arises why these verbs are built exclusively according to the triradical pattern.
4.3.8.3.6n. In Phoenician and Ugaritic, tn has the form ytn, suggesting that this verb in
Semitic languages has to be interpreted as reecting biradical tn with n/y augment. However, since Phoenician also has vestiges of ntn, it seems more cogent, prima facie, to posit
ntn as the original form and derive ytn by a back-formation from TE, by analogy with I-w
verbs (such as dr'y;, i.e., dre : dr'y; = TE : X; X = ty).
4.3.8.3.7. jql to take behaves as a I-n verb, assimilating its l to an immediately following consonant (jQ"a< I will take) and eliding it in the imperative
and construct innitive: jq" take!, tj"q& " to take (in contrast to the nif al
jq"l}ni). This behavior has often been explained as being due to the (inverse)
analogy of tn. This analogy may have been an additional reason for the preservation of the exceptional behavior of this I-l verb, but it was at most a marginal factor. Apparently, this very frequent verb, because of its frequency, has
maintained the sound shift lC(onsonant) > CC, i.e., the total assimilation of l
to an immediately following consonant, according to which, e.g., vB"l}yi he
wears a garment should have shifted to *yibbas. However, through the analogical inuence of other forms (vb"l:, vbE/l), the l was restored, except in
jql, which resisted analogy because of its frequency. The assimilation of l to
an immediately following consonant should not surprise us, though it is much
less frequent than the assimilation of n.
4.3.8.3.7n. In the less-frequent nif al jq"l}ni, however, the l was analogically restored. However, surprisingly, the nif al T"ni, T<T"ni was not affected by analogy, and the initial n has
not been analogically restored.
For the assimilation of l-, cf. the behavior of the Arabic article al-.
It seems less likely to posit a biradical q, which was allegedly expanded by the initial
augments l/n to triradical lq/*nq, lq being attested, e.g., in the sufx-tense of qal (jq"l:),
*nq in its prex-tense (jQ"yi); for this theory, see Friedrich 1999: 97, par. 15354 (following
von Soden 1995). The qal construct innitive tj"q& " seems to be due to the analogy of I-n
verbs of the qal yif al pattern (as in t["G ' to touch, from root ng, prex-tense [G'yi).
4.3.8.4. I-y(w) Verbs

4.3.8.4.1. Although the origin of some qal forms is obscure, most of them
can easily be derived from triradical roots. Even the imperative qal bv can
be derived by the assumption of dissimilation from triradical *witib (see
4.3.8.4.10, p. 246). The other biradical forms, viz., the prex-tense bvye and
the construct innitive tb<v& can be explained as newly derived from bv. This
proposal has the advantage of accounting for the elision of the rst radical in
4.3.8.4.2. Absolute
I-y(w) Verbs
244
the vicinity of i, although one has to admit that the suggested sound shift gives
the impression of being an ad hoc invention.
4.3.8.4.1n. Moreover, if one posits that the imperative of qal was phonemically monosyllabic, the initial wi of *witib in fact phomemically lacked a vowel and, accordingly, was
quite unstable. On the other hand, one also has to take into consideration the possibility
that imperative forms tended to be shortened because of their exclamatory character. (For
the exceptional shortening of interjections, see H. Paul 1937: 17981.)
4.3.8.4.2. On the other hand, Nldeke (1910: 179201; see 4.3.8.3.6,

p. 242) has demonstrated that I-n and I-w/I-y roots interchange. Since this alternation cannot be considered phonetic, it has to be interpreted as reecting
an alternation in the extension of biradical roots to triradical structure by
the initial augments n/w(y)/.
4.3.8.4.2n. This assumption, however, is not without difculties. The evidence of the various Semitic languages attests to the biradical formation of the yaqil pattern ( pace Birkeland 1940: 90102, whose attempt to postulate additional forms with original a after the
second radical is not convincing); nevertheless, Nldekes examples (1910: 179201) are
not restricted to this pattern. Accordingly, one has to assume a somewhat skeptical attitude
toward both the theory of biradical origin and the theory of triradical origin. Nevertheless,
it is not out of question that the I-n verbs in general, both those of the qal yiqal and those
of the yaqul pattern, were originally biradical. Whereas those of the yaqul pattern have
become wholly triradical by the augment n-, those of the yiqal pattern contain residues of
the original biradical formation.
4.3.8.4.3. But even if we accept Nldekes theory, we have to project this

augmentation of biradical roots back to the Proto-Semitic period, since it is attested in other Semitic languages as well. Accordingly, Hebrew I-y verbs must
be regarded synchronically as triradical, exhibiting w/y as their rst radical.
And even on the theory of the biradical origin of I-w verbs, it seems quite
likely that it was only the imperative qal of the yaqil pattern that preserved
the Proto-Semitic biradical formation, whereas originally the prex-tense was
formed on a triradical basis, to be newly derived later from the biradical imperative. This is suggested by the correspondence of Ugar qal (e.g., the Ugaritic imperative bl conduct!) to BHeb hif il (e.g., lybI/y). Apparently, forms
such as lybI/y reect the original qal pattern yaqil, formed on a triradical basis,
which was later reinterpreted as hif il (for details, see Blau 1973b).
4.3.8.4.3n. In Akkadian, indeed, the imperative lacks the rst radical (type bil), yet iprus
is ubil, pace Kienast 2001: 354, who considers Akkadian ubil to be a genuine biradical
form. It seems, however, prima facie, that the initial u is due to the inuence of the triradical parallel ubil < *yawbil. Kienasts proposal to attribute it to the inuence of the saf el
verbal theme is quite dubious. Furthermore, I do not understand J. Huehnergards suggestion (1987b: 193) that Akkadian ubbal, which, according to Huehnergard inuenced ubil,
arose from *yawabbal, as if awa shifted to u. On the other hand, Huehnergard (1987b:
192) has adduced quite convincing proofs that ubil is a ghost form, and if so, the short u of
ubil remains unclear. However, it seems reasonable somehow to connect the (short) u of
245

I-y(w)
Themes
Verbs 4.3.8.4.8.
ubil with w as rst radicalin other words, to posit (also) a triradical scheme, perhaps involving the contamination of biradical and triradical patterns.
4.3.8.4.4. Historically, I-y verbs are either original I-y verbs or have to
be derived from original I-w roots. In Northwest Semitic, w in word-initial
position had shifted to y (see above, 3.4.8.2, p. 103), and the differences between the two groups were further blurred by widespread analogy. Since
original I-w verbs were more conspicuous, original I-y verbs were attracted
by them, the most striking case being, it seems, [dy to know, from which
forms such as [D', [d'y,e [d'/n, ['ydi/h, characteristic of I-w roots, are derived. On
the other hand, through the inuence of piel and pual forms with initial w
> y, y also prevailed in these verbal themes in word-medial position (as td,L,&ym
' }
midwife), to intrude even into hitpael, as in WdL}y't}Yiw' and they declared
their pedigree.
4.3.8.4.4n. Cf. 1.15.5, p. 50. Nevertheless, w has been preserved in jK"w't}hI to argue,
hD;w't}hI to confess, and it is attested even in [D'w't}hI to make oneself known, although [dy,
as mentioned, originally began with y, rather than with w.
4.3.8.4.5. The original w of (original) I-w verbs has mainly been preserved in the hif il, hof al, and nif al, in which it occurred in verb-internal
position.
4.3.8.4.6. In the nif al and hif il, vestiges of an original w in a prex with
an a vowel have been preserved: dl"/n < *nawlad, dylI/h < *hawlid; for the historical interpretation of these forms, see 4.3.5.3.2, p. 228; 4.3.5.7.4, p. 234.
4.3.8.4.6n. In the prex-tense, dlEW;yi. Only one verb has y in the prex-tense: hr,Y;yi Exod
19:13. But, according to M. Lambert (1898: 142), this form must be interpreted as an
original passive of qal (*yirb < *yuyrb), which was vocalized as nif al by the Masoretes;
cf. also Blau (1973b = Studies, 88 n. 12). For the shift of uy to i, cf. 3.4.3.3, p. 97.
4.3.8.4.7. The hof al exhibits long u preceding the second radical: bvWh <
*huwsab.
4.3.8.4.8. Original y has been preserved in the hif il in a whole group of
verbs: lylIyhE to howl < *haylil, qyniyhE to give suck < *hayniq, ymIyhE to go to
the right < haymin, and also byfIyhE to do well. This last verb behaves as if its
root were yb, rather than the original wb; in qal, the sufx-tense wb to be
good, still preserving the II-w pattern (see 4.3.8.7.2.4, p. 254), is superseded
by the prex-tense yb, as in bf"yyi). Because original byfIhE, which belongs to
the II-w pattern, was identical in pronunciation to byfIyhE, which belongs to the
I-y pattern, it was transferred to I-y verbs, and then other I-y forms were derived from it. Contrariwise, yq to awake, belonging, as demonstrated by
comparative evidence and by the qal q'yyi, to I-y verbs, passed in the hif il to
the root qy, since yqIyhE* (I-y) and yqIhE (II-y) were phonetically identical.
(This explanation is much more likely than the attempt by Buhl [1915] to connect yqIhE with yiq& " summer.)
4.3.8.4.9. I-y(w)
Absolute
Verbs,
Innitive;
Qal Verbal Themes
246
4.3.8.4.8n. A few hif il forms preserve the original ay diphthong, e.g., yniymIy]m"; and also
Wrvy]y' they look straight Prov 4:25.
Alongside forms apparently from a root yb, the hif il t:byfIh from the original root wb
is attested as well (as it is also in Rabbinic Hebrew).
The alternation of II-y/w and I-y verbs occurs in other cases as well, and not only on
the strength of the phonetic identity of the sufx-tense of hif il: to be afraid qal sufxtense yTIr]goy;, prex-tense rWgy;; in the hif il of vWB to put to shame both vbIhE (II-w) and
vybI/h (I-w) are attested.
4.3.8.4.9. In the qal, two historical groups are attested:

4.3.8.4.10. In the rst group, the verbs dl"y; to bear, ax:y; to go out, dr'y ;
to go down, and bvy; to sit elide their rst radical in the prex-tense, the
imperative, and the construct innitive.
4.3.8.4.10n. Comparison with the other Semitic languages demonstrates that the rst radical was originally w. Internal reconstruction (as in, e.g., ayxI/h to take out and nif al dl"/n
to be born) points to the same conclusion.
4.3.8.4.11. The second radical in these forms is followed by historical i,

and since i has almost disappeared in the prex-tense and the imperative (see
above, 4.3.5.2.3.2, p. 222), it must be considered to be original, as also attested by other Semitic languages. Therefore, corresponding forms with a
after the second radical, which without exception are restricted to II/IIIlaryngeals/pharyngeals ([d'y ; to know, [d'y;e dj"y; to be united, dj"ye; [q"y ; to be
dislocated, [q"y)e , must be interpreted as exhibiting original i, which shifted to
a by assimilation to the following or preceding pharyngeal/laryngeal. Compare the occurrence of h[:De knowledge (with e < i) alongside t["D'& (with a).
4.3.8.4.11n. In the prex-tense and the imperative, historical i has shifted to e. In the construct innitive (e.g., td,l<&), e < i is also the basic vowel (cf. the parallel hd;lE < *lida(t)),
which shifted by Philippis Law to a, and nally by segolization to .
4.3.8.4.12. The prex-tense yaqil pattern should have been *yasib > bvy;
according to the other Semitic languages and Barths Law (see 4.3.5.2.3.1,
p. 221, and 4.3.5.2.3.1n, p. 222). However, by vowel assimilation, the prex
vowel changed to e: bvye, [d' y e < ['dey e *. This e is preserved even when the stress
is remote: WN[<& d;y e he will know it Jer 17:9.
4.3.8.4.12n. Is the preservation of the e in forms such as WN[<d;y e due to the tendency to differentiate between the sufx-tense in which the rst vowel is reduced (as /[d;y] he knew
it) and the prex-tense? Or was it rhythmically inuenced by the prex-tense of the second group of I-y verbs (as in hN:d,[:yyi he will assign her) with long vowel in the rst syllable? Or did both factors interact?
4.3.8.4.13. As we have seen (see 4.3.5.2.6.2, p. 227), although innitive

forms with the feminine ending are attested in the strong verb, they nevertheless prevail in some weak verbs in which the feminine ending rhythmically
supplements the innitive form, which was shortened because of the elision of
247

I-y(w)
Themes
Qal 4.3.8.4.19.
the weak radical. This is the case in the construct innitive of this class of
verbs: *sibt > (by the action of Philippis Law) *sabt > (by segolization) tb<v& .
4.3.8.4.13n. As a rule, the feminine ending t prevails; however, -at (> h-;) is also attested,
as in td,l<&/hd;lE birth, as well as t["D'&/h[:De.
4.3.8.4.14. Through Philippis Law, the 2/3fp of the prex-tense has a

after the second radical : hn;k}l"&TE ; however, in the imperative, it has e, as in
hn;k}lE & (inuenced by lE).
4.3.8.4.14n. lh to go behaves as if it belonged to this verbal class; see 4.3.8.4.16
below.
4.3.8.4.15. Two imperatival forms (which even if they are original interjections, behave as imperatives of yhb) have exceptional forms: (1) the singular imperative form with penultimate stress hb:h& : give; come now (instead
of the expected *hb2 a# with ultima stress), and (2) the plural imperative form
with ultima stress, though the latter reects the lengthening of the penult
vowel Wb&h: (instead of the expected *hb2 with reduced penult vowel). The
exceptional patterning of these forms probably reects their original character as interjections.
4.3.8.4.16. As already stated (see 3.3.5.5.1, p. 94), lh to go behaves as
if it belonged to this class in the prex-tense, the imperative, and the construct
innitive of qal (lEye, lE, tk<l<&) and the hif il (ylI/h).
4.3.8.4.17. The irregular verb lky; to be able, which has the qaol pattern
in the sufx-tense of qal, reects the archaic sound shift iw > u in the prextense (see 3.4.3.3, p. 97): *yiwkal > lk"Wy and conjugates regularly.
4.3.8.4.18. In the second group, the y is preserved: imperative vb"y] be
dry!, prex-tense vb"yTI (< *tiybas), almost always with characteristic a after
the second radical, construct innitive vby]. Some verbs vacillate between
both classes: vr'yyi he will inherit, but imperative vre, in pause vr;, construct
innitive tvr,&.
4.3.8.4.18n. Yif ol is quite exceptional: qxYiw' (pay attention to the defective spelling of the
iriq) and he poured Gen 28:18.
Is vr; a mixed form of pausal vr;y ] and vre?
4.3.8.4.19. Double consonants: long vowel plus simple consonant is

rhythmically more or less identical to short vowel plus double (long) consonant (for this feature, see 3.5.7.4.6, p. 124; 4.2.5.2, p. 180). Accordingly,
the long vowel that occurs in the rst syllable of many I-y verbs as a result of
monophthongization is apt to alternate with a short vowel plus double consonant. Thus, in hof al td,L<h
& U being born, instead of the expected td,l< &Wh*, occurs. Short vowel plus double (long) consonant rather than long vowel plus
simple consonant is especially frequent with ade as second radical: bX"ni take
ones stand; cf. bXEy't}hI in the same sense; rx"y; to form has the prex-tense
4.3.8.5. III-aleph
Absolute Innitive;
Verbs
Verbal Themes
248
forms rx<y Yiw' Gen 2:7 with (originally) long i (and, accordingly, rx<Yiw' Gen 2:19
has to be interpreted as containing long i as well) and r]X:a<w] Isa 49:8. AqX:a< Isa
44:3 alternates with forms without gemination.
4.3.8.4.19n. In light of byxIn] pillar, bX"ni, and byXIhI to station, forms connected with yb
may be derived form the root nb as well. Similarly, gyXIhI to set may be derived from both
yg and ng; tyxh, etc., to set on re may be derived from both yt and nt; and ['yXIhI
meaning to lay may be derived from both n and y (which, in the light of comparative
evidence, is more likely; cf. above, 4.3.8.3.6, pp. 242243).
4.3.8.5. III-aleph Verbs

4.3.8.5.1. The conjugation of this verbal class can easily be accounted for
by the weakness of the aleph and analogy with III-y verbs . Because of the
elision of nal aleph, forms arose that were identical to those of III-y roots,
such as maa he found (ax:m:) : gala he uncovered (hl:G;), attracting other
forms by analogy, such as al:p}hI to make wonderful, instead of the expected
aylIp}h,I in analogy with hl:g]h;I af</j sinning, instead of the expected afE/j, in
analogy with hl</G; yWcn; carried, instead of the expected aWcn; (cf. 3.3.4.2.3
3.3.4.2.4, pp. 8788). In some cases III-y verbal forms totally prevailed, as in
hn;ax<&m}TI, ytIaxE&m}ni. On the other hand, there are a few III-aleph forms instead of
the expected III-y forms, especially in the verb hr;q; to happen, as in Wha:&r;q}W
/sa: and disaster will befall him Gen 42:38.
4.3.8.5.2. Aleph not followed by a vowel is elided and the preceding vowel
lengthened: *maati > ytIax:&m:; *amiti > ytIamE&x:; *timmalina > hn;al< &M:T.I
4.3.8.5.2n. For the precise conditioning of this sound shift, see above, 3.3.4.13.3.4.2,
pp. 86ff. This shift occurred before the action of Philippis Law; see 4.3.8.5.3 below.
The segol after the third radical is due to assimilation of the ere < iriq to the following qama; see 3.5.10.4, p. 137, and 4.3.8.6.9, p. 251.
4.3.8.5.3. Five verbs in the sufx-tense of the qal reect the stative pael
pattern, preserving the e also before prexes beginning with a consonant
(ytIalE&m:), because the aleph was elided before Philippis Law started acting:
amEf: to be unclean, arey ; to be afraid, alEm: to be full, amEx: to be thirsty, anec
to hate. The participles of these verbs as a rule follow the pael pattern
(amEf:), but in ane/c it has already been superseded by the more frequent poel.
4.3.8.5.4. The prex-tense of the qal, corresponding to both the paal and
pael patterns of the sufx-tense, has a after the second radical, through the inuence of the laryngeal aleph (when it was still pronounced): ax:m}y,i al:m}y.i
4.3.8.6. III-y Verbs

4.3.8.6.1. Historically, III-y verbs have absorbed the III-w verbs. Since
very often the same sound shifts affected III-w and III-y forms (see above,
3.4.7.1, p. 102), they were mixed up, and the more frequent III-y verbs superseded the III-w verbs. This phenomenon belongs to a general drift that occurs
249

III-y
Themes
Verbs 4.3.8.6.4.1.
again and again in the Semitic languages. Forms such as yTIwl] " &v I was quiet
have to be considered late forms, derived from the adjective wlEv quiet. Very
few genuine vestiges of the III-w verbs have been preserved in the passive
participle of qal: Wc[:h< which is made Job 41:25 < *h-auw (cf. also Job
15:22: the ktib2 wpxw = wapuw, the qre is yWpx:w ] and spied out). As stated
above (see 4.3.8.5.1), III- aleph verbs also exhibit the tendency to pass to
III-y, and, indeed, in Rabbinic Hebrew the III-y verbs have absorbed III-aleph
verbs to an even higher degree.
4.3.8.6.2. It has been often claimed that the special behavior of III-y verbs
(and w), caused by the elision of y (and w), is a Proto-Semitic feature. But this
claim cannot be substantiated (see Birkeland 1940: 4146). Not only are the
results of the elision of the y (and w) different in the various Semitic languages
(as in hn,b}yi he will build in Biblical Hebrew, aneb}y i in Biblical Aramaic, yabni
in Classical Arabic), but, e.g., both Ugaritic and the ancient Phoenician inscriptions from Byblos have preserved the original y to a great extent. Therefore, it appears that, in Proto-Semitic, consonantal y/w were preserved as
the third radical, to be elided only in the various Semitic languages.
4.3.8.6.3. It is easy to derive the Hebrew forms of III-y verbs from triradical roots with nal y by positing sound shifts and analogy. A possible exception is the short prex-tense, with forms such as wx"y ]w' and he ordered, which
should have terminated in a long vowel, if indeed it arose from a III-y root
(*wayyawwiy > *wayawwi) (see Blau 1977c: 2729 = Topics, 26062).
This, however, does not prove that all the existing III-y roots were originally
biradical. It only demonstrates that some of these roots were originally biradical, terminating in a long vowel, whereas it appears that other forms emerged
from triradical III-y (w) roots. The coexistence of biradical forms terminating
in a long vowel and triradical III-y(w) roots that developed a nal long vowel
by the elision of the y (w) has, no doubt, contributed to the transfer of such biradical roots to III-y verbs. Nevertheless, synchronically, all these verbs have
to be considered triradical. The only exceptions to this statement are the short
prex-tense and the short imperative (e.g., wx" order!).
4.3.8.6.4. The most conspicuous feature of this verbal class is the almost
complete homogeneity of all verbal patterns regarding their endings; the
forms primarily differ only in their beginnings. This partly stems from sound
shifts resulting in the same vowel, independently of the vowel preceding the
nal y, and partly from the very extensive occurrence of analogy.
4.3.8.6.4.1. Final y (and also w) followed by a vowel was elided when preceded by a(n originally) short vowel. If the vowel following the y was long, it
prevailed over the (originally) short vowel preceding it: *tugalliyi > yLIg'T,}
*tugalliyu > WLg'T;} *tugallayi > yLIguT,} *tugallayu > WLguT.} If the vowel following
the y was (an originally short) a, qama was the result of the elision (see above,
3.4.4.4, p. 98): *galaya > hl:G,; *raiya > hx:r.; The same process occurred in
4.3.8.6.4.2. III-y
Absolute
Verbs
250
all the 3ms forms of the sufx-tense. The 3fs form *hoglayat > tl:g]h: she was
taken into exile Jer 13:19 reects the archaic form of the feminine ending,
still preserving its t (which, it seems, was elided only after short a but preserved after long a). As these examples demonstrate, the a, arising from the
elision of the y (and w) has not shifted to o, perhaps because the elision of the
y is later than the Canaanite shift to o, or (also) owing to paradigmatic pressure, the sufx-tense often being characterized by a, rather than o. On the
other hand, o does occur in the construct innitive, which, as a rule, terminates in -ot: t/lG] t/lg] h". The t of -ot is, no doubt, the feminine ending, which
was preserved in these innitive forms because of their relative shortness (as
in I-n and I-y verbs; see 4.3.8.3.3, pp. 241242; 4.3.8.4.13, pp. 246247).
The o, however, is either due to the Canaanite shift, if it still operated, and/or
to the analogy of the construct innitive forms of the sound verb in qal, which
contained o (rmv). If indeed it was due (only) to analogy, the development
rst took place in the qal and spread afterward to the other verbal themes.
4.3.8.6.4.1n. For the preservation of the t-ending after long a, see 4.3.3.4.8n, p. 211. For
further details, see Blau 1980 = Topics, 12637. Cf. also tyh she was in the Siloam
inscription.
4.3.8.6.4.2. As mentioned, the original ending of the 3fs of the sufx-tense

was -at. The usual ending however, is ht:-]: ht:l}G;, ht:L}Gi, ht:l}g]h:, etc. These
forms are due to the analogical adaptation of the structurally exceptional
forms galat, gillat, hoglat to the structure of the strong verb hr;m}v, hd;B}KI,
hd;B}k}h:.
4.3.8.6.5. When the y occurred between two short vowels, the second of
which was not a (i.e., ayu, ayi, awu, awi, iyu, iyi, iwu, iwi, uyu, uyi, uwu, uwi),
the result of the elision of the y/w was segol. This is characteristic of the
prex-tense (hl<g]yi, hl<g]y ', hl<G;y,i etc.) and the masculine participle in the absolute
(hl</G hl<g]m", hl<g]ni) in all the verbal themes.
4.3.8.6.5n. As a matter of fact, the shift of ayu, ayi, awu, awi to segol is due to a sound
shift, whereas that of iyu, iyi, iwu, iwi, uyu, uyi, uwu, uwi is due to analogy with ayu, ayi,
awu, awi; for details, see 3.4.5.8, p. 101.
The lengthened prex-tense (the cohortative) and the accusative of the participle, terminating in -a, should have resulted in nal qama. However, the ordinary prex-tense, terminating in -u and resulting in -, superseded the cohortative. The nominative/genitive of
the participle, terminating in -u/-i, prevailed over the accusative.
4.3.8.6.6. Final -ay shifted to ere, as did nal -iy by analogy with -ay (see
above, 3.4.5.8, p. 101). As a result, all the construct forms of the participles
of III-y verbs terminate in ere, as well as all the imperative forms: hlE/G, hlEG],
hlEG;hI, etc.
4.3.8.6.6n. The case endings of the construct forms had already been elided when the elision of y occurred; see 3.4.5.5, p. 100 (hdec); 4.4.4.5, p. 268.
251

III-y
Themes
Verbs 4.3.8.6.9.
As a matter of fact, the short prex-tense should have terminated in ere, since it ended
in -ay/-iy without a following vowel. Nevertheless, these forms were superseded by forms
terminating in segol, representing the ordinary prex-tense; pausal forms such as hLEg't} al
Lev 18:7 are exceptional.
4.3.8.6.7. The short prex-tense (as well as the imperative of piel,

hitpael, and hif il) often has a shortened, apocopated form, with elision of
the nal vowel: ar]Y'w' and he saw, ar;Yew' and he appeared, lk"y ]w' and he nished, sK"t}Yiw' and he covered himself; wx" order!, lj:t}hI (the qama is due to
pause). Since the second radical of the prex-themes of qal and hif il is devoid of a vowel (hl<g]y,i hl<g]y)' , the elision of the nal h-, makes the shortened
forms terminate in a consonantal cluster (D]rY] we ' and he ruled, T}p}y' may He
widen), which as a rule is opened: the resulting forms are similar to the segolate nouns (see 4.4.6.3, p. 274), as in, e.g., qal p<Yiw' and he turned, p<New;' c["Yw' '
and he did; hif il br,Yw, ' and he made much; l["Yw' ' and he brought up (formally identical to qal and he went up); r,h<& cease!
4.3.8.6.7n. No shortened forms of the passive themes pual and hof al are attested.
Because the nal vowel derived from a triradical III-y root should have been long and
accordingly preserved, the omission of the nal syllable in the apocopated forms, prima
facie, hints at the biradical origin of these forms; see 4.3.8.6.3, p. 249.
4.3.8.6.8. In the rst and second persons of the sufx-tense, either long
ere or iriq occurs. In qal, piel, and hitpael and, as a rule, also in hif il,
iriq prevails; in nif al, pual, and hof al, ere prevails. However, in the 1s,
even in piel, hitpael, and hif il, ere predominates, presumably out of a
propensity for dissimilation in order to prevent two i vowels in the same word.
Moreover, the general tendency toward iriq obtains in the 1p (as in WnylI &g]n)i ,
for no obvious reason. Historically, the forms with full ere stem from ay,
those with full iriq from iy; however, analogical formations intervened. The
possibility of the inuence of biradical roots terminating in long i also must
not be excluded. In qal, surprisingly enough, the forms with i have completely
superseded those with e (even in the 1s, as in ytIyl&IG;), prima facie because
paila forms prevailed.
4.3.8.6.8n. If indeed some very frequent verbs, such as hy;h: to be, hc[: to do (cf. Gez
to do gabra, pattern paila) were from the paila type, it is not difcult to understand
why this verbal class prevailed.
4.3.8.6.9. A ere preceding qama shifts to segol in the 2fp and 3fp of the
prex-tense and in the 2fp of the imperative by assimilation (see above,
3.5.10.4, p. 137): hn;yl<&g]TI, hn;yL<&g'T}.
4.3.8.6.9n. This is not the case, however, in the 2ms of the sufx-tense, as in t:ylE&g]ni, no
doubt through the analogical inuence of corresponding verbal forms such as ytIylE&g]ni, tylEg]ni.
4.3.8.6.10. Absolute
III-y / II-w
Innitive;
/y Verbs Verbal Themes
252
4.3.8.6.10. In the passive participle of qal, y was preserved following a

long vowel: yWlG; , yyiWlG] . The preservation of y after long vowels (see above,
3.4.4.1, p. 97) explains the occurrence of exceptional forms with y such as
Wyl:v
& y i they are at ease(rather than Wlvyi*). Apparently, these forms represent
ancient pausal structures in which the y, owing to pausal lengthening, was preceded by a long vowel and accordingly preserved. Since the differences between these pausal and contextual forms were too big (Wyl:v
& y i : Wlvy),
i however,
these pausal forms with y were superseded by the contextual forms, and forms
such as Wlvyi were used in the pause as well. Forms with y also survived in elevated emotional style outside the pause. Moreover, even new forms were
coined in which the y was preceded by mobile swa: yuw]ry] i they will be saturated Ps 36:9 (see Blau 1997: 18387 for details).
4.3.8.6.10n. In contrast to the theory presented here, these forms are generally considered
to reect late formations; see, e.g., Bergstrsser 191829: 2.16970 n. 12.
If my theory proves to be true, it demonstrates that the elision of y is later than pausal
lengthening.
4.3.8.7. II-w/y Verbs

4.3.8.7.1. Historical Derivation
4.3.8.7.1.1. It is rather arduous to analyze this verbal class historically.
Some forms cannot possibly be derived from triradical roots. However, even
if one agrees to derive some of these forms from biradical roots with a long
(or, according to others, a short) vowel separating the two radical consonants,
the problems connected with the historical derivation of this verbal class
are not yet solved. Why, for instance, did a shift to o in the nif al (g/sn;, g/Syi)
but not in the qal (q; , hm:q:&, Wmq:&)? (On this question, see 4.3.8.7.2.3n, p. 253.)
4.3.8.7.1.2. In what follows, we will base ourselves on the assumption that
II-w/y verbs must be derived for the most part from biradical roots with a medial long vowel that have been adapted to triradical structure by medial w/y. In
this way, we will attempt to solve the main difculties concerning this verbal
class, without denying that the history of II-w/y verbs is even more opaque
than that of the other verbal classes.
4.3.8.7.2. Qal
4.3.8.7.2.1. In the qal of II-w/y verbs, as in the strong verb, several patterns are attested. The most frequent pattern has a in the sufx-tense and u in
the prex-tense: q:, Wqy;. The a of qam is remarkable, since, in accordance
with the Canaanite shift, it should have shifted to *qom. The a may perhaps be
explained as due to paradigmatic pressure. In the rst and second persons, this
a stood in a closed syllable, which, in Proto-Hebrew, did not permit long vow-
253
Absolute Innitive;
II-w/y
Verbal
Verbs,
Themes
Qal 4.3.8.7.2.3.
els (see above 3.5.12.2.14n, p. 151; 4.3.3.3.2, p. 206). This is the reason
that the imperative forms lDeb}h", hn;l}Deb}h" (< *hab2 dil, *hab2 dilna) and the prextense form hn;l}Deb}T" (< *tab2 dilna) correspond to lyDib}y' (< *yab2 dilu). And it is
for this reason that in the qal of II-w verbs, hn;m}q&T: (< *taqumna) corresponds
to Wqy; (< *yaqumu). Accordingly, *qamti, *qamta, *qamt, *qamnu, *qamtm
shifted to qamti, qamta, qamt, qamnu, qamtm. Because of the occurrence of
a in these persons, a (rather than o) prevailed in the third person as well. Note
that we must posit a, rather than short a, because it occurred in an open syllable (*qama, etc.).
4.3.8.7.2.1n. The qal imperative Wq rather than *qom is a late formation produced by
analogy to the prex-tense. This development occurred at a time when long vowels could
occur in closed syllables.
4.3.8.7.2.2. The qal participle is q:, the nominal form of the sufx-tense,
as is usual in the strong verb in the stative themes pael/paol (as vy; / lky; ; cf.
tmE, v/B). The a did not shift to o, because of the inuence of the sufx-tense,
on the one hand, and the inuence of the plural participle (in which the a occurred in an unstressed syllable, ymIq,: t/m&q:), on the other.
4.3.8.7.2.2n. As a matter of fact, v/B does not stem from an original paol; see 4.3.8.7.2.4,
p. 254.
In a few participial forms, o is marginally attested: ymI/Qh" 2 Kgs 16:7.
4.3.8.7.2.3. The pael pattern is reected by tmE, for which the yql is tWmy;,
such as Wqy;. The e of tmE, instead of the expected i (cf. Aram tymI) is very remarkable, since in Hebrew it is short i that is lengthened to ere, yet the i of tmE
is, prima facie, long, as suggested by the parallel qama of q: as well as by
the fact that the ere is preserved in participial forms such as ytEm.E No really
satisfactory explanation for this situation has thus far been suggested. At any
rate, during the fourth stage of stress the ere was long and therefore the penultimate stress was preserved: ht:mE&, WtmE&.
4.3.8.7.2.3n. Cf., e.g., Blau 1969a: 4 = Topics, 302, where contamination of biradical and
triradical forms is suggested. It has been proposed (see, e.g., Bergstrsser 191829: 2.155
n. 3) that the biradical root contained a short, rather than long, medial vowel. This theory
would indeed explain the ere of tmE as well as the fact that the Canaanite shift a! > o did
not affect q: in the simplest way. According to this theory, it was only after the Canaanite
shift had ceased acting that the medial short a was lengthened to a. Indeed, it appears that
II-w/y verbs must be derived also from biradical roots with a short medial vowel; the problem, however, is whether or not traces of the short medial vowel have been preserved in
Biblical Hebrew. Bergstrssers theory is contradicted by the action of the Canaanite shift
in the nif al: g/sn;, g/Syi. Bergstrssers proposition that the originally short medial vowel
was lengthened in nif al before it occurred in qal is not convincing, since the conjectured
qal form *qam, being monosyllabic, was shorter than the supposed disyllabic nif al form
*nasag and therefore more apt to be lengthened. I am inclined to posit a threefold origin of
this verbal class: biradical forms with short vowels, biradical forms with long vowels, and
triradical forms. The medley of these forms, which were also affected by analogical leveling, makes their historical reconstruction almost impossible.
4.3.8.7.2.4. II-w/y
Absolute
Verbs,
Innitive;
Qal Verbal Themes
254
4.3.8.7.2.4. At the same time, it appears that r/a to shine, v/B to be

ashamed, and b/f to be good do not reect a paula pattern, as was sometimes suggested: Akkadian ab and bas, as well as Ugaritic ra", clearly attest to
original a, as does the prex vowel e in v/bye, r/aTE, which, in accordance with
Barths Law (see 4.3.8.4.12, p. 246), exhibits the yif al pattern (in contrast to
the yaf ul/yaf il pattern reected by Wqy; / ryvy;). Despite the original a, however, these verbs are stative verbs, conjugated adjectives (perhaps as in, e.g.,
r/a). The shift a! > o occurred at rst in originally open stressed syllables (as in
*basa > v/B) and then spread analogically throughout the entire paradigm (as
in yTIv B&, hn;v b &TE, and the imperative v/B). The prex-tense of bwf is bf"yyi,
built by suppletion from the root yb.
4.3.8.7.2.4n. For these verbs as representing the paula pattern, see, e.g., Bergstrsser
191829: 2.155 nn. 3, 7. Bergstrsser is wrong in rejecting the identication of v/B with
Akkadian bas because it is based on the identity of the West Semitic perfect with the
Akkadian present (ibasu). Instead, v/B should be identied with the Akkadian stative
(bas).
r/aTE may also be interpreted as nif al; this interpretation becomes even more likely in
light of the qal form hn;r]a&T:, which, however, may be due to the impact of the more frequent hn;m}q&T:.
The shift a! > o occurred in stressed syllables, because the Canaanite shift affected only
such syllables. And the shift occurred in open syllables, since in Proto-Hebrew long vowels in closed syllables were shortened so that a changed to short a.
4.3.8.7.2.5. Whereas the prex vowel in v/bye, r/aye attests to an original

characteristic a after the rst radical, the prex vowel a of a/by; he will
come attests to an original u after the rst radical. The o instead of the expected u after the rst radical perhaps reects an original jussive, which was
especially frequent in this verb (in expressions such as let him come) and,
therefore, it prevailed over the ordinary prex-tense. Similarly, the imperative
is aBO . As a matter of fact, the imperative should have been *qom, *em; however, it changed to Wq, yc through the inuence of the prex-tense (see
4.3.8.7.2.1n, p. 253).
4.3.8.7.2.6. In the rst and second persons of the pael pattern, the original
i had shifted to a by Philippis Law: yTIm"&, T:m"&. (Through the inuence of these
forms, T<&m" also emerged, although the a is unstressed.) In addition to tmE, this
pattern remained only in some adjectives and substantives which correspond
to the participle, both from roots attested in qal, such as dze insolent, lE
scorning, r[E awake, rGe sojourner (alongside the participle rG; sojourning), and from other roots, such as KE honest, d[E witness, rne lamp.
4.3.8.7.2.7. In the 2/3fp of the prex-tense, alongside forms such as hn;m}q&T:
(with short vowel; see 4.3.8.7.2.1, pp. 252253), forms such as hn;ym<&WqT} also
occur. These are formed by analogy with III-y verbs (such as hn;yl<&g]TI), thus
making the preservation of the long vowel possible.
255
Absolute Innitive;
II-w/y Verbs,
Verbal
Qal,Themes
Nif al 4.3.8.7.3.3.
4.3.8.7.2.8. So far we have dealt with II-w verbs. II-y verbs are less frequent. They differ from the II-w verbs in the prex-tense, the imperative, the
innitive, and sometimes in the passive participle of qal, exhibiting i for the u
of the II-w verbs. Since the prex-tense forms of the II-y verbs are identical to
the hif il, they are apt to be transferred to the hif il of II-w verbs, and thus
they diminish more and more (cf., e.g., qal T:m}c"&, ycy;, from which the hif il
ycmE was derived, to give rise to qal II-w Wcy;; further qal hT:n]B"&, ybIy,; alongside hif il ybIhE).
4.3.8.7.2.8n. See Nldeke 1904: 3447. Cf. the literature cited in Bergstrsser 191829:
2.153, par. 28t, who also mentions the possibility that in the verb byn, the hif il is original
and the qal is secondary.
4.3.8.7.3. Nif al
4.3.8.7.3.1. The Nif al is characterized by o (< a ! ), which should be interpreted, at least in the prex-tense, as being derived from a biradical base.
4.3.8.7.3.2. If the o after the rst radical in the sufx-tense precedes a
stressed o, it changes to u: ytI/g&Wsn] I turned back, perhaps by dissimilation
from the following stressed o. It is remarkable that in the 2p the o is preserved:
t<&/x/pn] you have been scattered. Is the o due to the fact that the second o is
unstressed? However, one must not lose sight of the shift of unstressed o to u
that occurs in the participle without a following o: ykIWbn] confused ones
(alongside yni/bn] intelligent ones); cf. also the alternation o/u: q/tm: sweet,
hq:Wtm}; s/nm: ight, (br,j<&) ts"Wnm} ight (from sword).
4.3.8.7.3.3. In the rst and second persons of the sufx-tense of nif al and
hif il (and also in geminate verbs in the qal and hof al), the sufx is preceded
by the connective vowel o. The conjecture that it is due to the impact of
III-w forms (see, e.g., Bauer-Leander 1922: 430) is unlikely, since III-w verbs
are a rather marginal verbal class that disappeared quite early from Biblical
Hebrew. It is much more likely (cf. also Bergstrsser 191829: 2.141) that it
represents the extension of the original sufx of the 1s of the sufx-tense (as
still preserved in anoki < anaku) to the other forms of the rst and second
persons: *katabaku > *kataboku > *ktaboti. In most verbal classes, however,
this o disappeared through analogy to the other forms; nevertheless, in II-w/y
(and mediae geminatae) verbs the omission of the o and the resulting closing
of the preceding syllable would have caused extensive shortening of the verbal
forms (as is, indeed, attested in the hif il, e.g., T:p}nh
' E in contrast with ytIp&ynih I
waved). Therefore, the o, enabling the preservation of the long vowel characteristic of the II-w/y verbs (and of the double second radical characterizing mediae geminatae) and adapting these verbal forms to the rhythm of the sound
verb, spread to the other forms of the sufx-tense that opened with a sufx beginning with a consonant.
4.3.8.7.4. II-w/y
Absolute
Verbs,
Innitive;
Hif il/Hof
Verbal
alThemes
256
4.3.8.7.4. Hif il and Hof al

4.3.8.7.4.1. Rather remarkable is the ere of the prex h in the sufx-tense
of the hif il: yqIhE he raised. It must not be interpreted as being due to the impact of I-y verbs (such as ymIyhE he went to the right), because in I-y verbs the
e does not change, whereas in yqIhE, etc., it is reduced by the shift of stress
(ytI/m&yqIh) . It appears that this e attests to an original i, which corresponds to
Akkadian u; see 4.3.5.7.4, p. 235. The same ere occurs in the prex me- of
the participle: yqImE.
4.3.8.7.4.2. Some of the features occurring in the hif il of the strong verb
are attested in II-w/y verbs in other verbal themes as well. A feature attested in
II-w/y verbs (and mediae geminatae) is that the feminine-singular participle
always has ultima stress (hm:&q:, hg; /sn], hm:&yqIm}), because the nal case vowel
has been omitted (< *qamtu, *nasogtu, *meqimtu), on the theory of a general penult stress (see above, 3.5.12.2.2, p. 144). However, in the feminine
singular of the sufx-tense, as well as in those forms of the prex-tense
which terminate in a long vowel, the original penult stress is preserved, since
they did not elide their nal vowel: hm:q:&, hg:/s&n; hm:yqI&hE; ymIWq&T:, Wg/S&yi WmyqI&T:. In
originally closed syllables, the results of short vowels are preserved: qEh:,
hn;m}q&T
E :, q:Y;w' (read: wayyaqom).
4.3.8.7.4.3. The hof al is characterized by u preceding the rst radical (as
also are I-w/y and mediae geminatae verbs). Since in I-w verbs its occurrence
is original, this u in II-w/y and mediae geminatae verbs has to be attributed to
the analogy of I-w verbs: in II-w/y and mediae geminatae verbs, short u, the
characteristic vowel of the hof al, stood in an open syllable and, being unstressed, would have been elided, leaving hof al without distinct marking.
Therefore, it was remodeled according to the structure of I-w verbs.
4.3.8.7.4.3n. Original I-y verbs were also restructured on the structure of the I-w verbs. For
the original form of this verbal class, see above, 3.4.3.3, p. 97.
4.3.8.7.4.4. Because a long vowel plus simple consonant is rhythmically

almost identical to a short vowel plus double (long) consonant (cf. 4.2.5.2,
p. 180), some II-w verbs in the hif il and hof al behave like I-n verbs (alongside normal II-w formations). This situation may also be a result of the inuence of mediae geminatae verbs, which sometimes double their rst
radical (see 4.3.8.8.1b, p. 258) and, being rather close to II-w verbs, might
have inuenced them: yniyLIm" murmuring, gySIm" displacing, tySIm" inciting,
j'yNihI he put down.
4.3.8.7.5. Piel, Pual, Hitpael

4.3.8.7.5.1. The formation of piel, pual, and hitpael modeled on the
formation of strong verbs (Y'q I he fullled) is exceptional and is a charac-
257
Absolute Innitive;
II-w/y Verbs,
Verbal
Piel,
Themes
etc. 4.3.8.7.5.3.
teristic of late Biblical Hebrew (and indeed it is attested in Rabbinic Hebrew

as well). Sometimes, instead of doubling the second radical, the rst and third
radicals are doubled, giving rise to a quadriliteral verbal formation:
lj"l}j"t}TIw' and she writhed Esth 4:4. As a rule, however, these verbal themes
are built with o after the rst radical and the repetition of the third radical, as in: mE/q, m"/q, mE/qt}hI.
4.3.8.7.5.2. In mediae geminatae verbs, too, these verbal themes are built
in a similar manner: bbE/s he surrounded, bb"/s, bbE/Ts}hI. Here, to be sure, the
number of verbs formed by analogy with strong verbs is greater (as in lLEqI he
cursed, lL"q U he was cursed, lLEP"t}hI he prayed). Nevertheless, as Bergstrsser (191829: 2.140) surmised, it is possible that the higher frequency of these
normal forms has its roots in defective spelling, which did not mark the o,
and so originally the percentage of o-formations was higher than is reected
in biblical vocalization. Furthermore, forms with total reduplication of the
rst and second radicals occur, giving rise to a quadriliteral verbal formation,
as in lGe l}Gi he rolled, lGel}G't}hI he rolled himself.
4.3.8.7.5.2n. It is possible that, e.g., tT"KI he crushed was originally *kotat.
4.3.8.7.5.3. Although II-w verbs (such as mE/q, m"/q, mE/qt}h)I and mediae
geminatae verbs (such as bbE/s, bb"/s, bbE/Ts}h)I are externally alike, they synchronically represent different patterns: mE/q, m"/q, mE/qt}h,I derived from wq,
reect palel, palal, and hitpalel, whereas bbE/s, bb"/s, bbE/Ts}h,I stemming
from bbs, represent poel, poal, and hitpoel. However, these two verbal
classes are related and many alternate pairs occur; cf. wr-rr to bind, sws to bow down, gwd-gdd to attack. Therefore, historically, these verbal
themes, derived from II-w/y and mediae geminatae verbs, must not be analyzed separately without a connection to the other form, although either form
could have arisen independently in any of the pairs. Nevertheless, the mere occurrence of a pattern in one verbal class heightened its occurrence in the other,
even if it did not cause the emergence of the other form altogether. Moreover,
comparison with Aramaic demonstrates not only that this pattern could have
emerged in any of these verbal classes but also that it may have been derived
from two different bases (see Blau 1971c: 14751 = Topics, 16973 for particulars). In Biblical Hebrew (see above, 1.1.6, pp. 12; 3.5.2.6, p. 108), o is
equivocal as to its origin: it may be derived from both a and aw (bbE/s may be
derived from both *sawbeb and sabeb). In Aramaic, however, o stems only
from aw, whereas a is preserved without change. Nevertheless, even in Aramaic, both forms are attested, sometimes with aw/o (as etbawrar to be at
loss from bwr, etgawrer to ruminate from grr in Syriac, gob2 eb2 to answer
from gwb in Palestinian Christian Aramaic), and with a (although to a rather
limited extent; as in lae to curse from lw, lapep to connect from lpp in
Targum Onkelos according to the Babylonian tradition only). Therefore, it
4.3.8.7.5.4. Absolute
Piel, etc.;
Innitive;
MediaeVerbal
Geminatae
Themes
Verbs
258
may be surmised that in Biblical Hebrew, as well, these patterns have multiple
origins, partly stemming from palel, etc., partly from pawlel, etc.
4.3.8.7.5.3n. A similar situation can be observed with verbs in the quadriliteral formation.
Although externally similar, they also represent different patterns: ilel from wl reects
pilpel; gilgel from gll pipel.
4.3.8.7.5.4. On the one hand, the number of II-w/y verbs conjugated as

strong verbs is limited: [w'G : to perish, jw'x: to cry, by'a: to be hostile. These
seem to be late forms, and some are denominative (by'a: derived from byea enemy). On the other hand, in III-y verbs that have w/y as the second radical,
the second radical regularly behaves as a strong consonant: hw;l: to be
joined, to borrow, hW;xI to order, hW;qI to hope, hy;h: to be, hy;j: to live; yy
may also be conjugated as a mediae geminatae verb: yj" alive.
4.3.8.8. Mediae Geminatae Verbs

4.3.8.8.1. At least some of these verbs have to be derived from biradical
roots. This is especially conspicuous in the qal of stative verbs. Verbs such as
lq" to be light, in the sufx-tense hL:q,"& WLq"& clearly behave as conjugated adjectives and have not yet been adapted to the triradical scheme (hL:q,"& WLq"&, and
not hl:l}q:*, Wll}q:*; in contradistinction to action verbs such as hb:b}s:, Wbb}s:).
Moreover, the inconsistent behavior of the (rst) two radicals attests to a biradical origin as well:
(a) As a rule, of course, it is the second radical that is doubled: ytI/B&s", WBs&T:,
ytI/B&sIh.
(b) Nevertheless, not infrequently, the rst radical is doubled, the so-called
Aramaic formation, as in dQYiw' and he bowed down, WdQ}Yiw', lD'y i he will be
brought low.
4.3.8.8.1(b)n. Since this formation is characteristic of Aramaic, it is quite possible that at
least some of these forms in Biblical Hebrew are due to Aramaic inuence. It seems less
likely that these forms should be analyzed as nif al.
(c) Forms without reduplication are attested: Wmz]y ; (instead of the expected
*yazmmu; root zmm) they intend Gen 11:6; hl:b}n; (instead of the expected
*nablla; root bll) let us confuse Gen 11:7.
(d) Both the rst and second radical may be doubled: WTK"&yu they will be
crushed Job 4:20; WBSE&Y'w' and they turned Judg 18:23.
4.3.8.8.2. The fact that four different kinds of formation are attested in
these verbs, in addition to their alternation with II-w/y verbs (itself a verbal
class of at least partial biradical origin; see 4.3.8.7.1.1, p. 252), makes the biradical origin of mediae geminatae verbs very likely as well. Many verbal
forms, such as bS"yi he turns around in nif al, can hardly be derived from a triradical base.
4.3.8.8.2n. On the other hand, it seems that Bergstrsser (191829: 2.141) went too far
when he claimed that bsy; represents a biradical base, since *yasbubu could not have de-
259
Absolute Mediae
Innitive;
Geminatae
Verbal Themes
Verbs 4.3.8.8.6.
veloped into *yasubbu ( > BHeb bsy); . As a matter of fact, yastatiru he will hide, in a
rather parallel way, dialectically developed into yasattiru, thus attesting the possibility
that *yasubbu stemmed from *yasbubu. See Blau 1969b: 39 = Middle Arabic, 362.
4.3.8.8.3. As for the formation of piel, pual, and hitpael, see above,
4.3.8.7.5, pp. 256ff.
4.3.8.8.4. In the qal, action and stative verbs are clearly differentiated:
On the one hand, stative verbs, having a in all their forms, are merely conjugated adjectives (cf. above, 4.3.8.8.1, p. 258) and are not formed in accordance with the structure of the strong verbs (no forms such as *qallu, *qolel
are attested). Action verbs, on the other hand, that exhibit u (o) in the prextense (bsy); do have forms identical to those of the strong verb (hb:b}s:, Wbb}s:,
bbE/s). In the light of the qal forms ytI/NG " and /nG:, ge y ; he defends must be interpreted historically as the i(e)-prex-tense of the qal, which was synchronically understood as hif il (and, in Rabbinic Hebrew, gave rise to the genuine
hif il forms gehE, gemE). Thus, the prex-tense of the qal conforms to Barths
Law: yif al (lq' y)e as against yaf ul / yaf il (bsy;, gey); (see above, 4.3.5.2.3.1,
p. 221).
4.3.8.8.5. As stated, it is the second radical that is generally doubled (in
the qal, nif al, hif il, and hof al; for the different formation of the piel,
pual, and hitpael, see 4.3.8.7.4.2, p. 256). The doubling does not take
place in word-nal position (such as bsy;, bsEhE, etc.), which does not permit
doubling (see above, 3.5.11.3, p. 139), or in word-internal position when the
second radical is vowelless: hn;b}sE&T:. It is difcult to interpret this detail historically. It may be secondary, due to the effect of II-w/y verbs (hn;m}q&T
E :), or a
result of the intention to avoid a deviant form (*tasebbna does not conform
to any pattern). However, it may be original, reecting an archaic biradical
formation.
4.3.8.8.6. As in II-w/y verbs (see 4.3.8.7.4.2, p. 256), the vocalic sufxes
of the nite verb forms are unstressed, because the penultimate syllable,
being closed by the doubling of the second radical, preserved the original penultimate stress. The same process occurred in II-w/y verbs with a long penultimate syllable: hL:q'& (in contrast to the participle hL:&q"), WLq"&, WLq"&T,E yBIs&T:, hB:s"&n;
(in contrast to the participle hB:&s"n], the vowel of the n being reduced because of
its distance from the stress), hB:s&h
E E (in contrast to the participle hB:&sIm}, the
vowel of the m being reduced because of its distance from the stress), hB:s"&Wh
(in contrast to the participle hB:&s"Wm).
4.3.8.8.6n. For the connective vowel o in the sufx-tense rst and second persons (preceding a consonantal sufx), as in ytI/B&s", ytI/B&s"n], ytI/B&sIh, ytI/B&s"Wh, and the (optional) connective vowel in the 2fp and 3fp of the prex-tense (as hn;yB<&sUT}, hn;yB<&sIT}), which is even
more frequent than in II-w/y verbs (ytI/m&yqIh, hn;ym<&yqIT}), see 4.3.8.7.2.7, p. 254; 4.3.8.7.3.3,
p. 255. Note that, in contradistinction to II-w/y verbs, the connective vowel o occurs in qal
as well.
4.3.8.8.7. Mediae Geminatae Verbs; the Noun, Synopsis
260
4.3.8.8.7. The nif al (in all likelihood, of biradical origin) has a after the
rst radical in the sufx-tense (and a in the participle), which alternates with
ere: lq"n; / lqEn; it was easy. However, forms with o are also attested: WZb&n;w ]
and they will be plundered. Thus is the situation in the prex-tense/imperative as well: as a rule, a prevails (K"aI I will bow), which, in the root ll only,
interchanges with e: ljETE she is deled Lev 21:9 (in contrast to lj: y e [in pause]
Isa 48:11); o is rare: Isa 24:3 z/BTI z/BhI it will indeed be plundered (note the
plene spelling!).
4.3.8.8.8. In the hif il, a prevails in the 3ms of the sufx-tense, e in the
prex-tense: lq"hE, lqEy; to make (it) light. However, e occurs in the sufxtense as well: ljEhE he began.
4.3.8.8.9. The hof al is characterized by u: cf. 4.3.8.7.4.3, p. 256.
4.4. The Noun

4.4.1. A Synopsis
4.4.1.1. In the Semitic languages in general, and in Biblical Hebrew in particular, the line between substantives and adjectives is rather blurred. Generally speaking, adjectives are closer to verbs than to substantives (cf. stative
verbs, which often merely are conjugated adjectives; cf. above, 4.3.2.2.9,
p. 194). As is the case with verbs, the structure of triradical adjectives is rather
developed, and certainly more than is true of substantives. The marking of
gender is more uniform in adjectives than in substantives: adjectives without
the feminine sufx are always masculine, those with the feminine sufx always feminine (l/dG: big is always masculine, hl:/dG} always feminine; this
applies to participles as well: btE/K is always masculine, tb<t<&/K, hb:t}/K always
feminine). Similarly, the marking of the plural is more uniform: y-i in adjectives (and participles) always marks masculine plural, t/- feminine plural
(ylI/dG}, t/l/dG], etc.). This, however, is not always the case with substantives,
though it is the prevalent pattern. For details, see below, 4.4.2, pp. 263265.
4.4.1.1n. Pace Kienast (2001: 7380, especially p. 77), who, relying on Akkadian, separates substantival and adjectival nominal forms. Nevertheless, in order to apply his thesis
to the Semitic languages, he is forced to posit quite unlikely sound shifts, as if in Hebrew
qal had shifted to qaal, thus supposing an unpredictable behavior of qal, which, according to Kienast, developed into both qaal and q!l (Kienast 2001: 85, par. 77.2b; 89, par.
84.1). Moreover, he is compelled to impose Modern Arabic word structure on Classical
Arabic noun formation, in order to justify the use of qatal as a noun, rather than as an adjective, as if it arose by anaptyxis from Modern Arabic qatl devoid of case endings (Kienast 2001: 100105). Not only does he predate the inuence of Modern Arabic; he also
posits random conduct for qatl, which, according to Kienast, was sometimes retained and
sometimes shifted to qatal; see 4.4.1.7, pp. 262263.
Adjectives that apply to feminine only may exceptionally not exhibit feminine gender,
such as lWKv bD (female) bear robbed of offspring 2 Sam 17:8.
Connection of Nouns and Verbs 4.4.1.4.
261
4.4.1.2. We distinguish between primitive and derived nouns. Primitive

nouns, such as v name, are not derived from any other word. Derived
nouns are either deverbal (when stemming from a verb, such as hb:h:a love
from bh"a: to love; h[:De& knowledge from [d'y; to know), or denominal
(when derived from another noun, such as reK vinedresser from r,K<& vineyard; tVq " bowman from tvq <& bow).
4.4.1.3. The morphological connection between nouns and verbs was
studied at the end of the nineteenth century by two scholars, P. de Lagarde
(1889) in his bersicht ber die im Aramischen, Arabischen und Hebrischen bliche Bildung der Nomina, and by J. Barth in his Die Nominalbildung
in den semitischen Sprachen (2nd ed., 1894a). The rst part of Barths book
was published in the same year as de Lagardes work; the second part appeared in 1891. Barths entire book appeared in a second edition (with indexes) in 1894. According to de Lagarde, nouns relate either to the imperative
or to the sufx-tense; according to Barth, nouns relate either to the prextense or to the sufx-tense. Since, for all practical purposes, the imperative
and the prex-tense are structurally alike, the differences between the two
methods are not striking. Because Barths book is more comprehensive and
much better known, we will content ourselves with citing Barths method
(which, in many respects, also represents de Lagardes method).
4.4.1.4. Barth stresses the fact that nouns of the same pattern may denote a
state or an action; thus rysIa: prisoner and dyqIP: overseer are both of the
pail pattern. However, the rst denotes a state, the second an action, prima
facie, in clear contradistinction to the verb, in which state and action are
sharply differentiated in both the sufx-tense and the prex-tense (which is
identical to the imperative). The characteristic vowel of the verb (i.e., the
vowel following the second radical) marks the opposition state : action (see
4.3.5.2.2.1, p. 220; 4.3.5.2.3.1, p. 221). In the sufx-tense, i/u (e/o) indicate
state, whereas a indicates action. In the prex-tense (and the imperative) i/u
(e/o) indicate action; a indicates state:
sufx-tense
prex-tense
Pattern of State
Pattern of Action
pail / paul
yif al
paal
yaf ul(/yaf il)
Barth bridges this difference between nouns and verbs in the following way:
in nouns also, the vowel after the second radical is the characteristic vowel.
(In monosyllabic nouns, of course, the only vowel is the characteristic one,
such as i in *sipr book [> rp<sE&]). Accordingly, i is the characteristic vowel of
rysIa: / dyqIP:. (Of course, the long i is nothing but a lengthened form of originally short i.) He connects the structure of the noun with that of the verb and
4.4.1.5. Connection of Nouns and Verbs
262
claims that any noun in which, e.g., characteristic i marks state is related to the
sufx-tense, because it is in the sufx-tense that i indicates state. In contrast,
i signifying action has to be connected to the prex-tense, in which i is the
marker of action. Accordingly, rysIa: is related to the sufx-tense, dyqIP: to the
prex-tense.
4.4.1.5. Many scholars criticized Barths (and Lagardes) method. First, it
was claimed, it cannot be disproved (and therefore it cannot be demonstrated,
either). Every noun denotes either an action or a state and contains either a or
i/u (or their derivatives). Since in verbs any of these vowels may mark either
action or state (depending on whether it occurs in the sufx or the prex-tense),
the attribution of any noun to one of these tenses gives rise to a vicious circle.
Moreover, though Barth speaks only of the relation between verbs and nouns,
this classication creates the impression that nouns, in general, are derived
from verbs. However, the facts are much more complex since, alongside deverbal nouns, denominal verbs are by no means exceptional. Moreover, the assumption that the characteristic vowel of a noun is always identical to that of
a verbal form from which it is (allegedly) derived is by no means necessary.
Morphological derivation may be accompanied by apophony (i.e., vowel
change, the derived form reecting a different vowel). This has especially been
stressed by J. Kurylowicz (1961; English adaptation, 1972), passim.
4.4.1.6. Despite these qualications, one must not lose sight of the merits of
Barths work. In many cases in which there is a historical relation between
nominal and verbal forms (which is not necessarily the result of derivation),
Barths method enables the linguist to recognize this relation and to uncover
hidden connections (as in the case of rk<ze < *zikr, the i of which enables us to
postulate an archaic qal prex-tense *yazkir and thus understand why the Biblical Hebrew hif il ryKIz]y ' corresponds in other Semitic languages to [the more
original] qal; for details, see 4.3.5.2.3.2, p. 223; and Blau 1961: 8186). Thus,
despite its far-reaching schematization, Barths system has great merits in laying bare many hidden relations in the eld of nouns. Moreover, his book is the
clearest systematic arrangement of nouns in the eld of Semitics.
4.4.1.7. Recently, Kienast (2001: 7180), basing his analysis on Akkadian,
has suggested a different classication, in which substantives and adjectives.
are differentiated. He does not derive the noun from the verb; on the contrary,
he derives verbal forms from adjectival nominal forms (p. 334). Since, however, a strict separation of substantives and adjectives is contradicted both by
Biblical Hebrew and the other Semitic languages (see above, 4.4.1.1n,
p. 260), it is difcult to accept Kienasts derivation. The cornerstone of Kienasts theory is the adjective qaal, from which verbal forms are allegedly derived; however, qaal has a substantival nature in most Semitic languages. In
addition, he is forced to posit quite unlikely sound shifts in order to apply his
thesis to the various Semitic languages. In Hebrew, for example, he argues
263
Gender 4.4.2.3.
that qal shifted to qaal, thus conjecturing an unpredictable behavior for qal,
which, according to him, developed into both qaal and q!l (Kienast 2001:
85, par. 77.2b; 89, par. 84.1). Moreover, he is compelled to impose Modern
Arabic word structure on Classical Arabic noun formation in order to justify
the use of qatal as a noun, rather than as an adjective, as if it arose by anaptyxis from Modern Arabic qal devoid of case endings (Kienast 2001: 1005).
Not only does he anachronistically apply the inuence of Modern Arabic, but
he also posits random conduct for qal, which, according to him, was sometimes retained and sometimes shifted to qaal.
4.4.2. Gender
4.4.2.1. In Biblical Hebrew, as in the other Semitic languages, there are
two genders: masculine and feminine. Gender is a grammatical category that
formally marks agreement between words in a sentence; thus, its primary
function is syntactic. As is true of many languages with gender, the gender of
substantives in Biblical Hebrew sometimes correlates with the natural sex of
animate beings. But this correspondence is only partial; more broadly, all
nouns, including inanimate objects, are classied as grammatically masculine
or feminine. Therefore, not only animate beings are either masculine (like vyaI
man) or feminine (like hVaI woman), but also inanimate objects (such as
j:l}v table masculine, aSEKI chair masculine, r,a<& earth, land feminine,
hvB:y' dry land feminine).
4.4.2.2. Some scholars surmise that in the Semitic languages, including
Biblical Hebrew, there originally existed a much broader system of nominal
classication (as is reected, for example, in the complex nominal categories
of the Bantu languages), and thus masculine and feminine are only the residues
of this system. It has also been claimed that the sufx -at originally marked singularity (nomen unitatis), in opposition to collective nouns with zero ending
(masculine nouns; cf. Kienast 2001: 131, 122.1). Perhaps nouns with the
-at sufx are derived from (masculine) nouns with zero ending and their signication results from their opposition to the latter. That is, in opposition to the
masculine l<m<& king, hK:l}m" denotes queen; in contrast to the collective noun
r[:c hair, the feminine hr;[c marks a single hair, whereas hg;D,; being derived from gD; a single sh, has a collective meaning.
4.4.2.3. In some cases, the possibility has been considered that sufxes of
a different nature were interpreted as marking the feminine by metanalysis.
However, no certain cases of this kind are known. H. Bauer (1914: 37172)
had the ingenious idea that the double parts of the body became feminine in
the Semitic languages, because the 3md *paala of the sufx-tense (which is
also the corresponding dual form in Classical Arabic) was reinterpreted as
3fp (which in Proto-Semitic was indeed *paala). In the Semitic languages
4.4.2.4. Gender
264
(especially Arabic), in general, and in Biblical Hebrew, in particular, the feminine ending, as mentioned above, is used to mark nomen unitatis. According
to Bauer again (see Bauer-Leander 1922: 511z), the ending marking nomen
unitatis was originally different from the feminine ending (perhaps being related to Arabic taww single [thing]), but was reinterpreted as the feminine
ending, and so the nouns with this ending were transferred to the feminine
category. We have already seen (see 4.2.4.5.2, p. 179) that the nal -t ending
of tazO this (feminine) was possibly originally a demonstrative element with
no gender distinction, which was reinterpreted as the feminine sufx.
4.4.2.4. As a rule, masculine nouns do not have an ending (i.e., they have
a zero ending, e.g., l<m<& king). Feminine nouns terminate either in the
stressed -a sufx, as in hK:l}m" queen, derived originally from -at, which is still
preserved in non-nal position, when preceding pronominal sufxes (/tK:l}m"),
and even in construct (where it stands in internal open juncture: ab:vAtK""l}m"
the queen of Sheba), or in -t, such as ydiWhy] Jew, tydiWhy] Jewess. This latter
ending is apt to give rise to segolate forms, as in tb<v& /y sitting < *yasibt;
t["m"&/v hearing < *samit. It stands to reason that these two feminine sufxes
are genetically related, -at being the original ending from which, under certain
phonetic conditions (caused by stress), the a was elided. The original conditioning of this elision has been blurred by widespread analogy, so that the
original constraints can no longer be reconstructed. In Biblical Hebrew, there
is a certain tendency to use -at (> -a) in the absolute, -t in the construct and
preceding pronominal sufxes (such as *mamlakat > hk:l:m}m" kingdom in the
absolute, tk<l<m
& }m" < *mamlakt in the construct, and yTIk}l"m}m").
4.4.2.4n. Cf. 4.3.3.4.64.3.3.4.8, pp. 210211. In exceptional cases, -at has not shifted
to -a. It was, e.g., preserved in (original) adverbs such as tr;jm: the morrow (originally:
tomorrow), because as an adverbial marker it was felt necessary (cf. Blau 1979a: 10 =
Topics, 29, par. 2.3.1). It is also preserved in poetic usage (tq'r]B: emerald, alternating
with tq<r,&B:) and especially in proper nouns (tp"r]x:), presumably borrowed from another dialect that preserved -at.
For the unstressed nominal ending -a (h-:), see below, 4.4.4.13, p. 269.
4.4.2.5. Some very archaic feminine nouns lack a special ending, not only
those denoting feminine beings (such as aE mother, /ta: she-ass), but
others as well, such as b<a<& stone, r,a<& earth (see above, 4.4.2.1, p. 263),
ry[I city, /Bri ten thousand, p<G,& vine. This is especially the case with nouns
denoting the double parts of the body (see above, 4.4.2.3, p. 263), such as dy;
hand, lg,r,& foot and also names of countries and towns. Some nouns (such as
r,D,& way, j'Wr spirit, wind, vm<v& sun) are both feminine and masculine.
Masculine nouns with the feminine ending are exceptional. Similarly exceptional is tl<h<&q (perhaps originally the name of the ofce collection, if the
feminine ending does not have an intensive force as in Arabic), as in tl<h<&q rm"a:
Qohelet said Eccl 1:2, in contrast to tl<h<&q hr;m}a: Eccl 7:27, where the gram-
265
Statuses 4.4.3.2.
matical ending has prevailed over the sense. Strangely enough, hr;/m razor is
construed as masculine in /varAl[" hl<[y'Aal hr;/mW and no razor will come
upon his head 1 Sam 1:11.
4.4.3. Statuses: Absolute, Construct, Pronominal

4.4.3.1. The normal position of nouns, when they do not stand in a special
relationship to a following noun, is the status absolutus. If, however, a noun
is proclitic, forming a stress unit with the following noun (which stands in the
same relation to it as the genitive stands to its govegrning noun in languages
with case inection), it stands in the construct (status constructus). Since in
the construct no pretonic lengthening occurs and the noun behaves as if stress
were on the following (governed) noun, it is often quite different from the absolute: Arb"D] the speech of as opposed to the absolute rb:D;; tq' d]xI (with the
construct feminine ending) righteousness of as opposed to the absolute
hq:d;x}. Moreover, as these examples demonstrate, the nal closed syllables of
absolute nouns contain a long vowel, those of the construct a short vowel (see
3.5.7.1.5, p. 120).
4.4.3.1n. It is not the case that construct nouns are proclitic according to the biblical cantillation marks; this, however, is no doubt due to the solemn, ceremonial reading of the
Bible. In everyday speech, especially in quick conversation, the construct was often devoid of stress and formed one stress unit with the following noun (the nomen rectum),
which bore the stress of both nouns. Cf. 3.5.7.6.10, p. 131. The construct noun is also
proclitic in Biblical Hebrew when the construct is hyphenated. On the other hand, the fact
that Philippis Law (see 3.5.8.6, p. 133) operates in construct nouns attests that they are
in fact stressed. One should not be surprised by the operation of Philippis Law in hyphenated construct nouns, as is the case, e.g., in /YxIAtB" the daughter of Zion. The vowel of
the stressed construct noun was changed by Philippis Law and afterward the noun became hyphenated.
4.4.3.2. The status pronominalis, i.e., the status of nouns governing pronominal sufxes (which perform a function similar to that of English possessive pronouns), resembles the construct, not only in function but also in form.
It exhibits a shift of stress (which rests on the pronominal sufx or the vowel
connecting it with the noun) and the feminine ending -at. Pretonic lengthening is excluded only before the so-called heavy sufxes k<-, k<- (and h<-,
h<-; e.g., k<&d]y), , whereas it may occur before the others (the light sufxes),
because the noun forms one word with its pronominal sufxes (i.e., they stand
in internal close juncture). Therefore, pretonic lengthening acts as it does in
simple words, whereas the construct and the nomen rectum stand in internal
open juncture and, therefore, in the construct no pretonic lengthening occurs.
For the connecting vowels, see the following section (4.4.4.6, p. 268).
4.4.3.2n. The heavy sufxes are invariably stressed. The sufx - attached to singular
nouns (such as in &d]y); bears the stress as well, but this stress is secondary (see 3.5.12.2.8,
4.4.4. Cases
266
p. 147). The original penultimate stress has also been preserved in pause (d,&y); and in plural
nouns (yd,&y ; ).
4.4.4. The Cases

4.4.4.1. In many languages, nouns have grammatical markers that express
the relationship of the noun to the other words in the sentence. These markers
are called cases. According to the evidence from various Semitic languages
(Akkadian, Arabic, Ugaritic), there were at least three cases in Proto-Semitic
(but see below, 4.4.4.2), viz., nominative (also called the casus rectus), accusative, and genitive (also called the oblique cases, in opposition to the nominative, the casus rectus). The nominative is used in a relatively independent
position in the sentence, viz., as the subject (or in agreement with it) and as the
(nominal) predicate; the oblique cases, on the other hand, mark that the noun is
governed by another word. The accusative, as a rule, is governed by the verb
(casus adverbialis, in the full sense of the word, the case dependent on the
verb). Therefore it denotes the direct object, which is governed by the (transitive) verb, and the adverbial, which modies the verb. It is also used in interjections, originally often direct objects of a now-omitted verb. The genitive is
the casus adnominalis, the case dependent on a noun. Therefore, a noun governed by a construct (the nomen rectum; such as l<M<&h" in l<M<&h"Arb"D] the kings
commandment; cf. the Saxon genitive in English) originally stood in the
genitive, acting as possessor, source, etc., of the construct. Historically, most
prepositions were nouns in construct in adverbial function (cf. 4.2.3.3.2,
p. 170; 5.1.1, p. 283). Therefore, prepositions themselves originally stood in
the adverbial accusative, the nouns governed by them (being originally nouns
governed by the construct) in the genitive. This construct function of the
prepositions is reected even in their vocalization; cf., e.g., tM"[Ul} close to
(e.g., hx<[:h< tM"[Ul} close to the backbone Lev 3:9), terminating in the construct
(feminine) ending -at.
4.4.4.2. According to the evidence from Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Arabic,
the case endings of the singular were -u in the nominative, -a in the accusative (including adverbial usage), and -i in the genitive. In addition to these
three main cases, there was an adverbial case with an -u ending, presumably
surviving in Biblical Hebrew in at}PI suddenly, v l}v the day before yesterday. Originally, this adverbial ending was also used with the absolute innitive preceding a nite verb, as indicated by Akkadian and Ugaritic (as in
T:k}l"&h: lh: indeed you went < *halaku halakta).
4.4.4.2n. Kienast (2001: 179, par. 162.7) identies this adverbial case with the nominative, claiming that this identication suggests that early Semitic was ergative. He compares the English preposition by, which has agentive function denoting the logical
subject in the temple was built by the king but locative signication in the temple was
built by the river and instrumental meaning in the temple was built by bricks. Such a
267
Mimation 4.4.4.4.
comparison, however, seems inappropriate, reecting that sort of excessive application of

the term ergative that has infected linguistic literature since the late 1960s. Cf. also
M. Waltisberg 2002: 162.
4.4.4.3. The omission of short nal vowels affected the case endings in two
stages. First, nal i/u were omitted, but a was retained, giving rise to the
opposition -a (= accusative, including adverbial) : W (representing nominative/
genitive, including vocative). Later, nal -a was elided as well.
4.4.4.3n. For the greater stability of a, which resulted in its being omitted after i/u, cf.
3.5.7.2.3n, p. 122.
In the cohortative, a was preserved; cf. 4.3.2.2.6, p. 192. In the case system, the paradigmatic pressure to preserve nal short vowels was less evident. On the one hand, the
former genitive was rather superuous (it was sufciently indicated by the preceding construct or preposition). On the other hand, the former accusative in the function of direct
object was quite clearly differentiated from the subject not only by word order (following,
as a rule, the subject) but also by taE, the facultative marker of the denite direct object.
4.4.4.4. In Classical Arabic, determinate nouns terminate in the case vowels

u/a/i; in indeterminate nouns, these vowels are followed by a nal n (called
nunation): un/an/in. In Sabaic, a dialect of Epigraphic South Arabian, mimation, i.e., nal-m (um/am/im), corresponds to nunation and is attached to indeterminate nouns as well. In Akkadian, however, in which the category of
determinate nouns is wanting altogether, mimation is used in general with
nouns (except for nouns in construct). There are some vestiges of mimation in
Canaanite: the earliest Egyptian transcriptions of Jerusalem as Urusalimim occur around 1800 b.c.e. It is not clear whether this mimation was used with
indeterminate nouns (and then extended to proper nouns, as was nunation in
Arabic) or employed, as in Akkadian, in nouns in general (except in nouns in
construct and preceding pronominal sufxes). Prima facie, forms such as
at}P,I v l}v (see above, 4.4.4.2, p. 266) suggest the possible existence of mimation in Hebrew, as do N;jI gratuitously, m:/y by day, n;m}a/U n;m}a: truly (cf.
also q:yre emptily, vainly). At any rate, it was omitted very early, as one may
infer from the lack of any indication of it after 1800 b.c.e. A hint of the former
use of mimation in Biblical Hebrew in every position except in the construct
can be seen in the alternate forms for father and brother (as suggested by
R. Steiner): the construct forms have long -i in ybIa father of and yjIa brother
of, but the long vowel is absent in the absolute forms (ba: , ja: ). If indeed mimation obtained in the absolute in general, then the u, etc., of *abum, *aum
was shortened (being in a closed syllable; see above, 3.5.12.2.14n, p. 151) to
*abum and *aum to become, with the dropping of the mimation and the nal
short casevowels, ba:, ja:.
4.4.4.4n. In Minaic (as opposed to Sabaic), there is great freedom in the use or omission of
mimation. See A. F. L. Beeston 1962: 31, par. 27.3/4; 1984: 3031, par. 14.2/3.
One cannot exclude the possibility that in Proto-Semitic mimation/nunation occurred
with determinate nouns only, because indeterminate nouns had no case endings. (We can
4.4.4.5. Cases
268
compare the use of taE with determinate nouns only, because it was deemed superuous to
mark indeterminate direct objects. This was perhaps the case because, as a rule, the subject was determinate and the opposition determinate : indeterminate was usually sufcient
for marking the opposition subject : object.) Later, in Akkadian, m became the common
sufx of ordinary nouns, whereas in Sabaic and Classical Arabic, m/n by further development became the markers of indeterminate nouns. Cf. Blau 1974: 34 = Studies, 362, 3.1
(end). Diem (1975: 23958) has presented convincing arguments that mimation originally
was characteristic of the singular; nunation, of the dual and plural. In many languages, this
original distinction (representing archaic heterogeneity) was leveled out: in some, m prevailed; in others, n. Therefore, mimation and nunation have to be treated together. In Biblical Hebrew, at any rate, -m prevailed in the dual and plural (whereas in Rabbinic Hebrew,
presumably through the inuence of Aramaic and/or the neutralization of the difference
between nal m and n, -n kept the upper hand).
Biblical Hebrew q; yre corresponds to El-Amarna riqami. This comparative evidence
and the oxytone stress of words with -am attest to the omission of a nal (short) vowel. Cf.
the theory (cited also by Kienast 2001: 144, par. 139.5) that mimation stems from ma. This
theory, however, does not t the i of El-Amarna riqami. Cf. below, 4.4.4.12, p. 269.
4.4.4.5. In Akkadian, the construct lacks case vowels. In Biblical Hebrew

as well, the construct did not have case vowels at an early period, although the
absolute still had them, as demonstrated by the different behavior of *adayu
> hd,c in contrast to construct hdec < *aday (see above, 3.4.5.5, p. 100;
3.5.7.1.5, p. 120; 4.3.8.6.6n, p. 250). It has been claimed that Proto-Hebrew
was also lacking case vowels in the construct. This claim, however, must be
rejected for the following reasons:
4.4.4.6. The so-called connective vowels in status pronominalis (as in
Wnde&y); are clearly vestiges of case endings. It cannot be claimed that they are
anaptyctic vowels, because this does not account for the different behavior of
the 3fs of the sufx-tense preceding pronominal sufxes without these vowels
(as Wnt}r'&m:v) .
4.4.4.7. In prepositions the connective vowel is sometimes a. This can
only be accounted for if we consider the connective vowels originally to
have been case endings. Prepositions, being originally adverbials in construct
(see above, 4.4.4.1, p. 266), terminated in -a, which was accordingly preserved (as in Wnl:& to us, WnM:&[I with us). Nouns, however, could be followed
by any case vowel and therefore a was much more restricted (Wnde&y,; rather than
*yada!nu).
4.4.4.7n. For the disposition of Biblical Hebrew to preserve a, see 3.5.7.2.3n, p. 122.
The qama in WnM:&[I, etc., is, it seems, due to the intrusion of the pausal form into the
contextual form.
4.4.4.8. The (long) i of the construct forms ybIa, yjIa (cf. above, 4.4.4.4,
p. 267) also hint that case vowels were being used in construct.
4.4.4.9. So far, we have based the existence of case vowels in the construct
on internal reconstruction. The case vowels attested in construct in Arabic and
Ugaritic also point in the same direction.
269
Cases 4.4.4.14.
4.4.4.10. We have already mentioned (above, 4.4.4.64.4.4.8, p. 268) the

vestiges of case endings that are preserved as connective vowels preceding
pronominal sufxes, as well as in the i in ybIa, yjIa in construct.
4.4.4.11. We have also mentioned (above, 4.4.4.2, p. 266; 4.4.4.4, p. 267)
adverbial -u preserved in at}P,I v l}v .
4.4.4.12. It has been often claimed that the adverbs N;j,I m:/y, n;m}a: / n;m}a,U
q: yre represent fossilized adverbial accusatives. The case endings, as a rule,
were redundant and therefore easily omitted. In adverbial function, however,
they continued to be markers of this grammatical category and were accordingly preserved (cf. Blau 1979a: 10 = Topics, 29, par. 2.3). It seems, however,
that these adverbials (partly at least) do not historically represent merely accusative endings plus mimation but accusative endings plus an adverbial ending
-mi. This is intimated not only by the El-Amarna transcription (EA 137:21)
riqami but also by the ultima stress in Biblical Hebrew, which (see above,
4.4.4.4n, p. 268) indicates that a nal vowel after the m was elided.
4.4.4.13. The terminative (unstressed) h-; (as in hx:r]a"& to the earth), occurs also in exclamations (such as hl:lI&j: far be it, literally, ad profanum!).
In poetry it became merely ornamental (as in ht:[:&Wvy] Jonah 2:10 help, and,
in one case, even in prose, where hl:y]l"&, originally at night, has superseded
lyil"& night). This ending was usually interpreted simply as an accusative ending and the h as a vowel letter. However, its spelling in the consonantal script
of Ugarit with h (as hxra") proves that it should be interpreted as terminating
in an originally consonantal h. Since the h was later elided, such an elision occurs, as a rule, in internal open juncture (see above, 3.3.5.3.3.4, p. 92), it appears that it has to be analyzed as being composed of the accusative a and the
adverbial ending h (without a following vowel, since the penultimate stress
intimates that no nal vowel was elided), and not as representing a single morpheme, the adverbial ending -ah.
4.4.4.13n. For the behavior of the terminative ending, see Blau 1992 = Studies, 8993.
4.4.4.14. Especially in poetic style, construct nouns terminate in the

ending -i (as in /nta yniB} his asss colt Gen 49:11), and sometimes -o
(r,a<&A/ty]j"w ] and beast of the earth Gen 1 :24; r[b} /nB} the son of Beor Num
24:3). Many scholars consider these endings to be archaic case endings that
were preserved in internal open juncture (see D. Robertson 1969: 21123 for
bibliographical details), in contrast to the otherwise early disappearance of
case endings in the construct. H. Bauer (as well as Bauer-Leander 1922: 525)
surmised that r[b} /nB} must be interpreted historically as containing an anticipatory pronoun, viz., his son, i.e., Beor(s). Then this -o became fossilized
and was used even when preceding a noun that is not masculine singular,
such as r,a<&A/ty]j." However, Bauers opinion that the -i of (/nta) yniB} also was
a (dialectal) pronominal sufx (as occurs in Phoenician inscriptions) is very
4.4.5. Cases; Dual
270
unlikely. J. Barth regards -i/-o as stemming from nouns such as ybIa, yjIa, or ymIj
father-in-law of. The difculty, however, is that -o does not occur in these
nouns. For the time being, at least, the origin of these endings remains unclear.
4.4.5. Dual and Plural

4.4.5.1. The dual is an archaic feature of the Semitic languages. It eventually disappeared in most Semitic languages and was replaced by the plural. A
very wide usage of the dual is attested in Classical Arabic (and probably also
in Ugaritic), where it was used productively not only with substantives but
also with pronouns, verbs, and adjectives. The question then arises whether
this wide usage was attested already in Proto-Semitic or whether the dual was
originally limited to substantives (or perhaps even to certain substantives),
and its extension to the other parts of speech is due to a later analogical development.
4.4.5.1n. See C. Fontinoy (1969) passim.
4.4.5.2. In Biblical Hebrew, the dual is not productive and thus the use of
the dual is very limited (be it a reection of the Proto-Semitic situation, a return to it, or a limitation of it). The dual is attested only with certain substantives: nouns denoting measure (yit"&M:a" two cubits), time (yim"&/y two days,
yit"&n;v two years), nouns consisting of two parts (yin'z]am scales) or occurring as a rule in pairs (yil"&[n' a pair of sandals), and especially the double
parts of the body (yid'&y ; hands, yil"&g]r' feet). In the latter class, the dual was so
frequent that its form partly superseded the form of the plural so that the form
of the dual was used even when it referred to more than two, as in yip"&n;K} vv
six wings Isa 6:2. Nevertheless, the use of the dual is not always productive
even for paired body parts (in contrast to its use in Arabic); cf., e.g., MEa"T}w'
h:yt<&/[rz] and she strengthened her arms Prov 31:17.
4.4.5.2n. H. Blanc used the term pseudo-dual (1970) to refer to the use of the dual for
the plural, because synchronically and functionally the sufx yi-'& ceased to indicate a dual
(i.e., it does not refer to two of something) and instead came to denote any number more
than one (i.e., it has the function of the plural). Perhaps the term ex-dual is more appropriate; see below, 4.4.5.6n, p. 271.
4.4.5.3. The dual morpheme is yi-'& < *-aym.

4.4.5.4. The original form of the dual morpheme was *-ayn. The nal -m
is due to the analogical inuence of the singular (see 4.4.4.4n, p. 268).
4.4.5.5. According to the evidence from the other Semitic languages, the
nominative ending of the dual was -ani and that of the oblique case was
-ayni. In Biblical Hebrew, as generally in Semitic languages that lost case
endings, the oblique case ending, representing two cases and therefore being
more frequent, superseded the nominative ending. The dual ending is added to
271
Dual 4.4.5.7.
the singular noun (dy; - yid'&y); . The feminine ending is preserved before the dual
ending (yit"&n;v). In construct and status pronominalis the -n is omitted (cf. below, 4.4.5.7.1, p. 272).
4.4.5.6. The form yir'&hx: noon does not reect a historical dual. We can
see this clearly on the basis of the Moabite Mesha inscription, where the dual
(and the plural) are formed by nunation (e.g., tam two hundred line 20,
[bra forty line 8). Accordingly, rhxh noon, which occurs in line 15 of
the inscription, cannot be analyzed as terminating in a dual sufx but as having an adverbial ending, which is also added to place names, such as yil"v
& Wry],
yin'/rj. It is difcult to know whether yiB"&r]["h: yBE at dusk also exhibits this
adverbial ending (perhaps with the secondary addition of the preposition ben)
or is instead dual, denoting between sunset and darkness. The words yim"&v
heaven and yim"& water seem to be externally dual forms, reecting intricate
phonetic and morphological developments that are not easy to reconstruct. It
has been claimed (see Bauer-Leander 1922: 61920) that *may, the etymon of
yim,"& was reduplicated to form the plural *maymay. The reduplicated base become *meme by monophthongization, and from that form yim"& was derived by
back-formation (the nal -e was interpreted as the plural construct ending).
Since the words for water and heaven rhyme in most Semitic languages,
yim"&v could be interpreted as being formed according to the pattern of yim."&
However, for all their ingenuity, these derivations cannot be buttressed by any
facts.
4.4.5.6n. The term pseudo-dual best ts forms such as yir'&hx:. However, I prefer the term
ex-dual, rather than pseudo-dual, for the dual of the double parts of the body, since
they were once genuine duals (see above, 4.4.5.2n, p. 270).
For details on dual and plural in the Mesa inscription, see Blau 1979c: 14345 =
Topics, 34446. The mimation of the adverbial ending in Moabite intimates that originally
there was mimation in the singular but nunation in the dual and the masculine plural. This
language, then, so closely related to Biblical Hebrew, preserved the original Proto-Semitic
situation as to mimation (characteristic of the singular) and nunation (marking the dual
and the masculine plural).
Compare Arab al-isaani with BHeb yiB"&r]["h: YBE; however, in Arabic, dual forms a potiori are frequent (i.e., the use of the dual of a noun instead of the singular of this noun and
another noun related to it), whereas in Biblical Hebrew they are not attested.
For the primordial way of forming plural by reduplication, cf. the plural t/YpIyPI
(mouths >) edges from hP< mouth, to which the plural sufx -ot was added in addition to
the reduplication.
4.4.5.7. In Proto-Semitic, according to the evidence from some of the Semitic languages, the ending of the masculine plural was -una in the nominative case and -ina in the oblique case. In Biblical Hebrew, the original nunation
of the masculine plural (see above, 4.4.5.4) was superseded by mimation. After the disappearance of the case system, the oblique plural case supplanted the
4.4.5.7.1. Masculine Plural
272
nominative plural (as happened also in dual; see above, 4.4.5.5, pp. 270271):
-im, as in ysIWs horses.
4.4.5.7.1. In Akkadian, the masculine-plural substantives have the endings
-u in the nominative and -i in the oblique case, without either mimation or nunation. This archaic lack of mimation (nunation) is preserved in Biblical Hebrew (and other Semitic languages) in construct and preceding pronominal
sufxes (where the nal -e is used also as the plural construct ending): AysEWs,
k<ysEWs. As these examples show, the masculine plural in construct and in status pronominalis has the dual ending: AysEWs < *susay- (such as ydey ] the hands
of < *yaday) instead of the expected *susi, and k<ysEWs instead of the expected
*susikm. This replacement of the original plural sufxes by the dual endings
should not surprise us. Because the dual is very frequent with pronominal sufxes (e.g., with the double parts of the body) and because it also could be used
to denote more than two (see above, 4.4.5.2, p. 270), its intrusion into the
domain of the original plural is not unexpected. As a rule, this -ay is monophthongized (AysEWs, k<ysEWs), but preceding qama it shifts to segol by assimilation (ys<&Ws, h:ys<&Ws) (see above, 3.5.10.4, p. 137); it is preserved only with the
1s pronominal sufx, because originally the y was doubled: *susay-ya > ys"Ws.
4.4.5.7.1n. In Akkadian, the dual also has nunation in the absolute, but the construct state
and status pronominalis are devoid of it. Cf. BHeb -e < *-ay, originally the oblique case,
which has superseded the nominative -a (for this feature, see 4.4.5.5, pp. 270271). For
residues of this -a, see 4.5.1.11, p. 282. The sufx -u has been preserved in Biblical Hebrew in the plural of the nite forms of the verb (Wrm}v, Wrm}vyi, Wrm}v).
4.4.5.7.2. Some nouns are pluralia tantum, substantives used in the plural
only, such as yniP: face, yYij" life, yriW[n] youth, etc. The form yhIla is a
pluralis maiestatis, an intensive plural of rank, as is yni/da lord, master Mal
1:6, especially with pronominal sufxes, as in wyn;da his lord. These plurals
pattern syntactically as singulars (as in t"n; k<ybIa yhElawe k<yhEla your God and
the God of your father gave Gen 43:23; lpEno h<yneda their lord fell Judg 3:25).
4.4.5.7.2n. The term yn;da my God as opposed to ynida my lord is used to distinguish divine reference from human. The genuine plural is yn'da my lords Gen 19:2.
4.4.5.7.3. As stated above (4.1.2.1n, p. 157; 4.4.1.1, p. 260), it is only in

adjectives that the masculine plural always signies masculine gender and the
feminine plural always signies feminine gender. With substantives, however, the plural ending -im is sometimes added to feminine nouns: hVaI
woman, plural yvn;; vg,l<&PI concubine, plural yvg]l"PI. This is especially frequent with species of fauna and ora, as in hn;/y dove, plural yni/y; hF:jI
wheat, plural yFIjI; hr;[c barley, plural yri[c. These singulars were originally not real feminines but apparently nomina unitatis (collective nouns), the
plurals perhaps being derived from the sufxless bases.
273
Feminine Plural 4.4.5.10.
4.4.5.7.3n. The fact that masculine-plural and feminine-plural sufxes on adjectives always denote masculine and feminine gender, respectively, is no doubt a late analogical
feature, since the addition of plural endings to adjectives is itself a late feature, which
arose by attraction to the substantive that the adjective modies.
4.4.5.8. According to the evidence from Akkadian and Classical Arabic,

the feminine plural terminated in -atu in the nominative, and -ati in the
oblique. By dint of the Canaanite shift and the elision of nal short vowels, it
became -ot in Biblical Hebrew. The -t appears to be identical to the feminine
morpheme, as also suggested by the fact that -a(t) of the fs is omitted before
-ot: hY;j" animal, plural t/Yj". Preceding pronominal sufxes, the masculineplural morpheme -e (originally the dual; see above, 4.4.5.7.1) is added to -ot,
as in yt<&mx}[" your bones. In the 3p, original t:/ba alternates with later
h<ytE/ba. Many masculine nouns form their plural with -ot, as in t/ba: fathers, t/mqm} places.
4.4.5.9. In the Southwest Semitic languages (Arabic, South Arabian, and
Ethiopic), the plural is often formed by the use of patterns different from the
singular rather than by attaching a plural sufx. This strategy is the so-called
broken or internal plural. Apparently, these broken plurals were originally
(mostly) collective nouns, and is likely that the southern dialects developed
the strategy of broken plurals from a nucleus of collective nouns that had existed in Proto-Semitic. The beginnings of some broken plurals can be discerned in Biblical Hebrew as well: e.g., r]Wkz]AlK: ha<r;y e all your males will
appear, Exod 23:17, where the collective nature of r]Wkz] is hinted at by the
singular ha<r;y,e though verbs preceding plurals may occur in the singular.
4.4.5.9n. According to some scholars, the southern dialects preserved a Proto-Semitic (and
even Afroasiatic) feature, and the occurrences of broken plurals in Biblical Hebrew and
the other Semitic languages have to be considered residues. Nevertheless, the comparatively late age of the broken plurals is proven by their invariably triradical (or quadriradical) forms, whereas the plurals formed by addition of sufxes sometimes preserved biradical formations (see Blau 1978a: 2930 = Topics, 31617).
4.4.5.10. The so-called segolate nouns (monosyllabic nouns that lack a

vowel after the second radical, such as *malk > l<m<& king, hK:l}m" queen)
form their plurals with qama after the second radical: ykIl:m}, t/kl:m}. Although the pattern of these plural nouns is different from that of the singular,
they must not be considered broken plurals, because they terminate in the ordinary plural sufxes (mlakim, mlakot) and the attachment of these plural
sufxes is primary. This analysis is proven by Classical Arabic forms such as
ar land, plural arauna (a clear case of residue); wurfa(t) upper chamber,
plural wurafat.
4.4.5.10n. For exceptional monosyllabic formation of the plural of monosyllabic nouns
(without a after the second radical), see 4.5.1.11, p. 282.
4.4.6. Nominal Patterns
274
4.4.6. Nominal Patterns

4.4.6.1. It is customary to arrange the nominal patterns in accordance with
historical principles. Thus, nouns such as s/K < *kas cup and /[ < awp
fowl are separated, although synchronically they are identical, whereas the
latter noun is treated together with r,a<& < *ar earth, tyiB"& < *bayt house,
etc., although synchronically they are different. From a practical viewpoint of
learning nominal patterns, it generally seems more advantageous to arrange
the material synchronically (cf. also Z. Ben-ayyim 2000: 24042).
4.4.6.2. In a synchronic classication of noun patterns, it seems appropriate not to classify nouns according to the absolute only. Many changes occur
in the construct and before pronominal sufxes (owing to the shift of the
stress), and nouns exhibiting the same patterns in the absolute may behave
differently in their declension. Therefore, the form of the singular preceding
heavy sufxes will be added to the absolute form because it reects the
most far-reaching changes and is often identical to the construct. Accordingly,
rb:D; thing, for instance, will be classied as qaal, qal- (the last form reecting k<r]b"D] or the construct -rb"D]). Vowel length reects the pre-Tiberian
period, when vowel length was still phonemic (such as k:j: = akam wise in
contrast with k"j: = akam he was wise).
4.4.6.3. The division of nouns is primarily based on the absolute. Therefore, rb:D; thing and lm:G; camel will be cited in sequence, the former as qaal,
qal- (as mentioned above), the latter as qaal, qall- (according to k<L}m"G)} .
However, in segolate (i.e., originally monosyllabic) nouns, the absolute represents a later development, and in the segolates the pattern preceding pronominal sufxes preserved the original pattern. Therefore, the main criterion for
classifying segolate nouns is based on the status pronominalis. Consequently, it is expedient to classify q!l, qal- (l<m,<& k<K}l}m)" and q!al, qal([l"s<& rock, k<[l}s)" according to the qal pattern.
4.4.6.3n. *qal shifted by the opening of the nal consonant cluster by anaptyctic segol to
*qtl, which by assimilation of the a to the became *q!l.
One must not confuse diachronic and synchronic approaches. But when they happen to
coincide, this is advantageous, rather than problematic.
4.4.6.4. In evaluating the phonemic status of the segolate anaptyctic

vowel, one has to take into consideration its somewhat anachronistic attestation. It appears as early as the transcriptions of the Septuagint (third century
b.c.e., e.g., rt<G,& Gaqer), yet Origen (second century c.e.) transcribed these
words as terminating in a consonantal cluster (e.g., ls<KE& Cesl folly Ps
49:14). Now, it could be claimed that Origen reects a dialect different from
that of the Septuagint. This explanation, however, seems unnecessarily complicated. Instead, it seems much more likely that the opening of the cluster
was an early phonetic phenomenon that occurred in stress stage iii simulta-
275
Nominal Patterns 4.4.6.7.
neously with the omission of nal short vowels; however, the syllable formed
by the anaptyctic vowel did not count phonemically, and so these nouns remained phonemically monosyllabic. The Septuagint reects a phonetic transcription of the segolates, whereas Origen provides a phonemic transcription.
4.4.6.4n. The same analysis applies to pata furtivum, which is also an anaptyctic vowel
(see 3.3.3.2, p. 83). Compare the alternation of forms such as ['de&W;y i : [d'W;y,i reecting the
interchange of vowel + pata furtivum with a solitary vowel, thus intimating that the pata
furtivum does not count phonemically. In Arabic dialects as well, anaptyctic vowels often
change the phonetic but not the phonemic structure. For example, a syllable opened by an
anaptyctic vowel (a phonetic change) still behaves like a closed syllable with respect to
stress (the phonemic system). See, e.g., H. Grotzfeld 1964: 36; and Blau 1978b: 1023 =
Topics, 11516.
4.4.6.5. The most common nominal prex is m, which also occurs in

many participial forms. Very frequent patterns include maqal, maqel, miqal,
as in a:l}m" messenger, j'TEp}m" key, lD;g]mI tower, and the counterparts of
these patterns with the feminine ending, such as hk:l:m}m" kingdom, hn;[Evm"
support. Quite common although less frequent is the nominal t-prex, as in
BEvT" chequered work, usually with the feminine ending: hr;a:p}TI glory,
hm:Der]T" sleep, hp:WqT} circuit.
4.4.6.6. A noteworthy sufx used for noun formation is -on/-an. Historically, both sufxes represent -an; however, in the rst, a shifted to o, but in
the second sufx, it did not. Thus, sacrice is B:r]q:, originally *qurban, instead of *qurbon, perhaps owing to dissimilation to avoid the vowel sequence
u . . . o. Accordingly, one would have expected the second qama of B:r]q: to be
unchangeable. However, because the occurrence of original long a in Biblical
Hebrew after the shift of stressed a to o was rather restricted, original long,
unchangeable a tended to be inuenced by lengthened, changeable a (cf.
above, 3.5.7.6.11n, p. 132). This is the case with the a in the sufx of B:r]q:.
4.4.6.6n. Nonetheless, the explanation offered here does not account for a noun such as
vb}KI kiln or for the alternation of -an/-on in Aramaic; see Ben-ayyim (2000: 285
n. 56).
4.4.6.7. The historical qialon pattern is peculiar. It becomes qilon in all

its forms except the absolute singular, such as /rK:zi remembrance, -/rk}zi,
t/nrk}zi. Since geminated b, g, d, k, p, t does not become simple when followed
by swa (i.e., -/rk}zi cannot be derived from /rK:zi), one could interpret the declension of these nouns as reecting a mixture of the qialon and qilon patterns. However, it seems better to follow J. Barth (1984a: 324) in regarding
qalon as the basic pattern from which qialon, with secondary gemination,
was derived.
4.4.6.7n. Barths theory, however, does not account for the limitation of the gemination to
the absolute singular.
4.4.6.8. Nominal Patterns
276
4.4.6.8. The sufx -i (as in ydiWhy] Jewish, Jew, originally -iy), spelled Y-i
word-medially (hY;diWhy]), forms the relative adjective (also called by the Arabic
term nisba), denoting relation and connection. It is used, inter alia, to designate patronymics and tribal names, e.g., ydWhy] is derived from hd;Why]; as proved
by this example, the feminine ending is omitted preceding the nisba. Its mp
form is not only -iyyim but also, by dissimilation, -im (yYirib}[I alongside yrib}[I
Hebrews).
4.4.6.8n. The historical form must be considered iy rather than original -iyy, in light of the
parallel Aramaic -ay with a long vowel preceding the y.
Y-i in biblical spelling represents both -iyy and -iy (cf., e.g., yYiqIn] representing nqiyim).
4.4.6.9. The sufx -ut occurs especially in late Biblical Hebrew, apparently
inuenced by Aramaic words such as tWsK} covering. Originally, the sufx
was the feminine ending -t, added to nouns from III-w roots terminating in -u:
*ksu plus -t = ksut. By metanalysis (i.e., by a historically wrong analysis),
such a noun was interpreted as consisting of *ks plus -ut and then -ut was
added to other roots as well (such as tWkl}m" kingdom). The history of the sufx -it seems to be similar. It arose from III-y roots: bki plus t = tykIB} weeping, which was interpreted as *bk plus -it and then attached to other roots:
tyriaEv residue.
4.4.6.10. We have already dealt above with III-y nouns terminating in segol (he), arising from -ayu/-iyu (see 3.4.5.2, p. 99). Some singular forms
with pronominal sufxes are built as though they were plurals, since the original -ay- has been contracted to -e, such as y[<&re your companion (singular!),
wyc[ his Creator. For the singular construct form terminating in h-e (hc[),
see 3.4.5.5, p. 100. As for the plural forms, the situation has become, by extensive analogy, quite blurred. Forms with the elision of y, such as *oiyim,
*oiyot those who do > yc[, t/c[; *qanayim reeds > yniq:; *adayot
elds > t/dc, alternate with forms in which the y was analogically restored,
such as yyid;G } kids; yij:mUm} full of marrow Isa 25:6; t/yr;a lions; cf. also
t/YmIh (with secondarily geminated y) those who growl Prov 1:21, alongside
t/mh. From forms such as yc[, understood as composed by metanalysis
from *o plus -im, a new base o was derived, from which new forms with
pronominal sufxes were constructed: /c[, instead of wyc[.
4.4.6.11. In the following, we will cite some of the most important nominal
patterns, arranged according to synchronic principles, based on the absolute
singular and the singular preceding heavy sufxes (as described above,
4.4.6.24.4.6.3, p. 274):
4.4.6.11.1. qal, qal-: gD; sh:
k<ygeD]
yg,&D;
-ygeD]
ygiD;
k<g]D'
g] D;
AgD'
gD;
The feminine form is qala, qlat-: hn;v year:
. . . k<t}n'v t}n;v
Atn'v
hn;v
277
Nominal Patterns 4.4.6.11.12.
4.4.6.11.2. qal, qli-: ba: father, ja: brother:

k<ybIa
ybI&a:
AybIa
ba:
k<yjIa
yjI&a:
AyjIa
ja:
4.4.6.11.3. qal, qal-: b[: cloud:
k<ybE[:
yb<&[:
AybE[:
ybI[:
k<b}[: b}[: (!Ab[") Ab[:
b[:
The feminine form is qala, qalat-: hm:q: standing grain:
k<tE/mq: yt<&/mq: At/mq:
t/mq: k<t}m"q: t}m:q:
Atm"q:
hm:q:
4.4.6.11.4. qO!wl, qol- (segolates derived from II-w roots): w,T:& midst:
/k/T
A/T
w,T:&
4.4.6.11.4n. The qama is due to the assimilation of pata to the following w.
4.4.6.11.5. qyil, qel- (segolates derived from II-y roots): tyiz' olive(-tree),
(!)ytIyze
Atyze
tyiz'
lyij"& strength, army:
(!)yl,&y;j
(!)ylIy;j
AlyjE
lyij"&
k<M}["
["
k<P}sI
s"
k<X}jI
jE
4.4.6.11.6. qal, qall-: [" people:

4.4.6.11.7. qal, qill-: s" threshold:
4.4.6.11.8. qel, qill-: jE arrow:
4.4.6.11.9. qol, qull-: bD bear, lK whole, all:
k<B}DU
WnBE&DU
bD
k<L}KU (!)WnL:&KU
AlK:
lK
4.4.6.11.10. q!l, qal- (segolates with a as characteristic vowel): l<m<&
king:
k<ykEl}m"
yk<&l:m} AykEl}m" (!)ykIl:m} k<K}l}m"
K}l}m"
Al<m<&
l<m<&
The feminine form is qala, qalat: hK:l}m" queen:
k<ytE/kl}m" yt<&/kl}m" t/kl}m" (!)t/kl:m} k<t}K"l}m" t}K:l}m" AtK"l}m" hK:l}m"
4.4.6.11.11. q!al, qal- segolates derived from III-h/ / roots: [l"s<& rock:
y[<&l:s}
Ay[El}s" (!)y[Il:s}
k<[l}s"
[l}s"
y[Il}s"
A[l"s<&
[l"s<&
k<y[El}s"
4.4.6.11.12. q!l, qil- (segolates with a > i as characteristic vowel): cb<K<&
lamb:
k<ycb}KI yc&b:K} Aycb}KI (!)ycb:K} k<cb}KI cb}KI Acb<K<&
cb<K<&
The feminine form is qila, qilat-: hcb}KI ewe-lamb:
k<ytE/cb}KI yt<&/cb}KI At/cb}KI (!)t/cb:K} k<t]cb}KI t}cb}KI Atcb}KI hcb}KI
4.4.6.11.13. Nominal Patterns
278
4.4.6.11.13. qi, qiy-/qy- segolates derived from III-y roots (cf.

3.5.12.2.9n, p. 148): yriP} fruit, ydiG] kid:
k<y]r]P<
y]r]P<
yyir]PI
AyriP}
yriP}
yy,d ;G]
(!)yyed;G] (!)yyid;G]
k<y]d]G,
y]d]G,
yyid]Gi
AydiG }
ydiG }
(!)k<yyed;G]
4.4.6.11.14. qo!l, qol- (segolates with o as charateristic vowel): r,Go
threshing oor:
k<ytE/nr]G; yt<&/nr]G; At/nr]G; (!)t/nr;G]
k<n]r]G;
n]r]G;
Ar,Go
r,Go
The feminine form is qola, qolat: hB:r]j: ruin:
k<ytE/br]j: yt<&/br]j: At/br]j: (!)t/br;j k<t}B"r]j: t}B:r]j: AtB"r]j: hB:r]j:
4.4.6.11.15. qi, qoy- segolates derived from III-y roots: ymI&D rest, ylI&j
sickness:
AymID]
ymID
(!)k<yyel:j (!)Ayyel:j (!)yyil:j
yyil}j:
AylIj
yl&Ij
4.4.6.11.16. qaal, qal-: rb:D; speech:
k<yreb}Di
yr,&b:D] Ayreb}Di
yrib:D] k<r]b"D]
r]b:D]
Arb"D]
rb:D;
4.4.6.11.17. qala, qilat-: hb:d;n] voluntariness:
k<ytE/bd]ni yt<&/bd]ni At/bd]ni
t/bd;n] k<t}b"d]ni t}b:d]ni Atb"d]ni
hb:d;n]
4.4.6.11.18. qaal, qall-: lm:G; camel:
k<yLEm"G]
yL<&m"G] AyLEm"G]
yLIm"G]
k<L}m"G]
L}m"G]
Alm"G]
lm:G;
4.4.6.11.19. qael, qal-: qe z; old:
k<yneq}zi
yn,qzE ]
Ayneq]zi
yniqzE ] k<n]q Ez]*
n]qez]
Aq"z]
qe z;
4.4.6.11.19n. The a is due to Philippis Law.
4.4.6.11.20. qela, qelat-: hk:reB} pond:

k<ytE/kreB} yt<&/kreB} At/kreB}
t/kreB} k<t}k"reB} t}k:reB} Atk"reB}
4.4.6.11.21. qaol, qull- (denoting mainly colors): da: red:
t/MdUa yMIdUa hM:dUa
4.4.6.11.22. qaol, qol-: l/dG: great, /lv peace:
t/l/dG] ylI/dG} hl:/dG}
k<m}/lv m}/lv A/lv
4.4.6.11.23. qeal, qal-: bb:lE heart:
t/bb:l} k<b}b"l}
b}b:l}
Abb"l}
4.4.6.11.24. qail, qil-: ry[Ix: young:
t/ry[Ix} yriy[Ix} hr;y[Ix} Ary[Ix}
4.4.6.11.25. qaul, qul-: Wx[: mighty:
t/mWx[ ymIWx[ hm:Wx[
hk:reB}
da:
l/dG:
/lv
bb:lE
ry[Ix:
Wx[:
279
Nominal Patterns; Cardinal Numbers 4.5.1.2.
4.4.6.11.26. qoel, qol-: btE/K writing:

AybEt}/K ybIt}/K k<b}t</K
b}t</K
ybIt}/K
t/bt}/K
AbtE/K
btE/K
tb<t<&/K/hb:t}/K
4.4.6.11.26n. The original forms are *qolka, *qolkm; the segol opened the cluster
l. The same applies to qiel in 4.4.6.11.27.
4.4.6.11.27. qiel, qil- (denoting persons affected by physical defects):

LEaI dumb:
t/mL}aI ymIL}aI
LEaI
4.4.6.11.28. qal, qal-: bt:K} writing:
(!) k<ybEt:K} b<&t:K} (!)AybEt:K} ybIt:K} (!) k<b}t:K}
b}t:K} (!) Abt:K}
bt:K}
4.4.6.11.29. qaal, qaal-: Y;D; judge:
(!)k<yneY;D'
yn,Y;D' (!)AyneY;D'
yniY;D' k<n]YD' '
n]Y;D'
AY'D'
Y;D'
4.4.6.11.29n. These nouns, denoting intensied quality or occupation, originally have an
unchangeable qama in their last syllable, which may shift to pata in the singular
construct.
4.5. Remarks on the Numerals

4.5.1. The Cardinal Numbers
4.5.1.1. In stark contradistinction to the other parts of speech, the cardinal
numbers three through ten terminating in -t-/h-; refer to masculine nouns,
whereas those with zero-ending refer to feminine nouns. This very peculiar
feature, characterizing the Semitic languages in general (except where later
development has blurred it), has not yet been explained adequately. In the following, we adduce three theories, not because we regard them as substantiated but because they attest to one of the fundamental weaknesses inherent to
historical linguistics: logically built theories, ingeniously conjectured and reecting profound knowledge of the subject, very often remain beautiful hypotheses, without any possibility of verication.
4.5.1.2. According to H. Reckendorf (1898: 26587) these numbers originally terminated in a zero-ending (e.g., v/lv), whereas BHeb hrec[<, Ug srh,
Arab asrat(a)- denoted decade. Accordingly, hrec[< vl v means three of
the decade, i.e., thirteen, and the original relation between these two numerals was that of a construct noun and a governed noun. Later, because of the nal feminine ending (BHeb [!]h-e, Ug -h, Arab -at), the numbers 1319 were
felt to be feminine, and by polarity masculine forms of the structure hv/lv
rc[: were built (hv/lv in opposition to vlv, rc[: in contrast with hrec[<). In
these numbers, the units with W ending (vlv , etc.) referred to feminine nouns;
those with -t-/h-; ending (hv/lv, tv l&v) referred to masculine nouns, and
from these numbers the forms were transferred to the single numbers.
4.5.1.3. Cardinal Numbers
280
4.5.1.2n. For the somewhat intricate situation in Ugaritic, see Tropper 2000: 14950, par.
62.201.
For discussion of the term polarity, coined by C. Meinhof, which denotes the antithetical structuring of contrastive pairs such as masculine : feminine, singular : plural, see,
e.g., Bergstrsser 2.56, par. 1i. Cf. also below, 4.5.1.4.1.
4.5.1.3. J. Barth (190711:117) also posited that the cardinals three

through ten originally had a zero ending. In his opinion, however, hv/lv,
tv l&v, etc., did not originally terminate in the feminine ending but in the masculine pronominal sufx -tu, as preserved in Gez (salastu). Later, salastu,
etc., although it referred to masculine nouns, was felt as terminating in the
feminine sufx, as if feminine numbers referred to masculine nouns.
4.5.1.3n. In Gez, the feminine counterpart of the masculine pronominal sufx is -ti, as
preserved in two feminine kletti, in contrast to masculine klettu.
4.5.1.4. According to H. Bauer (1912: 26770), numbers such as hv/lv,

tv l& v, etc., do not terminate in the feminine sufx. In his opinion, the original sufx was -tu; however, it was not a pronominal element but was related to
Arabic taww single (see 4.4.2.3, p. 264), to mark nomen unitatis. Therefore, there were two ways of denoting, e.g., ve ships (ynia being eet, hY;nia
ship its nomen unitatis):
a. ames + taww + ni, literally, ve + single + eet, or
b. ames + ni + taww, literally, ve + eet + single.
ames ni taww, developed into ynia tvmE&j, tvmE&j referring to the masculine
ynia; ames taww ni to hY;nia vmEj,: vmEj: referring to the feminine hY;nia.
4.5.1.4.1. Other scholars consider the polarity of these numerals to be an
archaic Proto-Semitic feature that is a residue of a once much more widespread phenomenon.
4.5.1.4n. See, e.g., E. Ternes (2002: 71936), who elaborates on R. Hetzrons idea (p. 732).
4.5.1.5. yin'v and yiT"&v two are formed from the biradical base *s2in. Accordingly, one would have expected the feminine form to be *sinta!yim >
*sitta!yim. This form is indeed attested in the Samaritan tradition of Biblical
Hebrew. In the Tiberian tradition of Biblical Hebrew, however, it was restructured according to yin'v, viz. yiT"&v, the t with plosive pronunciation (both as
continuation of its plosive [geminated] pronunciation in *sitta!yim and because of the initial cluster st, the only case of initial cluster in Biblical
Hebrew).
4.5.1.5n. For the Samaritan form, see Ben-ayyim (2000: 306, par. 5.1.2), who also deals
with the problem of its occurrence in manuscripts with Babylonian vocalization (ibid., n. 3).
The Tiberian form is st-, rather than *st. The phrase hrec[<AyTEvmI from twelve
Jonah 4:11, with simple (non-geminated) s, also hints at the existence of the cluster st,
which, of course, did not permit the gemination of the s. Cf. Syriac six sta with plosive t
because of the cluster st.
281
Cardinal Numbers 4.5.1.9.
4.5.1.6. In contrast to biradical yin'v, [B"r]a" four and hn,mv eight (< tamaniyu) are formed from quadriliteral bases; however, the ordinal numbers
y[IybIr] and yniymIv are adapted to the triradical qili pattern.
4.5.1.6n. [B"r]a" stems from a triradical root (rb) with the prex a, whereas hn,mv derives
from quadriliteral smny.
4.5.1.7. The geminated s of hVmIj ve is not original, since it is absent

from the other Semitic languages. It arose by analogy to the following number, viz., hVv. Since successive numbers occur together often in counting,
they are apt to inuence one other. This inuence might have occurred in the
numbers [b"v& seven and hn,mv eight as well, which according to the evidence from the West Semitic dialects begin with s1 and s2, respectively. However, in Akkadian they begin with s. Brockelmann (190813: 1.486) surmised
that [b"v& originally began with s, as in Akkadian, and in the West Semitic dialects this s shifted to s through the inuence of vv, etc. On the contrary, s2 of
hn,mv in West Semitic is original, whereas in Akkadian it changed to s through
the inuence of sebum, the Akkadian form of seven.
4.5.1.7n. In Ugaritic, six is tt with assimilation of the rst radical to the nal t to become
tt. (Cf. the behavior of saf el in Ugaritic, where in verbs containing t, the s of saf el is assimilated to the t, giving rise to taf el.) If the theory that seven originally began with s
and its s in West Semitic is due to the inuence of six proves true, the inuence of six
on seven has to be predated to a period before *st changed to tt.
4.5.1.8. Six has to be derived from s1ds2, as preserved in Epigraphic

South Arabian. In Hebrew, before the shift of s2 to s, the d was assimilated to
it:*sidt > *sitt, to become nally vv, and similarly in Akkadian. The development in Aramaic was similar, except that t had shifted to t: tv. In Classical
Arabic too, the d was assimilated to the t; it was, however, a reciprocal assimilation: the d became unvoiced through the inuence of the t, which itself,
through the impact of d, changed to a plosive: sitt.
4.5.1.8n. In the case of Aramaic, the d could also have been assimilated to the t after it
shifted to t.
In Arabic, the presence of s instead of the expected s reects the general Arabic shift
of s > s; see 1.10.2.2, p. 30.
4.5.1.9. The differences in the vocalization of the in in 10 are quite remarkable. In some cases, the in is followed by a (masculine hr;c[ and the ten
masculine numbers 1119 rc[:), in others by W (feminine rc[<& < *ar and the
ten feminine numbers 1119 hrec[<). This is also the case in Classical Arabic.
The vowel following the ayin is not xed either: in rc[: it is a, whereas hrec[<
(and yric[< 20) suggests original i (which through the inuence of the
shifted to segol; cf. above, 3.3.3.3.3, p. 84). hrec[< prima facie terminates in
the feminine sufx -e < -ay (which perhaps occurs in the proper noun yr'c and
may be identical to the feminine ending a < -ayv in Classical Arabic).
4.5.1.10. Numerals
282
4.5.1.9n. The explanation suggested here, however, is not devoid of problems. In Ugaritic,
where vowel letters are quite exceptional, hrec[< is spelled srh and occurs in prose texts
only. Cf. 3.3.5.2.4n, p. 92.
4.5.1.10. The units in 1119 are basically identical to the numbers 19, yet,
as a rule, they have special feminine-context forms: (hrec[<) yTEv, vl v
(hrec[<), etc.
4.5.1.10n. Cf. the masculine form (rc[:) ynev.
4.5.1.11. The plurals of 3090 are special in denoting tenfold, 30 being ten
times three, 40 ten times 4, etc. As for yric[< 20, it appears that its original
form was dual *ra!yim two 10s and its plural form is due to attraction to
the following multiples of 10s. Traces of the dual form subsisted in Akkadian
and Gez, in which all the 10s (20 and higher) terminate in -a, the ancient
nominative form of the dual without nunation/mimation (cf. 4.4.5.5, p. 270;
4.4.5.7.1, p. 272). It is likely that the dual -a ending of 20 spread in Akkadian and Gez to the other 10s. Instead of y[Ib}v 70 and y[IvTI 90, one
would have expected *sbaim, *tsaim in accordance with the plural formation of monosyllabic nouns (as are [b"v& , [vTE& < *sib, *tis) with a after the
second radical (see 4.4.5.10, p. 273). It is possible that y[Ib}v, y[IvTI are
formed according to the pattern of yriv[< (originally *ra!yim) (Gordon
1965: 47 n. 1).
4.5.1.11n. A. Schlesinger (1962: 5052) claimed that plural forms that are not real plurals
(such as yTIvPI ax, etc., designating species, rather than several units; y[Ib}v, y[IvTI
denoting ten times seven and nine) are not formed as segolates (monosyllabic nouns) with
insertion of a after the second radical.
4.5.2. The Ordinal Numbers

4.5.2.1. Separate forms of the ordinal numbers only exist for 110; with
the exception of rst, they terminate in the nisba i (see above, 4.4.6.8,
p. 276) and are usually formed according to the pattern qili (yvylIv, y[IybIr],
yniymIv. The last two were transferred from the quadriradical to the triradical
pattern (see above, 4.5.1.6, p. 281). yVv has been newly rederived from vv
by dint of the nisba, because historical *sdisi was too different from the cardinal vv. yniv second, on the other hand, reects the original derived from a
biradical base.
4.5.2.1n. In Classical Arabic, however, the ordinal sadis has not been adapted to the cardinal sitt.
4.5.2.2. As S. E. Loewenstamm (1955: 24951; ET 1980: 1316) has demonstrated, in Proto-Semitic the notion rst did not exist, because when the
rst of something stands alone, no series yet exists; it comes into being only
with the appearance of the second. The notion rst was introduced into the
various Semitic languages separately, as proven by the use of different words
283
Ordinal Numbers; Prepositions 5.1.1.
in them (in Biblical Hebrew /vari, < *roson by dissimilation, derived from
var head, front, beginning). In Proto-Semitic, as still preserved in Ugaritic,
the concept rst was expressed by the counted noun, e.g., lk ym w tn tlt rb
ym xms tdt ym go (one) day/the rst day, the second, the third, the fourth day,
the fth, the sixth day. Vestiges of this usage persist in Biblical Hebrew:
y[Il:q} hrec[< vmEj tyniVh" tEK:l"w] . . . tEK:l" y[Il:q} hM:a" hrec[< vmEjw' and fteen
cubits will be the hangings of the (rst) side . . . and the second side has fteen
(cubits) hangings Exod 27:1415. A later development is reected by the
Biblical Hebrew use of the cardinal dj:a< instead of the ordinal /vari, as in
Genesis 1 yniv /y . . . dj:a< /y, etc. one day/the rst day . . . the second day,
etc..
4.5.2.2n. The wording in Exod 28:17 is remarkable, where rWf and dj:a< rWf the rst row
alternate, i.e., the more archaic usage alternates with the less archaic usage.
5.1. Remarks on Prepositions

5.1.1. As already stated (4.2.3.3.2, p. 170; 4.4.4.7, p. 268), prepositions
are usually nouns in the adverbial (accusative) case in construct. This is
especially clear in Classical Arabic, with its very transparent, schematic case
system. Thus we went together in Classical Arabic is qahabna maan, where
maan terminates in the adverbial (accusative) indenite ending -an. In the
sentence we went together with the child qahabna maa-l-waladi, the whole
prepositional phrase (i.e., the preposition with its dependents) serves as adverbial. The preposition maa, serving as head of the adverbial phrase, terminates
in -a, rather than in -an, because it stands in construct, and constructs are devoid of nunation in Classical Arabic. Biblical Hebrew vocalization also reects the fact that prepositions stand in construct (when preceding a noun or a
whole sentence) or in status pronominalis, when preceding pronouns: tar'q}lI
vyaIh: toward the man, vyaIh: tM"[Ul} close by the man, t}ar;q}l,I k<t}M"[Ul} exactly correspond to vyaIh: tr'x: the mans distress, t}r:x:, k<t}r'x:. The preposition d[b away from, through, within preceding another preposition has the
form of an absolute noun: tEM:x"l} d["B"&mI within your locks Song 4:1, d["B"& corresponding to segolate nouns such as rd,j<& room. When directly preceding a
noun, e.g., /Lj"h" d["B} through the window Gen 26:8, it matches the construct
rd'j in its vocalization, and in status promonimalis, e.g., /d[B" it corresponds
to /rd]j". The substantive yniP: face has the construct yneP}, and preceding pronominal sufxes has the form yn,P:, k<yneP}. This is exactly matched by the
preposition ynep}lI in front of, yn,p:l}, k<ynep}lI, which is one of the numerous occurrences of a part of the body serving as a preposition, as is, e.g., dy'l} by the
side of, yney[El} in the presence of, etc.
5.1.1n. In the case of ynep}lI, of course, yneP} historically was not accusative but, being governed by the preposition l}, was genitive.
5.1.2. Prepositions
284
5.1.2. The only preposition with a more or less clear etymon that does not
originate in a noun is apparently K} as, like. It seems to be related to the deictic element *ka, which occurs in hK, hk:K:& thus (cf. also, e.g., Arab (qa)ka
that, and perhaps Rabbinic Hebrew aK: here). This different origin is perhaps reected by the fact that it does not govern pronominal sufxes; forms
such as hM:hE&K:, hN;hE&K:, hEK:, on the face of it, reect k + independent pronoun,
thus perhaps reecting a situation in which they were separate words. (The exception to this situation occurs in forms such as, k<K:, h<K:, h<K:, i.e., preceding
heavy pronominal sufxes, which the preposition does take.) As a rule, k is
attached to pronominal sufxes with the linking syllable /m-: yni/m&K:, /m&K:,
Wh/m&K:, h:/m&K:, k<&/mK}, k<&/mK}. This -mo apparently stems from -ma, which occurs
in Classical Arabic between prepositions and the governed noun. It also occurs in poetic language after other prepositions: vaEA/mB} in re Isa 43:2;
br,j:&A/mL} for the sword Job 27:14; and is frequent in Ugaritic, inter alia, between a preposition and the word(s) dependent upon it.
5.1.3. The origins of l} to and B} in are opaque. In other Semitic languages, prima facie, l} seems to stem from original *la (cf., preceding a
stressed syllable, tb<v&l : , Wql: to rise, with pretonic lengthening), B} from *bi.
Thus, forms such as hz,B:, tazoB: in this appear to have been inuenced by
analogy with l}. The connection of l} with la< to is not clear, nor is that of B}
with tyiB"& house, inside.
5.1.4. There are a few prepositions that have plural forms preceding pronominal sufxes. This is self-evident with prepositions such as ynep}lI in front
of, being composed of plural nominal forms, but not with prepositions such
as l[" on yl<[& :, la< to yl<a
& E, tj"T"& under yT<&j}T". For the explanation
of this phenomenon, it is convenient to start with l[", la<, which stem from
III-y roots (this is quite obvious in the case of l["; cf. ytIylI[& : I went up, hY;lI[
roof-chamber, /yl}[< high). Their more original form preceding nouns has
been preserved in (archaic) poetry: ylE[/ylEa < *alay(a)/*ilay(a) (cf. 3.4.4.5,
p. 99), originally terminating in radical y, rather than in the plural sufx y-e. As
usual in III-y nouns (especially those terminating in h-,; see 4.4.6.10, p. 276),
the forms preceding pronominal sufxes are externally identical to plural
forms: yl<[& :, yl< &a.E By back-formation, through proportional analogy, the
forms l[", la< were derived from them (yd,&y; : Ady' = yl<&[: : x; x = l["; etc.) and
thus yl<[& :, yl<a
& E, etc., became plural forms of l[", la< synchronically. The plural
sufxes of yT<&j}T" arose through contrastive analogy with its antonym l[". The
situation with respect to d[" even to, until is quite complicated. The word reects a blend of the root dy (dw), as preserved in the poetic form yde[, and
wd, as suggested by the preservation of the qama in k<yde[: unto you (plural
masculine) Job 32:12. Again, the forms derived from dy preceding pronominal sufxes were identical to plural forms, from which d[" was derived by
back-formation. Thus, a substantial nucleus of prepositions came into being
285
Prepositions;
Prepositions
Waw 5.2.2.
with plural pronominal sufxes (at least synchronically), and these sufxes
continued spreading to additional prepositions. In yBE between this development has not yet been completed: with singular sufxes, it has a singular
form; with plural sufxes, it has a plural form: yniyBE, n]yBE, etc.; WnyneyBE (alternating with WnneyBE), k<yneyBE, etc.
5.1.4n. t/nyBE (and similar forms occuring in other Semitic dialects) with pronominal sufxes WnyTE&/nyBE, t:/nyBE stands in opposition to yBE, having inclusive sense; cf. hl:a: an; yhIT}
n,ybEW WnyneyBE WnytE&/nyBE a covenant will be between us (including both parties, inclusive), between us (one party, exclusive) and you Gen 26:28. The alternate expression l} t/nyBE has
no special meaning.
This plural formation of yBE arose independently in the various Semitic dialects, triggered by the quite frequent repetition of this preposition (e.g., vj&h" ybEW r/ah: yBE between
the light and the darkness Gen 1:4).
5.1.5. The pronominal 1s sufx is yni- in verbs, y-i in nouns (see 4.2.3.2.1,
p. 168). Because of the nominal origin of prepositions, it is y-i that is used with
them. Nevertheless, in archaic texts yni- is attested as well: yniTE&j}T" under me
2 Sam 22:37 (in contrast to the later version, yT: j}T" Ps 18:37); ynide&[B" for me Ps
139:11, perhaps also yNiM<&mI from me; further, ydiM:[I with me, if it really stems
from *immni (cf. Blau 1974: 1718 = Studies, 34546).
5.2. Remarks on Connective and Conversive Waw

5.2.1. Conversive waw, which converts past to future and future to past, is
historically identical to the simple connective waw and. The original form of
both was *wa. The a of the connective waw lengthened in pretonic syllables to
qama hl:y]l"w& ; /y day and night. The usual form of the connective waw (and
of the conversive waw from past to future) is w, which reects the reduction
of a short vowel with the shift of stress.
5.2.1n. It has often been claimed that connective waw has a plethora of signications
besides the meaning and, sometimes numbering as many as 70. Against this pseudopolysemy, see R. C. Steiner, Does the Biblical Hebrew Conjunction -w Have Many Meanings, One Meaning, or No Meaning at All? (Steiner 2000: 24967). And, indeed, most, if
not all, of its occurrences reect, one way or another, the meaning and. One has to bear
in mind that in Biblical Hebrew the differences between coordination and subordination
are blurred. As a result, -w may connect a main clause with its preceding subordinate clause
(as well as the topic with its comment, as is the case with the Arabic conjunction fa and
[then]).
5.2.2. After conversive waw indicating past, the presence of pata plus
doubled consonant seems to be connected with the stress (see above, 3.5.12.2.16,
p. 152). Stress often (and originally, during the period of general penultimate
stress, always) falls on the rst syllable of the short prex-tense consisting of
two syllables (which comes after conversive waw): *wayyb2 del and he separated (later becoming lDe&b}Y'w)' . Instead of the pretonic lengthening of the short
5.2.2. Waw
Prepositions
286
vowel of *wa, the following consonant was doubled, because a long vowel
plus a simple consonant is rhythmically (almost) identical to a short vowel
plus a geminated (long) consonant (see above, 4.2.5.2, p. 180).
Paradigms
Qal
bt"K:
he wrote
q"z;
fOq :
he was old he was small
Sufx-tense
Sg. 3 m.
bt"K:
q"z;
fOq :
3 f.
hb:t}K:
hn;qz} ;
hn;f}q :
2 m.
T:b}t"K:
T:n]qz" ;
T:n]fOq :
2 f.
T}b}t"K:
T}n]qz" ;
T}n]fOq :
1 m./f.
yTIb}t"K:
yTIn]qz" ;
yTIn]fOq :
Pl. 3 m./f.
Wbt}K:
Wnq}z;
Wnf}q :
2 m.
T<b}t"K}
T<n]qz" ]
1 T<n]f:q }
2 f.
T<b}t"K}
T<n]qz" ]
T<n]f:q }
1 m./f.
Wnb}t"K:
2 WNq"z;
WNfOq :
Prex-tense
bTk}yi
3 bK"vyi
3 f.
bTk}TI
bK"vTI
2 m.
bTk}TI
bK"vTI
2 f.
ybIT}k}TI
ybIK}vTI
bTOk}a<
bK"va<
WbT}k}yi
WbK}vyi
3 f.
hn;b}TOk}TI
hn;b}K"vTI
2 m.
WbT}k}TI
WbK}vTI
2 f.
hn;b}TOk}TI
hn;b}K"vTI
bTOk}ni
bK"vni
Sg. 3 m.
1 m./f.
Pl. 3 m.
1 m./f.
1. Since olam does not occur in an unstressed closed syllable, the second radical is vocalized with qama qaan.
2. According to biblical orthography, if the same consonantal letter needs to be written
twice, without a separating vowel (Wnn]qz" ;*, and also Wnn]fq
O *: ), it is spelled only once with heavy
dages, viz., WNq"z,; and also WNfOq
.: Cf. 3.5.11.1n, p. 138.
3. Similarly q"z]y,i f"qy} .i I have used bK"vyi he will lie in the paradigm of the prefix-tense
and the imperative in order to illustrate the behavior of b, g, d, k, p, t.
287
Paradigms Qal
288
Qal (cont.)
Imperative
Sg. 2 m.
2 f.
Pl. 2 m.
2 f.
btOK}
bk"v
ybIt}KI
ybIk}v
Wbt}KI
Wbk}v
hn;b}tOK}
hn;b}k"v
Innitives
Absolute
b/tK:
Construct
Sg. m.
btE/K
qEz;
1 r/gy;
hb:t}/K/tb<t</K
hn;qzE ]
hr;/gy]
ybIt}/K
yniqzE ]
yri/gy]
t/bt}/K
t/nqEz]
t/r/gy]
btOK}
Participle
f.
Pl. m.
f.
Passive Participle
Sg. m.
f.
Pl. m.
f.
bWtK:
hb:WtK}
ybIWtK}
t/bWtK}
1. Meaning fearing. The participle of fq is not attested; fOq : small, however, is used as
an adjective. Cf. also Rabbinic Heb l/ky; being able.
Derived Themes Paradigms
289
Derived Themes
Nif al
Piel
Pual
Hitpael
Hif il
Hof al
bT"k}ni
dBEKI
dB"KU
dBEK"t}hI
dyBIk}hI
dB"k}h:
it was
written
he
honored
he was
honored
he honored
himself
he made
heavy
it was
made
heavy
Sufx-tense
1bT"k}ni
(dB"K)I dBEKI
1 dB"KU
dBEK"t}hI
dyBIk}hI
1 dB"k}h:
3 f.
hb:T}k}ni
hd:B}KI
hd:B}KU
hd:B}K"t}hI
hd:yBIk}hI
hd:B}k}h:
2 m.
T:b}T"k}ni
T:d]B"KI
T:d]B"KU
T:d]B"K"t}hI
T:d]B"k}hI
T:d]B"k}h:
2 f.
T}b}T"k}ni
T}d]B"KI
T}d]B"KU
T}d]B"K"t}hI
T}d]B"k}hI
T}d]B"k}h:
1 m./f.
yTIb}T"k}ni
yTId]B"KI
yTId]B"KU
yTId]B"K"t}hI
yTId]B"k}hI
yTId]B"k}h:
Pl. 3 m./f.
WbT}k}ni
WdB}KI
WdB}KU
WdB}K"t}hI
WdyBIk}hI
WdB}k}h:
2 m.
T<b}T"k}ni
T<d]B"KI
T<d]B"KU
T<d]B"K"t}hI
T<d]B"k}hI
T<d]B"k}h:
2 f.
T<b}T"k}ni
T<d]B"KI
T<d]B"KU
T<d]B"K"t}hI
T<d]B"k}hI
T<d]B"k}h:
1 m./f.
Wnb}T"k}ni
Wnd]B"KI
Wnd]B"KU
Wnd]B"K"t}hI
Wnd]B"k}hI
Wnd]B"k}h:
btEK:yi
dBEk"y]
dB"kUy]
dBEK"t}yi
dyBIk}y'
dB"k}y;
3 f.
btEK:TI
dBEk"T}
dB"kUT}
dBEK"t}TI
dyBIk}T"
dB"k}T:
2 m.
btEK:TI
dBEk"T}
dB"kUT}
dBEK"t}TI
dyBIk}T"
dB"k}T:
2 f.
ybIt}K:TI
ydiB}k"T}
ydiB}kUT}
ydiB}K"t}TI
ydiyBIk}T"
ydiB}k}T:
1 m./f.
/btEK:a<
btEK:aI
dBEk"a
dB"kUa
dBEK"t}a<
dyBIk}a"
dB"k}a:
Wbt}K:yi
WdB}k"y]
WdB}kUy]
WdB}K"t}yi
WdyBIk}y'
WdB}k}y;
3 f.
hn;b}t"K:TI
hn;d]BEk"T}
(hn;d]B"k"T)}
hn;d]B"kUT}
/hn;d]BEK"t}TI
hn;d]B"K"t}TI
hn;d]BEk}T"
hn;d]B"k}T:
2 m.
Wbt}K:TI
WdB}k"T}
WdB}kUT}
WdB}K"t}TI
WdyBIk}T"
WdB}k}T:
2 f.
hn;b}t"K:TI
hn;d]BEk"T}
(hn;d]B"k"T)}
hn;d]B"kUT}
/hn;d]BEK"t}TI
hn;d]B"K"t}TI
hn;d]BEk}T"
hn;d]B"k}T:
btEK:ni
dBEk"n]
dB"kUn]
dBEK"t}ni
dyBIk}n'
dB"k}n;
Sg. 3 m.
Prex-tense
Sg. 3 m.
Pl. 3 m.
1 m./f.
1. Note the pata, which is characteristic of finite verbal forms in the final closed,
stressed syllable (whereas nouns, including participles [dB: k}n,i dB:kUm}], contain qama in this
position). For details, see 3.5.7.1, pp. 119ff.
Paradigms Derived Themes
290
Derived Themes
Short prex-tense
Sg. 3m.
dBEk}y'
3 f./2 m.
dBEk}T"
The other forms, insofar as they exist, are identical to the ordinary prex-tense.
Imperative
Sg. 2 m.
2 f.
Pl. 2 m.
2 f.
btEK:hI
dBEK"
dBEK"t}hI
dBEk}h"
ybIt}K:hI
ydiB}K"
ydiB}K"t}hI
ydiyBIk}h"
Wbt}K:hI
WdB}K"
WdB}K"t}hI
WdyBIk}h"
hn;b}t"K:hI
hn;d]BEK"
/hn;d]BEK"t}hI
hn;d]B"K"t}hI
hn;d]BEk}h"
Innitives
Absolute
/b/Tk}ni
1 btEK:hI
dBEK"
(d/BK")
d/BKU
dBEK"t}hI
dBEk}h"
dBEk}h:
Construct
btEK:hI
dBEK"
not attested
dBEK"t}hI
dyBIk}h"
not attested 2
Participle
Sg. m.
f.
Pl. m.
f.
bT:k}ni
dBEk"m}
dB:kUm}
dBEK"t}mI
dyBIk}m"
dB:k}mU
/tb<T<k}ni
hb:T:k}ni
3 td,B<k"m}
/hd;B:kUm}
td,B<kUm}
3 td,B<K"t}mI
/hd;yBIk}m"
td,B<k}m"
/hd;B:k}mU
td,B<k}mU
ybIT:k}ni
ydiB}k"m}
ydiB:kUm}
ydiB}K"t}mI
ydiyBIk}m"
ydiB:k}mU
t/bT:k}ni
t/dB}k"m}
t/dB:kUm}
t/dB}K"t}mI t/dyBIk}m"
t/dB:k}mU
Short prex-tense
Sg. 3m.
dBEk}y'
3 f./2 m.
dBEk}T"
1. b/Tk}ni is used when preceding the suffix-tense, btEK:hI when followed by the prefix-tense.
2. Only hM:Vh: its being desolate Lev 26:34 and td,Lh
< U being born Gen 40:20 occur.
3. Feminine participle with h; suffix is only attested with the preservation of the characteristic ere vowel after the second radical: hd; QrE 'm} dancing, jolting, hp:Vk"m} witch, hl:KEvm}
suffering from abortion; the last two forms are in substantival use. In the plural, however,
the ere is reduced: ypIVk"m.} The same applies to the hitpael: hr;KnE 't}mI strange woman.
I-Laryngeals Paradigms
291
I-Laryngeals/Pharyngeals
Qal
Nif al
Hif il
Hof al
db"[:
dB"[}n,
dyBI[}h<
dB"[}h:
he worked
it was
tilled
he
he was
compelled compelled
to labor to labor
Sufx-tense
Sg. 3 m.
db"[:
/dB"[}n,
db"[n,
/dyBI[}h<
dybI[h<
/dB"[}h:
db"[h:
3 f.
hd:b}[:
/hd;B}[}n,
hd;b}[<n,
/hd;yBI[}h<
hd;ybI[h<
/hd;B}[}h:
hd;b}[:h:
2 m.
T:d]b"[:
/T:d]B"[}n,
T:d]b"[n,
/T:d]B"[}h<
T:d]b"[h<
/T:d]B"[}h:
T:d]b"[h:
2 f.
T}d]b"[:
/T}d]B"[}n,
T}d]b"[n,
/T}d]B"[}h<
T}d]b"[h<
/T}d]B"[}h:
T}d]b"[h:
1 m./f.
yTId]b"[:
/yTId]B"[}n,
yTId]b"[n,
/yTId]B"[}h<
yTId]b"[h<
/yTId]B"[}h:
yTId]b[
" h:
Pl. 3 m./f.
Wdb}[:
/WdB}[}n,
Wdb}[<n,
/WdyBI[}h<
WdybI[h<
/WdB}[}h:
Wdb}[:h:
2 m.
T<d]b"[
/T<d]B"[}n, /T<d]B"[}h< /T<d]B"[}h:

T<d]b"[n, T<d]b"[h< T<d]b"[h:
2 f.
T<d]b"[
/T<d]B"[}n,
T<d]b"[n,
/T<d]B"[}h<
T<d]b"[h<
/T<d]B"[}h:
T<d]b"[h:
1 m./f.
Wnd]b"[:
/Wnd]B"[}n,
Wnd]b"[n,
/Wnd]B"[}h<
Wnd]b"[h<
/Wnd]B"[}h:
Wnd]b"[h:
Paradigms I-Laryngeals
292
I-Laryngeals/Pharyngeals (cont.)
Qal
dr'j}y,
he will be
terried
Nif al
rGoa}y,
vBOj}y'
he will
gather
he will
bind
Hif il
Hof al
Prex-tense
Sg. 3 m.
/dr'j}y,
dr'jy,
/rGoa}y,
rgoay,
/vBOj}y'
vbOjy'
dbE[:ye
/dyBI[}y'
dybI[y'
/dB"[}y;
db"[y;
3 f.
/dr'j}T<
dr'jT<
/rGoa}T<
rgoaT<
/vBOj}T"
vbOjT"
dbE[:TE
/dyBI[}T"
dybI[T"
/dB"[}T:
db"[T:
2 m.
/dr'j}T<
dr'jT<
/rGoa}T<
rgoaT<
/vBOj}T"
vbOjT"
dbE[:TE
/dyBI[}T"
dybI[T"
/dB"[}T:
db"[T:
2 f.
/ydir]j}T<
ydir]j<T<
/yriG}a}T"
yrig}a"T"
/yvB}j}T"
yvb}j"T"
ydib}[:TE
/ydiyBI[}T"
ydiybI[T"
/ydiB}[T
} :
ydib}[:T:
/dr'j}a<
dr'ja<
/rGoa}a<
rgoaa<
/vBOj}a<
vbOja<
dbE[:aE
/dyBI[}a"
dybI[a"
/dB"[}a:
db"[a:
/Wdr]j}y,
Wdr]j<y,
/WrG}a}y'
Wrg}a"y'
/WvB}j}y'
Wvb}j"y'
Wdb}[:ye
/WdyBI[}y'
WdybI[y'
/WdB}[}y;
Wdb}[:y;
/hn;r]Goa}T< /hn;vBOj}T"
hn;r]gao T< hn;vbOjT"
hn;d]b"[:TE
/hn;d]BE[}T"
hn;d]bE[T"
/hn;d]B"[}T:
hn;d]b"[T:
/WvB}j}T"
Wvb}j"T"
Wdb}[:TE
/WdyBI[}T"
WdybI[T"
/WdB}[}T:
Wdb}[:T:
/hn;r]Goa}T< /hn;vBOj}T"
hn;r]ga
o T< hn;vbOjT"
hn;d]b"[:TE
/hn;d]BE[}T"
hn;d]bE[T"
/hn;d]B"[}T:
hn;d]b"[T:
dbE[:ne
/dyBI[}n'
dybI[n'
/dB"[}n;
db"[n;
1 m./f.
Pl. 3 m.
3 f.
/hn;d]r'j}T<
hn;d]r'jT<
2 m.
/Wdr]j}T<
Wdr]j<T<
2 f.
/hn;d]r'j}T<
hn;d]r'jT<
1 m./f.
/dr'j}n,
dr'jn,
/WrG}a}T"
Wrg}a"T"
/rGoa}n,
rgoan,
/vBOj}n'
vbOjn'
Short prex-tense
Sg. 3 m.
dbE[y/' dBE[}y'
3 f./2 m.
dbE[T/" dBE[}T"
column 40 pts. short
I-Laryngeals Paradigms
293
I-Laryngeals/Pharyngeals (cont.)
Qal
Nif al
Hif il
Hof al
Imperative
Sg. 2 m.
2 f.
Pl. 2 m.
2 f.
m"a
vboj
dbE[:hE
/dBE[}h"
dbE[h"
yxIm}aI
yvb}jI
ydib}[:hE
/ydiyBI[}h"
ydiybI[h"
Wxm}aI
Wvb}jI
Wdb}[:hE
/WdyBI[}h"
WdybI[h"
hn;x}m"a
hn;vbOj
hn;d]b"[:hE
/hn;d]BE[}h"
hn;d]bE[h"
not attested
Innitives
Absolute
/ma:
v/bj:
d/b[n/' d/B[}n'
dbE[:hE
/dBE[}h"
dbE[h"
/dBE[}h:
dbE[h:
Construct
mOa
vboj
dbE[:hE
/dyBI[}h"
dybI[h"
vbE/j
/dB:[}n,
db:[n,
/dyBI[}m"
dybI[m"
/dB:[}m:
db:[m:
/tvb</j
hvb}/j
/hd;B:[}n,
hd;b:[n,
/td,B<[}n,
td,b<[n,
/hd;yBI[}m"
hd;ybI[m"
/td,B<[}m"
td,b<[m"
/hd;B:[}m:
hd;b:[m:
/td,B<[}m:
td,b[
< m:
yvb}/j
/ydiB:[}n, /ydiyBI[}m"
ydib:[n, ydiybI[m"
/ydiB:[}m:
ydib:[m:
t/vb}/j
/t/dB:[}n, /t/dyBI[}m"
t/db:[n, t/dybI[m"
/t/dB:[}m:
t/db:[m:
not attested
Participle
Sg. m.
f.
Pl. m.
f.
Passive Participle
Sg. m.
f.
Pl. m.
f.
vWbj:
hvWbj
yvWbj
t/vWbj
Paradigms II-Laryngeals
294
II-Laryngeals/Pharyngeals
Qal
Nif al
Hof al
Piel
Pual
Hitpael
la"v
la"vni
la"vh:
raEPE
ra"PO
raEP:t}hI
he
asked
he asked
for himself
it was
lent
he
gloried
he was he gloried
gloried
himself
Sufx-tense
Sg. 3 m.
la"vh: (ra"P)E raEPE
la"v
la"vni
ra"PO
raEP:t}hI
3 f.
hl:av
hl:avni
hl:avh:
hr;aPE
hr;aPO
hr;a"P:t}hI
2 m.
T:l}a"v
T:l}a"vni
T:l}a"vh:
T:r]a"PE
T:r]a"PO
T:r]a"P:t}hI
2 f.
T}l}a"v
T}la
} "vni
T}l}a"vh:
T}r]a"PE
T}r]a"PO
T}r]a"P:t}hI
1 m./f.
yTIl}a"v
yTIl}a"vni
yTIl}a"vh:
yTIr]a"PE
yTIr]a"PO
yTIr]a"P:t}hI
Pl. 3 m./f.
Wlav
Wlavni
Wlavh:
WraPE
WraPO
WraP:t}hI
2 m.
T<l}a"v
T<l}a"vni T<l}av
" h:
T<r]a"PE
T<r]a"PO
T<r]a"P:t}hI
2 f.
T<l}a"v
T<l}a"vni
T<l}a"vh:
T<r]a"PE
T<r]a"PO
T<r]a"P:t}hI
1 m./f.
Wnl}a"v
Wnl}a"vni
Wnl}a"vh:
Wnr]a"PE
Wnr]a"PO
Wnr]a"P:t}hI
la"vyi
laEVyi
la"vy;
raEp:y]
ra"pOy]
raEP:t}yi
3 f.
la"vTI
laEVTI
la"vT:
raEp:T}
ra"pOT}
raEP:t}TI
2 m.
la"vTI
laEVTI
la"vT:
raEp:T}
ra"pOT}
raEP:t}TI
2 f.
ylIavTI
ylIaVTI
ylIavT:
yriap:T}
yriapOT}
yriaP:t}TI
la"va<
/laEVaI
laEVa<
la"va:
raEp:a
ra"pOa
raEP:t}a<
Wlavyi
WlaVyi
Wlavy;
Wrap:y]
WrapOy]
WraP:t}yi
3 f.
hn;l}a"vTI
hn;l}a"VTI
hn;l}a"vT:
hn;r]aEp:T}
(hn;r]a"p:T)}
hn;r]a"pOT}
/hn;r]aEP:t}TI
hn;r]a"P:t}TI
2 m.
WlavTI
WlaVTI
WlavT:
Wrap:T}
WrapOT}
WraP:t}TI
2 f.
hn;l}a"vTI
hn;l}a"VTI
hn;l}a"vT:
hn;r]aEp:T}
(hn;r]a"p:T)}
hn;r]a"pOT}
/hn;r]aEP:t}TI
hn;r]a"P:t}TI
la"vni
laEVni
la"vn;
raEp:n]
ra"pOn]
raEP:t}ni
Prex-tense
Sg. 3 m.
1 m./f.
Pl. 3 m.
1 m./f.
II-Laryngeals Paradigms
295
II-Laryngeals/Pharyngeals (cont.)
Qal
Nif al
Hof al
Piel
Pual
Hitpael
Imperative
Sg. 2 m.
non-existent
laEVhI
ylIav
ylIaVhI
yriaP:
yriaP:t}hI
Wlav
WlaVhI
WraP:
WraP:t}hI
hn;l}a"v
hn;l}a"VhI
hn;r]aEP:
/hn;r]aEP:t}hI
hn;r]a"P:t}hI
Absolute
l/av
/l/avni
laEVhI
laEvh:
(r/aP:)
raEP:
r/aPO
raEP:t}hI
Construct
lav
laEVhI
not attested
raEP:
not attested
raEP:t}hI
2 f.
Pl. 2 m.
2 f.
raEP:
non-existent
la"v
raEP:t}hI
Innitives
Participle
Sg. m.
f.
Pl. m.
f.
laE/v
la:vni
la:vmU
raEp:m}
ra:pOm}
raEP:t}mI
/tl<a</v
hl:a/v
/tl<a<vni
hl:a:vni
/tl<a<vmU
hl:a:vmU
tr,a<p:m}
/tr,a<pOm}
hr;a:pOm}
tr,a<P:t}mI
(hr;aP:t}m)I
ylIa/v
ylIa:vni
ylIa:vmU
yriap:m}
yria:pOm}
yriaP:t}mI
t/la/v
t/la:vni
t/la:vmU
t/rap:m}
t/ra:pOm}
t/raP:t}mI
Passive Participle
Sg. m.
f.
Pl. m.
f.
lWav
hl:Wav
ylIWav
t/lWav
Paradigms III-Laryngeals
296
III-Laryngeals/Pharyngeals
Qal
Nif al
Hif il
Hof al
Piel
Pual
Hitpael
[m"v
[m"vni
['ymIvhI
[m"vh:
jL"v
jL"v
[L"G"t}hI
he
heard
he was
he
he was he sent
heard caused to caused to
hear
be heard
he was
sent
it broke
out
Sufx-tense
Sg. 3 m.
[m"v
[m"vni
['ymIvhI
[m"vh:
jL"v
(j'LEv)
jL"v
[L"G"t}hI
(['LEG"t}h)I
3 f.
h[:m}v
h[:m}vni h[:ymIvhI
h[:m}vh:
hj:L}v
hj:L}v
h[:L}G"t}hI
2 m.
T:[}m"v
T:[}m"vni
T:[}m"vhI
T:[}m"vh:
T:j}L"v
T:j}L"v
T:[}L"G"t}hI
2 f.
T}["m"v
T}["m"vni
T}["m"vhI
T}["m"vh:
T}j"L"v
T}j"L"v
T}["L"G"t}hI
1 m./f. yTI[}m"v yTI[}m"vni yTI[]m"vhI yTI[}m"vh:
yTIj}L"v
yTIj}L"v yTI[}L"G"t}hI
Pl. 3 m./f.
W[m}v
W[m}vni
W[ymIvhI
W[m}vh:
WjL}v
WjL}v
W[L}G"t}hI
2 m.
T<[}m"v T<[}m"vni T<[}m"vhI T<[}m"vh: T<j}L"v
T<j}L"v T<[}L"G"t}hI
2 f.
T<[}m"v T<[}m"vni T<[}m"vhI T<[}m"vh:
T<j}L"v
T<j}L"v T<[}L"G"t}hI
1 m./f.
Wn[}m"v
Wnj}L"v
Wnj}L"v
Wn[}L"G"t}hI
Wn[}m"vni
Wn[}m"vhI
Wn[}m"vh:
Prex-tense
Sg. 3 m.
[m"vyi
[m"Vyi
['ymIvy'
[m"vy;
jL"vy]
jL"vy]
[L"G"t}yi
(['LEG"t}y)i
3 f.
[m"vTI
[m"VTI
['ymIvT"
[m"vT:
jL"vT}
jL"vT}
[L"G"t}TI
2 m.
[m"vTI
[m"VTI
['ymIvT"
[m"vT:
jL"vT}
jL"vT}
[L"G"t}TI
2 f.
y[Im}vTI
y[Im}VTI
y[IymIvT"
y[Im}vT:
yjIL}vT}
yjiL}vT}
y[iL}G"t}TI
[m"va<
/[m"VaI
[m"Va<
['ymIva"
[m"va:
jL"va
jL"va
[L"G"t}a<
W[m}vyi
W[m}Vyi
W[ymIvy'
W[m}vy;
WjL}vy]
WjL}vy]
W[L}Gt
" }yi
1 m./f.
Pl. 3 m.
3 f.
2 m.
2 f.
1 m./f.
hn;[}m"vTI hn;[}m"VTI hn;[]m"vT" hn;[}m"vT: hn;j}L"vT} hn;j]L"vT} hn;[}L"G"t}TI

W[m}vTI
W[m}VTI
W[ymIvT"
W[m}vT:
WjL}vT}
WjL}vT}
W[L}G"t}TI
hn;[}m"vTI hn;[}m"VTI hn;[]m"vT

" hn;[}m"vT: hn;j}L"vT} hn;j]L"vT} hn;[}L"G"t}TI
[m"vni
[m"Vni
['ymIvn'
[m"vn;
jL"vn]
jL"vn]
[L"G"t}ni
III-Laryngeals;
III-Laryngeals; I-Aleph
I-aleph Paradigms
297
III-Laryngeals/Pharyngeals (cont.)
Qal
Nif al
Hif il
Hof al
Piel
Pual
Hitpael
Short prex-tense
Sg. 3 m.
[m"vy'
3 f./2 m.
[m"vT"
Imperative
Sg. 2 m.
2 f.
Pl. 2 m.
2 f.
non-existent
jL"v
non-existent
[m"v
[m"VhI
[m"vh"
[L"G"t}hI
y[Im}v
y[Im}VhI
y[iymIvh"
yjIL}v
y[iL}G"t}hI
W[m}v
W[m}VhI
W[ymIvh"
WjL}v
W[L}G"t}hI
hn;[}m"v hn;[}m"VhI hn;[]m"vh"
hn;j]L"v
hn;[}L"G"t}hI
Innitives
Absolute
['/mv
/['/mvni
['mEVhI
['mEvh"
['mEvh:
j'LEv
(j'/Lv)
j'/Lv
['LEG"t}hI
Construct
['mOv
/['mEVhI
[m"VhI
['ymIvh"
not attested
j'LEv
not attested
['LEG"t}hI
j'LEvm}
jL:vm}
['LEG"t}mI
Participle
Sg. m.
f.
Pl. m.
f.
['mE/v
[m:vni
['ymIvm"
[m:vmU
/t["m"/v /t["m"vni /t["m"vm" /t["m"vmU tj"L"vm} /tj"L"vm} t["LG"" t}mI

h[:m}/v h[:m:vni h[;ymIvm" h[;m:vmU (hj:Lv
} m)}
hj:L:vm} (h[:L}G"t}m)I
y[Im}/v y[Im:vni y[IymIvm" y[im:vmU yjIL}vm}
yjIL:vm} y[IL}G"t}mI
t/[m}/v t/[m:vni t/[ymIvm" t/[m:vmU t/jL}vm} t/jL:vm} t/[L}G"t}mI
Weak I-aleph VerbsQal

rm"a: to say
Prex-tense
Sg. 3 m.
rm"ayo
Pl. 3 m.
Wrm}ayo
3 f.
rm"aTO
3 f.
hn;r]m"aTO
2 m.
rm"aTO
2 m.
Wrm}aTO
2 f.
yrim}aTO
2 f.
hn;r]m"aTO
1 m./f.
rm"aO
1 m./f.
rm"ano
Paradigms I-n
298
I-n Verbs
Qal
lp"n;
vg"n;
he fell
Nif al
Hif il
Hof al
qT"ni
lyPIhI
lP"hU
he
he was
he felled
approached drawn away
he was
felled
Sufx-tense
lp"n;
vg"n*;
qT"ni
lyPIhI
1 lP"hU
3 f.
hl:p}n;
hvg}n;
hq:T}ni
hl:yPIhI
hl:P}hU
2 m.
T:l}p"n;
T:vg"n;
T:qT
} "ni
T:l}P"hI
T:l}P"hU
2 f.
T}l}p"n;
T}vg"n;
T}qT
} "ni
T}l}P"hI
T}l}P"hU
1 m./f.
yTIl}p"n;
yTIvg"n;
yTIqT
} "ni
yTIl}P"hI
yTIl}P"hU
Pl. 3 m./f.
Wlp}n;
Wvg}n;
WqT}ni
WlyPIhI
WlP}hU
2 m.
T<l}p"n]
T<vg"n]
T<qT
} "ni
T<l}P"hI
T<l}P"hU
2 f.
T<l}p"n]
T<vg"n]
T<qT
} "ni
T<l}P"hI
T<l}P"hU
1 m./f.
Wnl}p"n;
Wnvg"n;
Wnq}T"ni
Wnl}P"hI
Wnl}P"hU
Sg. 3 m.
Prex-tense
Sg. 3 m.
lPOyi
vG"yi
qtEN;yi
lyPIy'
lP"yu
3 f.
lPOTI
vg"TI
qtEN;TI
lyPIT"
lP"TU
2 m.
lPOTI
vg"TI
qtEN;TI
lyPIT"
lP"TU
2 f.
ylIP}TI
yvg}TI
yqIt}N;TI
ylIyPIT"
ylIP}TU
lPOa<
vG"a<
qtEN;a<
lyPIa"
lP"aU
WlP}yi
WvG}yi
Wqt}N;yi
WlyPIy'
WlP"yu
3 f.
hn;l}POTI
hn;vG"TI
hn;q}t"N;TI
hn;l}PET"
hn;l}P"TU
2 m.
WlP}TI
WvG}TI
Wqt}N;TI
WlyPIT"
WlP"TU
2 f.
hn;l}POTI
hn;vG"TI
hn;q}t"N;TI
hn;l}PET"
hn;l}P"TU
lPOni
vG"ni
qtEN;ni
WlyPIn'
lP"nu
1 m./f.
Pl. 3 m.
1 m./f.
Short prex-tense
Sg. 3 m.
3 f./2 m.
lPEy'
lPET"
1. The u of hof al did not shift to o, because the shift u > o does not, as a rule, operate
preceding a geminate consonant.
column 6 pts. long
I-n; natan
I-n Paradigms
299
I-n Verbs (cont.)

Qal
Nif al
Hif il
Hof al
non-existent
Imperative
Sg. 2 m.
2 f.
Pl. 2 m.
2 f.
lpOn]
vG"
qtEN;hI
lPEh"
ylIp}ni
yvG}
yqIt}N;hI
ylIyPIh"
Wlp}ni
WvG}
Wqt}N;hI
WlyPIh"
hn;l}pOn]
hn;vG"
hn;q}t"N;hI
hn;l}PEh"
Innitives
Absolute
l/pn;
v/gn;
qtEN;h,I q/Tni
lPEh"
lP"hU
Construct
lpOn]
tvG,
qtEN;hI
lyPIh"
not attested
lpE/n
qT:ni
lyPIm"
lP:mU
/tl<p</n
hl:p}/n
/tq<T<ni
hq:T:ni
/hl:yPIm"
tl<P<m"
/tl<P<mU
hl:P:mU
ylIp}/n
yqIT:ni
ylIyPIm"
ylIP:mU
t/lp}/n
t/qT:ni
t/lyPIm"
t/lP:mU
Participle
Sg. m.
f.
Pl. m.
f.
Conjugation of t"n;
Qal
Nif al
t"n;
T"ni
he
gave
it was
given
Qal
Nif al
Wnt}n;
WnT}ni
Sufx-tense
Sg. 3 m.
Pl. 3 m./f.
t"n;
T"ni
3 f.
hn;t}n;
hn;T}ni
2 m.
T<t"n]
T<T"ni
2 m.
T:t"n;
T:T"ni
2 f.
T<t"n]
T<T"ni
2 f.
T}t"n;
T}T"ni
1 m./f.
WNt"n;
WNT"ni
1 m./f.
yTIt"n;
yTIT"ni
Paradigms I-n
natan; I-y(w)
300
Conjugation of t"n; (cont.)

Qal
Nif al
Qal
Nif al
WnT}yi
Wnt}N;yi
Prex-tense
Sg. 3 m.
Pl. 3 m.
TEyi
tEN;yi
3 f.
TETI
tEN;TI
3 f.
hN;TETI
hN;t"N;TI
2 m.
TETI
tEN;TI
2 m.
WnT}TI
Wnt}N;TI
2 f.
yniT}TI
ynit}N;TI
2 f.
hN;TETI
hN;t"N;TI
TEa<
tEN;a<
TEni
tEN;ni
WnT}
Wnt}N;jI
hN;TE
hN;t"N;hI
tTE
tEN;hI
1 m./f.
1 m./f.
Imperative
Sg. 2 m.
2 f.
TE
tEN;hI
yniT}
ynit}N;hI
Pl. 2 m.
2 f.
Innitives
Absolute
/tn; tEN;h,I /Tni
Construct
Participle
Sg. m.
tE/n
f.
Pl. m.
T:ni
etc. hn;T:n/i tn,T<ni
yniT:ni
f.
t/nT:ni
I-y(w)Verbs
Qal
ds"y/; rq"y;
bvy;
[d'y;
Nif al
Hif il
Hof al
bv/n
byv/h
bvWh
it was
inhabited
he set
III-pharyngeals/
laryngeals
it was precious/
he founded
he sat he knew
it was
set
Sufx-tense
Sg. 3 m.
ds"y,; rq"y;
bvy;
[d'y;
bv/n
byv/h
bvWh
3 f.
hr;q}y;
hb:vy;
h[:d]y;
hb:v/n
hb:yv/h
hb:vWh
2 m.
T:r]qy" ;
T:b}vy;
T:[}d'y;
T:b}v/n
T:b}v/h
T:b}vWh
2 f.
T}r]qy" ;
T}b}vy;
T}["d'y;
T}b}v/n
T}bv
} /h
T}b}vWh
I-y(w)
I-n Paradigms
301
I-y(w)Verbs (cont.)
Qal
Nif al
Hif il
Hof al
1 m./f.
yTIr]qy" ;
yTIb}vy;
yTI[}d'y;
yTIb}v/n
yTIb}v/h
yTIb}vWh
Pl. 3 m./f.
Wrq}y;
Wbvy;
W[d}y;
Wbv/n
Wbyv/h
WbvWh
2 m.
T<r]qy" ]
T<b}vy]
T<[}d'y]
T<b}v/n
T<b}v/h
T<b}vWh
2 f.
T<r]qy" ]
T<b}vy]
T<[}d'y]
T<b}v/ n
T<b}v/h
T<b}vWh
1 m./f.
Wnr]qy" ;
Wnb}v y ;
Wn[}d'y;
Wnb}v/n
Wnb}v/h
Wnb}vWh
Prex-tense
Sg. 3 m.
ds"yyi, rq"yyi
bvye
[d'ye
bvW;yi
byv/y
bvWy
3 f.
rq"yTI
bvTE
[d'TE
bvW;TI
byv/T
bvWT
2 m.
rq"yTI
bvTE
[d'TE
bvW;TI
byv/T
bvWT
2 f.
yriq}yTI
ybIvTE
y[Id]TE
ybIvW;TI
ybIyv/T
ybIvWT
rq"yaI
bvEaE
[d'aE
bvW;aI
byv/a
bvWa
Wrq}yyi
Wbvye
W[d]ye
WbvW;yi
Wbyv/y
WbvWy
3 f.
hn;r]qy" TI
hn;b}vTE
hn;[}d'TE
hn;b}vW;TI
hn;b}v/T
hn;b}vWT
2 m.
Wrq}yTI
WbvTE
W[d]TE
WbvW;TI
Wbyv/T
WbvWT
2 f.
hn;r]qy" TI
hn;b}vTE
hn;[}d'TE
hn;b}vW ;TI
hn;b}v/T
hn;b}vWT
rq"yni
bvEne
[d'ne
bvW;ni
byv/n
bvWn
1 m./f.
Pl. 3 m.
1 m./f.
Short prex-tense
Sg. 3 m.
bv/y
3 f./2 m.
bv/T
Imperative
Sg. 2 m.
2 f.
Pl. 2 m.
2 f.
ds"y,] rq"y]
bv
[D'
bvW;hI
bv/h
yriq}yi
ybIv
y[ID]
ybIvW;hI
ybIyv/h
Wrq}yi
Wbv
W[D]
WbvW;hI
Wbyv/h
hn;r]qy" ]
hn;b}vE
hn;[}D'
hn;b}vW;hI
hn;b}v/h
non-existent
Innitives
Absolute
d/sy;, r/qy;
b/vy;
['/dy;
b/v/n
bvW;hI
bv/h
bvWh
Construct d/sy], r/qy]
tb<v
t["D'
bvW;hI
byv/h
not attested
Paradigms I-n
I-y(w); III-aleph
302
I-y(w)Verbs (cont.)
Qal
Nif al
Hif il
Hof al
Participle
Sg. m.
f.
1rq:y;
bv/y
['de/y
bv/n
byv/m
bvWm
etc. hr;q:y]
/tb<v/y
hb:v/y
t["d'/y
(h[:d]/y)
/hb:v/n
tb<v/n
/hb:yv/m
tb<v/m
/tb<vWm
hb:vWm
yriq:y]
ybIv/y
y[Id]/y
ybIv/n
ybIyv/m
ybIvWm
t/rq:y]
t/bv/y
t/[d]/y
t/bv/n
t/byv/m
t/bvWm
dsE/y,
Pl. m.
f.
1. rq"y;, being a stative verb (original *yaqer), has an adjectival participle; see above,
4.3.5.2.5.1, p. 225.
III-aleph Verbs
Qal
Nif al
Hif il
Hof al
Piel
Pual
Hitpael
ax:m:
ax:m}ni
ayxIm}hI
ax:m}h:
aLEmI
aL:mU
aLEm"t}hI
it was
lled
they
massed
themselves
he
found
it was he caused he was he lled

found
to nd caused to
nd
Sufx-tense
Sg. 3 m.
ax:m:
ax:m}ni
ayxIm}hI
ax:m}h:
aLEmI
aL:mU
aLEm"t}hI
3 f.
ha:x}m:
ha:x}m}ni
ha:yxIm}hI
ha:x}m}h:
ha:L}mI
ha:L}mU
ha:L}m"t}hI
2 m.
t:ax:m:
t:axEm}ni
t:axEm}hI
t:ax:m}h:
t:aLEmI
t:aL:mU
t:aLEm"t}hI
2 f.
tax:m:
taxEm}ni
taxEm}hI
tax:m}h:
taLEmI
taL:mU
taLEm"t}hI
1 m./f.
ytIax:m: ytIaxEm}ni
ytIaxEm}hI
ytIax:m}h:
ytIaLEmI
ytIaL:mU
ytIaLEm"t}hI
WayxIm}hI
Wax}m}h:
WaL}mI
WaL}mU
WaL}m"t}hI
2 m.
t<ax:m} t<axEm}ni t<axEm}hI t<ax:m}h:
t<aLEmI
t<aL:mU t<aLEm"t}hI
2 f.
t<ax:m} t<axEm}ni
t<axEm}hI
t<ax:m}h:
t<aLEmI
t<aL:m
t<aLEm"t}hI
1 m./f.
Wnax:m:
WnaxEm}ni
WnaxEm}hI
Wnax:m}h:
WnaLEmI
WnaL:mU
WnaLEm"t}hI
ax:m}yi
axEM:yi
ayxIm}y'
ax:m}y;
aLEm"y]
aL:mUy]
aLEm"t}yi
3 f.
ax:m}TI
axEM:TI
ayxIm}T"
ax:m}T:
aLEm"T}
aL:mUT}
aLEm"t}TI
2 m.
ax:m}TI
axEM:TI
ayxIm}T"
ax:m}T:
aLEm"T}
aL:mUT}
aLEm"t}TI
2 f.
yaIx}m}TI
yaIx}M:TI
yaIyxIm}T"
yaIx}m}T:
yaIL}m"T}
yaiL}mUT}
yaiL}m"t}TI
Pl. 3 m./f.
Wax}m:
Wax}m}ni
Prex-tense
Sg. 3 m.
column 16 pts. long
III-aleph
I-n Paradigms
303
III-aleph Verbs (cont.)

Qal
1 m./f.
Hof al
Piel
Pual
Hitpael
/axEM:aI
axEM:a<
ayxIm}a"
ax:m}a:
aLEm"a
aL:mUa
aLEm"t}a<
Wax}m}yi
Wax}M:yi
WayxIm}y'
Wax}m}y;
WaL}m"y]
WaL}mUy]
WaL}m"t}yi
hn;ax<m}TI hn;ax<M:TI
hn;ax<m}T"
hn;ax<m}T:
hn;aL<m"T}
Wax}M:TI
WayxIm}T"
Wax}m}T:
WaL}m"T}
hn;ax<m}TI hn;ax<M:TI
hn;ax<m}T"
hn;ax<m}T:
hn;aL<m"T}
ayxIm}n'
ax:m}n;
aLEm"n]
2 m.
2 f.
Hif il
ax:m}a<
Pl. 3 m.
3 f.
Nif al
Wax}m}TI
1 m./f.
ax:m}ni
axEM:ni
hn;aL<mUT} hn;aL<m"t}TI
WaL}mUT}
WaL}m"t}TI
hn;aL<mUT} hn;aL<m"t}TI
aL:mUn]
aLEm"t}ni
Short prex-tense
Sg. 3 m.
axEm}y'
3 f./ 2 m.
axEm}T"
Imperative
Sg. 2 m.
2 f.
Pl. 2 m.
2 f.
non-existent
aLEm"
non-existent
ax:m}
axEM:hI
axEm}h"
aLEm"t}hI
yaIx}mI
yaIx}M:hI
yaiyxIm}h"
yaIL}m"
yaiL}m"t}hI
Wax}mI
Wax}M:hI
WayxIm}h"
WaL}m"
WaL}m"t}hI
hn;ax<m} hn;ax<M:hI
hn;ax<m}h"
hn;aL<m"
hn;aL<m "t}hI
Innitives
Absolute
a/xm:
/a/xm}ni
axEM:hI
axEm}h"
axEm}h:
aLEm"
(a/Lm")
a/LmU
aLEm"t}hI
Construct
axOm}
axEM:hI
ayxIm}h"
not attested
aLEm"
not attested
aLEm"t}hI
aLEm"m}
aL:mUm}
aLEm"t}mI
Participle
Sg. m.
f.
Pl. m.
f.
axE/m
ax:m}ni
ayxIm}m"
taxE/m /taxEm}ni
(ha:x}/m) ha:xm
: }ni
/taxEm}m"
ha:yxIm}m"
ax:m}mU
/taxEm}mU taLEm"m}
ha:x:m}mU (ha:L}m"m)}
/taLEmUm} taLEm"t}mI
ha:L:mUm} (ha:L}m"t}m)I
yaIx:m}ni yaIyxIm}m"
yaIx:m}mU
yaIL}m"m}
yaIL:mUm}
t/ax}/m t/ax:m}ni t/ayxIm}m"
t/ax:m}mU
t/aL}m"m}
t/aL:mUm} t/aL}m"t}mI
yaIx}/m
yaIL}m"t}mI
Paradigms I-n
III-y
304
III-y Verbs
Qal
Nif al
Hif il
Hof al
Piel
Pual
Hitpael
hl:G:
hl:g}ni
hl:g}hI
hl:g}h:
hL:Gi
hL:GU
hL:G"t}hI
he un- he un- he took he was he un- he was

covered covered
into
taken into covered uncovhimself exile
exile
ered
he uncovered
himself
Sufx-tense
Sg. 3 m.
hl:G:
hl:g}ni
hl:g}hI
hl:g}h:
hL:Gi
hL:GU
3 f.
ht:l}G:
ht:l}g}ni
ht:l}g}hI
ht:l}g}h:
ht:L}Gi
ht:L}GU ht:L}G"t}hI
2 m.
t:ylIG:
t:ylEg}ni
t:ylIg}hI
t:ylE g}h:
t:yLIGi
t:yLE GU
t:yLIG"t}hI
2 f.
tylIG:
tylEg}ni
tylIg}hI
tylEg}h:
tyLIGi
tyLEGU
tyLIG"t}hI
1 m./f.
ytIylIG:
ytIylEg}ni
ytIylEg}hI
ytIylEg}h:
ytIyLEGi
ytIyLEGU ytIyLE G"t}hI
Pl. 3 m./f.
WlG:
Wlg}ni
Wlg}hI
Wlg}h:
WLGi
WLGU
hL:G"t}hI
WLG"t}hI
2 m.
t<ylIG}
t<ylEg}ni t<ylIg}hI
t<ylEg}h:
t<yLIGi
t<yLEGU t<yLIG"t}hI
2 f.
t<ylIG}
t<ylEg}ni
t<ylIg}hI
t<ylEg}h:
t<yLIGi
t<yLEG t<yLIG"t}hI
1 m./f.
WnylI G:
WnylE g}ni
WnylIg}hI
WnylEg}h:
WnyLIGi
WnyLEGU
WnyLIG"t}hI
hl<g}yi
hl<G:yi
hl<g}y'
hl<g}y;
hL<g"y]
hL<gUy]
hL<G"t}yi
3 f.
hl<g}TI
hl<G:TI
hl<g}T"
hl<g}T:
hL<g"T}
hL<gUT}
hL<G"t}TI
2 m.
hl<g}TI
hl<G:TI
hl<g}T"
hl<g}T:
hL<g"T}
hL<gUT}
hL<G"t}TI
2 f.
ylIg}TI
ylIG:TI
ylIg}T"
ylIg}T:
yLIg"T}
yLIgUT}
yLIG"t}TI
1 m./f.
hl<g}a<
hl<G:aI
hl<g}a"
hl<g}a:
hL<g"a
hL<gUa
hL<G"t}a<
Wlg}yi
WlG:yi
Wlg}y'
Wlg}y;
WLg"y]
WLgUy]
WLG"t}yi
hn;yl<g}TI
hn;yl<G: TI
hn;yl<g}T"
Wlg}TI
WlG:TI
Wlg}T"
hn;yl<g}TI hn;yl<G:TI
hn;yl<g}T"
Prex-tense
Sg. 3 m.
Pl. 3 m.
3 f.
2 m.
2 f.
1 m./f.
hl<g}ni
hl<G:ni
hl<g}n'
hn;yl<g}T: hn;yL<g"T}
Wlg}T:
WLg"T}
hn;yl<g}T: hn;yL< g"T}

hl<g}n;
hL<g"n]
hn;yL<gUT} hn;yL<G"t}TI
WLgUT}
WLG"t}TI
hn;yL<gUT} hn;yL<G"t}TI
hL<gUn]
hL<G"t}ni
Short prex-tense
Sg. 3 m.
lg,yi
lG:yi
lg,y ,
lg"y]
lG"t}yi
3 f./ 2 m. lg,TI
lG:TI
lg,T<
lg"T}
lG"t}TI
1 m./f.
lg,aI
lG:aI
lg,a<
lg"a
lG"t}a<
Pl. 1 m./f.
lg,ni
lG:ni
lg,n,
lg"n]
lG"t}ni
column 12 pts. long
III-y; II w/y
I-n Paradigms
305
III-y Verbs (cont.)

Qal
Nif al
Hif il
Hof al
Piel
Pual
Hitpael
Imperative
Sg. 2 m.
hlEg}h"
ylIG}
ylIG:hI
ylIg}h"
yLIG"
yLIG"t}hI
WlG}
WlG:hI
Wlg}h"
WLG"
WLG"t}hI
hn;yl<G}
hn;yl< G:hI
hn;yl<g}h"
hn;yL<G"
hn;yL<G"t}hI
Pl. 2 m.
hLEG"
non-existent
hlEG:hI
2 f.
2 f.
non-existent
hlEG}
hLEG"t}hI
Innitives
Absolute
hlG:
/hlg}ni
hlEG:hI
hlEg}h"
hlEg}h:
hLEG"
hLGU
hLEG"t}hI
Construct
t/lG}
t/lG:hI
t/lg}h"
not attested
t/LG"
not attested
t/LG"t}hI
Sg. m.
hl</G
hl<g}ni
hl<g}m"
hl<g}m:
hL<g"m}
hL<gUm}
hL<G"t}mI
hl:/G
hl:g}ni
hl:g}m"
hl:g}m:
hL:g"m}
hL:gUm}
hL:G"t}mI
ylI/G
ylIg}ni
ylIg}m"
ylIg}m:
yLIg"m}
yLIgUm}
yLIG"t}mI
t/l/G
t/lg}ni
t/lg}m"
t/lg}m:
t/Lg"m}
t/LgUm}
t/LG"t}mI
Participle
f.
Pl. m.
f.
II-w/y VerbsQal
v/B
tmE
q:
he was ashamed
he died
he rose
Sufx-tense
Sg. 3 m.
v/B
tmE
q:
3 f.
hv/B
ht:mE
hm:q:
2 m.
T: vBO
T:m"
T:m}q'
2 f.
T} vBO
T}m"
T}m}q'
1 m./f.
yTI vBO
yTIm"
yTIm}q'
Pl. 3 m./f.
Wv/B
WtmE
Wmq:
2 m.
T< vB:
T<m"
T<m}q'
2 f.
T< vB:
T<m"
T<m}q'
Paradigms I-n
II w/y
306
II-w/y VerbsQal (cont.)

1 m./f.
WnvBO
Wnt}m"
WNm}q'
he put c:
Prex-tense
Sg. 3 m.
v/bye
ycy;
Wqy;
3 f.
v/bTE
ycT:
WqT:
2 m.
v/bTE
ycT:
WqT:
2 f.
yv/bTE
ymIycT:
ymIWqT:
v/baE
yca:
Wqa:
Wv/bye
Wmycy;
WmWqy;
3 f.
hn;vbOTE
hn;ym<ycT} / hn;m}c T
:
hn;ym<WqT} / hn;m}qOT:
2 m.
Wv/bTE
WmycT:
WmWqT:
2 f.
hn;vbOTE
hn;ym<ycT} / hn;m}c T
:
hn;ym<WqT}/hn;m}qOT:
v/bne
ycn;
Wqn;
v/B
yc
Wq
yv/B
ymIyc
ymIWq
Wv/B
Wmyc
WmWq
hn;vBO
hn;m}c
hn;m}qO
1 m./f.
Pl. 3 m.
1 m./f.
Imperative
Sg. 2 m.
2 f.
Pl. 2 m.
2 f.
Short prex-tense
Sg. 3 m.
cY; w', cy;
q:Y; w', qOy;
Innitives
Absolute
v/B
yc
/q
Construct
v/B
yc
Wq
Sg. m.
v/B
q:
hv/B
hm:c
hm:q:
yv/B
ymIc
ymIq:
t/v/B
t/mc
t/mq:
Participle
f.
Pl. m.
f.
II w/y
I-n Paradigms
307
II-w/y VerbsQal (cont.)

he enveloped fl:
Passive Participle
Sg. m.
f.
Pl. m.
f.
yc/Wc
fWl
hm:yc/hm:Wc
hf:Wl
ymIyc/ymIWc
yfIWl
t/myc/t/mWc
t/fWl
II-w/y VerbsDerived Themes

Nif al
Hif il
Hof al
Piel
Pual
Hitpael
g/sn;
yqIhE
q"Wh
mE/q
m"/q
mE/qt}hI
he moved he raised
away
he was he raised he was

raised
raised
he rose
Sufx-tense
Sg. 3 m.
g/sn;
yqIhE
q"Wh
mE/q
m"/q
mE/qt}hI
3 f.
hg:/sn;
hm:yqIhE
hm:q}Wh
hm:m}/q
hm:m}/q
hm:m}/qt}hI
2 m.
t:/gWsn]
/T:m}qh
" E
t:/myqIh
T:m}qW" h
T:m}m"/q
T:m}m"/q
T:m}m"/qt}hI
2 f.
t/gWsn]
/T}m}qh
" E
t/myqIh
T}m}qW" h
T}m}m"/q
T}m}m"/q
T}m}m"/qt}hI
1 m./f.
ytI/gWsn]
/yTIm}qh
" E
ytI/myqIh
yTIm}qW" h
yTIm}m"/q
yTIm}m"/q yTIm}m"/qt}hI
Pl. 3 m./f.
Wg/sn;
WmyqIhE
Wmq}Wh
Wmm}/q
2 m.
t</gWsn]
/T<m}qh
"
t</myqIh
T<m}qW" h
T<m}m"/q
T<m}m"/q T<m}m"/qt}hI
2 f.
t</gWsn]
/T<m}qh
"
t</myqIh
T<m}qW" h
T<m}m"/q
T<m}m"/q T<m}m"/qt}hI
Wmm}/q
Wmm}/qt}hI
Paradigms I-n
II w/y
308
II-w/y VerbsDerived Themes (cont.)

Nif al
1 m./f.
Hif il
Hof al
Wn/gWsn]
/Wnm}qh
" E
Wn/myqIh
g/Syi
yqIy;
3 f.
g/STI
2 m.
2 f.
Piel
Wnm}qW" h
Pual
Hitpael
Wnm}m"/q
Wnm}m"/q
Wnm}m"/qt}hI
q"Wy
mE/qy]
m"/qy]
mE/qt}yi
yqIT:
q"WT
mE/qT}
m"E/qT}
mE/qt}TI
g/STI
yqIT:
q"WT
mE/qT}
m"/qT}
mE/qt}TI
ygi/STI
ymIyqIT:
ymIq}WT
ymIm}/qT}
ymIm}/qT}
ymIm}/qt}TI
g/Sa<
yqIa:
q"Wa
mE/qa
m"/qa
mE/qt}a<
Wg/Syi
WmyqIy;
Wmq}Wy
Wmm}/qy]
Wmm}/qy]
Wmm}/qt}yi
3 f.
hn;g}SOTI
E :
hn;m}qT
2 m.
Wg/STI
WmyqIT:
2 f.
hn;g}SOTI
hn;m}qT
E :
g/Sni
yqIn;
Prex-tense
Sg. 3 m.
1 m./f.
Pl. 3 m.
1 m./f.
hn;m}qW" T hn;m}mE/qT} hn;m}m"/qT} hn;m}mE/qt}TI

Wmq}WT
Wmm}/qT}
Wmm}/qT}
Wmm}/qt}TI
hn;m}qW" T hn;m}mE/qT} hn;m}m"/qT} hn;m}mE/qt}TI

q"Wn
mE/qn]
m"/qn]
mE/qt}ni
Short prex-tense
Sg. 3 m.
qEy;
3 f./2 m.
qET:
1 m./f.
qEa:
Pl. 1 m./f.
qEn;
Imperative
Sg. 2 m.
2 f.
Pl. 2 m.
2 f.
non-existent
mE/q
non-existent
g/ShI
qEh:
mE/qt}hI
ygi/ShI
ymIyqIh:
ymIm}/q
ymIm}/qt}hI
Wg/ShI
WmyqIh:
Wmm}/q
Wmm}/qt}hI
hn;g}SOhI
hn;m}qhE :
hn;m}mE/q
hn;m}mE/qt}hI
g/ShI/g/sn;
qEh:
qEWh
mE/q
/m/q
mE/qt}hI
g/ShI
yqIh:
not attested
mE/q
not attested
mE/qt}hI
Innitives
Absolute
Construct
II w/y; Mediae Geminatae

I-n Paradigms
309
II-w/y VerbsDerived Themes (cont.)

Nif al
Hif il
Hof al
Piel
Pual
Hitpael
Participle
Sg. m.
f.
Pl. m.
f.
g/sn;
yqImE
q:Wm
mE/qm}
m:/qm}
mE/qt}mI
hg:/sn]
hm:yqIm}
/hm:q:Wm /hm:m}/qm} /hm:m:/qm} /hm:m}/qt}mI

tm<q<Wm tm<m</qm} tm<m</qm} tm<m</qt}mI
ygi/sn]
ymIyqIm}
ymIq:Wm ymIm}/qm} ymIm:/qm} ymIm}/qt}mI
t/g/sn]
t/myqIm}
t/mq:Wm t/mm}/qm} t/mm:/qm} t/mm}/qt}mI
Mediae Geminatae Verbs

Qal
lq"
bb"s:
it was
slight
he
turned
Nif al
Hif il
bs"n;
bsEhE
he turned he caused to
himself
turn
Hof al
bs"Wh
he was
turned
Sufx-tense
Sg. 3 m.
lq"
bb"s:
bs"n;
bs"h/E bsEhE
bs"Wh
3 f.
hL:q "
hb:b}s:
hB:s"n;
/hB:sEhE
hB:s"h*E
hB:s"Wh
2 m.
t:/Lq"
t:/Bs"
t:/Bs"n]
/t:/BsIh
T:b}s"hE
t:/Bs"Wh
2 f.
t/Lq"
t/Bs"
t/Bs"n]
/t/BsIh
T}b}s"hE
t/Bs"Wh
1 m./f.
ytI/Lq"
ytI/Bs"
ytI/Bs"n]
/ytI/BsIh
yTIb}s"hE
ytI/Bs"Wh
Pl. 3 m./f.
WLq"
Wbb}s:
WBs"n;
WBsEh/E WBs"hE
WBs"Wh
2 m.
t</Lq"
t</Bs"
t</Bs"n]
/t</BsIh t</Bs"Wh
T<b}s"h
2 f.
t</Lq"
t</Bs"
t</Bs"n]
/t</BsIh t</Bs"Wh
T<b}s"h
1 m./f.
Wn/Lq"
Wn/Bs"
Wn/Bs"n] Wnb}s"h/E Wn/BsIh
Wn/Bs"Wh
Paradigms I-n
Mediae Geminatae
310
Mediae Geminatae Verbs (cont.)

Qal
Nif al
Hif il
Hof al
dd"q:
he bowed
Prex-tense
Sg. 3 m.
dQOyi
lq"ye
bsOy;
bS"yi
bsEy;
bs"Wy
3 f.
dQOTI
lq"TE
bsOT:
bS"TI
bsET:
bs"WT
2 m.
dQOTI
lq"TE
bsOT:
bS"TI
bsET:
bs"WT
2 f.
ydiQ}TI
yLIqT
" E
yBIsOT:
yBIS"TI
yBIsET:
yBIs"WT
dQOa<
lq"aE
bsOa:
bS"a<
bsEa:
bs"Wa
WdQ}yi
WLq"ye
WBsOy;
WBS"yi
WBsEy;
WBs"Wy
3 f.
hn;d]QOTI
hn;l}qT
" E
/hn;b}sOT:
hn;yB<sUT}
/hn;b}S"TI
hn;yB<S"TI
2 m.
WdQ}TI
WLq"TE
WBsOT:
WBS"TI
2 f.
hn;d]QOTI
hn;l}qT
" E
/hn;b}sOT:
hn;yB<sUT}
/hn;b}S"TI
hn;yB<S"TI
dQOni
lq' ne
bsOn;
bS"ni
bsEn;
bs"Wn
non-existent
1 m./f.
Pl. 3 m.
1 m./f.
/hn;yB<sIT} /hn;yB<s"WT
hn;b}sET: hn;b}s"WT
WBsET:
WBs"WT
/hn;yB<sIT} /hn;yB<s"WT
hn;b}sET: hn;b}s"WT
Imperative
Sg. 2 m.
2 f.
Pl. 2 m.
2 f.
lq"
bsO
bS"hI
bsEh:
yLIq "
yBIsO
yBIS"hI
yBIsEh:
WLq"
WBsO
WBS"hI
WBsEh:
hn;l}q "
hn;b}sO
hn;b}S"hI
hn;b}sEh:
b/bs: b/ShI, bSEhI
bsEh:
bsEWh
bSEhI
bsEh:
not attested
Innitives
Absolute
Construct
bsO
Participle
Sg. m.
f.
Pl. m.
f.
lq"
bbE/s
bs:n;
bsEmE
bs:Wm
hL:q "
/tb<b</s
hb:b}/s
hB:s"n]
hB:sIm}
hB:s"Wm
yLIq "
ybIb}/s
yBIs"n]
yBIsIm}
yBIs"Wm
t/Lq"
t/bb}/s
t/Bs"n]
t/BsIm}
t/Bs"Wm
Mediae Geminatae
I-n Paradigms
311
Mediae Geminatae Verbs (cont.)

Qal
cursed rWra:
Passive Participle
Sg. m.
f.
Pl. m.
f.
rWra:
hr;Wra
yriWra
t/rWra
Bibliography
Aartun, Kjell
1981
Noch einmal zum Problem der Haupttondehnung beim Nomen im
Althebrischen. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 131: 2841.
Aharoni, Yohanan
1975
Arad Inscriptions. Judean Desert Studies. Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute and The Israel Exploration Society. Hebrew. English ed. 1981, in
cooperation with J. Naveh, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Ahituv, Shmuel
1992
ynAtyb ymy tyarw warAtyb ymym twyrb[ twbwtk tpwsa [Handbook
of Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions from the Period of the First Commonwealth and the Beginning of the Period of the Second Commonwealth]. 7 tyarqmh hydpwlqyxnah tyyrps [Library of the Encyclopedia Miqrait 7]. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik.
2005
ymym dryh rb[ twklmmw laryAram twbwtk tpwsa >btkmhw btkh
warAtyb [Script and Inscriptions: Handbook of Ancient Inscriptions from the Land of Israel and the Kingdoms beyond the Jordan
from the Period of the First Commonwealth]. hydpwlqyxnah tyyrps
21 tyarqmh [Library of the Encyclopedia Miqrait 21]. Jerusalem:
Mosad Bialik.
Andersen, F. I., and Forbes, A. D
1986
Spelling in the Hebrew Bible. Biblica et Orientalia 41. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Avishur, Y., and Blau, J., eds
1978
Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East Presented to Samuel E.
Loewenstamm on His Seventieth Birthday. Jerusalem: E. Rubinstein.
Barr, James
1968
Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. Oxford:
Clarendon. Repr. with additions, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
1987.
Barth, Jakob
1889
Vergleichende Studien. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen
Gesellschaft 43: 17791.
1893
Etymologische Studien zum semitischen, insbesondere zum hebrischen Lexicon. Beilage zum Jahresbericht der Berliner RabbinerSeminars von Jahren 189193. Leipzig: Hinrichs / Berlin: Itzkowski.
1894a
Die Nominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen. 2nd ed. Leipzig:
Hinrichs.
313
Bibliography
1894b
314
Zur vergleichenden semitischen Grammatik. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 48: 121.
190711 Sprachwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Semitischen 2. JahresBericht des Rabbiner-Seminars zu Berlin fr 1909/1910. Berlin: Itzkowski.
1913
Die Pronominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Hinrichs.
Bauer, Hans
1910
Die Tempora im Semitischen: ihre Entstehung und ihre Ausgestaltung
in den Einzelsprachen. Beitrge zur Assyriologie 8. Leipzig: Hinrichs.
1912
Noch einmal die semitischen Zahlwrter. Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 66: 26770.
1914
Semitische Sprachprobleme. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 68: 36572.
Bauer, Hans, and Leander, Pontus
1922
Historische Grammatik der hebrischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes. Halle an S.: Max Niemeyer. Repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1991.
Beeston, A. F. L.
1962
A Descriptive Grammar of Epigraphic South-Arabian. London:
Luzac.
1984
Sabaic Grammar. Journal of Semitic Studies Monograph 6. Manchester: Journal of Semitic Studies, University of Manchester.
Bendavid, Abba
195859 twnfqw twlwdg tw[wntl hqwljh [The Division into Long and Short
Vowels]. Lesonnu 22: 735, 11036.
Ben-David, Israel
1995
arqmh ym[fw rybjt >arqmb tyrb[b qsph twrwxw rqh twrwx [Contextual and Pausal Forms in Biblical Hebrew: Syntax and Accentuation]. Jerusalem: Magnes.
Ben-ayyim, Zeev
1951
tynwmdqh tymrab twrtsnh [The Third Person Plural Feminine in Old
Aramaic]. Eretz-Israel 1 (Schwabe Volume): 13539. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
1954
Studies in the Traditions of the Hebrew Language. Madrid: Instituto
Arias Montano.
1957
trwsmw hrwsm [Masorah and Tradition]. Lesonnu 21: 28392.
195862 La Tradition Samaritaine et sa Parent avec les Autres Traditions de la
Langue Hbraque. Mlanges de Philosophie et de Littrature Juives
35: 89128.
Ben-ayyim, Zeev, with Tal, Abraham
2000
A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew: Based on the Recitation of the
Law in Comparison with the Tiberian and Other Jewish Traditions.
2nd ed. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns / Jerusalem: Magnes.
315
Bibliography
Ben-Yehuda, Eliezer
1919
?tyrb[ wrbd ytmya d[ [How Long Did They Speak Hebrew?]. New
York: Kadimah.
Berggrn, Nissan
1995
tyrb[h wlb ynwy[ [Studies in the Hebrew Language]. Collected and
edited by Yitsa Heelman. Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew
Language.
Bergstrsser, Gotthelf
1909
Das hebrische Prx v. Zeitschrift fr die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 29: 4056.
191829 Hebrische Grammatik. Leipzig: Vogel/Hinrichs. Repr., Hildesheim:
Olms, 1986. [Abbreviation: Bergstrsser.]
1928
Einfhrung in die semitischen Sprachen: Sprachproben und grammatische Skizzen. Munich: Hueber.
1983
Introduction to the Semitic Languages: Text Specimens and Grammatical Sketches. Trans. and sup. Peter T. Daniels. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns. Corrected repr., 1995.
Beyer, Klaus
1969
Althebrische Grammatik: Laut- und Formenlehre. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
1984
Die aramischen Texte vom Toten Meer, samt den Inschriften aus
Palstina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
1994
Die aramischen Texte vom Toten Meer. Ergnzungsband. Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Birkeland, Harris
1940
Akzent und Vokalismus im Althebrischen mit Beitrgen zur vergleichenden semitischen Sprachwissenschaft. Skrifter utgitt av der
Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo. II. Hist.-los. Klasse. 1940.
No. 3. Oslo: Jacob Dybwad.
Blanc, Haim
1970
Dual and Pseudo-Dual in the Arabic Dialects. Language 46: 4257.
Blau, Joshua
Articles marked with appear in Blau, Topics (1998b).
Articles marked with * appear in Blau, Middle Arabic (1988).
Articles marked with + appear in Blau tyrb[ twnlbb ynwy[ [Studies] (1996).
+1952
+1954
tybyfqa harwhb lw[p ynwnyb [The paul Participle in Active Sense].

Lesonnu 18: 6781 = Studies: 31329.
Zum angeblichen Gebrauch von ta vor dem Nominativ. Vetus Testamentum 4: 719 = [translated into Hebrew] Studies: 13748.
Bibliography
+1956a
+1956b
+1956c
+1957a
1957b
+1957c
1959
1961
1968a
1968b
1969a
*1969b
+1970a
+1970b
1970c
1971a
316
Gibt es ein emphatischen et im Bibelhebrischen? Vetus Testamentum 6: 21112 = [translated into Hebrew] Studies: 13748.
ber homonyme und angelich homonyme Wurzeln. Vetus Testamentum 6: 24248 = [translated into Hebrew] Studies: 16674.
Zum Hebrisch der bersetzer des AT. Vetus Testamentum 6: 9799 =
[translated into Hebrew] Studies: 17576.
Hob2 re Samajim (Jes. xlvii 13) = Himmelsanbeter. Vetus Testamentum 7: 18384 = [translated into Hebrew] Studies: 235.
ber die t-form des Hif il im Bibelhebrisch. Vetus Testamentum 7:
38588.
ber homonyme und angeblich homonyme Wurzeln II. Vetus Testamentum 7: 98102 = [translated into Hebrew] Studies: 16674.
Adverbia als psychologische und grammatische Subjekte / Prdikate
im Bibelhebrisch. Vetus Testamentum 9: 13037.
Reste des i-Imperfekts von ZKR Qal. Vetus Testamentum 11: 8186.
On Problems of Polyphony and Archaism in Ugaritic Spelling. Journal of the American Oriental Society 88: 52326 = Topics: 33943.
Some Difculties in the Reconstruction of Proto-Hebrew and
Proto-Canaanite. Pp. 2943 in In Memoriam Paul Kahle, ed. Matthew Black and Georg Fohrer. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 103. Berlin: Alfred Tpelmann = Topics:
26682.
The Origins of Open and Closed e in Proto-Syriac. Bulletin of the
School of Oriental and African Studies 32: 19 = Topics: 299307.
Some Problems of the Formation of the Old Semitic Languages in the
Light of Arabic Dialects. Pp. 3844 in Proceedings of the International Conference on Semitic Studies Held in Jerusalem, 1923 July
1965. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities =
Middle Arabic: 36167.
tyrb[h wlh l hyrwfsyhb twy[b [Problems in the History of Hebrew]. Pp. 923 in lary twdlwtb yrqjm >wla whyldgl wrkz rps
tyrb[h wlbw [In Memory of Gedalyahu Alon: Essays in Jewish History and Hebrew Philology], ed. Menaem Dorman, Shemuel Safrai,
and Menaem Stern. Tel Aviv: ha-Kibuts ha-Meuad = Studies: 25
40.
hmwdqh tyrb[b hm[fhh ylwglgl twr[h [Notes on Changes in Stress
in Early Hebrew]. Pp. 2738 in mry yyj rps [Hayyim (Jem) Schirmann Jubilee Volume], ed. Shraga Abramson and Aaron Mirsky.
Jerusalem: Schocken Institute for Jewish Research of the Jewish
Theological Seminary of America = Studies: 4152.
On Pseudo-Corrections in Some Semitic Languages. Jerusalem: Israel
Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
Marginalia semitica I. Israel Oriental Studies 1: 135 = Topics: 185
220.
317
1971b
1971c
1972a
*1972b
1973a
+1973b
+1974
+1975
1976
1977a
*1977b
1977c
+1977d
1977e
1978a
1978b
Bibliography
On the Repetition of the Predicate in the Bible. Pp. 23440 in Bible

and Jewish History Dedicated to the Memory of Jacob Liver, ed. B. Uffenheimer. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press = Studies: 12430.
Studies in Hebrew Verb Formation. Hebrew Union College Annual
42: 13358 = Topics: 15580.
Marginalia semitica II. Israel Oriental Studies 2: 5782 = Topics:
22146.
Middle and Old Arabic Material for the History of Stress in Arabic.
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 35: 47684 =
Middle Arabic: 297305.
Remarks on Some Syntactic Trends of Modern Standard Arabic. Israel Oriental Studies 3: 172231.
Der bergang der bibelhebrischen Verba I w (y) von Qal in Hifil im
Lichte des Ugaritischen. Ugarit-Forschungen 5: 27577 = [translated
into Hebrew] Studies: 8788.
twym twnwlb ([wdyyh ta llwk) yywnykh trwtb ynwy[ [Studies in the
Theory of Pronouns (including Determination) in Semitic Languages].
Pp. 1745 in wly wnjl wrkyz rps [Memorial Volume in Honor of Henoch Yalon], ed. E. Y. Kutscher, S. Lieberman, M. Kaddari. Jerusalem:
Kiryat Sefer = Studies: 34573.
hmwdqh tyrb[b hm[fhh wjtb twy[b l[ [On Problems of Stress in
Ancient Hebrew]. Pp. 6273 in lyywwxrwq wrb rps [Essays Honoring
Baruch Kurzweil], ed. M. Z. Kaddari. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University = Studies: 5465.
A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Porta Linguarum Orientalium n.s. 12.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2nd ed., 1993.
An Adverbial Construction in Hebrew and Arabic: Sentence Adverbials in Frontal Position Separated from the Rest of the Sentence. The
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Proceedings 6/1. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
The Beginnings of the Arabic Diglossia: A Study of the Origins of
Neo-Arabic. Afroasiatic Linguistics 4/4 = Middle Arabic: 138.
Marginalia semitica III. Israel Oriental Studies 7: 1432 = Topics:
24765.
Notes on Relative Clauses in Biblical Hebrew [Hebrew]. Shnaton 2:
5053 (English summary, xi) = Studies: 16265.
Weak Phonetic Change and the Hebrew in. Hebrew Annual Review 1: 67119 = Topics: 50103.
Hebrew and North-West Semitic: Reections on the Classication of
the Semitic Languages. Hebrew Annual Review 2: 2144 = Topics:
30832.
Hebrew Stress Shifts, Pretonic Lengthening, and Segolization: Possible Cases of Aramaic Interference in Hebrew Syllable Structure. Israel Oriental Studies 8: 91106 = Topics: 10419.
Bibliography
+1978c
318
tybr[b ymtsh lybsh [qr l[ hwj wyd) arqmb ymtsh lybsh l[

(tysalqh [On Invariable Passive Forms in Biblical Hebrew and Classical Arabic. Pp. 18594 in auul ygwm wmdqh jrzmbw arqmb yrqjm
fnwyl [Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East Presented to Samuel E. Loewenstamm on His Seventieth Birthday], ed. Y. Avishur and
J. Blau. Jerusalem: E. Rubinstein = Studies 11423.
+1978d arqmh tyrb[b hyd[lbw nAb trtsnw rtsn yywnyk [Pronominal ThirdPerson Singular Sufxes with and without n in Biblical Hebrew].
Eretz-Israel 14 (H. L. Ginsberg Volume) 12531 = Studies: 94104.
1979a
Non-Phonetic Conditioning of Sound Change and Biblical Hebrew.
Hebrew Annual Review 3: 715 = Topics: 2635.
1979b Redundant Pronominal Sufxes Denoting Intrinsic Possession. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 11: 3137 = Topics: 14654.
1979c
Short Philological Notes on the Inscription of Mesa. Maarav 2: 143
57 = Topics: 34458.
1979d Some Remarks on the Prehistory of Stress in Biblical Hebrew. Israel
Oriental Studies 9: 4954 = Topics: 12025.
1980
The Parallel Development of the Feminine Ending -at in Semitic Languages. Hebrew Union College Annual 51: 1728 = Topics: 12637.
1981a
On Pausal Lengthening, Pausal Stress Shift, Philippis Law and Rule
Ordering in Biblical Hebrew. Hebrew Annual Review 5: 113 = Topics: 3649.
+1981b hyh h[pwtk twynwrgh tljh l hylwglg l[ [On the Development of
the Weakening of the Gutturals as a Living Phenomenon]. Lesonnu
45: 3239 = Studies: 1724.
1981c
The Renaissance of Modern Hebrew and Modern Standard Arabic:
Parallels and Differences in the Revival of Two Semitic Languages.
University of California Publications: Near Eastern Studies 18.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
1982a
On Polyphony in Biblical Hebrew. Pp. 10583 in The Israel Academy
of Sciences and Humanities Proceedings 6/2. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
+1982b sjy tlym ydy l[ ykrxwmw x[ b yjtwph yrwqm ytlb yfpm
arqmb [Asyndetic Prepositional Clauses Opening with a Substantive
in Biblical Hebrew]. Pp. 27786 in [Bible Studies: Y. M. Grintz in
Memoriam], ed. B. Uffenheimer. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press
= Studies 15561.
1982c
Remarks on the Development of Some Pronominal Sufxes in Hebrew. Hebrew Annual Review 6: 6167 = Topics: 13845.
+198283 arqmh trwpysb ynmzh tkr[m l[ yrwhrh [Thoughts on the Tense System in Biblical Narrative]. Pp. 1923 in yrmam >mgylz hyra qjxy rps
qyt[h lw[bw arqmb [Essays in Honor of Isaac Leo Seeligmann: Articles in the Bible and in the Ancient World], ed. Yair Zakovitch and
Alexander Rof. Jerusalem: A. Rubinstein = Studies: 10913.
319
+1983
Bibliography
Eine Theorie der Haupttondehnung im Althebrischen. Zeitschrift der

Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 133: 2429 = [translated
into Hebrew] Studies: 7276.
+1985
hdjh tyrb[h l twbkhAbr hypwal twr[h [Remarks on the Multilayered Character of Modern Hebrew]. Pp. 8792 in Aba hrba rps
rah t[ydybw twrpsb ,arqmb ,wlb yrqjm >w [Essays in Honor
of Avraham Even-Shoshan: Studies in Language, in Bible, in Literature, and in the Geography of Israel], ed. Lurya Ben-Tsiyon. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer = Studies: 27277.
+1986
ypylyp qwj l hygwlwnwrkh l[ [Remarks on the Chronology of Philippis Law]. Pp. *1*4 in Proceedings of the 9th World Congress of
Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, August 1985. Jerusalem: World Union of
Jewish Studies = Studies: 1216.
+1987a
tyarqmh hygwlwmyfal tysalq rtbh tybr[h l htmwrt l[ [On the
Contribution of Post-Classical Arabic to Biblical Etymology]. Pp. 93
103 in duum l wtdlwhl hn ham talmb rwal yaxwy >arqmb yrqjm
wfwsaq [Studies in Bible: Dedicated to the Memory of U. Cassuto on
the 100th Anniversary of His Birth], ed. Haim Beinart and Samuel E.
Loewenstamm. Jerusalem: Magnes = Studies: 198208.
1987b Minutiae aramaicae. Pp. 310 in Perspectives on Language and Text:
Essays and Poems in Honor of Francis I. Andersens Sixtieth Birthday, July 28, 1985, ed. E. W. Conrad and E. G. Newing. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns = Topics: 29098.
*1988
Studies in Middle Arabic and Its Judaeo-Arabic Variety. Jerusalem:
Magnes.
+198990 arqmb tyrb[h tmw[l hdjh tyrb[h l bkrwmh hnbmh l[ [On the
Compound Structure of Modern Hebrew as Opposed to Biblical Hebrew]. Lesonnu 44: 10314 = Studies: 27889.
+1992
hmgmh ahb ymyytsmh twmh trwxtl tyrwfsyh trgsm tbxhl h[xh
[A Suggestion for Establishing a Historical Framework for the Morphology of Nouns Ending in Locative -h]. wh wlb yrqjm [Studies
in Language 56]: 711 = Studies: 8993.
1995
The Monophthongization of Diphthongs as Reected in the Use of
Vowel Letters in the Pentateuch. Pp. 711 in Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greeneld, ed. Z. Zevit, S. Gitin, and M. Sokoloff. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns = Topics: 2125.
+1996
tyrb[ twnlbb tnwy[ [Studies in Hebrew Linguistics]. Jerusalem:
Magnes. Hebrew. [Includes Hebrew translations of some German articles from the 1950s.]
1997
arqmh tyrb[ l twrwxhw hghh trwtb twy[b [Issues in Biblical Phonetics and Morphology]. Lesonnu 60: 18189.
1998a
On the History and Structure of Hebrew = Topics: 1119.
1998b Topics in Hebrew and Semitic Linguistics. Jerusalem: Magnes.
Bibliography
2001
320
Phonological and Morphological Problems of Biblical Hebrew: Solutions New and Old. Pp. 112 in Proceedings of the Israel Academy of
Sciences and Humanities 9/1. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences
and Humanities.
2007
hqyz twl[b twmwdq twym twp yt l ynwlh dm[m l[ yrwhrh
arqml tytwbrt [Reections on the Linguistic Status of Two Ancient
Semitic Languages with Cultural Ties to the Bible]. Lesonnu 49:
21520.
Blau, Joshua, and Hopkins, Simon
*1985
A Vocalized Judaeo-Arabic Letter from the Cairo Genizah. Jerusalem
Studies in Arabic and Islam 6: 41776 = Middle Arabic: 195259.
Blau, Joshua, et al., eds.
1979
Studia Orientalia Memoriae D. H. Baneth Dedicata. Jerusalem:
Magnes.
Bloch, Ariel
1963
Zur Nachweisbarkeit einer hebrischen Entsprechung der akkadischen Verbalform iparras. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 113: 4150.
1967
The Vowels of the Imperfect Preformatives in the Old Dialects of
Arabic. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft
117: 229.
Botterweck, G. J.
1952
Der Triliteralismus im Semitischen. Bonner Biblische Beitrge 3.
Bonn: Hanstein.
Bravmann, M. M.
1977
Studies in Semitic Philology. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 6. Leiden: Brill.
Breuer, Mordechai
1981
y[fW yrqW bytK .d ./dWqynbw arqmh ym[fB t/ygws l rWrybl [Towards the Clarication of Problems of Biblical Accents and Punctuation 4. Qere and ketib and eim]. Lesonnu 45: 26069.
1995
[rkt hl ya twqps [Insoluble Problems]. Lesonnu 58: 28396.
Brockelmann, Carl
190813 Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen.
2 vols. Berlin: Reuther und Reichard. Repr., Olms: Hildesheim, 1961.
1940
Neuere Theorien zur Geschichte des Akzents und des Vokalismus im
Hebrischen und Aramischen. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 94: 33271.
1951
Die Tempora des Semitischen. Zeitschrift fr Phonetik und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 5: 13554.
1956
Hebrische Syntax. Neukirchen Kreis Moers: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins.
Brown, Francis; Driver, S. R.; Briggs, Charles A.
1907
A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon.
321
Bibliography
Buhl, Frants
1915
Wilhelm Gesenius hebrisches und aramisches Handwrterbuch
ber das Alte Testament. 16th ed. Leipzig: Vogel. Repr., Berlin:
Springer, 1962.
Bursztyn, Israel
1929
Vollstndige Grammatik der alt- und neuhebrischen Sprache. Vienna: Gerold.
Cantineau, Jean
1931
De la place de laccent de mot en Hbreu et en Aramen Biblique.
Bulletin dtudes orientales de lInstitut Franais de Damas 1: 81
98.
1932
limination des syllables brves en Hbreu et en Aramen Biblique.
Bulletin dtudes orientales de lInstitut Franais de Damas 2: 125
44.
1960
tudes de linguistique arabe. Paris: Klincksieck.
Chomsky, Noam
1965
Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.
1995
The Minimalist Program. Current Studies in Linguistics 28. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.
Cohen, David
1989
Laspect verbal. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
Cohen, H. R. (Chaim)
1978
Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 37. Missoula, MT:
Scholars Press.
1989
The Held Method for Comparative Semitic Philology. Journal of
the Ancient Near Eastern Society 19 (Semitic Studies in Memory of
Moshe Held): 923.
Cross, Frank Moore, and Freedman, David Noel
1952
Early Hebrew Orthography: A Study of the Epigraphic Evidence.
American Oriental Series 36. New Haven: American Oriental Society.
Degen, Rainer
1969
Altaramische Grammatik der Inschriften des 108. Jh. v. Chr. Abhandlungen fr die Kunde des Morgenlandes 38. [Mainz]: Deutsche
Morganlndische Gesellschaft.
Diem, Werner
1975
Gedanken zur Frage der Mimation und Nunation in den semitischen
Sprachen. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft
125: 23958.
1997
Sufx Konjugation und Subjektspronomina: Ein Beitrag zur Rekonstruktion des Ursemitischen und zur Geschichte der Semitistik. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 147: 1076.
Bibliography
322
Dietrich, Manfred; Loretz, Oswald; and Sanmartn, Joaqun

1995
The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other
Places. Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palstinas und Mesopotamiens 8. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Dion, P.-E.
1974
La langue de Yaudi: Description et classement de lancien parler de
Zencirli dans le cadre des language smitiques du nord-ouest. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University/Corporation for the Publication of Academic Studies in Religion in Canada.
Donner, Herbert, and Rllig, Wolfgang
197176 Kanaanische und aramische Inschriften. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Driver, S. R.
1892
A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical Questions. 3rd ed. Repr. of the 3rd ed., with introd. by W. Randall Garr. Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans /
Livonia, MI: Dove, 1998.
Edzard, Lutz E.
1998
Polygenesis, Convergence, and Entropy: An Alternative Model of
Linguistic Evolution Applied to Semitic Linguistics. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Fischer, Wolfdietrich
1959
Die demonstrativen Bildungen der neuarabischen Dialekte: Ein Beitrag zur historischen Grammatik des Arabischen. The Hague: Mouton.
1972
Grammatik des klassischen Arabisch. Porta Linguarum Orientalium
n.s. 11. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
2002
A Grammar of Classical Arabic. 3rd ed. Trans. J. Rodgers. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Fontinoy, Charles
1969
Le duel dans les langues smitiques. Paris: Socit ddition Les
Belles Lettres.
Fraenkel, S.
1898
Zum sporadischen Lautwandel in den semitischen Sprachen. Beitrge
zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft 3: 6086.
Friedrich, Johannes
1951
Phnizisch-punische Grammatik. 1st ed. Analecta Orientalia 32.
Rome: Pontical Biblical Institute.
Friedrich, Johannes, with Rllig, Wolfgang; Guzzo, Maria Giulia Amadasi; and
Mayer, Werner R.
1999
Phnizisch-punische Grammatik. 3rd ed. Analecta Orientalia 55.
323
Bibliography
Garbell, Irene
1954
Quelques observations sur les phonmes de lhbreu biblique et traditional. Bulletin de la Socit de Linguistique de Paris 50: 23143.
Garbini, Giovanni
1960
Il Semitico di Nord-Ovest. Istituto orientale di Napoli. Annali. Sezione linguistica. Quaderni 1. Naples: Istituto Universario Orientale.
Garr, W. Randall
1985
Dialect Geography of SyriaPalestine, 1000586 b.c.e. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press. Repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004.
Geiger, Abraham
1845
Lehr- und Lesebuch zur Sprache der Mischnah. Breslau: Leuckart.
Gelb, Ignace J.
1961
Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar. 2nd ed., rev. and enlarged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gesenius, Wilhelm
1812
Hebrisch-deutsches Handwrterbuch ber die Schriften des Alten
Testaments. Leipzig: Vogel.
183558 Guilielmi Gesenii Thesaurus Philologus Criticus Linguae Hebraeae
et Chaldaeae Veteris Testamenti. Leipzig: Vogel.
Ginsberg, H. Louis
192930a Studies on the Biblical Hebrew Verb, I: Masoretically Misconstrued
Internal Passives. II: Heterogeneous Innitive-Finite Constructions.
American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 46: 5358.
192930b Studies on the Biblical Hebrew Verb, III: Phonetic Problems. American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 46: 12738.
Goetze, Albrecht
1939
Accent and Vocalism in Hebrew. Journal of the American Oriental
Society 59: 43159.
1942
The So-Called Intensives of the Semitic Languages. Journal of the
American Oriental Society 62: 18.
Gogel, Sandra L.
1998
A Grammar of Epigraphic Hebrew. Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study 23. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Goldenberg, Gideon
1977
The Semitic Languages of Ethiopia and Their Classication. Bulletin
of the School of Oriental and African Studies 40: 461507. Repr. in
Goldenberg 1998: 286332.
1998
Studies in Semitic Linguistics: Selected Writings. Jerusalem: Magnes.
Gordon, C. H.
1965
Ugaritic Textbook. Analecta Orientalia 38. Rome: Pontical Biblical
Institute.
Bibliography
324
Graetz, Heinrich
1902
History of the Jews, II: From the Reign of Hyrcanus (135 b.c.e.) to
the Completion of the Babylonian Talmud (500 c.e.). Philadelphia:
The Jewish Publication Society of America.
Grammar = J. Blau. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Porta Linguarum Orientalium n.s. 12. 2nd edition. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1993. [1st ed.,
1976]
Grimme, Hubert
1896
Grundzge der hebrischen Akzent- und Vokallehre. Collectanea Friburgensia 5. Freiburg: Universittsbuchhandlung.
Grotzfeld, Heinz
1964
Laut- und Formenlehre des Damaszenisch-Arabischen. Abhandlungen fr die Kunde des Morgenlandes 35/3. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.
Gyarmathi, Smuel
1968
Afnitas linguae hungaricae cum linguis fennicae originis grammatice demonstrate. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Original: Gttingen, 1799.
Hackett, Jo Ann
1984
The Balaam Text from Deir Alla. Harvard Semitic Monographs 31.
Chico, CA: Scholars Press.
Harris, Z. S.
1939
Development of the Canaanite Dialects: An Investigation in Linguistic History. American Oriental Series 16. New Haven: American Oriental Society.
Har-Zahav, Tsevi
1953
tyrb[h wlh qwdqd [Grammar of the Hebrew Language], vol. 3/2.
Tel Aviv: Mabarot le-Sifrut.
Held, Moshe
1965
Studies in Comparative Semitic Lexicography. Pp. 395406 in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, ed.
H. G. Gterbock and T. Jacobsen. Assyriological Studies 16. Chicago:
The Oriental Institute.
197071 Studies in Biblical Homonyms in the Light of Akkadian. Journal of
the Ancient Near Eastern Society 3: 4655.
1973
Pits and Pitfalls in Akkadian and Biblical Hebrew. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 5: 17390.
1974
Hebrew magal: A Study in Lexical Parallelism. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 6: 10716.
1982
tydkah rwal tyarqmh hyprgwqysqlb ynwy[ [Studies in Biblical Lexicography in the Light of Akkadian, Part I]. Eretz-Israel 16 (Harry M.
Orlinsky Volume): 7685.
1985
Marginal Notes to the Biblical Lexicon. Pp. 93103 in Biblical and
Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry, ed. Ann Kort and Scott
Morschauser. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
325
Bibliography
Hetzron, Robert
1974
La division des langues smitiques. Pp. 18194 in Actes du premier
Congrs internationale de linguistique smitique et chamito-smitique: Paris, 1619 Juillet 1969, ed. Andr Caquot and David Cohen.
Janua linguarum, series practica 159. The Hague: Mouton.
1976
Two Principles of Genetic Reconstruction. Lingua 38: 89108.
Hoerning, R.
1889
British Museum Karaite Manuscripts: Descriptions and Collations of
Six Karaite Manuscripts of Portions of the Hebrew Bible in Arabic
Characters. London: Williams and Norgate.
Holladay, William L.
1971
A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament Based
upon the Lexical Work of Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Huehnergard, John
1981
Akkadian Evidence for Case-Vowels on Ugaritic Bound Forms. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 33: 199205.
1987a
The Feminine Plural Jussive in Old Aramaic. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 137: 26677.
1987b Three Notes on Akkadian Morphology. Pp. 18193 in Working with
No Data: Semitic and Egyptian Studies Presented to Thomas O.
Lambdin, ed. David M. Golomb, with Susan T. Hollis. Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns.
1992
Historical Phonology and the Hebrew Piel. Pp. 20929 in Linguistics
and Biblical Hebrew, ed. W. R. Bodine. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Humboldt, Wilhem von
1836
ber die Kawi-Sprache auf der Insel Java. Abhandlungen der Kniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Berlin: Knigliche
Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Hurvitz, Avi
1972
yn tyb ymyb arqmh wl twdlwtl >wll wl yb [The Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik.
Izre'el, Shlomo
1978
The Gezer Letters of the El-Amarna Archive: Linguistic Analysis. Israel Oriental Studies 8: 1390.
Jastrow, Otto
1978
Die mesopotamisch-arabischen Qeltu-Dialekte. Band I: Phonologie
und Morphologie. Abhandlungen fr die Kunde des Morgenlandes
43/4. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.
1981
Die mesopotamisch-arabischen Qeltu-Dialekte. Band II: Volkskundliche Texte in elf Dialekten. Abhandlungen fr die Kunde des Morgenlandes 46/1. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.
Bibliography
326
Jenni, Ernst
1968
Das hebrische Piel: Syntaktisch-semasiologische Untersuchung
einer Verbalform im Alten Testament. Zurich: EVZ.
Joosten, Jan
1998
The Functions of the Semitic D-Stem: Biblical Hebrew Materials for
a Comparative-Historical Approach. Orientalia 67: 20230.
Joon, Paul
1923
Grammaire de lHbreu biblique. Rome: Pontical Biblical Institute.
Joon, Paul, and Muraoka, T.
1991
A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2 vols. Rome: Pontical Biblical Institute.
Kafa, Y.
1972
ymwyp swy ruub hyd[s wnbr wagh wryp [ >(ydabmla batk) hryxy rps
[Sefer Yetsirah (Kitab al-Mabadi): With the Commentary of Rabbenu
Saadia Gaon Ben Yosef ]. Jerusalem: Epstein.
Kahle, Paul
1959
The Cairo Genizah. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell. [1st ed., 1947.]
Khan, Geoffrey
1990
Karaite Bible Manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah. Cambridge University Library Genizah Series 9. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kienast, Burkhart
2001
Historische semitische Sprachwissenschaft: Mit Beitrgen von Erhart
Graefe (Altaegyptisch) und Gene B. Gragg (Kuschitisch). Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Klein, Ernest
1987
A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language
for Readers of English. New York: Macmillan / Jerusalem: Carta.
Koehler, Ludwig, and Baumgartner, Walter
1953
Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros. 1st ed. Leiden: Brill.
1958
Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros: Wrterbuch zum hebrischen
Alten Testament in deutscher und englischer Sprache. 2nd ed. Leiden:
Brill.
[Koehler, Ludwig,]; Baumgartner, Walter; Stamm, J. J.; et al.
1996
Hebrisches und aramisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. 3rd ed.
Leiden: Brill.
2000
Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Trans.
M. E. J. Richardson et al. Leiden: Brill.
Krahmalkov, Charles R.
2002
Phoenician. Pp. 20722 in Beyond Babel: A Handbook for Biblical
Hebrew and Related Languages, ed. J. Kaltner and S. L. McKenzie.
Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study 42. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
327
Bibliography
Kurylowicz, Jerzy
1961
LApophonie en Smitique. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolinskich. [English adaptation: Studies in Semitic Grammar and Metrics,
1972.]
Kutscher, Eduard Yechezkel
1965
Contemporary Studies in North-western Semitic. Journal of Semitic
Studies 10: 2151.
1967
Mittelhebrisch und Jdisch-Aramisch im neuen Khler-Baumgartner. Pp. 15875 in Hebrische Wortforschung: Festschrift zum 80.
Geburtstag von Walter Baumgartner, ed. Benedikt Hartmann et al.
Supplement to Vetus Testamentum 16. Leiden: Brill. [Repr. in Kutscher 1977: 15673.]
1976
Studies in Galilean Aramaic. Bar-Ilan Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures. Trans. Michael Sokoloff. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan
University, 1976.
1977
Hebrew and Aramaic Studies. Edited by Z. Ben-ayyim et al. Jerusalem: Magnes.
1982
A History of the Hebrew Language. Edited by Raphael Kutscher. Jerusalem: Magnes / Leiden: Brill.
Labov, William
1965
On the Mechanism of Linguistic Change. Pp. 91114 in Report of the
Sixteenth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language
Studies, ed. C. W. Kreidler. Georgetown Monograph on Language
and Linguistics 18. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
[Repr. as Labov 1972.]
1972
On the Mechanism of Linguistic Change. Pp. 51238 in Directions in
Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, ed. J. J. Gumperz and Dell Hymes. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. [Repr.
from Labov 1965]
1994
Principles of Linguistic Change: Internal Factors. Language in Society 20. Oxford: Blackwell.
Labov, William, ed.
1980
Locating Language in Time and Space. New York: Academic Press.
Lagarde, Paul de
1889
bersicht ber die im Aramischen, Arabischen und Hebrischen
bliche Bildung der Nomina. Gttingen: Dieterich.
Lambert, Mayer
1890
Laccent tonique en hbreu. Revue des tudes Juives 20: 7377.
1891a
Commentaire sur le Sfer Yesira ou la Livre de la cration par la Gaon
Saadya de Fayyoum. Bibliothque de lcole Pratique des Hautes
tudes. Sciences philologiques et historiques 85. Paris: Bouillon.
1891b Une srie de Qer Ketib. Paris.
1893
Le Vav Conversif. Revue des tudes Juives 26: 4762.
1897
De laccent en arabe. Journal Asiatique 9: 40213.
Bibliography
1898
328
Notes grammaticales et lexicographiques. Revue des tudes Juives

37: 14243.
1903
De lemploi des sufxes pronominaux avec noun et sans noun au future et limpratif. Revue des tudes Juives 46: 17883.
Leemhuis, F.
1977
The D and H Stems in Koranic Arabic: A Comparative Study of the
Function and Meaning of the faala and the af ala Forms in Koranic
Usage. Leiden: Brill.
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm [Latin, Gothofredius Guillelmus Leibnitius]
1710
Brevis designatio meditationum de Originibus Gentium ductis potissimum ex indicio linguarum. Berlin. Repr., pp. 18698 in vol. 4/2 of Opera omnia, ed. Ludovicus Dutens. Geneva: Fratres de Tournes, 1768.
Leroy, Maurice
1967
The Main Trends in Modern Linguistics. Trans. Glanville Price. Oxford: Blackwell. Repr., Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1982.
Leslau, Wolf
1953
The Imperfect in South-East Semitic. Journal of the American Oriental Society 73: 16466.
Lieberman, Saul
1942
Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Life and Manners of Jewish
Palestine in the IIIV Centuries. New York: The Jewish Theological
Seminary of America. Repr., 1994.
1950
Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission,
Beliefs and Manners of Palestine of the I Century b.c.e.IV Century
c.e. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America.
Lipinski, Edward
1997
Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. Orientalia
Lovaniensia Analecta 80. Leuven: Peeters.
Loewenstamm, Samuel E.
1955
twymh twpb war gwmh l wtwwhth l[ [The Development of
the Term First in the Semitic Languages]. Tarbiz 24: 24951. English translation, pp. 1316 in Comparative Studies in Biblical and
Ancient Oriental Literatures. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 204.
Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1980.
Malkiel, Yakov
1962
Weak Phonetic Change, Spontaneous Sound Shift, Lexical Contamination. Lingua 11: 26375. Repr. in Malkiel 1968: 3345.
1968
Essays on Linguistic Themes. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Malone, Joseph L.
1993
Tiberian Hebrew Phonology. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Mandelkern, S.
1967
Veteris Testamenti concordantiae hebraicae atque chaldaicae. Jerusalem: Schocken. [Original, Leipzig: Veit, 1896.]
329
Bibliography
Marcus, R.
1942
The Word sibbolet again. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 87: 39.
Martinet, Andr
1970
Economie des changements phontiques: Trait de phonologie diachronique. 3rd ed. Berne: Francke. [1st ed., 1955.]
Meillet, Antoine
1951
Linguistique historique et linguistique gnrale, Tome II: Nouveau tirage. Collection linguistique 11. Paris: Klincksieck. [Original, 1936]
1958a
Linguistique historique et linguistique gnrale. Collection linguistique 8. Paris: Champion. [Original, 1925.]
1958b Note sure une difcult gnrale de la grammaire compare. Pp. 36
43 in Meillet 1958a.
Middle Arabic = J. Blau. Studies in Middle Arabic and Its Judaeo-Arabic Variety.
Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988.
Milik, J. T.
1961
Textes hbreux et aramens. Pp. 65205 in Les grottes de Murabbat, ed. P. Benot, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux. 2 vols. Discoveries in
the Judaean Desert 2. Oxford: Clarendon.
Mishor, Mordechai
1983
yanth wlb ynmzh tkr[m [The Tense System in Tannaitic Hebrew].
Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University. [Hebrew with English summary.]
Morag, Shlomo
1963
myt ydwhy ypb tyrb[h [The Hebrew Language Tradition of the Yemenite Jews]. Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language.
Moran, William L.
1950
A Syntactical Study of the Dialect of Byblos as Reected in the Amarna
Tablets. Ph.D. dissertation, Johns Hopkins University. Repr. in Moran
2003: 1130.
1960
Early Canaanite yaqtula. Orientalia 29: 119.
2003
Amarna Studies: Collected Writings. Edited J. Huehnergard and S. Izre'el. Harvard Semitic Studies 54. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Mhlau, F., and Volck, W.
1878
Wilhelm Gesenius hebrisches und aramisches Handwrterbuch
ber das Alte Testament. 8th ed. Leipzig: Vogel.
Muraoka, Takamitsu, and Porten, Bezalel
1998
A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic. Handbuch der Orientalistik: Erste
Abteilung, Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten 32. Leiden: Brill.
Nldeke, Theodor
1904
Beitrge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft. Strassburg: Trbner.
1910
Neue Beitrge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft. Strassburg: Trbner.
Bibliography
330
Olmo Lete, Gregorio del, and Sanmartn, Joaqun

19962000 Diccionario de la lengua ugartica. Aula Orientalis Supplementa 7
8. 2 vols. Barcelona: AUSA.
2003
A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition.
Trans. W. G. E. Watson. Handbuch der Orientalistik 1/67. 2 vols.
Leiden: Brill.
Ornan, Uzzi, and Ben-ayyim, Zeev
1971
Hebrew Grammar. Cols. 77175 in vol. 8 of Encyclopaedia Judaica.
Jerusalem: Keter.
Osthoff, Hermann, and Brugmann, Karl
1878
Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen, Erster Theil. Leipzig: Hirzel. Repr., Documenta
semiotica 1. Linguistik. Hildesheim: Olms, 1974.
Palache, J. L.
1959
Semitic Notes on the Hebrew Lexicon, ed. and trans. R. J. Zwi Werblowsky. Leiden: Brill.
Parker, Simon B
2002
Ammonite, Edomite, and Moabite. Pp. 4360 in Beyond Babel: A
Handbook for Biblical Hebrew and Related Languages, ed. J. Kaltner
and S. L. McKenzie. Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study 42. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Paul, Hermann
1937
Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. 5th ed. Halle a.S.: Max Niemeyer.
Pedersen, Holger
1965
The Discovery of Language: Linguistic Science in the Nineteenth
Century. Trans. J. W. Spargo. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Philippi, F. W.
1878
Das Zahlwort Zwei im Semitischen. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 32: 2198.
Poebel, A.
1939a
The Antepenult Stressing of Old Hebrew and Its Inuence on the
Shaping of the Vowels. American Journal of Semitic Languages and
Literature 56: 22530.
1939b Penult Stressing Replacing Ultimate Stressing in Pre-exilic Hebrew.
American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature 56: 38487.
Praetorius, Michael
1882
lh und ly. Zeitschrift fr die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 2:
31012.
Qimron, Elisha
198586a tyarqmh tyrb[b jtp /yryx ypwlyj [The Interchange of ere and Pata
in Biblical Hebrew]. Lesonnu 50: 77102.
198586b tyarqmh tyrb[b jtp/yryx ypwlyj rmaml twpswh [Additional Notes
on The Interchange of ere and Pata in Biblical Hebrew]. Lesonnu 50: 24749.
331
1986
Bibliography
The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Harvard Semitic Studies 29. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Rainey, Anson F.
1996
Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed
Dialect Used by Scribes from Canaan. Handbuch der Orientalistik.
Erste Abteilung, Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten 25. 4 vols. Leiden:
Brill.
Reckendorf, H.
189598 Die syntaktischen Verhltnisse des Arabischen. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill.
Rendsburg, Gary A.
1988a
The Ammonite Phoneme /t/. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 269: 7379.
1988b More on Hebrew Sibbolet. Journal of Semitic Studies 33: 25558.
1990
Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origin of Selected Psalms. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 43. Atlanta: Scholars
Press.
1992
Shibboleth. Pp. 121012 in vol 5. of Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed.
D. N. Freedman et al. New York: Doubleday.
1999
Hebrew Philological Notes (I). Hebrew Studies 40: 2732.
Rendsburg, Gary A., and Rendsburg, Susan L.
1993
Physiological and Philological Notes to Psalm 137. Jewish Quarterly
Review 83: 38599.
Renz, Johannes, and Rllig, Wolfgang
19952003 Handbuch der althebrischen Epigraphik. 3 vols. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Revell, E. J.
1970
Hebrew Texts with Palestinian Vocalization. Near and Middle East
Series. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Reymond, Phillipe
1991
Dictionnaire dhbreu et daramen bibliques. Paris: Cerf/Socit biblique franaise.
Ries, John
1894
Was ist Syntax? Ein kritischer Versuch. 1st ed. Marburg: Elwert. 2nd
ed., Prague, 1927. Repr. of 2nd ed., Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1967.
Robertson, David
1969
Morphemes -y(-i) and -w(-o) in Biblical Hebrew. Vetus Testamentum
19: 21123.
Rooker, Mark F.
1990
Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel.
JSOTSup 90. Shefeld: JSOT Press.
Rssler, Otto
1961
Eine bisher unerkannte Tempusform im Althebrischen. Zeitschrift
der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 111: 44551.
Bibliography
332
Die Prxkonjugation Qal der Verba Iae NN im Althebrischen und

das Problem der sogenannten Tempora. Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 74: 12541.
Ryder, Stuart A., II
1974
The D-Stem in Western Semitic. Janua Linguarum, Series Practica
131. The Hague: Mouton.
Sajnovics, J.
1968
Demonstratio idioma Ungarorum et Lapponum idem esse. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [Original, Copenhagen, 1770.]
Sarauw, Christian P. E.
1908
Die altarabische Dialektspaltung. Zeitschrift fr Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete 21: 3149.
1939
ber Akzent und Silbenbildung in den lteren semitischen Sprachen.
Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Saussure, Ferdinand de
1959
Course in General Linguistics, ed. Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, with Albert Reidlinger; trans. Wade Baskin. New York: The
Philosophical Library. Repr., New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.
1967
Cours de linguistique gnrale, ed. Rudolf Engler. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Schleicher, August
1868
Eine Fabel in indogermanischer Ursprache. Pp. 2068 in vol. 2 of
Beitrge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der
arischen, celtischen und slawischen Sprachen, by Adalbert Kuhn und
August Schleicher. Berlin: Dmmler.
Schlesinger, Akiba
1962
wnwlbw arqmb yrqjm [Researches in the Exegesis and Language of
the Bible]. Jerusalem: Israel Society of Biblical Research.
Schlzer, A. S.
1781
Von den Chaldern. Pp. 11376 in Repertorium fr biblische und
morgenlndische Litteratur: Achter Theil. Leipzig: Weidmanns Erben und Reich.
Schmidt, Johannes
1872
Die Verwandtschaftsverhltnisse der indogermanischen Sprachen.
Weimar: Bhlau.
Schuchardt, Hugo
1922a
Hugo Schuchardt-Brevier: Ein Vademecum der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft, ed. Leo Spitzer. Halle: Max Niemeyer.
1922b ber die Klassikation der romanischen Mundarten. Pp. 16668 in
Schuchardt 1922a. [Originally his inaugural lecture (Probevorlesung)
at Leipzig in 1870 and rst published in 1900.]
Segal, M. H.
19089 Rabbinic Hebrew and Its Relation to Biblical Hebrew and to Aramaic.
Jewish Quarterly Review 20: 647737.
1962
333
Bibliography
Siegfried, Carl, and Stade, Bernhard

1893
Hebrisches Wrterbuch zum Alten Testamente. Leipzig: Veit.
Sievers, Eduard
1901
Metrische Studien. Studien zur hebrischen Metrik. Leipzig: Teubner.
Soden, Wolfram von
1959
Tempus und Modus im Semitischen. Pp. 26365 in Akten des vierundzwanzigsten Internationalen Orientalisten-Kongresses Mnchen,
28. August bis 4. September 1957, ed. Herbert Franke. Wiesbaden:
Deutsche Morgenlndische Gesellschaft, in Kommission bei Franz
Steiner Verlag.
1995
Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. Analecta Orientalia 33.
Sommerfelt, Alf
1962
Diachronic and Synchronic Aspects of Language. Janua linguarum,
series major 7. The Hague: Mouton.
Speiser, E. A.
1942
The Shibboleth Incident (Judges 12:6). Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 85: 1013.
Spitaler, Anton
1968
Zum Problem der Segolisierung im Aramischen. Pp. 19399 in
Studia Orientalia in Memoriam Caroli Brockelmann, ed. Manfred
Fleischhammer. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Martin-LutherUniversitt Halle-Wittenberg, Gesellschafts- und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe, Jg. 17, Heft 2/3. Halle/Salle. Repr., pp. 9399 in Spitaler
1998.
1998
Philologica: Beitrge zur Arabistik und Semitistik, ed. Hartmut Bobzin. Diskurse zur Arabistik 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Stade, Bernhard
1879
Lehrbuch der hebrischen Grammatik. Leipzig: Vogel.
Steiner, Richard C.
1977
The Case for Fricative-Laterals in Proto-Semitic. American Oriental
Series 59. New Haven: American Oriental Society.
1979
From Proto-Hebrew to Mishnaic Hebrew: The History of A: and HA:.
Hebrew Annual Review 3: 15774.
1980
Yuqattil, yaqattil, or yiqattil: D-Stem Prex-Vowels and a Constraint
on Reduction in Hebrew and Aramaic. Journal of the American Oriental Society 100: 51318.
1982
Affricated ade in the Semitic Languages. American Academy for
Jewish Research, Monograph 3. New York: American Academy for
Jewish Research.
1991
Addenda to The Case for Fricative-Laterals in Proto-Semitic. Pp.
1499513 in Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau on the Occasion
of His Eighty-Fifth Birthday, ed. A. S. Kaye. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Bibliography
334
199697 The History of the Ancient Hebrew Modal System and Labovs Rule
of Compensatory Structural Change. Pp. 25361 in Towards a Social
Science of Language: Papers in Honor of William Labov, ed. G. R.
Guy et. al. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 12728.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
2000
Does the Biblical Hebrew Conjunction w- Have Many Meanings, One
Meaning, or No Meaning at All? Journal of Biblical Literature 119:
24967.
2001
rwal luuhyr d[ swmynwryhm twyrwatw yrwayt :tyrb[b tw[wnth m
ytdh swmlwph [The Duration of the Vowels in Hebrew: Descriptions
and Theories from Hieronymus/Jerome to R. Judah HaLevy in the
Light of the Religious Polemic]. Language Studies 8: 20326.
Studies = J. Blau. Studies in Hebrew Linguistics. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1996. [In
Hebrew; includes Hebrew translation of some German articles from
the 1950s]
Ternes, Elmar
2002
Entgegengesetzte Genuszuweisung bei Numeralia im Semitischen:
Einige grammatiktheoretische und typologische berlegungen. Pp.
71936 in Sprich doch mit deinen Knechten aramisch, wir verstehen
es!60 Beitrge zur Semitistik: Festschrift fr Otto Jastrow zum 60.
Geburtstag, ed. Werner Arnold and Hartmut Bobzin. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Testen, David
1994
The I-w Verbal Class and the Reconstruction of the Early Semitic
Preradical Vocalization. Journal of the American Oriental Society
114: 42634.
Topics = J. Blau. Topics in Hebrew and Semitic Languages. Jerusalem: Magnes,
1998.
Torczyner [Tur-Sinai], H.
1910
Zur Bedeutung von Akzent und Vokalismus im Semitischen. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 64: 269311.
Tropper, Josef
1993
Die Inschriften von Zircirli. Neue Edition und vergleichende Grammatik des phnizischen, samalischen und aramischen Textkorpus.
Abhandlung zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palstinas und Mesopotamiens
6. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
2000
Ugaritische Grammatik. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 273. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Trubetzkoy, N. S.
1939
Grundzge der Phonologie. Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague
7. Prague: Jednota Ceskych matematiku a fysiku. Repr., Nendeln/
Liechtenstein: Kraus, 1968. ET, Principles of Phonology, 1969.
Trans. C. A. M. Baltaxe. Berkeley: University of California Press.
335
Bibliography
French translation, Principes de phonologie, 1969. Trans. Jean Cantineau; preface by Andr Martinet; appendix of papers by Trubetzkoy
and Roman Jacobson. Paris: Klincksieck, 1949.
Tur-Sinai [Torczyner], Naphtali
1954
twrpsb hytwrwqmbw wlh [dmb dwsy twy[b >rpshw wlh [The Language and the Book: Fundamental Issues in Linguistics and Literature], vol.: Language. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute.
UT = C. H. Gordon. Ugaritic Textbook. Analecta Orientalia 38. Rome: Pontical
Biblical Institute, 1965.
Verner, Karl
1877
Eine Ausnahme der ersten Lautverschiebung. Zeitschrift fr vergleichende Sprachforschung 23: 97130.
Wagner, Max
1966
Die lexikalischen und grammatikalischen Aramismen im Alttestamentlichen Hebrisch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 96. Berlin: Alfred Tpelmann.
Waltisberg, Michael
2002
Zur Ergativittshypothese im Semitischen. Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 152: 1162.
Waterman, John T.
1978
Leibniz and Ludolf on Things Linguistic: Excerpts from Their Correspondence (16881703). University of California Publications in Linguistics 88. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Wright, William
189698 A Grammar of the Arabic Language. 2 vols. 3rd ed. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Yahalom, J.
1997
Palestinian Vocalised Piyyu Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah
Collections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yeivin, Israel
1968
wym[fw wdwqyn hbwx ra rtk [The Aleppo Codex of the Bible: A Study
of Its Vocalization and Accentuation]. Hebrew University Bible Project. Jerusalem: Magnes.
1980
Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah. Trans. and ed. E. J. Revell.
Masoretic Studies 5. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press.
1985
ylbbh dwqynb tpqtmh tyrb[h wlh trwsm [The Hebrew Language
Tradition as Reected in the Babylonian Vocalization]. twrwqm
12 yrqjmw [Texts and Studies 12]. Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language.
Yellin, David
1933
Une deuxime forme du h interrogatif en hbreu biblique. Revue des
tudes Juives 94: 13756.
Index of Authors
Aartun, K. 120
Ahituv, S. 5
Andersen, F. I. 106
Bally, C. 23
Barr, J. 37
Barth, J. 36, 101102, 159, 179180,
217, 222, 227, 246, 254, 259, 261262,
270, 275, 280
Bauer, H. 22, 25, 54, 102, 120, 124,
126127, 137, 148, 161, 199201,
204, 207, 255, 263264, 269, 271, 280
Baumgartner, W. 29
Beeston, A. F. L. 30, 163, 267
Bendavid, A. 83
Ben-David, I. 230
Ben-ayyim, Z. 7, 55, 115, 136, 204,
211, 229, 274275, 280
Ben-Yehuda, E. 10
Berggrn, N. 227
Bergstrsser, G. 3, 6, 13, 56, 61, 80, 88,
91, 100, 102, 104, 115, 117, 120, 124,
126, 131, 134135, 138, 141142,
144, 189, 195, 197, 204, 208209,
213, 217, 241, 252255, 257258, 280
Beyer, K. 123, 134, 222
Birkeland, H. 22, 102, 120, 124, 126
127, 137, 244, 249
Blau, J. 6, 11, 1516, 1819, 21, 23, 26,
3132, 3436, 3841, 47, 51, 5356,
58, 69, 7475, 7880, 8889, 9192,
94, 9798, 101, 106, 115, 118, 120
121, 124, 129, 133134, 137, 144, 147,
150, 152153, 155, 160, 164, 166
167, 170, 172, 179, 181, 188, 191,
193, 204, 207208, 211, 217, 222
224, 226, 230, 245, 249250, 252
253, 257, 259, 262, 264, 268269,
271, 273, 275, 285
Bloch, A. 197, 222, 241

Bopp, F. 13
Botterweck, G. J. 35
Bravmann, M. M. 130
Breuer, M. 7
Briggs, C. A. 28
Brockelmann, C. 63, 100, 102, 120,
124130, 134, 144, 162, 169, 184,
186, 201, 204, 208209, 281
Brown, F. 28
Brugmann, K. 27
Buhl, F. 28, 245
Bursztyn, I. 217
Cantineau, J. 125, 129, 145
Chomsky, N. 4
Cohen, D. 201
Cohen, H. R. 34
Cross, F. M. 91
Diem, W. 163164, 268
Dion, P.-E. 22
Donner, H. 5, 18
Driver, S. R. 28, 201
Edzard, L.
23
Fischer, W. 39, 159

Fontinoy, C. 270
Forbes, A. D. 106
Fraenkel, S. 41
Freedman, D. N. 91
Friedrich, J. 2122, 214, 216, 230, 243
Garbell, I. 68
Garr, W. R. 9697
Geiger, A. 9
Gelb, I. J. 210
Gesenius, W. 28, 189
337
338
Ginsberg, H. L. 53, 115, 222

Goetze, A. 125, 229
Gogel, S. L. 5, 191
Goldenberg, G. 1718
Gordon, C. H. 95, 103, 282
Graetz, H. 10
Grimm, J. 13
Grimme, H. 124, 129, 142
Grotzfeld, H. 60, 222, 275
Gyarmathi, S. 13
Hackett, J. A. 22
Hanau, S. 115
Harris, Z. S. 242
Har-Zahav, T. 217
Held, M. 34
Hetzron, R. 16, 210, 222, 280
Hoerning, R. 110
Holladay, W. L. 29
Hopkins, S. 118
Huehnergard, J. 104, 204, 230,
244
Ibn Baron, Iaq 13
Ibn azm 13
Ibn Jana, J. 34
Ibn Quraysh, Y. 13
Izre'el, S. 230
Jastrow, O. 55, 162
Jenni, E. 229
Jones, W. 13
Joosten, J. 229
Joon, P. 207208, 242
Judah the Prince (Rabbi) 9, 43
Kahle, P. 8081, 86, 171
Khan, G. 110
Kienast, B. 162163, 195197, 201,
208, 210, 222, 226, 237, 242, 244,
260, 262263, 266, 268
Klausner, J. 10
Klein, E. 29
Koehler, L. 29
Krahmalkov, C. R. 18
Kurylowicz, J. 189, 262
Index of Authors
Kutscher, E. Y. 11, 41, 43, 81, 86, 161,

166, 168, 183, 204205, 218
Labov, W. 42
Lagarde, P. de 262
Lagarde, P. de. 261
Lambert, M. 80, 145, 153, 172, 191,
212, 216217, 245
Landsberger, B. 199
Leander, P. 25, 54, 102, 120, 124, 126
127, 137, 148, 161, 199, 204, 207, 255,
264, 269, 271
Leemhuis, F. 229
Leibniz, G. W. 12
Leroy, M. 23
Leslau, W. 201
Lieberman, S. 11
Lipinski, E. 24
Loewenstamm, S. E. 282
Luzatto, S. D. 10
Malkiel, Y. 54
Malone, J. 4
Marcus, R. 41
Martinet, A. 42
Meillet, A. 15, 2223, 222
Meinhof, C. 280
Milik, J. T. 10
Morag, S. 106
Moran, W. L. 19, 207
Moses Ha-Kohen Gikatilla 217
Mhlau, F. 189
Muraoka, T. 204, 208
Nldeke, T. 102, 104, 187188, 210,
242244, 255
Olmo Lete, G. del 38
Origen 274275
Ornan, U. 60
Osthoff, H. 27
Palache, J. L. 36
Parker, S. B. 18
Paul, H. 244
Pedersen, H. 12
Index of Authors
Philippi, F. W. 87, 104, 133135, 137,

150, 167168, 174175, 220, 222,
228, 230233, 235236, 240, 247
248, 254, 265, 278
Poebel, A. 125
Porten, B. 204
Praetorius, M. 95
Qimron, E.
82, 90, 134, 162, 230
Rainey, A. F. 19, 222, 230232

Rask, R. K. 13
Reckendorf, H. 279
Rendsburg, G. A. 8, 41, 64, 170
Renz, J. 5
Revell, E. J. 7
Reymond, P. 29
Ries, J. 3, 61
Robertson, D. 269
Rllig, W. 5, 18
Rooker, M. F. 212
Rssler, O. 241
Ryder, S. R. 229
Saadya Gaon (Rabbi) 80
Sajnovics, J. 13
Samuel ha-Nagid 217
Sanmartn, J. 38
Sarauw, C. P. E. 99, 125, 134, 145, 210
Saussure, Ferdinand de 1
Schlegel, F. von 13
Schleicher, A. 44
Schlesinger, A. 282
Schlzer, A. L. 12
Schmidt, J. 19
339
Schuchardt, H. 1920
Schultens, A. 34
Segal, M. H. 10
Siegfried, C. 34
Sievers, E. 115, 171
Soden, W. von 101, 195196, 199, 210,
215, 226, 243
Sommerfelt, A. 42
Stade, B. 34, 120
Steiner, R. C. 39, 5556, 6869, 91,
122, 149, 192, 231, 267, 285
Ternes, E. 280
Testen, D. 222
Torczyner, H. see Tur-Sinai, N. H.
Tropper, J. 22, 30, 68, 95, 160, 169,
172173, 183, 186, 213, 222, 224,
230232, 280
Trubetzkoy, N. S. 72
Tur-Sinai, N. H. 230
Verner, K. 48
Volck, W. 189
Wagner, M. 101
Waltisberg, M. 267
Waterman, J. T. 13
Wright, W. 208
Yahalom, J. 7, 119
Yehuda Hanasi see Judah the Prince
(Rabbi)
Yeivin, S. 7, 83, 89, 118, 134, 230231,
233
Yellin, D. 140
Index of Scripture Citations

Genesis
1 269, 283
1:2 78
1:3 61
1:4 150, 285
1:6 176
1:7 182
1:11 150
1:12 141
1:27 159, 190191
1:31 177
2:3 214
2:7 248
2:8 182
2:12 115
2:19 186, 248
3:11 182
3:16 140
3:23 218
4:23 203
5:22 201
6:2 117
6:4 158
6:9 201
6:12 109
7:22 182
8:7 227
10 12
10:19 171
11:5 213
11:6 258
11:7 258
13:8 113
14:3 111
15:10 229
17:10 178
18:4 218
19:2 140141, 272
19:33 164, 178
Genesis (cont.)
20:17 212
21:6 114
21:16 237
22:14 164
24:1 158
24:3 182
24:36 227
26:8 283
26:28 285
27:2 194
27:33 109, 142
27:34 159
27:38 115, 140
28:18 247
29:20 227
30:38 204
30:41 175
31:32 94
31:41 178
32:18 220
33:5 141
34:19 83
37:8 215
37:20 94
37:32 140
37:33 217
38:11 59
38:16 193
38:22 178
39:11 179
39:20 226
40:13 202
40:20 290
41:5ff. 40
41:12 142
41:13 142
41:16 117
41:21 167
340
Genesis (cont.)
41:3435 192
41:43 216
41:51 230
42:4 172
42:31 198
42:38 248
43:19 59
43:23 272
43:26 142
43:34 67
44:9 186
44:16 76
45:4 182
49:10 114
49:11 90, 172, 269
49:17 140
Exodus
1:22 218
2:3 114, 140
2:4 219
2:16 107
2:20 204
4:19 139
6:10 141
7:27 59
9:2 59
9:46 202
9:29 205
9:30 152
10:1 178
10:4 59
10:14 202
13:7 108
14:31 117
15:11 7879
15:13 182, 184
15:17 80, 114
Exodus (cont.)
16:23 84
17:1 214
19:3 194
19:9 132
19:13 245
20:2 182
20:8 214215
21:31 141
22:12 217
23:17 273
24:14 185
27:1415 283
28:17 283
29:35 170
32:1 178
32:33 185
37:10 30
37:16 98
Leviticus
3:9 266
5:19 112
6:3 220
10:19 140
11:4 226
11:6 226
18:7 251
21:9 260
26:12 201
26:33 191
26:34 290
Numbers
1:47 218
4:7 98
7:54 89
11:15 162
13:8 97
13:20 140
17:27 141
18:29 129
21:17 117
21:22 207
22:24 178
23:3 186
Numbers (cont.)
23:11 215
24:3 269
24:9 106
24:10 215
32:25 141
32:42 93, 173
33:1 80, 115
34:3 111
34:28 89
35:6 214
Deuteronomy
1:37 233
4:10 227
5:27 162
9:21 215
11:22 227
20:19 140
21:7 212
26:12 227
27:8 83
28:24 170
31:10 108
31:21 203
32:7 158
32:8 195
32:10 172
32:13 172
32:15 185
32:32 140
32:36 8
33:9 241
33:21 89
Joshua
1:2 159
4:6 205
7:7 85, 238
9:11 107
10:25 182
19:50 220
24:19 113
Judges
1:14 79
341
Judges (cont.)
3:25 272
5:7 140
5:26 40
6:28 238
7:3 185
12:6 8, 40, 336
13:8 218
15:10 213
18:7 29
18:23 258
19:11 193
19:13 192
19:22 233
20:17 218
20:32 139
21:9 218
1 Samuel
1:11 265
2:14 192
2:23 178
3:17 193
4:15 212
4:22 218
6:12 205
10:8 194
10:11 139
12:3 117
14:33 88
16:1 239
16:17 214
17:35 107
17:55 214
18:28 94, 172
19:17 208
20:36 187
21:3 130
2 Samuel
1:13 186
2:18 89
7:9 194
10:12 233
15:2 186
17:8 260
342
2 Samuel (cont.)
18:12 186
18:19 193
20:7 240
21:4 185
22:14 195
22:27 219
22:37 5, 285
1 Kings
8:38 205
2 Kings
2:9 218
2:10 218
4 170
5:1 156
16:7 253
Isaiah
1:3 233
1:31 85
2:11 107
2:16 29
3:8 107
6:2 164, 270
9:2 9
10:27 114
12:5 97
14:19 144
18:4 132
24:3 260
24:4 237
25:6 276
28:27 217
30:19 170
32:911 203
32:11 212
34:11 78
34:15 105
35:4 239
40:25 105
43:2 284
44:3 248
44:13 321
45:14 233
Isaiah (cont.)
48:11 260
49:8 248
51:15 240
59:4 216
60:4 204
Jeremiah
4:7 114
4:11 219
4:20 80
12:5 29, 219
13:19 250
17:9 246
20:9 223
23:37 170
25:30 117
31:34 67, 108
38:21 59
39:12 141
42:6 165
48:41 212
48:42 212
Ezekiel
16:4 82
18:25 219
23:48 135
23:4849 174
28:14 162
33:32 214
34:31 166
36:3 238
40:43 79
Hosea
4:13
10:7
13:3
13:8
13:14
231
34
237
105
114
Joel
1:17
114
Amos
6:5 34
8:2 97
8:12 8
Jonah
2:10
4:11
269
280
Micah
2:7 113
4:8 88
Habakkuk
1:12 240
Zechariah
5:11 237
6:7 233
Malachi
1:6 272
Psalms
18:14 195
18:27 219
18:37 5, 285
18:40 5
18:49 5
20:7 198
22:1011 29
28:1 141, 144
30:4 79
32:1 50
35:25 239
36:9 252
37:4 233
38:3 241
43:2 201
49:14 274
50:1921 198
74:2 184
77:4 223
78:1415 198
80:14 237
89:39 162
Psalms (cont.)
92:6 194
93:1 220
103:3 78
103:4 170
104:25 178
104:26 182
104:29 240
118:11 139, 241
118:13 115
124 101
126:6 215
132:1 232
132:12 184
137 334
137:3 220
139:11 285
147:7 117
Job
3:26
4:20
6:26
15:22
20:2
21:16
22:28
27:14
29:22
30:8
32:12
41:25
78
258
240
249
107
172
152
284
117
158
284
249
Proverbs
1:21 276
4:16 53, 117
4:25 246
25:27 214
27:22 117
31:17 270
Ruth
1:9 203
1:12 203
1:13 204
1:20 203
2:8 205
3:3 208
4:15 94
Song of Songs
1:4 141
2:11 5
4:1 283
5:8 212
Ecclesiastes
1:2 264
1:9 185
4:2 216
4:14 89
5:5 92
7:27 264
Lamentations
1:20 237
4:1 233
343
Esther
1:23 214
4:4 257
9:1 216
Daniel
5:27 26
8:13 52, 106
8:22 205
11:12 89
Ezra
2:69 89
4:7 237
Nehemiah
1:4 9
4:7 140
13:16 86
1 Chronicles
5:24 158
7:7 159
17:8 194
25:4 89
25:27 89
2 Chronicles
2:15 9
5:11 233
6:29 205
19:2 141
22:5 89
27:6 219
29:16 129
Index of Topics
a
as the result of a triphthong 9899
as a result of lengthening 122, 129,
138
a tends to be preserved 55, 122
see also dialect diffrentiel
absolute chronology 56
accusative
pronouns, accusative function 159,
168, 182
Proto-Semitic 165
see also adverbials
ad 8, 284285
adjectives 157
attributive 177
gender of 15, 272
nouns and 260
sufx-tense and 195, 197, 225
adverbials 215
accusatives 101, 122, 170, 172173,
175, 215, 269
case system and 266, 268269
dual and 271
of limitation 186
affrication 68, 77
Afro-Asiatic languages 24
Berber 24, 196
Egyptian 24, 30, 103
Akkadian 1617, 222, 256, 260, 272,
281
Amarna Letters 18
as lingua franca 21
Assyrian 16
Babylonian 16
biradical roots 244
case system 104, 266268
causative stem 163, 234236
denite article, lack of 180
Akkadian (cont.)
diphthongs 44
D-theme 230232
dual ending 31, 272
feminine plural noun endings 273
feminine plural verbal endings 203,
212
feminine singular noun ending 39,
45
Geers Law 39
imperatives 224
innitives 215, 227
laryngeals-pharyngeals 32
mimation 267268, 272
-n endings 205206
nif al 228
numbers 281282
nunation 272
Old Akkadian 163
participles 254
passive absent in 16, 19
passive participle 226
personal pronouns 160, 162, 164,
166, 183, 209
Philippis law absent in 134
plural substantives 272
pronominal sufxes 173, 209
relative clause 183
relative pronouns 183
s in 30
s/h 162163
sound shifts
/ > 19
q > z 19, 2627
> x 37, 40
t > s 19, 31
statives 195197, 201, 208210, 226,
229230, 235, 254
344
Index of Topics
Akkadian (cont.)
substantives 260, 262
tense system 195196, 199200
prex-tenses 196197, 241
sufx-tense absent 16, 19
t-inx forms 218
x 32, 37
al 99
aleph
after mobile swa 88
as a vowel letter 86
demonstrative element 179
non-radical 89
orthography of 86, 88
place of articulation 65
vowel shifts and 8789
see also prosthetic aleph
allegro forms 9294, 172
allomorphs 117
allophones 26, 28, 39, 56, 67, 7273,
7880, 113
alphabet, borrowing of 7475
alveolars 65
Amarna Letters (Old Canaanite) 1819
case system 269
causative stem 235
D-stem 230231
energic forms 207
hif il 235
mimation 268269
nif al 228
pual 232
tense system, prex-tense 207, 222
Ammonite 16
Amorite 16, 18
analogy 4951, 55, 115, 160, 165, 167
168, 170, 172174, 177, 187, 194,
209, 211212, 222, 224, 230232,
235236, 242243, 264, 270, 273,
276, 284
and aleph 87
and bgdkpt letters 139
and biradical/triradical roots 188
and frequency 5153, 95, 170, 242
and gender distinction 55
and nouns III-y 98, 276
345
analogy (cont.)
and pausal forms 120121, 152
and pronominal sufxes
1cp 173, 209
1cs 169
2s 169170
3ms 172
3p 173, 175
and pronouns 53, 209
1cp 165
1cs 160
2p 167
2s 161
and segolates 32, 96, 98, 131, 148
and the Canaanite shift 8788, 136,
138
and the elision of he 9294, 172
and the feminine ending 91, 264
and verbs 187
between dipthongs 96, 101102
between numbers 281
between verbs I-h and I-w/y 9495
between verbs I-n and I-y 243
between verbs I-n and II-w/y /
geminates 256
between verbs I-y and
II-w/y/geminates 256
between verbs I-y and I-w 104, 245
between verbs II-w/y and
geminates 256259
between verbs III- and III-y 50, 84,
248
contrastive 284
grammatical 50
in Arabic prex-tense 228
in closed stressed syllables 133
in contrast to sound shift 87
in prepositions 155
with pronominal sufxes 93, 170
in the prex-tense 94, 175
1cs 87
3fp 204
conversive waw 194
in the qal imperative 224, 242
in the qal innitive 243
in the qal prex-tense 227
346
analogy (cont.)
in the sufx-tense 94, 172
3p 93, 211212
in the use of the denite article 177
in verbs III-n 242
in vocalization of the innitive 213
innitive, with the prex-tense 213
leveling 160, 163, 167, 173, 175,
209, 212, 220, 233, 242, 253
in verbs III-y 91, 249251
inverse 243
paradigmatic pressure 4950, 5253,
5556, 59, 97, 88, 122, 133134,
136, 139, 148, 161162, 169170,
192, 198, 204, 207209, 211, 242,
250, 252
in the hif il 151, 235236, 246,
255
in the hitpael 233234, 245
in the hof al 236
in the nif al 151, 255
in the piel 231, 245
in the pual 232, 245
in the qal
of verbs II-w/y 253255
in the sufx-tense 209, 220
in the w > y shift 50, 245
plural adjectives 273
proportional 50, 102, 255, 284
analytic construction 165
anaphoric function see pronouns
anaptyxis 32, 45, 54, 57
in aw/ay diphthongs 44, 96, 171
in III-laryngeals-pharyngeals 239
in monosyllabic nouns (segolates)
3233, 4546, 55, 137, 155, 260,
263, 274275
in verbs III-y 251
anceps 55, 122, 145, 148, 160162,
166, 169, 192, 207, 210
apo koinou 184
apophony 262
Arab grammarians 171
Arabic 1213, 16, 18, 141, 208, 223,
260, 270
ancient dialects 188, 222
Index of Topics
Arabic (cont.)
as lingua franca 21
case system 159, 266268, 283
causative theme 163, 234236
causative -t theme 163
causative-passive theme 236
Classical 125
d 27
q 26
q0 () 38
D-theme 230232
Dp-theme 232
Dt-theme 233
denite article 180
demonstrative pronouns 179
diphthongs 44
dual 32, 164165
emphatics 68
faala-theme 237
feminine ending 263264
fp noun ending 273
fp sufx tense 212
fp verbal endings 203
fs ending 90, 211, 264
innitives 215, 227, 236
interrogative pronouns 186
I-w roots 50
lengthening in open unstressed
syllables 125126
Liyan 180
Maghrebi 55, 125126
monosyllabic nouns 16, 4445
moods of prex-tense 206208
energetic 207208
jussive 206207
subjunctive 206207
negation 195, 206
-n endings 205206
n-theme 228
Neo-Arabic dialects 1819, 22, 39,
55, 123, 125126, 129, 162, 164,
167169, 205, 211, 217, 263
nomen unitatis 263264
numbers 280282
nunation/mimation 267268,
271
Index of Topics
Arabic (cont.)
passive superseding reexive
themes 217
personal pronouns 160, 162163,
165
Philippis law, absent in 134
plurals 18, 273
prepositions 99, 283284
qal imperatives 224
qal passive participle 226
qal prex tense 222
relative clause 181, 183
relative pronoun 184
roots III-w/y 211
sound shifts
f < p 39, 44
s > s 30, 45, 58, 163
stress system 153
75
t 30
tense system 24, 195196, 211
prex-tense 206, 222224
sufx-tense 152, 208, 210
t-forms 218
triphthongs 101
verbal themes 216217
see also the various themes
vowels 85
(q0 ) 38
Arad letters 5, 191, 194
Aramaic 2, 810, 1213, 16, 1819, 22,
26, 3740, 44, 55, 73, 75, 104, 123,
127, 141, 162, 222
alphabet 7475
and Philippis Law 104, 134
as lingua franca 21
bgdkpt letters 26, 44
causative t-theme 216
denite article, postpositive 26, 180
demonstrative pronouns and
elements 179180
diphthongs 44
dual ending 32
fp verbal endings 203, 212
347
Aramaic (cont.)
Greek transliteration of 81
innitives 227
inuence on Biblical Hebrew 912,
40, 4243, 46, 123, 126128,
148149, 159, 161162, 170, 205,
212, 258, 276
3fp prex-tense 205
fp imperative 203
gemination 258
-n endings 205
pretonic lengthening 42, 123124,
126129, 148
pronouns 161
-ut 276
inuenced by Hebrew 26
lingua franca 21
see also sursaut
-n endings 205, 275
Nabatean 75
nisba 276
numbers 281
of Tiberias 80
Old Aramaic 40, 7475
personal pronouns 160162, 165
polyphony in 39
qal passive replaced by reexive
themes 216217
relative clause 183
roots III-w/y 211
s 30
s / 74
sound shifts
d > d 26
< x 32, 37
> x 56
t > t 30
spoken 126
sufx tense 3 fs ending 211
syllable structure 128
Syriac, Nestorian 56, 124
t 7475
Tell Fekherye inscription 75
348
Aramaic (cont.)
tense system
prex-tense 222
sufx-tense 208, 210211
t-forms 216, 218
verbal themes 216
verbs II-w/y and geminates 257
vowel structure 126
Yaudic as dialect of 22
see also Nabatean
see also sursaut
archaic heterogeneity 160, 209, 233
234
archiphoneme 79
sr 6, 8, 183
Ashkenazic pronunciation 66, 68,
109
aspectual system 189, 201202
and conversive waw 202
imperfective 201
iterative or continuous past 192
perfective 201
assimilation 54, 57, 72, 7778, 8990,
9395, 100, 115116, 133, 136137,
169170, 173, 180181, 183, 186,
214, 239, 241, 281
as spirantization 78
of consonants 281
of he 93
to a following consonant 94, 172,
186
to energic nun 94
with 3fs sufx-tense 90, 94, 173
with particles 94
of lamed 77, 95, 140, 180, 243
of nun 44, 57, 77, 115, 138139, 228,
241
in I-n verbs 214, 241242
of resh 183, 188
of swa 85
of tav 57, 76, 233
of vowels 57, 85, 100, 136137, 169
170, 173, 181, 188, 226, 238, 248,
251
and laryngeals-pharyngeals 246
in the innitive 226
Index of Topics
assimilation, of vowels (cont.)

in the qal prex vowel 221222,
237, 239, 246
partial 237
atta 149150
attenuation 130, 132, 228
in the hif il 235
in the piel 230
in the qal prex vowel 221
ayin 65, 7576, 86
Babylonian vocalization 7, 105, 118,
132, 224
aaf vowels, absence of 84
and pausal forms 230231
D-theme 230
and Philippis law 134135, 231
and pata 7, 82, 118, 132
and the 2p independent personal
pronouns 166167
dages 141
D-theme 231
Dt-theme 233
Bar-Koziba letters 10
Barth-Ginsberg law 221222, 246, 254,
259
Berber 24, 196
bgdkpt letters 28, 47, 56, 6364, 7881,
118, 139140, 213, 288
and dages lene 140
see below: pronounced as stops
and diphthongs 78
and raphe 78, 8990, 110
and swa 114, 116
as allophones 78
as opposing phonemes 7980
following vowelless r 79
in geminates 80
in Modern Hebrew 81
pronounced as fricatives 7879,
115
pronounced as stops 80
in qal innitives construct 115,
213
see above: and dages lene
transliterated in the Septuagint 81
Index of Topics
Biblical Hebrew 16
and mimation/nunation 267, 269, 271
archaic 8
feminine plural in the sufxtense 212
morphology 8
as a literary language 5
as a mixed language 127, 137
development of
consonantal text 56
vowels, orthography of 6
impediments 5
inscriptions, contemporary 5
late 8
and the 3fp prex-tense 205
and the conversive waw 194
characteristics of 9
layers of 57
standard 8
vocalization of 7, 109110
vowels, transcriptions of 5
see also Origen; Septuagint
see also Aramaic inuence on Biblical
Hebrew; cantillation marks;
Masoretic text
bilabials 65, 69, 77, 103
bilingualism 10, 43
biradicalism 53, 187188
see also triradicalism
blend see contamination
borrowing 15, 3738, 42
see also Aramaic, inuence on
Biblical Hebrew; pretonic
lengthening, foreign inuence
b 29
Canaanite 16, 18
alphabet 7475
ancient (old) see Amarna Letters
Byblos 207
personal pronouns 161
sound shifts
d > z 21
the innitive absolute 214, 216
Canaanite Amarna Letters see Amarna
Letters (Old Canaanite)
349
Canaanite shift a > o 12, 21, 45, 48
51, 5859, 8788, 95, 99, 132, 136
138, 149, 153, 160, 166, 179, 186,
225, 254, 273, 275
and aleph 8788
and III-y verbs 250
and II-w/y verbs 252254
and nominal patterns 275
and the qal passive participle 218
nature of 136137
relative chronology of 137, 153
cantillation marks 7, 78, 82, 120, 131,
143144, 154, 182
connective 78
disjunctive 152, 154
prose versus poetic 144
see alsoMasoretic text, accentual
system
cardinal numbers 15, 3233, 157, 164,
279282
see also numerals
case endings 45, 50, 169170,
266273
see also accusative; adverbials; dual;
genitive; nominative; plural
causative 229231, 234
see also hif il
see also piel
change see language change; sound
shift
cohortative 90, 122, 267
as a subjunctive 207
as volitive 207
comparative linguistics see linguistics,
comparative
comparative reconstruction 30, 4346
see also etymology
compensatory lengthening and IIlaryngeals-pharyngeals 8283,
238
and the loss of nal consonants 121
and the loss of nal short
vowels 119, 121
compound words 158159, 176
connecting (separating) vowel 47, 209,
255, 259
350
consonant cluster 239

nal 251, 274
initial 224, 280281
consonants 6364, 6869, 73, 76
compared with vowels 1415, 6364
phonemic value 73, 76
w and y as semi-consonants 64, 69,
96105
word-nal 102
see also aleph; semi-consonant; waw;
yod
construct 8, 99100, 120, 158159,
170, 214, 265
see also genitive
contamination 35, 38, 5253, 92, 170,
175, 285
conversive-waw see waw-conversive
q > z 2528, 3033
dages
as a stress marker 140142
conjunctive 141
forte 111, 138142
and the swa 139140
environments of 138139
with bgdkpt letters in
gemination 80
see also gemination
lene 140
dead languages 1, 4, 126127
Dead Sea Scrolls 6, 82, 90, 115, 162
and Rabbinic Hebrew 10
pronominal sufxes 171
db2 as 4546
denite article 179181
and attributive adjectives 177
as a demonstrative pronoun 176
as a generic determiner 181
as an individual determiner 180
elision of he 92
lacking in Akkadian, Ugaritic, and
Geez 180
vocalization of 181
diq 141
deictic function see pronouns, in deitic
function
Index of Topics
Deir Alla 2122

demonstratives
presentative sense 178
see also pronouns, demonstrative;
ordinal numbers
dental-alveolars 69, 7677
dentals 65
determination see denite article
dialect diffrentiel 122, 129, 161
162, 166, 175, 193
see also a tends to be preserved
diachronic see linguistics, historical
dialects 7, 11, 42, 127
ancient Arabic 222
Liyan 180
Canaanite 2122, 127, 136
the development of 2021
development of 20
Neo-Arabic 1819, 22, 123, 125
126, 129, 164, 167169, 205, 211,
217, 222, 263
city 39
variation 5, 7, 23
diphthongs 6, 70, 96105
and quiescent aleph 99100
and the bgdkpt letters 45, 78
aw 44, 71, 78, 108
preserved 99100
stressed 96
unstressed 97
ay 8, 44, 71, 78, 101, 250251, 276
before a sufx 93
preserved 100101, 246
stressed 96
unstressed 97
descending 71
development of aw/ay 96, 100101,
108
divided into two syllables 4445
effects of pause 100101
iw 51, 97, 247
iy 97, 100102, 250251
uw 97
uy 97
see also monophthongization
directional he 90, 122, 147, 149150,
264
Index of Topics
directional he (cont.)
and the case system 269
elision of h 9293, 269
dissimilation 3940, 44, 54, 5759, 78,
95, 132, 162, 218, 222, 227, 231,
240, 242243, 251, 255, 275276,
283
of aleph 87
of double consonants 27, 57, 183
of reduplicated biradical roots 58
of vowels 58, 132, 160, 251
resulting in aleph 89
doublets 38, 40, 54, 104, 161, 190, 228,
230, 233234, 240
see also h/s alternation
drift 102, 121
3mp superseding 3fp 211212
III-w verbs absorbed by III-y
verbs 248249
internal qal passive replaced by
reexives 217, 228
original passive replaced by reexive
forms 217, 228
D-theme see Akkadian; Arabic; Gez;
hitpael; piel; pual
dual
in Akkadian numbers 282
in nouns 90, 164, 170, 172, 270272
in independent pronouns 164165
mimation 268
nunation 268
Proto-Semitic 164, 171, 270
pseudo-dual 271
e see ere; vowel system, e
Eblaite 17, 23
Paleosyrian 17
Edomite 17
Egyptian 24, 30, 103
elision
of aleph 8788
in verbs III- 248
of nal short vowels see vowel
system, loss of nal
of he 9293, 95, 269
exceptions 93
in the denite article 92
351
elision, of he (cont.)
in the directional he 92
in the hif il 92, 95
in third-person pronominal
sufxes 93, 172
in verbs I-h 9495
of lamed 243
of nun 241242
of the feminine singular ending
(t) 121, 210211, 264
of w/y 96, 9899, 243, 246247, 250,
276
in verbs III-y 249, 251
emphatics 68, 76
relationship to glottals and velars 68
enclitic, waw (conjunction) 103
Epigraphic South Arabian 17, 267
d 26
denite article 180
numbers 281
plurals 18, 273
preservation of 1 and 2 37
see also Sabaic; South Arabian
ergative 2425, 266267
et 89, 155
Ethiopic 1618
plurals 18, 273
see also Gez
etna 144, 154
etymology 2845
exclamations 52
f < p 39, 4445
factitive 229, 234
family-tree model 1619, 2122
feminine singular ending 31, 39, 45,
61, 90, 121, 179, 209210, 241, 250,
280
and III-w roots 276
and III-y verbs 250
and nomen unitatis 263, 272,
280
and segolization 264
as a demonstrative element 264
352
feminine singular ending (cont.)

of innitive construct 227, 241, 246
247, 250
see also elision, of the feminine
singular ending (t); gender
fricatives 64, 69, 7677
function and sound shifts 5556
function words 52, 99
furtive pata 8384, 240, 275
geminate verbs see verbs
gemination 108, 111, 116
and lengthening 180, 247
and nominal patterns 275
and pretonic lengthening 124, 132
and simplication 7980, 100, 139,
259
exceptions 139
in Aramaic 258
pretonic 152, 275, 286
relative chronology of its loss in
laryngeals/pharyngeals 83
see also dages forte
gender
feminine nouns 15, 31, 39, 9091,
263264
in Semitic languages 15, 55, 263
development of 263
of demonstrative pronouns 179,
264
of 2p independent personal
pronouns 166167
of 2s independent personal
pronouns 161
of 2s pronominal sufxes 169170
of cardinal numbers 15, 279280
masculine nouns 15, 264
genitive 122, 159, 168, 172
function of pronouns 168, 174, 182
subjective 214
see also construct
Gezer calendar 5
glide, and non-radical aleph 89
glottals 65
Gez (Old Ethiopic)
broken plural 273
Index of Topics
Gez (Old Ethiopic) (cont.)

denite article, absence of 180
diphthongs 44
D-theme 230231
Dt-theme 233
dual ending 32
f < p 39, 44
fp verbal ending 203, 212
glottalization 68
monophthongization 49
numbers 32, 74, 280, 282
personal pronouns 160, 163, 166
Philippis law 104, 134
preservation of 1 and 2 30, 37
sound shifts
d > z 26
s > s 30
t > s 30, 56
tense system 196, 200
prex-tense 223
sufx-tense 208210, 251
see also Ethiopic
grammar 59, 62
Greek 11, 13, 28, 48, 56, 171
see also Origen; Septuagint
h/s alternation 162164, 168, 172173,
175, 234
arami 163
aaf 117118, 143, 238, 239
see also swa
haplology 54, 59, 99, 169
ashavya (Yavneh Yam) 5
he
and the feminine ending 9091
as a consonant 89, 142, 172
in Ugaritic 92
a 9091, 173
development of 9091
e 100, 138
99, 137
o 90, 172
Index of Topics
he (cont.)
assimilation of 9394
orthography of 9092
see also analogy, and the elision of h;
denite article; interrogative h
Hebrew language 18, 21
alphabet 7376
as a dead language 126127
as a division of Canaanite 21
as a Semitic language 12
development of 9, 11, 22, 42, 148
Medieval 16
sound shifts
d > z 2627
t > s 3033, 4041, 74, 76
2 > 1 30, 3233, 7576, 86
see also inscriptions; late Biblical
Hebrew; Medieval Hebrew;
Modern Hebrew; Northern
Hebrew dialect; Rabbinic Hebrew
heterogeneity, archaic 160, 173, 204,
209, 228, 233, 268
Hexapla 115
see also Origen
hiatus 168169
hif il 216, 234
I-w/y 235, 245
II-w/y 256
elision of he 92, 95
h/s alternation 234
innitives 235
morphology of 234235
characterstic vowel 235
vowel preceding the rst radical
236237, 256
t-form 219
usage of 234
iriq 66, 8283, 106108, 112, 124,
132133, 138
see also vowel system, i-class
hitpael 76, 216, 232
and assimilation 57
and metathesis 59, 233
I-w/y 50, 245
morphology of 233
usage of 232
353
hof al 216, 236237

and the qal passive 217218
II-w/y 256
I-w/y 245, 247
morphology of 236
olam 108, 110112, 119120, 136
138, 225
see also Canaanite shift;
monophthongization, of aw
homonymy 29, 3537
hypercorrection 40, 42, 54, 88
see also pseudo-correction
iconicity see onomatopoetic
imperative 192, 197, 199200, 207, 213
archaic character 197
historical development of 197
lengthened 193, 208
marking of persons 203204
morphology of 203, 213
2/3 fp 90, 203204
Indo-European languages 13, 48, 62,
189
innitive absolute 212, 227
in Semitic languages 214216
usage 214216
as a nite verb 191, 215216
as a verbal intensier 215
as an adverb 215
as an imperative 9, 215
innitive construct 212214, 232
as a nominal form 213214
as a verbal form 214
governed by k or b 115, 214
governed by l 115, 213214
historical development of 197
in III-laryngeals/pharyngeals 213
in III-y verbs 250
in I-w/y verbs 246
usage 213214
with feminine ending 227, 241242,
246, 250
inscriptions 58, 10, 161, 165, 191, 194
Arad 191, 194
Canaanite 18, 161
Deir Alla 21
354
Index of Topics
k 215, 284
ktib2 7
l 9, 155, 284
lengthening see gemination
lento forms 9294, 172
leveling, analogical see analogy,
leveling
lexicography 5961
linguistics 1
combining approaches 4
comparative 13, 5, 1316, 22, 24,
28, 3435, 43, 222
family-tree model 1619,
2122
list model 23
wave model 1923, 104
diachronic see historical (below)
general 1
generative 42
Biblical Hebrew 4
historical 13, 5, 2528, 35, 43, 46
47, 257
its relationship to philology 4
synchronic 13, 5, 244, 257
liquids 69, 77
loan words 2, 12, 30, 37, 40, 4546,
5354
see also borrowing
labio-dentals 65, 69
Lachish Letters 5, 165
language change 1, 41
factors of 4143, 5051
factors of bilingualism 43
langue 152
laryngeals-pharyngeals 65, 67, 69, 77,
8183, 86, 108109, 141
and gemination 8283, 241
and the denite article 181
inuence on adjacent vowels 84,
105, 108, 133, 239, 246
non-gemination, virtual doubling 82,
237, 241
with ultra-short vowels 85, 130
Late Biblical Hebrew and the conversive
waw 194
laterals 65, 69, 77
Latin transcriptions 171
mappiq 89, 142, 239

maqqaf 78, 142, 144, 182, 184, 265
Masoretes 7, 123, 141
and emphatics 68
and the 2s pronominal sufx 171
and the bgdkpt letters 7881, 214
and the innitive 214, 216, 227
and the laryngeals-pharyngeals 86
and the qal passive 53, 217, 228, 245
and the swa 67, 105106, 113114,
116117, 213214
and the vowel system 106107, 110
Masoretic text
accentual system 7
as a musical system 143
as an indication of stress 143
conjunctive accents 144
disjunctive accents 144, 154
see also pausal forms
inscriptions (cont.)
ashavya (Yavneh Yam) 5
Lachish Letters 5, 165
Mesha see Moabite
Phoenician 178, 249, 269
Samaria ostraca 5, 8
Siloam 5, 250
Tell Fekherye 75
see also Amarna Letters
interjections 157158, 176, 178, 189,
244, 247, 266
internal reconstruction/analysis 4647,
165, 196, 203, 239, 246
interrogative he 77, 140
Judean dialect 96, 183
see also Hebrew
juncture, close
internal 213
open internal 9293
jussive 151, 192194, 197, 213, 215
see also modal system, volitive;
prex-tense, short; volitive
Index of Topics
Masoretic text, accentual system (cont.)

poetic 144
prose 144
consonantal text 5, 7
mater lectionis see aleph; he; vowel
letters; waw; yod
Medieval Hebrew 16
Mesha inscription see Moabite
metanalysis 263, 276
metathesis 46, 54, 57, 59, 7677, 218,
233
meteg 143
and the swa 116, 140
as a marker of qama 142
indicating an open syllable 79,
142
purpose of 142
mimation/nunation 267, 269, 271272
minimal pairs 72
Mishnaic Hebrew see Rabbinic Hebrew
mixed language 22, 127, 137, 161
Moabite 16, 18
diphthongs 97
feminine singular ending 91
mimation/nunation 271
t-forms 218
modal system 192
cohortative 207208, 267
energic 172173, 207208
indicative 190191, 206
subjunctive 206
volitive 192193
and conversive waw 192193
cohortative 192, 207208,
267
imperative 192193
jussive 192193, 206
Modern Hebrew 1112, 16
and the bgdkpt letters 81
and the participle 3
and the pronunciation of swa 116
Modern South Arabian
causative stem 234
355
monophthongization 8, 51, 7071, 99

100, 107108, 137, 172, 225, 271
272
in northern Hebrew 97
in the Northwest Semitic
languages 97
in verbs I-w/y 247
of aw 2, 43, 9697, 99100, 108,
138, 172
of ay 2, 6, 8, 93, 9697, 99100, 107,
138
of nal triphthongs 137, 276
see also diphthong, triphthong
monosyllabic nouns see nouns,
monosyllabic
morpheme
bound 52, 156, 165
denition of 156157
free 156, 165
pattern 156
root 156
zero 156
morphology 23
and word derivation 62
study of 61, 156
morphophonemics 61
morphosyntax 6162
Nabatean alphabet 75
see also Aramaic, Nabatean
nasal consonants 67, 77
negation 158159, 195,
206
neogrammarians 27, 48, 56
nif al 216, 227229
and the qal passive 53, 217218,
227
meanings of 227
morphology of 228
I-w/y verbs 228, 245
II-w/y verbs 255
sufx-tense
I-laryngeals-pharyngeals 237
I-n verbs 243
nisba 276, 282
nominal clauses 225226
356
nominal patterns 2, 44, 274279

III-y roots 276
monosyllabic nouns see segolates
prexes
mem 275
taw 275
qala, qilat- 278
qela, qelat- 278
qi, qiy-/qy- 278
! l, qol- 277
qaw
qaal, qaal- 279
qaal, qal- 278
qaal, qall- 278
qael, qal- 278
qail, qil- 278
qala, qalat- 277
qaol, qol- 278
qaol, qull- 278
qaul, qul- 278
qal, qli- 277
qal, qal- 277
qal, qal- 276
qal, qall- 277
qal, qill- 277
qala, qlat- 276
qala, qalat- 277
qyil, qel- 277
qeal, qal- 278
qel, qill- 277
qiel, qil- 279
qila, qilat- 277
qo!l, qol- 278
qoel, qol- 279
qi, qoy- 278
qola, qolat- 278
q!al, qal- 277
q!l, qal- 277
q!l, qil- 277
qol, qull- 277
sufxes
-i 276, 282
-on/-an 275
-ut 276
synchronic classication 274, 276
279
nominative 159, 172, 182
Index of Topics
Northern Hebrew dialect 5, 78, 9698,

161, 169170, 183
Northwest Semitic 245
nouns 14, 157
absolute 119120, 135, 218, 265,
267
vowel quality and quantity 119
121, 123, 135, 218, 226, 228
229, 265
adjectives versus substantives 157
158, 260, 262, 272
and verbs, morphological
relationship 261262
biconsonantal/biradical 31, 260
bisyllabic 54
case endings 96, 99, 104, 120123,
131, 175, 266, 273
adverbial ending 266
remnants in Biblical Hebrew 266
269, 272
collective 263, 272273
construct 99, 119123, 130131,
133, 135, 265266, 268
in poetry 269
vowel quality and quantity 119,
265
denoting action 261
denoting state 261
deverbal 261262
dual 32, 164, 170, 172173, 270, 272
in form but not meaning (pseudodual) 164, 271
ergative type 2425, 266267
geminate 100, 119, 120121, 133,
135
gender 15, 260, 263
feminine 31, 211, 263264
masculine 263264
monosyllabic 16, 32, 54, 57, 119,
263, 274275
see also segolates
nomen unitatis 263264, 272, 280
plural 270, 271272
broken 18, 273
by reduplication 187, 271
Index of Topics
nouns, plural (cont.)

in poetry see poetry, biblical
morphology of 90, 271, 273
pluralia tantum 272
poetry see poetry, biblical
primary/primitive 1415, 31, 102,
157, 187, 261
statuses 265266
synopsis 260263
verbal 1415
see also innitive; participles
see also pronominal sufxes; segolates
numerals 15, 33, 279283
1119 92
310 15
see also cardinal numbers; ordinal
numbers
nun energic 172173, 207208
nunation see mimation
o
as a result of monophthongization
see monophthongization of aw
as a result of the Canaanite shift 138,
250
see also Canaanite shift
historically long 138
Old Aramaic see Aramaic
Old Canaanite see Amarna Letters
onomatopoetic words 28, 51, 196197,
229
oral consonants 67, 78
ordinal numbers 157, 281282
Origen 111, 115, 162, 190
see also Greek
orthography
defective and plene 6, 67, 90
and the adjective/participle
paol 225
and the innitive qal 213
of i 107
of o 108
of o 90
of u 107
of aleph 86
of nal a 90, 204
357
orthography (cont.)
of he 9092, 137138
of waw 90, 104
of yod 105
paala theme 18, 237
palatals 65, 69, 77
Palestinian vocalization 7, 118119,
141
aaf vowels 84
paradigmatic pressure see analogy,
paradigmatic pressure
parallel development 16, 2223, 55
semantic shifts 3536
parole 152
participles 158
historical development of its
function 3
and verbless clauses 225226
in the tense system 34, 9, 194, 225
226
of action verbs 225
passive 226
stative pattern of qal 225, 248
parts of speech 157
criteria for divisions 157158
passive, internal 16, 217218, 231,
236
see also hof al; pual; qal, passive
pata 7, 46, 6668, 8285, 88, 96, 101,
105, 108, 110113, 119, 129, 132,
137, 223
furtivum 83, 275
see also attenuation; Philippis Law
pausal forms 139, 144145, 154, 171,
240
analogical effect on/by non-pausal
forms 120121, 152, 220,
252
and the stress system 47, 134135,
145, 154
as an archaic feature 91, 146, 154
compared with contextual forms 84,
101, 233, 236, 251
elision of nal short vowels 91,
155, 170
358
pausal forms, compared with contextual

forms (cont.)
preservation of archaic stress 146,
154, 171, 221, 223, 228, 231
233, 240, 266
vowel length 132135, 154, 231,
233, 241, 247
vowel quality 154
pausal lengthening 101, 139, 146148,
150151, 172, 230, 240241
pausal stress shift 134, 146, 154155
pharyngeals 65
see also laryngeals
Philippis law 133136, 228, 233,
278
and Babylonian vocalization 134
135, 231
and construct nouns 265
and the 2p/3p pronouns 167168,
174175
and the hif il 235236
and the hitpael 233
and the hof al 236
and the nif al 228
and the piel 230231
and the pual 232
and the qal prex-tense 222
and the qal sufx-tense 220, 254
and verbs
I- verbs 87, 240
I-w/y verbs 247
III- verbs 248
in Northwest Semitic 104, 134
relative chronology of 134135
the environment of its
application 133, 135, 150
paradigmatic pressure 133
philology, its relationship to
linguistics 4
Phoenician 16, 18, 21, 211
and the causative stem 234
assimilation of nun 242
biradical roots 243
D-stem 230
feminine singular ending 91, 211
Index of Topics
Phoenician (cont.)
t-forms 218
the Canaanite shift 51
verbs
III-y verbs 249
I-n verbs 243
phoneme, denition of 156
phonemes 2, 28, 3940, 42, 56, 61, 72
73, 81, 112, 118, 131, 156
phonetics 12, 61, 63, 72, 8283, 224,
274275
classication of sounds
by duration 6364
by place of articulation 63, 65
by resonance chamber 63, 67
by vocal chord movement 63,
67
phonology 72
piel 216, 229
I-yod 50
morphology of 229
participles 232
pausal forms 231
prex-tense 231
usage
denominative 229
factitive 229
intensier 229
privative 229
plosives 64
plural 270273
broken 18, 273
poetry
biblical 8, 40, 150, 160, 171172,
180, 183184, 195, 198, 216, 269,
284
tense system 198
Jewish liturgical 7
Ugaritic epic 91
polyphony 7376
of ayin 75
of et 75
of in/sin 7375, 77
polysemy 29, 35
prex, nominal 275
Index of Topics

2/3 fp 90, 203205
action/entive verbs 261
as imperfective 201
as iterative or continuous past 192
as present/future tense 192
cohortative 122, 192193, 207
energic 193, 208
governing pronominal sufxes 175
in poetry 198
indicative 206
loss of nal short vowels 206
relationship to the independent
personal pronoun
of 1cp 204
of 1cs 162, 204
of 2s 162, 204
short 142, 194195, 197, 225, 251,
286
and the stress system 150151,
155
as modal 193, 195, 206
as past tense 195, 199, 206
in verbs III-y 251
see also jussive
stative verbs 261
terminating in -un 205
with waw 191, 195, 202, 285
as imperfective 201
as modal 193
as past tense 192193
see also analogy, in the prex-tense
prepositions 91, 155, 157, 170, 186,
266, 283285
and vowel reduction 131
archaic forms 8, 99, 155, 284
in the case system 266, 268, 283
monoradical 189
proclitic 52
and innitives construct 213
beth 9293, 115, 214, 284
kap 92, 115, 214, 284
lamed 92, 115, 213214,
284
359
prepositions (cont.)
with pronominal sufxes 93, 99,
170, 172173, 175, 182, 186, 284
1s 285
plural forms 284
presentative sense, demonstratives 178
pretonic gemination 124, 132,152, 190,
226
pretonic lengthening in open syllables
42, 101, 123, 129, 131132, 136,
138, 146152, 154, 190, 205, 226
exceptions 131, 148
a 129, 138, 152
i 129
u 129, 152
theories on development of 123125
foreign inuence 125128, 148
stress inuence 125, 152
with pronominal sufxes 265
pretonic reduction 148
proclitics 52, 78, 94, 265
1cp 173
morphology of 173
1cs 168169
morphology of 160, 168169
relationship to the independent
personal pronoun 160
2p 174
morphology of 174
relationship to independent personal
pronouns 166
2s 169170
on prepositions 170
pausal forms 171
3fs 8990, 172
elision of he 93
3ms 90, 171
elision of he 93
3p 174
pronouns 166
360
pronominal sufxes (cont.)

and pretonic lengthening 224, 265
archaic forms 8, 90
heavy 265
late forms 9
light 265
on prepositions 170
on sufx-tenses 10
with/without connective vowel 46
47, 265, 268
see also analogy, and pronominal
sufxes
pronouns 53, 158159
as compound words 158159
comparative 179
demonstrative 176, 178179
3s 164
adjectival 177
and the denite article 176177,
184
as relative pronouns 184
gender 179
near and far 176
see also demonstratives
in anaphoric usage 159, 164, 176,
180
in deictic usage 158159, 164, 176,
178
independent personal 159168
1cp 165
1cs 159160
2p 166168
2s 161162
3p 166168
3s 162, 164, 176
dual 164165
interrogative 186
as indenite pronouns 186
as relative pronouns 185
ya 186
ym/hm 185186
not triradical 189
proleptic 159
relative 181185
rva 183, 186
hz/wz/Wz 184
v 183
Index of Topics
pronouns (cont.)
retrospective 182
similarity to interjections 158
see also analogy, and pronouns
prosthetic aleph 3233, 115116, 165,
183, 228
Proto-Hebrew stress system 144
Proto-Semitic 12, 16, 23, 2526, 32,
3536, 3841, 4346, 56, 118, 134,
137138, 165, 170, 209, 220, 222,
282283
a 48, 138
and the causative theme 234, 236
and the D-theme 230231
and the nif al 228
and verbs I-n 244
and verbs I-w/y 244
and verbs III-y 249
biradical roots 244
case system 266, 271
consonant inventory 76
diphthongs 45
dual forms 165, 270
fp verbal endings 204
f 75, 86
/f 75
/x 3233, 56, 75, 86
imperative 203
mimation/nunation 267, 271
numerals 280
participles 226
1cs 160161
2p 166
2s 162
3s 163
plural forms 271
pronominal sufxes
1cp 173
2p 174
2s 169
3fs 172
3p 174
relative clause 182
7374
Index of Topics
Proto-Semitic (cont.)
sound shifts
q > z 2528, 3033, 3738, 52, 76
f > 7576
t > s 3033, 4041, 74, 76
x > 3233, 37, 7576, 86
1 /2 /3 3840, 7677
sufx-tense
afxes 209210
stative 195, 197, 220221, 225
vowel inventory 111112, 137138
binary system of short vowels
111, 220221
long vowels in closed syllables
shortened 151, 196, 206, 235
pseudo-correction 5455, 205
see also hypercorrection
pseudo-dual 164
psychological predicate see rheme
pual 216, 232
and the qal passive 217218
morphology of 232
qal 14, 59, 61, 212, 216, 219227
imperative 130, 224
historical development 224
I-n 241242
I-w/y 247
II-w/y 253254
innitive absolute 227
innitive construct 79, 81, 94, 115
feminine 227
morphology 226227
participles of
action/entive verbs 225
II-w/y 253254
stative verbs 225
passive 53, 217218, 228, 245
passive participle 218, 226, 252
prex-tense 221224
I- 240
I-laryngeals-pharyngeals 238
I-w/y 246247
II-laryngeals/pharyngeals 240
II-w/y 253254
III- 248
action/entive verbs 221, 259
361
qal, prex-tense (cont.)

characteristic vowel 220221
inuence on the imperative 224
yaf il 87, 221223, 259
yaf ul 221223, 259
yif al 221
sufx-tense 220221, 225, 230, 259
II-w/y 252, 254
III- 248
action/entive verbs 220, 259
characteristic vowel 220221
stative verbs 220221, 225, 259
t-form 218, 232
qama 108114, 116, 118119, 121
124, 132133, 135138, 140143,
145, 149150, 152, 154155, 205,
213, 220, 223, 227228, 232233,
236238
see also vowel system, a-class
qre 7, 161162, 164165, 208, 211
212, 249
qibbu 66, 107108, 110, 112, 114, 136
see also vowel system, u-class
Qumran see Dead Sea Scrolls
r 69, 71, 8183, 238239
Rabbinic Hebrew 911, 16, 4243, 50,
69, 79, 8183, 98, 126, 128, 136,
160, 162, 165, 169, 171, 176178,
183, 185186, 205, 211, 213214,
223, 226227, 229, 238239, 246,
249, 256, 259, 268, 284
and demonstrative pronouns 176
178
and III-y verbs 50, 249
and proleptic pronouns 159
and relative clauses 183
and the 1cp independent personal
pronouns 165
and the 2s pronominal sufxes 171
and the D-themes 229, 256
and the innitive 213, 227
and the -n endings of the prextense 205
and the participle 3, 223, 226
362
Rabbinic Hebrew (cont.)

and the prex-tense 205
and triphthongs 98
and u-class vowels 136
nature of 911
relationship to Biblical Hebrew 911
tense system 9, 42, 211
raphe 78, 8990, 140
reduction of short vowels 130
redundant feature(s) 167, 169, 177
relative chronology (historical
ordering) 28, 56
and Philippis Law 134135
and the orthography of aleph 86, 88
in laryngeals/pharyngeals 83
lengthening of short vowels in open
syllables 8283
of auxiliary ultra-short vowels 85
of diphthong reduction 96, 99
of he as a vowel letter for a 91
of pausal lengthening 150, 220, 252
of Philippis Law 134, 150, 220,
248
of pretonic lengthening 126129,
154
of spirantization 56, 79
of the Canaanite shift 99, 137
of the conversive waw 194, 198
of the elision of aleph 87, 248
of the elision of he 93
of the elision of the feminine ending
(t) 211
of the elision of w/y 250, 252
of the loss of nal short vowels 100,
120, 267268
of the loss of gemination in
laryngeals/pharyngeals 83
of the loss of quantitative vowel
distinctions in Biblical
Hebrew 149
of the stress system of ProtoHebrew 144149, 153
of triphthong reduction 99
relative clause 181185
syntax of 181182, 185
Index of Topics
resonance 67
retrospective pronoun 182
rheme 185, 191
rhythm 124125
roots 14, 44
biradical 14, 53, 58, 95, 187189,
244, 258, 280
and geminate verbs 258
and verbs I-n 242244
and verbs I-w/y 242244
and verbs II-w/y 97, 103, 252253,
255
and verbs III-y 249
nouns 15, 31, 102, 157, 187
verbs 187188, 242244
III-h 8990
quadriliteral 257258, 281
triradical 1415, 157158, 240, 242
245, 249, 252
and geminate verbs 209
and verbs II-w/y 103, 209
and verbs III-y 249
development of 187188, 242
244
3840, 7677
7375, 77
s < t 3033, 4041, 74, 76
s/h alternation see h/s alternation
Sabaic
mimation 267268
see also Epigraphic South Arabian
Samaria ostraca 5, 8
Samaritan tradition 6, 55, 69, 74, 115,
160161, 168, 190, 280
samekh 5, 7374
sandhi 78, 80, 166
scriptio defectiva and plena see
orthography, defective and plene
segol 66, 90, 108, 112, 132136, 167,
170, 173, 175, 230
and Philippis law 135, 230
and Proto-Semitic 137
Index of Topics
segol (cont.)
and the elision of w/y 100101, 250
251
as a phoneme 112113
with interrogative he 113
as a short vowel 107
as an allophone 113
from monophthongization 107
in pausal and contextual forms 148
with pronominal sufxes 170
segolates 4446, 5455, 57, 101, 131,
133, 137, 251, 273274, 277278,
283
and pseudo-correction 54
and stress 45, 148, 155
phonemic value of anaptyctic
vowel 274
plural 47, 98, 115, 131, 273,
282
qal 115, 274, 277
qil 135, 277278
qol 278
see also analogy, and segolates;
anaptyxis
semantic shift 29
semantics 3536, 62
semi-consonant/semi-vowel 103105
see also diphthong; w; y
Semitic, Northwest 18, 2223
Semitic languages 1213, 16, 19, 21,
2324
1cp independent personal
pronouns 165166
1cs independent personal
pronouns 160
2p independent personal
pronouns 166
2s independent personal
pronoun 161
pronouns 161
pronouns 162164
alphabets 64, 68
see also polyphony
and inxed t 218
363
Semitic languages (cont.)

and the demonstrative pronouns 179
and the dual independent personal
pronouns 165
and the innitive 214, 216
and the relative clause 181183
cardinal numbers 15, 279, 281
common features of 13
grammar 1415, 270
morphology 221, 262
East 16
emphatics 68
lack of compound words 158
morphology 15
nominal patterns 262
Northwest 16, 18, 2123
Philippis law 134
shared innovations 104
shift of initial w to y 50, 103
ordinal numbers 282
Philippis law 134
plurals 273
Proto-Semitic see Proto-Semitic
Southwest 1617, 273
Arabic 23
Epigraphic South Arabian 23
Ethiopic 23
paala theme 18
shared innovation 1718
syntax 15
verbal patterns 15
causatives 163, 234
Dt-stem 233
verbless clause 15
vocabulary 1214
West 16
and the cohortative 207
and the prex-tense 222
and the sufx-tense
action/entive verbs 195,
208
stative verbs 197
shared innovations 16, 195196,
222
364
sentence, grammatical/psychological
structure 185, 191
separating (connective) vowel 209,
255, 259
Sephardic pronunciation 79, 85, 110,
112
of swa 106, 116, 119
of vowels 66, 105, 108109, 116,
138, 143
Septuagint
as evidence for
monophthongization 97
as evidence for polyphony 7576,
131
as evidence for pretonic
lengthening 56, 124, 129
as evidence for the quantity of
vowels 111, 115
as evidence for sound shifts 56
as evidence for vocalization 5
as evidence with respect to i-class
vowels 133
evidence for anaptyxis in 274275
transliteration of bgdkpt letters 81
see also Greek
sequence of two stressed syllables 141,
152
ere 66, 8284, 88, 90, 98, 100, 104
105, 107108, 111113, 119120,
123124, 129, 131138, 225
see also vowel system, e
shared innovation 1618, 104, 195
196, 222
sibilants 64, 69, 7677
Siloam inscription 5, 250
in 5, 7375
sin 7475
solemn reading 117118, 120, 131,
139, 149
sonorants 64
sound shift 2526, 28, 37, 42, 47, 5051
and historical linguistics 2526
dependency on function 55
regularity of 2628, 3033, 3537,
42, 4748, 50, 74, 120
exceptions 52
Index of Topics
sound shift (cont.)

unconditioned 28, 30, 32
weak changes 3738, 54, 57
South Arabian 1718, 162163, 234,
273
Modern 163, 234
see also Epigraphic South Arabian;
Sabaic
speech, lento/allegro 9294, 172
spirantization
and the swa 114, 116, 131, 139
its development in Biblical
Hebrew 7980
see also bgdkpt letters
spirants 6364
stative verbs see sufx tense, stative
verbs
status pronominalis see pronominal
sufxes
stops 6364, 69, 76, 78
stress 2, 143154
and pronominal sufxes 265
and syllabication 70
antepenultimate 140, 143144
expiratory 70
phonemic 143, 145146, 150
stages
1stress of long vowels nearest
ultima 153
2general penultimate
stress 144146, 150
3loss of nal short vowels and
development of phonemic
stress 146, 148, 150, 274
4inclination to ultimate
stress 145150, 153155,
171, 203, 223
summary of 153
stress system of Proto-Hebrew 145
Canaanite shift see Canaanite shift
loss of nal short vowels 146,
221
penultimate stress 46, 87, 143
146, 151, 236, 285
and the 1cs/2ms sufxtense 221
Index of Topics
stress, stress system of Proto-Hebrew,

penultimate stress (cont.)
and the 2mp/3mp prextense 152
and prex-tense with -n
endings 205
and the short prextense 151, 155, 206
and the vocalization of
conversive waw 152
pausal forms 4647, 144147
ultimate 4647, 143, 150
see also pausal stress shift
substantives see nouns
sufx, nominal 275276
sufx-tense 208212
1cp, relationship to independent
1cs 208
grammaticalization of 150
pronouns 162, 208
2p, relationship to independent
2s 208209
grammaticalization of 150
pronouns 162, 208
3fs 4647, 90, 94, 210211, 250
archaic form 8
3ms 210
3p 211
archaic form 8, 212
pronouns 166, 208
action/entive verbs 195197, 220,
261
afxes of 208
as past tense 192, 197
as perfective 201
as prophetic perfect 198199
characteristic vowel of 220, 261262
in poetry 198
stative verbs 194196, 199, 201,
220, 225, 248, 251, 253254,
258261
365
sufx-tense, stative verbs (cont.)

as present tense 194195, 198
199
with pronominal sufxes 9394, 175
see also analogy, in the sufx-tense
superlinear vocalizations 7
suppletion 53, 176
sursaut 3233, 4446
suruq 107108, 110, 112, 136138
swa 113118, 140
and dages forte 139
medium 79, 81, 114115, 130131,
174
and laryngeals-pharyngeals 239
development of 131
in plural construct segolates 115,
131
in qal innitives construct 213
214
the development of 114115
mobile 67, 80, 105, 113117, 140,
142, 147
before aleph 88
pronunciation in Tiberian tradition
67, 85, 105106, 116
replaced by aaf 80, 8485, 105,
109, 238
replaced by quiescent swa 115
two mobile swas 130131
with a vowelless consonant 114
see also swa medium
quiescent 67, 80, 105, 113117,
130
in qal innitives construct 213
replaced by aaf 29, 130131,
178
replacing mobile swa 114115
the ve rules of 116
the rule of 130131
syllabication 70
syllables
closed 70
not containing long vowels 151,
196, 206, 235, 252253
stressed 149, 155
unstressed 108
366
syllables (cont.)
open 70
stressed 123, 148, 151
unstressed 123
synchronic linguistics see linguistics,
synchronic
syntagma, closed 195197
syntax 34, 61
study of 62
see also morphosyntax
synthetic constructions 165
system, language 1, 3
t demonstrative element 179, 264
Tell el-Amarna see Amarna
tense system 9, 61, 189199, 201202
and poetry 198
see also waw (conversive)
and the participle 3, 9
historical development of 3, 194
195, 199
H. Bauers theory 199200
the prex-tense 196197
the sufx-tense 195, 197
indicative forms 190192
past tense 190192
present/future 190, 192
terminative he see directional he
Tiberian cantillation marks 144
see also cantillation marks
Tiberian vocalization 2, 7, 51, 66, 82
85, 110, 116117, 126, 132, 134,
137138, 148, 154, 218, 223, 236,
280
see also Masoretes
Tigre 18
topic versus comment 2
transcription 72, 171
Greek 132
see also Septuagint, Origen 132
Latin 132
triphthongs 9697
resulting in a 9899
resulting in nal 49, 53, 100, 103,
137, 250
Index of Topics
triphthongs (cont.)
with an originally long vowel 97
with an originally short vowel 98,
250
word-nal 99102
Ugaritic 16, 21, 35, 270
and the Canaanite dialects 2122
biradical roots 243244
Canaanite shift 137
case system 104, 266, 268
causative t-stem 237
consonantal h 91, 9495, 186, 269
denite article, absence of 180
demonstrative element hn 180
diphthongs 44, 97
directional h 93, 122, 269
D-theme 231232
dual 165, 270
epic 91
imperatives 224
innitive absolute 215
interrogative pronouns 186
numbers 281283
participles 254
personal pronouns 160, 163, 167
prepositions 284
relative clause 183
sound shifts
q > d 21, 25, 27, 3738, 52
w > 3940
/x preserved 32, 37
t preserved 30
z preserved 52
tense system
prex-tense 222
sufx-tense 210
t-forms 218
verbs III-y 104, 249
verbs I-n 243
uvulars 65, 69, 76
variant readings
106, 285
Index of Topics
velarized 68
velars 65, 69
verbal themes 6061, 216219
of Biblical Hebrew 216
of Proto-Hebrew 219
see also individual themes
verbless clause
as present 195, 197
negation of 225
verbs 157
I- 87, 240, 242
in the prex-tense 238
I-h, elision of he 9495
I- 83
I-laryngeal-pharyngeal 87, 221,
236238, 240
and the bgdkpt letters 79
in the prex-tense 237
in the sufx-tense 237
I-n 241243
and lq 243
as biradical 243244
assimilation of nun 83, 241242
elision of nun 241242
I-w 51, 102
analogy with I-y 51, 102, 104
I-w/y 235, 243248
and hlk 247
and laryngeal-pharyngeal 246
and monophthongization 247
as biradical 244
D-themes 245
hif il 8, 245
hof al 245, 247
nif al 245
qal 8, 51, 246247
I-y 5051, 102, 243
analogy with I-w 104
elision of y 243
II- 54
II-laryngeal-pharyngeal 84, 238
239, 241
II-w/y 4950, 102103, 245, 252
258
367
verbs, II-w/y (cont.)

and the D-themes 256258
and the hif il 102, 196, 235236,
246, 256
and the nif al 103, 228, 255
and the qal 102103, 216227,
252
as biradical 188, 252253, 255
connective/separating
vowel 209, 255, 259
historical reconstruction 196, 252
nature of roots 102103
III- 50, 84, 88, 239, 248249
analogy with III-y 248
and the qal prex-tense 248
and the qal sufx-tense 248
III-h 8990, 239
III-laryngeal-pharyngeal 79, 84,
133, 239240, 246
and the innitive construct 213,
226, 240
III-n 77
III-r 239
III-w 102, 209, 249, 255
III-y 8, 50, 5455, 9091, 102, 172
173, 175, 211, 241, 248252,
254, 258
and the D-themes 258
and the qal 252
as triradical 188, 249
in the sufx-tense 251
action/entive 195197, 220, 261
aspects 189190, 201202
biradical 187188
cohortative 192193, 250
converted tenses see waw conversive
nal short vowels omitted 223
geminate 221, 255256, 258260
and the hif il 235, 260
and the hof al 260
and the nif al 228, 260
and the qal 225, 259
as biradical 188, 258
connective/separating vowel
209, 255, 259
368
verbs (cont.)
laryngeal-pharyngeal 238239
moods 192194
quadriliteral 237, 257
rare themes 237
reduplication 237, 257259
stative see sufx-tense, stative
tenses 189201
t-themes 218219
volitive 192194, 207
see also imperative; innitive;
participle; tenses; prex-tense;
sufx-tense
Verners law 47
virtual doubling 83, 238
voiced/unvoiced sounds 6769, 77,
104105
vowel letters 57, 50, 6465, 67, 73,
86, 104108, 112, 137, 148, 171,
173, 179, 186, 239, 269, 282
see also aleph; he; waw; yod
vowels 14, 63
as continuants 64
back 66
compared with consonants 63
front 66
high 6566
low 66
rounded 66
separating 209
short
reduction of 130
loss of nal 47, 55, 146
see also case endings
spread 66
trapezoid of vowels 66
(un)rounded 66
w and y as semi-vowels see
consonants, semi-consonants
see also anceps; diphthongs,
monophthongization
vowel system of Biblical Hebrew 2,
6566, 112113
a-class vowels 106, 111, 122, 129,
132, 137138, 275
see also pata; qama
Index of Topics
vowel system of Biblical Hebrew (cont.)

development of short vowels in nouns
and verbs 119121, 123
124
full vowels 6366, 105, 108, 112,
137
i-class vowels 106107, 129, 132
136, 138
e 107, 132133, 135
138
see also ere
plene and defective spelling 106
107
see also iriq
long vowels 12
loss of nal short vowels 96, 119
120, 146, 151, 154155, 175, 197,
267
and the imperative 203
the prex-tense 206
markers of quality 106, 108110,
149
orthography of historically long
vowels 67, 106107
phonemic opposition of long and short
vowels 82, 110, 112, 132,
225
phonemic value of vowel marks 2,
112, 118
reduction of a
pretonic 129130, 148
see also pretonic
propretonic 221
see also pata; qama
short vowels in closed syllables 108,
110111, 119121, 133, 151, 191,
196, 206, 235
u-class vowels 107, 129, 136, 138
o 108, 136
see also olam
plene and defective spelling 107
108
pretonic, preserved by gemination
136
see also pretonic
see also qibbu; suruq
Index of Topics
vowel system of Biblical Hebrew (cont.)

ultra-short vowels 65, 67, 105, 112
allomorphs 117118
auxiliary 85, 108, 130131, 237,
239
phonemes 117
vowel length 111
see also anceps
see also Tiberian vocalization
w/y
see consonants, w/y as semiconsonants

wave model 1923, 104
waw (conjunction) 103
connective 190191, 194195, 202,
285
conversive 9, 142, 147, 105151,
155, 190192, 195, 202, 206,
285286
and Late Biblical Hebrew 194
and the prex-tense 9, 190, 192,
198
and the stress system 134, 150
151, 190, 194, 221
and the sufx-tense 9, 190, 192,
198, 221
as iterative or continuous past 9,
198
369
waw (conjunction), conversive (cont.)

as modal 192193
as perfective 201
as present/future 198
vocalization 152, 190, 285
waw (letter/sound) 64, 70, 96105
as vowel letter 104105
shift of initial waw to yod 50, 102
104, 245
see also consonants, w/y as semiconsonants; diphthongs;
monophthongization
West Semitic
and the numbers 281
word derivation 60, 62
Yaudic 2122
Yemenite pronunciation 106, 109
yod
see also consonants, w/y as semiconsonants
z 2528
z < q 2528, 3033, 3738

1575061295

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1575061295

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

00-Blau.

book Page i Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Phonology and Morphology

00-Blau.book Page ii Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic

M. OConnor and Cynthia L. Miller

1. The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches, edited

00-Blau.book Page iii Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Phonology and Morphology

Winona Lake, Indiana

00-Blau.book Page iv Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Copyright 2010 by Eisenbrauns.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

00-Blau.book Page v Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.1. Linguistics: Historical, Comparative, Synchronic . . . . . . . . . . 1

00-Blau.book Page vi Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

2.6. Voiced and Unvoiced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

00-Blau.book Page vii Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.4.8. The Semi-Consonant w 103

00-Blau.book Page viii Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.2.2.2. First-Person Singular Independent Pronouns 159

00-Blau.book Page ix Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.4. The Innitive 212

00-Blau.book Page x Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.4.3. Statuses: Absolute, Construct, Pronominal 265

5.1. Remarks on Prepositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

00-Blau.book Page xi Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

rst-person common singular

(pata ") open front vowel, unrounded

00-Blau.book Page xii Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

voiced th; also the fricative counterpart of d

00-Blau.book Page xiii Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

00-Blau.book Page xiv Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

00-Blau.book Page 1 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

00-Blau.book Page 2 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.1.7. Historical and Synchronic Linguistics

1.1.9. The main concern of synchronic linguistics is to show how the o

spread is 12 points long

00-Blau.book Page 3 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Historical and Synchronic Linguistics 1.1.15.

1.1.12. Syntax. Syntax is the linguistic domain in which the systematic

1.1.13. A historical treatment of the Biblical Hebrew active participle

00-Blau.book Page 4 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.1.16. Generative Linguistics; Philology

00-Blau.book Page 5 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Description of Biblical Hebrew 1.2.4.

1.2. A Short Description of Biblical Hebrew

00-Blau.book Page 6 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.2.5. Layers of Biblical Hebrew

Chronicles in contrast with Kings and in the readings exhibited by vulgar

1.2.7. In ancient inscriptions, the occurrence of the vowel letters is rather

00-Blau.book Page 7 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Description of Biblical Hebrew 1.3.1.

1.3. Dialect Diversity in Biblical Hebrew

00-Blau.book Page 8 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.3.2. Dialect Diversity; Poetry

inscriptions. In some cases the evidence is straightforward. According to the

00-Blau.book Page 9 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

History of Hebrew 1.4.2.

1.4. The Later History of Hebrew

00-Blau.book Page 10 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.4.3. History of Hebrew

00-Blau.book Page 11 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Rabbinic and Modern Hebrew 1.4.10.