was dropped, i.e. before case-endings in Assyrian and early Arabic, and before pronominal suffixes in Hebrew. From the forms thus produced, the bases qăṭl, qĭṭl, qŭṭl have been assumed, although they never appear in Hebrew except in the singular and then in connexion with suffixes.
In support of this view of a large number of original dissyllabic bases, we must not, however, appeal to the Seghôl or Pathaḥ under the 2nd consonant of the existing developed forms, סֵ֫פֶר, זֶ֫רַע, &c. These are in no sense survivals or modifications of an original full vowel in the 2nd syllable, but are mere helping-vowels (§ 28 e) to make the monosyllabic forms pronounceable,[1] and consequently disappear when no longer needed. Under certain circumstances even (e.g. in קשְׁטְ) they are not used at all. Actual proofs of such original toneless full vowels in the 2nd syllable of existing Segholates are—
1. Forms like Arab. málik, for which rarely malk, corresponding to the Hebrew ground-form; cf. De Lagarde, Uebersicht, p. 72 ff.
2. In Hebrew גֶּ֫דֶר, יֶ֫רֶךְ, כֶּ֫בֶד, כֶּ֫תֶף, the connective forms of גָּדֵר, יָרֵךְ, &c., which latter can only come from ground-forms gădĭr, yărĭk, kăbĭd, kătĭp.
3. The forms treated under § 84a e, which are in many ways related to the Segholates proper, in so far as they are to be referred to original dissyllabic bases.
4. The plurals of Hebrew Segholates, since, with very rare exceptions, they take Qameṣ under the 2nd radical before the termination ־ִים, fem. ־וֹת, of the absolute state, as מְלָכִים, מְלָכוֹת, סְפָרִים, &c. This Qameṣ (see note 1 on § 26 e) can only be due to a lengthening of an original short vowel in the 2nd syllable, and hence it would seem as though the vowel were always ă. This is impossible from what has been said, especially under 1 and 2. Hence the explanation of the consistent occurrence of Qameṣ in the plurals of all Segholates can only be that the regularly formed plurals (i.e. from singulars with original ă in the 2nd syllable) became the models for all the others, and ultimately even for some really monosyllabic forms.[2]
(a) From the strong stem the above three ground-forms are further developed to קֶ֫טֶל,[3] קֵ֫טֶל, קֹ֫טֶל (cf. § 27 r and in § 93 the explanations of Paradigm I, a–c); without a helping vowel (§ 28 d) קשְׁטְ truth. If the second
- ↑ According to Delitzsch (Assyr. Gram., p. 157 f.) the same is true in Assyrian of the corresponding qaṭl-forms. Without case-endings they are kalab, šamas, aban (= כֶּ֫לֶב, שֶׁ֫מֶשׁ, אֶ֫בֶן), with case-endings kalbu, šamsu, abnu. On the other hand, acc. to Sievers, Metrik, i. 261, Hebrew ground-forms probably have a twofold origin: they are shortened according to Hebrew rules partly from old absolute forms like kálbu, sífru, qúdšu, and partly from old construct-forms like the Assyrian types kalab, sifir, quduš.
- ↑ On the other hand, Ungnad, ZA. 1903, p. 333 ff., rejecting all previous explanations, maintains that the a in melākhîm, melākhôth is inserted merely to facilitate the pronunciation. From qaṭlîm arose qaṭalim, then qaṭalîm and finally qeṭālîm. See, however, Nöldeke, ‘Zur semit. Pluralendung,’ ZA. 1904, p. 68 ff., who points out that the Semitic nouns faʿl, fiʿl, fuʿl with their corresponding feminines faʿla, &c., on assuming the plural termination commonly take an a before the 3rd radical, but that no satisfactory account can be given for it. M. Margolis, ‘The plural of Segolates’ (Proc. of the Philol. Assoc. of the Pacific Coast, San Francisco, 1903, p. 4 ff.), and S. Brooks, Vestiges of the broken plural in Hebrew, Dublin, 1883, explain melākhîm as a pluralis fractus.
- ↑ It is worthy of notice that St. Jerome also (cf. Siegfried, ZAW. iv. 76) frequently represents the vowel of the first syllable by a, e.g. gader, aben, ader, areb, for גֶּדֶר, אֶבֶן, אֶדֶר, חֶרֶב, but cedem, secel, deber, &c., for קֶדֶם, שֶׁקֶל, דֶּבֶר, &c.
