User:Ubufox/3
For a distinction must again be drawn between the full lengthening of Pathaḥ into Qameṣ—mostly before א (always under the ה of the article, see § 35), as a rule also before ע, less frequently before ה, and least often before ח—and the modification of Pathaḥ to Seghôl, mostly before a guttural with Qameṣ. In the other case (virtual strengthening) the Dageš is still omitted, but the strengthening is nevertheless regarded as having taken place, and the preceding vowel therefore remains short. This virtual strengthening occurs most frequently with ח, usually with ה, less frequently with ע, and very seldom with א. Examples of (a) מֵאֵן, הָֽאָדָם, הָעָם, הָהָר, יֵֽחָבֵא (for yiḥḥābhēʾ); also אֶחָד, הֶחָג, הֶֽהָרִים, הֶֽעָנִי (see more fully on the pointing of the article before ע in § 35).—Of (b) הַחֹ֫דֶשׁ, מִחוּט (from minḥûṭ), הַהוּא, בִּעֵר, נִאֵץ, &c.—In all these cases of virtual strengthening the Dageš forte is to be regarded at least as implied (hence called Dageš forte implicitum, occultum, or delitescens).
d 2. They prefer before them, and sometimes after them (cf. h), a short A-sound, because this vowel is organically the nearest akin to the gutturals. Hence
(a) before a guttural, Pathaḥ readily (and always before הּ, ח, ע closing a syllable) takes the place of another short vowel or of a rhythmically long ē or ō, e.g. זֶ֫בַח sacrifice, not zèbĕḥ; שֵׁ֫מַע report, not šēmĕʿ. This is more especially so when a was the original vowel of the form, or is otherwise admissible. Thus in the Imperat. and Imperf. Qal of guttural verbs, שְׁלַח send thou, יִשְׁלַח he will send (not yišlōḥ); Perf. Piʿel שִׁלַּח (but in Pausa שִׁלֵּחַ); יַחְמֹד he will desire (not yiḥmōd) ; וַיָּ֫נַח and he rested (not wayyānŏḥ); נַ֫עַר a youth. In שִׁלַּח and יַחְמֹד ă is the original vowel.
e Rem. In such cases as דֶּ֫שֶָׁא, טֶ֫נֶא, פֶּ֫לֶא, פֶּ֫רֶא, the א has no consonantal value, and is only retained orthographically (see § 23 a).
f (b) After a heterogeneous long vowel, i.e. after all except Qameṣ, the hard gutturals[1] (consequently not א), when standing at the end of the word, require the insertion of a rapidly uttered ă (Pathaḥ furtivum) between themselves and the vowel. This Pathaḥ is placed under the guttural, but sounded before it. It is thus merely an orthographic indication not to neglect the guttural sound in pronunciation, e.g. רוּחַ rûaḥ, נוֹעַ, רֵעַ, הִשְׁלִיחַ, גָּבוֹהַּ, (when consonantal ה is final it necessarily takes Mappîq), but e.g. רוּחִי, &c., since here the rapidly uttered ă is no longer heard.
g Iach for ich, &c., in some Swiss dialects of German, is analogous; a furtive Pathaḥ is here involuntarily intruded before the deep guttural sound. In Arabic the same may be heard in such words as mesîaḥ, although it is not expressed in writing. The LXX (and Jerome, cf. {{{title}}} iv. 79) write ε, sometimes α, instead of furtive Pathaḥ, e.g. נֹחַ Νῶε, יַדּוּעַ Ίεδδούα (also Ίαδδού).
h Rem. 1. The guttural may also have an influence upon the following vowel, especially in Segholate forms, e.g. נַ֫עַר (not naʿĕr) a youth, פֹּ֫עַל (not pōʿĕl) deed. The only exceptions are אֹהֶל, בֹּהֶן, לֶחֶם, רֶחֶם.
i 2. Where in the present form of the language an ĭ, whether original or attenuated from Pathaḥ, would stand before or after a guttural in the first syllable of a word, a Seghôl as being between ă and ĭ is frequently used instead, e.g. יֶחְבַּשׁ (also יַֽחֲבֹשׁ), יֶהְגּוּ, חֶבְלֵי, נֶאְדָּר, עֶזְרִי, &c.
k On the other hand, the slighter and sharper Ḥireq is retained even under gutturals when the following consonant is sharpened by Dageš forte, e.g. הִלֵּל, הִנֵּה, חִטָּה; but when this sharpening is removed, Seghôl is again apt to appear, e.g. הִגָּיוֹן constr. הֶגְיוֹן, חִזָּיוֹן constr. חֶזְיוֹן.
l 3. Instead of simple Šewâ mobile, the gutturals take without exception a compound Šewâ, e.g. שָֽׁחֲטוּ, אֲקַטֵּל, אֱמֹר, אֳנִי, &c.
m 4. When a guttural with quiescent Šewâ happens to close a syllable in the middle of a word, the strongly closed syllable (with quiescent Šewâ) may remain; necessarily so with ח, ע, and ה at the end of the tone-syllable, e.g. שָׁלַ֫חְתָּ, יָדַ֫עְתָּ, but also before the tone (see examples under i), even with א.
But in the syllable before the tone and further back, the closed syllable is generally opened artificially by a Ḥaṭeph (as being suited to the guttural) taking the place of the quiescent Šewâ, and in particular that Ḥaṭeph which repeats the sound of the preceding vowel, e.g. יֽחֲשֹׁב (also יַחְשֹׁב); יֶחֱֽזַק (also יֶחְזַק); פָּֽעֳלוֹ pŏolô (for pŏʿlô). But when, owing to a flexional change, the strong vowel following the Ḥaṭeph is weakened into Šewâ mobile, then instead of the Ḥaṭeph its fall vowel is written, e.g. יַֽעַמְדוּ (from יַֽעֲמֹד), נֶֽעֶרְמוּ, פָּֽעָלְךָ (from פֹּעַל). The original forms, according to § 28 c, were yaʿmedhû, neʿremû, pŏʿlekhā. Hence יַֽעַמְדוּ, &c., are really only different orthographic forms of יַֽעֲמְדוּ, &c., and would be better transcribed by yaʿamedhû, &c.
n Rem. 1. On the use of simple or compound Šewâ in guttural verbs, see further §§ 62–65.
o 2. Respecting the choice between the three Ḥaṭephs, it may be remarked:
(a) ח, ה, ע at the beginning of a syllable prefer ־ֲ, but א prefers ־ֱ, e.g. חֲמוֹר ass, הֲרֹג to kill, אֱמֹר to say; when farther from the tone syllable, however, the ־ֱ even under א changes into the lighter ־ֲ, e.g. אֱלֵי (poetic for אֶל־) to, but אֲלֵיכֶ֫ם to you, אֱכֹל to eat, but אֲכָל־ (ʾakhŏl, toneless on account of Maqqēph). Cf. § 27 w. The 1st pets. sing. imperf. Piʿēl regularly has ־ֲ. Likewise ־ֲ is naturally found under א in cases where the Ḥaṭeph arises from a weakening of an original ă (e.g. אֲרִי lion, ground-form ʾary), and ־ֳ if there be a weakening of an original u (e.g. אֳנִי a fleet, עֳנִי affliction, cf. § 93 q, z).
p (b) In the middle of a word after a long vowel, a Ḥaṭeph-Pathaḥ takes the place of a simple Šewâ mobile, e.g. הֹֽעֲלָה מֵֽאֲנָה (see § 63 p); but if a short vowel precedes, the choice of the Ḥaṭeph is generally regulated by it, e.g. Perf. Hiph. הֶֽעֱמִיד (see above, i), Infin. הַֽעֲמִיד (regular form הַקְטִיל); Perf. Hoph. הָֽעֳמַד (regular form הָקְטַל); but cf. שִֽׁחֲדוּ Jb 6 (§ 64 a).
q 5. The ר, which in sound approximates to the gutturals (§ 6 g), shares with the gutturals proper their first, and to a certain extent their second, peculiarity, viz.
(a) The exclusion of the strengthening, instead of which the preceding vowel is almost always lengthened, e.g. בֵּרַךְ he has blessed for birrakh, בָּרֵךְ to bless for barrēkh.
r (b) The preference for ă as a preceding vowel, e.g. וַיַּרְא and he saw (from יִרְאֶה); וַיָּ֫סַר both for וַיָּ֫סָר and he turned back, and for וַיָּ֫סֶר and he caused to turn back.
s The exceptions to a are מָרַּת mŏrrăth, Pr 14; כָרַּת khŏrrăth and שָׁרֵּךְ šŏrrēkh, Ez 16 (cf. Pr 3); שֶׁרֹּאשִׁי Ct 5; הַרְּעִמָהּ 1 S 1; הַרְּאִיתֶם 1 S 10, 17, 2 K 6; exceptions to b are הִרִּדִיפֻהוּ Ju 20 (cf. § 20 h); מִרְּדֹף 1 S 23, 2 S 18; also on account of דחיק (§ 20 c), Pr 15, 20, 2 Ch 26; and on account of אתי מרחיק (§ 20 f) 1 S 15, Jer 39, ψ 52, Hb 3, Pr 11, Jb 39, Ezr 9. A kind of virtual strengthening (after מִ for מִן) is found in מִֽרָגְזֶךָ Is 14. In Samaritan and Arabic this strengthening has been retained throughout, and the LXX write e.g. Σάῤῥα for שָׂרָה. [So Baer (cf. his note on Jud 20; also on Jer 39, and several of the other passages in question): but Ginsburg only in 10 of the exceptions to b, and Jacob ben Ḥayyim and Kittel only in 5, viz. Jer 39, Pr 11, 15, ψ 52, Ezr 9.—S. R. D.]
a 1. The א, a light and scarcely audible guttural breathing, as a rule entirely loses its slight consonantal power whenever it stands without a vowel at the end of a syllable. It then remains (like the German h in roh, geh, nahte) merely as a sign of the preceding long vowel, e.g. מָצָא, מָלֵא, הוֹצִיא (but when a syllable is added with an introductory vowel, according to b below, we have, e.g. מְצָאַ֫נִי, הֽוֹצִיאַ֫נִי, since the א then stands at the beginning of the syllable, not מְצָאנִי, הוֹצִיאנִי), מְצֹא, כָּלוּא (cf., however, § 74 a), מָצָ֫אתָ (for māṣaʾtā), תִּמְצֶ֫אנָה. Similarly in cases like חֵטְא, וַיַּרְא, שָׁוְא, &c. (§ 19 l), and even in דֶּ֫שֶׁא, פֶּ֫לֶא (see above, § 22 e), the א only retains an orthographic significance.
b 2. On the other hand, א is in general retained as a strong consonant whenever it begins a syllable, e.g. אָמַר, מָֽאֲסוּ, or when it is protected by a Ḥaṭeph after a short syllable, e.g. לֶֽאֱכֹל, and finally, when it stands in a closed syllable with quiescent Šewâ after a preceding Seghôl or Pathaḥ, e.g. וַיֶּאְסֹר, נֶאְדָּר näʾdār, יַאְדִּ֫ימוּ yaʾdîmû. Even in such cases the consonantal power of א may be entirely lost, viz.
c (a) when it would stand with a long vowel in the middle of a word after Šewâ mobile. The long vowel is then occasionally thrown back into the place of the Šewâ, and the א is only retained orthographically, as an indication of the etymology, e.g. רָאשִׁים heads (for reʾāšîm), מָאתַ֫יִם two hundred (for meʾātháyim), שָֽׁאטְךָ Ez 25 for שְׁאָֽטְךָ; בּוֹדָאם Neh 6 for בּֽוֹדְאָם; מאוּם Jb 31, Dn 1 for מְאוּם; פֻּארָה for פְּאֻרָה Is 10; חֹטִאים ḥôṭîm, 1 S 14 for חֹֽטְאִים (cf. § 74 h, and § 75 oo); הָֽראוּבֵנִי Nu 34, from רְאוּבֵן; so always חַטֹּאת or חַטֹּאות 1 K 14, Mi 1, &c., for חַטְּאוֹת. Sometimes a still more violent suppression of the א occurs at the beginning of a syllable, which then causes a further change in the preceding syllable, e.g. מְלָאכָה work for מַלְאָכָה (as in the Babylonian punctuation), יִשְׁמָעֵאל for יִשְׁמַעְאֵל; שְׂמֹאל or שְׂמֹאול the left hand, ground form simʾâl.
d (b) When it originally closed a syllable. In these cases א is generally (by § 22 m) pronounced with a Ḥaṭeph, ־ֲ or ־ֱ. The preceding short vowel is, however, sometimes lengthened and retains the following א only orthographically, e.g. וַיָּ֫אצֶל Nu 11 for וַיַּֽאֲצֵל (cf. Ju 9), and פָּארוּר Jo 2 for פַּֽאֲרוּר; לֵאמֹר for לֶֽאֱמֹר; לִֽאלֹהִים for לֶֽאֱלֹהִים; but the contraction does not take place in לֶֽאֱלִילֶ֫יהָ Is 10. The short vowel is retained, although the consonantal power of א is entirely lost, in וַֽאדֹנָי, &c. (see § 102 m), וַיַּאת Is 41, וָֽאַבֶּדְךָ Ez 28 for וָֽאֲאַבֶּדְךָ; cf. Dt 24, 1 K 11, Is 10.
e Instead of this א which has lost its consonantal value, one of the vowel letters ו and י is often written according to the nature of the sound, the former with ô and the latter with ô and î, e.g. רֵים buffalo for רְאֵם. At the end of the word ה also is written for א, יְמַלֵּה he fills for יְמַלֵּא Jb 8 (see below, l).
f 3. When א is only preserved orthographically or as an indication of the etymology (quiescent), it is sometimes entirely dropped (cf. § 19 k), e.g. יָצָ֫תִי Jb 1 for יָצָ֫אתִי; מָלֵ֫תִי Jb 32 for מָלֵאתִי; מָצָ֫תִי Nu 11; וַתֹּ֫הֶז 2 S 20; וַיְרַפּוּ Jer 8 for וַיְרַפְּאוּ; וַתַּזְּרֵ֫נִי 2 S 22, but וַתְּאַזְּרֵנִי ψ 18; תּוֹמִם Gn 25 for תְּאוֹמִם; אֲחַטֶּנָּה 31, for , אֲחַטְּאֶנָּה; שֵֽׁלָתֵךְ 1 S 1 for שְׁאֵֽלָ״; רֵמִים ψ 22 for רְאֵמִים; גֵּוָה Jb 22 for גְּאֵוָה; הַבֵּֽרֹתִי 1 Ch 11 for הַבְּאֵֽר״, and so 2 S 23; שֵׁרִית 1 Ch 12 for שְׁאֵרִית; לַהְשׁוֹת 2 K 19 Kethîbh for לְהַשְׁאוֹת (cf. Is 37); חֵמָה Jb 29 for חֶמְאָה.[2] In מַכֹּ֫לֶת 1 K 5 (for מַֽאֲכ״) the strengthening of the following consonant by Dageš compensates for the loss of the א; in מָסֹ֫רֶת Ez 20, if for מַֽאֲס״ (but read מוּסָר, with Cornill), the preceding vowel is lengthened; cf. above, c. On אֹמַר for אֹאמַר, see § 68 g.
g Rem. 1. In Aramaic the א is much weaker and more liable to change than in Hebrew. In literary Arabic, on the other hand, it is almost always a firm consonant. According to Arabic orthography, א serves also to indicatea long a, whereas in Hebrew it very rarely occurs as a mere vowel letter after Qameṣ; as in קָאם Ho 10 for קָם he rose up; רָאשׁ Pr 10, 13 for רָשׁ poor; but in 2 S 11 the Kethîbh הַמַּלְאָכִים the messengers, is the true reading; cf. § 7 b.
h 2. In some cases at the beginning of a word, the א, instead of a compound Šeuâ, takes the corresponding full vowel, e.g. אֵזוֹר girdle for אֱזור; cf. § 84a q, and the analogous cases in § 52 n, § 63 p, § 76 d, § 93 r (אֽהָלְים).
i 3. An א is sometimes added at the end of the word to a final û, î, or ô, e.g. הָֽלְכוּא for הָֽלְכוּ Jos 10 (before !א), אָבוּא Is 28. These examples, however, are not so much instances of ‘Arabic orthography’, as early scribal errors, as in יִנָּשׂוּא Je 10 for יִנָּֽשְׂאוּ; and in נָשׂוּא ψ 139 for נָֽשְׂאוּ. Cf. also יְהוּא Ec 11 (§ 75 s); נָקִיא for נָקִי pure; לוּא for לוּ if; אֵפוֹא for אֵפוֹ then (enclitic); רִבּוֹא for רִבּוֹ myriad, Neh 7. On הוּא and הִיא see § 32 k.
k 4. The ה is stronger and firmer than the א, and never loses its consonantal sound (i.e. quiesces) in the middle of a word[3] except in the cases noted below, in which it is completely elided by syncope. On the other hand, at the end of a word it is always a mere vowel letter, unless expressly marked by Mappîq as a strong consonant (§ 14 a). Yet at times the consonantal sound of הּ at the end of a word is lost, and its place is taken by a simple ה or more correctly הֿ, with Rāphè as an indication of its non-consonantal character, e.g. לָהֿ to her for לָהּ, Zc 5, &c. (cf. § 103 g, and §§ 58 g, 91 e); cf. also יָה for יָהּ (from יָהוּ) in proper names like יִרְמְיָה, &c.—Finally, in very many cases a complete elision of the consonantal ה takes place by syncope: (a) when its vowel is thrown back to the place of a preceding Šewâ mobile (see above, c, with א), e.g. לַבֹּ֫קֶר for לְהַבֹּ֫קֶר (the ה of the article being syncopated as it almost always is); כַּיּוֹם for כְּהַיּוֹם [but see § 35 n], בֲּשָּׁמַ֫יִם for בְּהַשָּׁמַ֫יִם; יֽוֹנָתָן for יְהֽוֹנָתָן; perhaps also בְּנִיהֶם for בְּנְהִיהֶם Ez 27. (b) By contraction of the vowels preceding and following the ה, e.g. סוּסוֹ (also written סוּסֹה) from sûsahu (a+u=ô).—A violent suppression of ה together with its vowel occurs in בָּם (from בָּהֶם), &c.
l Rem. In connexion with ō and ē, a ה which only marks the vowel ending is occasionally changed into ו or י (רָאוֹ=רָאֹה, חַכֵּי=חַכֵּה Ho 6), and with any vowel into א in the later or Aramaic orthography, but especially with ā, e.g. שֵׁנָא sleep, ψ 127 for שֵׁנָה; נָשֹׁא Jer 23 for נָשֹׁהּ, &c. Thus it is evident that final ה as a vowel letter has only an orthographical importance.
Philippi, Die Aussprache der semit. Konsonanten ו und י (mentioned above, § 5 b, note 1), a thorough investigation of their phonetic value as consonantal, i.e. non-syllabic, vowel-sounds, not palatal or labial fricatives; cf. also E. Sievers, Metrische Studien, i. 15.
a ו and י are, as consonants, so weak, and approach so nearly to the corresponding vowels u and i, that under certain conditions they very readily merge into them. This fact is especially important in the formation of those weak stems, in which a ו or י occurs as one of the three radical consonants (§ 69 ff., § 85, § 93).
1. The cases in which ו and י lose their consonantal power, i.e. merge into a vowel, belong almost exclusively to the middle and end of words; at the beginning they remain as consonants.[4]
The instances may be classified under two heads:
b (a) When either ו or י with quiescent Šewâ stands at the end of a syllable immediately after a homogeneous vowel (u or i). It then merges in the homogeneous vowel, or more accurately it assumes its vowel-character (ו as u, י as i), and is then contracted with the preceding vowel into one vowel, necessarily long, but is mostly retained orthographically as a (quiescent) vowel letter. Thus הוּשַׁב for huwšab; יִיקַץ for yiyqaṣ; so also at the end of the word, e.g. עִבְרִי a Hebrew, properly ʿibrîy, fem. עִבְרִיָּה, pl. עִבְרִיִּים (and עִבְרִים); עָשׂוּ Jb 41 for עָשׂוּו (cf. עֲשׂוּוֹת 1 S 25 Kethîbh). On the other hand, if the preceding vowel he heterogeneous, ו and י are retained as full consonants (on the pronunciation see § 8 m), e.g. שָׁלֵו quiet, זִו the month of May, גּוֹי nation, גָּלוּי revealed. But with a preceding ǎ the ו and י are mostly contracted into ô and ê (see below, f), and at the end of a word they are sometimes rejected (see below, g).
Complete syncope of ו before î occurs in אִי island for אֱוִי; עִי ruins for עֲוִי; רִי watering Jb 37 for רְוִי; [כּי burning Is 3 for כְּוִי, cf. §§ 84a c, e, 93 y]. c Thus an initial יְ after the prefixes בְּ, וְ, כְּ, לְ, which would then be pronounced with ĭ (see § 28 a), and also almost always after םִ (see § 102 b), coalesces with the ĭ to î, e.g. בִּֽיהוּרָה in Judah (for בִּיְ׳), וִֽיהוּדָה and Judah, כִּיאֹר as the Nile, לִֽיהוּדָה for Judah, מִידֵי from the hands of.
d (b) When ו and י without a vowel would stand at the end of the word after quiescent Šewâ, they are either wholly rejected and only orthographically replaced by ה (e.g. בֶּ֫כֶה from bikhy, as well as the regularly formed בְּכִי weeping; cf. § 93 x) or become again vowel letters. In the latter case י becomes a homogeneous Ḥireq, and also attracts to itself the tone, whilst the preceding vowel becomes Šewâ (e.g. פְּרִ֫י from piry, properly pary); ו is changed sometimes into a toneless u (e.g. תֹּ֫הוּ from tuhw).
e Rem. In Syriac, where the weak letters more readily become vowel sounds, a simple i may stand even at the beginning of words instead of יְ or יִ. The LXX also, in accordance with this, write Ἰουδά for יְהוּדָה, Ἰσαάκ for יִצְחָק. Hence may be explained the Syriac usage in Hebrew of drawing back the vowel i to the preceding consonant, which properly had a simple vocal Šewâ, e.g. (according to the reading of Ben-Naphtali[5]) וִיֽלֲלַת Jer 25 for וְיִֽלֲלַת (so Baer), כִּֽיתְרוֹן Ec 2 for כְּיִתְרוֹן, cf. also the examples in § 20 h, note 2; even וִיחֵ֫לּוּ Jb 29 (in some editions) for וְיִ֫חֵלּוּ. According to Qimḥi (see § 47 b) יִקְטֹל was pronounced as iqṭōl, and therefore the 1st peps. was pointed אֶקְטֹל to avoid confusion. In fact the Babylonian punctuation always has ĭ for ä in the 1st pers.
f 2. With regard to the choice of the long vowel, in which ו and י quiesce after such vocalization and contraction, the following rules may be laid down:
(a) With a short homogeneous vowel ו and י are contracted into the corresponding long vowel (û or î), see above, b.
(b) With short ă they form the diphthongs ô and ê according to § 7 a, e.g. מֵיטִיב from מַיְטִיב; יוֹשִׁיב from יַוְשִׁיב, &c.[6]
g Rem. The rejection of the half vowels ו and י (see above, b) occurs especially at the end of words after a heterogeneous vowel (ă), if according to the nature of the form the contraction appears impossible. So especially in verbs ל״ה, e.g. originally גָּלַי=גָּלַ(י)=גָּלָה, since ă after the rejection of the י stands in an open syllable, and consequently must be lengthened to ā. The ה is simply an orthographic sign of the long vowel. So also שָׁלָה for šālaw. [7] On the origin of יִגְלֶה, see § 75 e; on קָם as perf. and part. of קוּם, see § 72 b and g; on יֵלֵד, &c., from ולד, see § 69 b.—On the weakening of ו and י to א, see § 93 x.
a What vowels in Hebrew are unchangeable, i.e. are not liable to attenuation (to Šewâ), modification, lengthening, or shortening, can be known with certainty only from the nature of the grammatical forms, and in some cases by comparison with Arabic (cf. § 1 m). This hems good especially of the essentially long vowels, i.e. those long by nature or contraction, as distinguished from those which are only lengthened rhythmically, i.e. on account of the special laws which in Hebrew regulate the tone and the formation of syllables. The latter, when a change takes place in the position of the tone or in the division of syllables, readily become short again, or are reduced to a mere vocal Šewâ.
b 1. The essentially long and consequently, as a rule (but cf. § 26 p, § 27 n, o), unchangeable vowels of the second and third class, î, ê, û, ô, can often be recognized by means of the vowel letters which accompany them (־ִי, ־ֵי, וּ, וֹ); e.g. יֵיטִיב he does well, חֵיכָל palace, גְּבוּל boundary, קוֹל voice. The defective writing (§ 8 i) is indeed common enough, e.g. יֵיטִב and יֵטִיב for יֵיטִיב; גְּבֻל for נְבוּל; קֹל for קוֹל, but this is merely an orthographic licence and has no influence on the quantity of the vowel; the û in גְּבֻל is just as necessarily long, as in גְּבוּל.
As an exception, a merely tone-long vowel of both these classes is sometimes written fully, e.g. יִקְטוֹל for יִקְטֹל.
c 2. The essentially or naturally long â (Qameṣ impure),[8] unless it has become ô (cf. § 9 q), has as a rule in Hebrew no representative among the consonants, while in Arabic it is regularly indicated by א; on the few instances of this kind in Hebrew, cf. § 9 b, § 23 g. The naturally long â and the merely tone-long ā therefore can only be distinguished by an accurate knowledge of the forms.
d 3. Short vowels in closed syllables (§ 26 b), which are not final, are as a rule unchangeable, e.g. מַלְבּוּשׁ garment, מִדְבָּר wilderness, מַמְלָכָה kingdom; similarly, short vowels in sharpened syllables, i.e. before Dageš forte, e.g. גַּנָּב thief.
e 4. Finally, those long vowels are unchangeable which, owing to the omission of the strengthening in a guttural or ר, have arisen by lengthening from the corresponding short vowels, and now stand in an open syllable, e.g. מֵאֵן for mĭʾʾēn; בֹּרַךְ for burrakh.
a Apart from the unchangeable vowels (§ 25), the use of short or long vowels, i.e. their lengthening, shortening, or change into vocal Šewâ, depends on the theory of syllable-formation. The initial and final syllables especially require consideration.
1. The initial syllable. A syllable regularly begins with a consonant, or, in the case of initial ו and י (cf. note on § 5 b), a consonantal vowel.[10] The copula is a standing exception to this rule. According to the Tiberian pronunciation וְ and is resolved into the corresponding vowel וּ before Šewâ, and the labials, e.g. וּדְבַר, וּמֶ֫לֶךְ; the Babylonian punctuation in the latter cases writes וֿ, i.e. וְ before a full vowel.
b 2. The final syllable. A syllable may end—
(a) With a vowel, and is then called an open or simple syllable, e.g. in קָטַ֫לְתָּ where the first and last are open. See below, e.
c (b) With one consonant, and is then called a simple closed or compound syllable, as the second in קָטַל, לֵבָב. See below, o, p. Such are also the syllables ending in a strengthened consonant, as the first in קַטֵּל qaṭ-ṭēl. See below, q.
d (c) With two consonants, a doubly closed syllable, as קשְׁטְ qōšṭ, קָטַ֫לְתְּ. Cf. below, r, and § 10 i–i.
e 3. Open or simple syllables have a long vowel, whether they have the tone as in בְּךָ֫ in thee, יֵ֫לֶךְ he goes, or are toneless as in קָטַ֫ל, עֵנָ֫ב a bunch of grapes.[11] A long vowel (Qameṣ, less frequently Ṣere) is especially common in an open syllable before the tone (pretonic vowel), e.g. לָהֶ֫ם, יָק֫וּם, קָטַ֫ל, לֵבָ֫ב.[12]
Short vowels in open syllables occur:
f (a) In apparently dissyllabic words formed by means of a helping vowel from monosyllables, as נַ֫חַל brook, בַּ֫יִת house, יִרֶ֫ב let him increase, from naḥl, bayt, yirb; cf. also ־ַ֫יִם the ending of the dual (§ 88). But see § 28 e.
g (b) In the verbal suffix of the 1st pers. sing. (־ַ֫נִי me), e.g. קְטָלַ֫נִי (Arab. qătălănĭ). The uncommon form ־ַ֫נִּי, however (Gn 30, cf. § 59 f), proves that the tone-bearing Pathaḥ produces a sharpening of the following sonant, and thus virtually stands in a closed syllable, even when the Nun is not expressly written with Dageš. In cases like וַֽאדֹנָי (§ 102 m) Pathaḥ is retained in the counter-tone after the א has become quiescent.
h (c) Sometimes before the toneless ־ָה local (§ 90 c), e.g. מִדְבַּ֫רָה towards the wilderness; only, however, in the constr. state (1 K 19), since the toneless suffix ־ָה does not affect the character of the form (especially when rapidly pronounced in close connexion); otherwise it is מִדְבָּ֫רָה.
In all these cases the short vowel is also supported by the tone, either the principal tone of the word, or (as in h) by the secondary tone in the constr. st., or by the counter-tone with Metheg, as in וַאֽדֹנָי above, g; cf. the effect of the arsis on the short vowel in classical prosody.
i (d) In the combinations ־ַֽ־ֲ, ־ֶֽ־ֱ, ־ָֽ־ֳ, e.g. נַֽעֲרוֹ his boy, יֶֽאֱסֹר he will bind, פָּֽעֳלוֹ his deed. In all these cases the syllable was at first really closed, and it was only when the guttural took a Ḥaṭeph that it became in consequence open (but cf. e.g. יֶאְסֹר and יֶֽאֱסֹר). The same vowel sequence arises wherever a preposition בְּ, כְּ, לְ, or ו copulative is prefixed to an initial syllable which has a Ḥaṭeph, since the former then takes the vowel contained in the Ḥaṭeph (see § 102 d and § 104 d). To the same category belong also the cases where these prepositions with Ḥireq stand before a consonant with simple Šewâ mobile, e.g. בִּדְבַר, כִּדְבַּר, &c.
k (e) In forms like יֶֽחֶזְקוּ yäḥä-ze-qû (they are strong), פָּֽעָלְךָ pŏʿŏlekhā (thy deed). These again are cases of the subsequent opening of closed syllables (hence, e.g. יֶחְזְקוּ also occurs); פָּֽעָלְךָ is properly pŏʿlekhā; cf. generally § 22 m, end, and § 28 c.
l Such cases as הַחֹ֫דֶשׁ, אַחִים (§ 96), הַֽחִתֹּ֫תָ (§ 67 w) do not come under this head, since they all have ă in a virtually sharpened syllable; nor does the tone-bearing Seghôl in suffixes (e.g. דְּבָרֶ֫ךָ), nor Seghôl for ă before a guttural with Qameṣ (§ 22 c). On שָֽׁרָשִׁים and קָֽדָשִׁים, see § 9 v.
m 4. The independent syllables with a firm vowel which have been described above, are frequently preceded by a single consonant with vocal Šewâ, simple or compound. Such a consonant with vocal Šewâ never has the value of an independent syllable, but rather attaches itself so closely to the following syllable that it forms practically one syllable with it, e.g. לְחִי (cheek) leḥî; חֳלִי (sickness) ḥolî; יִלְמְדוּ yil-medhû. This concerns especially the prefixes וְ, בְ, כְ, לְ. See § 102.
n The Šewâ mobile is no doubt in all such eases weakened from an original full vowel (e.g. יִקְטְלוּ Arab. yaqtŭlû, בְּךָ Arab. bĭkă, &c.); from this, however, it cannot be inferred that the Masoretes regarded it as forming a kind of open syllable, for this would be even more directly opposed to their fundamental law (viz. that a long vowel should stand in an open syllable), than are the exceptions cited above, f–k. Even the use of Metheg with Šewâ in special cases (see § 16 f) is no proof of such a view on the part of the Masoretes.
o 5. Closed syllables ending with one consonant, when without the tone, necessarily have short vowels, whether at the beginning or at the end of words,[13] e.g. מַלְכָּה queen, חֶשְׁבּוֹן understanding, חָכְמָה wisdom, וַיָּ֫סַר and he turned back, וַיָּ֫קֶם, וַיָּ֫קָם (wayyāqǒm).
p A tone-bearing closed syllable may have either a long or short vowel, but if the latter, it must as a rule be either Pathaḥ or Seghôl.[14] The tone-bearing closed penultima admits, of the long vowels, only the tone-long ā, ē, ō, not the longest î, ê, ô, û; of the short vowels, only ă, ĕ, not ĭ, ŭ, ŏ (but on ĭ and ŭ, see § 29 g). Thus יַקְטִ֫ילוּ (3rd pl. masc. Imperf. Hiph.) but תַּקְטֵ֫לְנָה 3rd pl. fem., and קוּ֫מוּ (and pl. masc. Imperat. Qal) but קֹ֫מְנָה fem.
q
6. A special kind of closed syllables are the sharpened, i.e. those which end in the same (strengthened) consonant with which the following syllable begins, e.g. אִמִּי ʾĭm-mî, כֻּלּוֹ kŭl-lô. If without the tone, they have, like the rest, short vowels; but, if bearing the tone, either short vowels as קַ֫לּוּ, הִנֶּ֫נּוּ, or long, as שָׁ֫מָּה, הֵ֫מָּה.
On the omission of the strengthening of a consonant at the end of a word, see § 20 l.
r 7. Syllables ending with two consonants occur only at the end of words, and have most naturally short vowels, קָטַלְתְּ, וַיִּשְׁבְּ; but sometimes Ṣere, as נֵרְדְּ, וַיֵּבְדְּ, or Ḥolem, תּוֹסְףְּ קשְׁטְ. Cf., however, § 10 i. Usually the harshness of pronunciation is avoided by the use of a helping vowel (§ 28 e).
a The changes in sound through which the Hebrew language passed, before it assumed the form in which we know it from the Masoretic text of the O.T. (see § 2 k), have especially affected its vowel system. A precise knowledge of these vowel changes, which is indispensable for the understanding of most of the present forms of the language, is derived partly from the phenomena which the language itself presents in the laws of derivation and inflexion, partly from the comparison of the kindred dialects, principally the Arabic. By these two methods, we arrive at the following facts as regards Hebrew:
b 1. That in an open syllable the language has frequently retained only a half-vowel (Šewâ mobile), where there originally stood a full short vowel, e.g. עֲגָלָה (ground-form ʿăgălăt) a waggon, צְדָקָה (groundform ṣădăqăt) righteousness, קָֽטְלוּ (Arab. qătălŭ), יְקַטְּלוּ (Arab. jŭqattĭlŭ).
c 2. That vowels originally short have in the tone-syllable, as also in the open syllable preceding it, been generally changed into the corresponding tone-long vowels, ă into ā, ĭ into ē, ŭ into ō (see § 9, a–e, k, r). If, however, the tone be shifted or weakened, these tone-long vowels mostly revert to their original shortness, or, occasionally, are still further shortened, or reduced to mere Šewâ mobile, or, finally, are entirely lost through a change in the division of syllables; e.g. מָטָר (Arab. măṭăr) rain, when in close dependence on a following genitive in the construct state), becomes מְטַר; עָקֵב (Arab. ʿăqĭb) heel, dual עֲקֵבַ֫יִם, dual construct (with attenuation of the original ă of the first syllable to ĭ) עִקְּבֵי [on the קּ, see § 20 h]; יִקְטֹל (Arab. yăqtŭl), plur. יִקְטְלוּ (Arab. yăqtŭlû). For instances of complete loss, as in כַּסְפֵּי, cf. § 93 m.
According to § 26, the following details of vowel-change must be observed:
d 1. The original, or a kindred short vowel reappears—
(a) When a closed syllable loses the tone (§ 26 o). Thus, יָד hand, but יַד־יְהֹוָה the hand of Yahwe; בֵּן son, but בֶּן־הַמֶּ֫לֶךְ the son of the king; כֹּל the whole, but כָּל־הָעָם the whole of the people; so also when a tone-bearing closed syllable loses the tone on taking a suffix, e.g. אֹיֵב enemy, but אֹֽיִבְךָ thy enemy; finally, when the tone recedes, יָקֹם, but וַיָּ֫קָם (wayyāqŏm); יֵלֵךְ, but וַיֵּ֫לֶךְ.
(b) To the same category belong cases like סֵ֫פֶר book, but סִפְרִי my book; קֹ֫דֶשׁ holiness, but קָדְשִׁי my holiness. In spite of the helping vowel, סֵפֶר and קֹדֶשׁ are really closed syllables with a tone-long vowel; when the syllable loses the tone, the original ĭ or ŏ (properly ŭ) reappears.
The same is true of syllables with a virtually sharpened final consonant: the lengthening of original ĭ to ē and ŭ to ō takes place only in a tone-bearing syllable; in a toneless syllable the ĭ or ŏ (or ŭ) remains, e.g. אֵם mother, but אִמִּי my mother; חֹק law, plur. חֻקִּים; but עֹז strength, עָזִּי (and עֻזִּי) my strength.
e 2. The lengthening of the short vowel to the corresponding long, takes place—
(a) When a closed syllable becomes open by its final consonant being transferred to a suffix beginning with a vowel, or in general to the following syllable, e.g. קָטַל, קְטָ|לוֹ he has killed him; סוּסָ|תִי primarily from סוּסַת. Similarly ă mostly becomes ā even before a suffix beginning with Šewâ mobile; e.g. קְטָֽלְךָ from קָטַל, סוּסָֽתְךָ from סוּסַת.
f (b) When a syllable has become open by complete loss of the strengthening of its final consonant (a guttural or Rêš), e.g. בֵּ|רַךְ for birrakh, see § 22 c. Cf. also § 20 n.
g (c) When a weak consonant (א, ו, י) following the short vowel quiesces in this vowel, according to § 23 a, c, d, § 24 f, e.g. מָצָא for מָצַא, where the א, losing its consonantal value, loses also the power of closing the syllable, and the open syllable requires a long vowel.
h (d) Very frequently through the influence of the pause, i.e. the principal tone in the last word of a sentence or clause (§ 29 k). Sometimes also through the influence of the article (§ 35 o).
i 3. When a word increases at the end and the tone is consequently moved forward, or when, in the construct state (see § 89), or otherwise in close connexion with the following word, its tone is weakened, in such cases a full vowel (short or tone-long) may, by a change in the division of syllables, be weakened to Šewâ mobile, or even be entirely lost, so that its place is taken by the mere syllable-divider (Šewâ quiescens). Examples of the first case are, שֵׁם name, pl. שֵׁמוֹת, but שְׁמִי my name, שְׁמוֹתָם their names, דָּבָר word, constr. st. דְּבַר; צְדָקָה righteousness, constr. st. צִדְקַת; an example of the second case is, בְּרָכָה blessing, constr. st. בִּרְכַּת. Whether the vowel is retained or becomes Šewâ (דָּם, דָּמִי, but שֵׁם, שְׁמִּי), and which of the two disappears in two consecutive syllables, depends upon the character of the form in question. In general the rule is that only those vowels which stand in an open syllable can become Šewâ.
Thus the change into Šewâ takes place in—
k (a) The ā and ē of the first syllable, especially in the inflexion of nouns, e.g. דָּבָ֫ר word, plur. דְּבָרִ֫ים; גָּד֫וֹל, great, fem. גְּדוֹלָ֫ה; לֵבָ֫ב heart, לְבָבִ֫י my heart; but also in the verb, תָּשׁ֫וּב she will return, plur. תְּשׁוּבֶ֫ינָה, and so always, when the originally short vowel of the prefixes of the Imperfect comes to stand in an open syllable which is not pretonic. On the other hand, an ā lengthened from ă before the tone is retained in the Perfect consecutive of Qal even in the secondary tone, e.g. וְקָֽטַלְתָּ֫; cf. § 49 i.
l (b) The short, or merely tone-long, vowels a, e, o of the ultima, especially in verbal forms, e.g. קָטַל, fem. קָֽטְלָה qāṭelā; יִקְטֹל, יִקְטְלוּ yiqṭelû; but note also יִלְקֹטוּן, תִּדְבָּקִין, &c., according to § 47 m and o. The helping vowels are either entirely omitted, e.g. מֶ֫לֶךְ king (ground-form malk), מַלְכִּי my king; or, under the influence of a guttural, are weakened to Ḥaṭeph, e.g. נַ֫עַר boy, נַעֲרוֹ his boy. If the tone remains unmoved, the vowel also is retained, notwithstanding the lengthening of the word, e.g. יִקְטֹ֫לוּ pausal-form for יִקְטְלוּ.
m Where the tone moves forward two places, the former of the two vowels of a dissyllabic word may be shortened, and the second changed into Šewâ. Cf. דָּבָר word; in the plur. דְּבָרִ֫ים; with heavy suffix דִּבְרֵיהֶ֫ם (cf. § 28 a) their words. On the attenuation of the ă to ĭ, see further, s, t.
n Rem. 1. An ô arising from aw=au, or by an obscuring of â (see § 9 b), sometimes becomes û, when the tone is moved forward, e.g. נָקוֹם, נְקוּמ֫וֹתָ (see Paradigm Perf. Niph. of קוּם); מָנוֹס flight, fem. מְנוּסָ֫ה, with suffix, מְנוּסִ֫י. The not uncommon use of וּ in a sharpened syllable, as בְּחֻוּקֵּי Ez 20 (for בְּחֻקֵּי, cf. also the examples in § 9 o), is to be regarded as an orthographic licence, although sometimes in such cases û may really have been intended by the Kethîbh.
o Of the vowels of the U-class, û and tone-long ō stand in a tone-bearing closed final syllable, and ŏ in a toneless syllable, e.g. יָקוּם he will arise, יָקֹם jussive, let him arise, וַיָּ֫קָם and he arose. The only instance of ŭ in an ultima which has lost the tone is וַיָּ֫רֻם Ex 16 (see § 67 n). Similarly, of vowels of the I-class, ê, î, and ē stand in a tone-bearing closed final syllable, and ĕ in a toneless syllable, e.g. יָקֵים he will raise, יָקֵם let him raise, וַיָּ֫קֶם and he raised. The only instance of ĭ in an ultima which has lost the tone is וַתָּ֫רִץ Ju 9 (see § 67 p).
2. In the place of a Pathaḥ we not infrequently find (according to § 9 f) a Seghôl (ĕ, è) as a modification of ă:
p (a) In a closed antepenultima, e.g. in the proper names אֶבְיָתָר and אֶבְיָסָף, where LXX Ἀβι- = אַבְי׳, which is certainly the better reading, cf. Ulmer, Die semit. Eigennamen, 1901, p. 12: or in a closed penultima, e.g. יֶהְדֹּף, but also יֶדְכֶם your hand, for yadekhèm. In all these cases the character of the surrounding consonants (see § 6 q) has no doubt had an influence.
q (b) Regularly before a guttural with Qameṣ or Ḥaṭeph Qameṣ, where the strengthening has been dropped, provided that a lengthening of the Pathaḥ into Qameṣ be not necessary, e.g. אֶחָיו his brothers, for ’aḥāw; כֶּחָשׁ false, for kaḥāš; פֶּחָה governor, constr. st. פַּחַת; פֶּחָם coal; הֶחָי the living (with the article, הֶ for הַ); יִתְנֶחָם Nu 23, &c., and so always before הָ and חֳ, as הֶֽחֳדָשִׁים the months, see § 35 k. Before הָ and עָ Seghôl generally stands only in the second syllable before the tone, e.g. הֶֽהָרִים the mountains; הֶֽעָוֹן the guilt; immediately before the tone Pathaḥ is lengthened into a (pretonic) Qameṣ, e.g. הָהָר, הָעָם; but cf. also הִטֶּהָ֫רוּ Nu 8. Before the weak consonants א and ר (cf. § 22 c, q), the lengthening of the Pathaḥ into Qameṣ almost always takes place, e.g. הָאָב the father, pl. הָֽאָבוֹת; הָרֹאשׁ the head, pl. הָֽרָאשִׁים. Exceptions, הֶ֫רָה towards the mountain, Gn 14, in the tone-syllable, for hárrā; יְבֶֽרֶכְיָ֫הוּ (pr. name) for יְבָֽרֶכְיָהוּ. On הֶ as a form of the interrogative הֲ (הַ), see § 100 n; on מֶה for מָה (מַהּ), § 37 e, f. Finally, אֲכֶלְךָ֫ Ex 33 also comes partly under this head, in consequence of the loss of the strengthening, for אֲכַלְּךָ, and יְחֶזְקֵאל Ezekiel for יְחַזְּקֵאל = יְחַזֵּקְאֵל God strengthens.
r (c) As a modification of the orIginal Pathaḥ in the first class of the segholate forms (§ 93 g), when a helping vowel (§ 28 e) is inserted after the second consonant. Thus the ground-form kalb (dog), after receiving a helping Seeghôl, is modified into כֶּ֫לֶב (also in modern Arabic pronounced kelb),[15] yarḥ (month), with a helping Pathaḥ, יֶ֫רַח. The same phenomenon appears also in the formation of verbs, in cases like יֶ֫גֶל (jussive of the Hiphʿîl of גָּלָה), with a helping Seeghôl, for yagl.
s 3. The attenuation of ă to ĭ is very common in a toneless closed syllable.
(a) In a firmly closed syllable, מִדּוֹ his measure, for מַדּוֹ (in a sharpened syllable); יְלִדְתִּ֫יךָ I have begotten thee, from יָלַ֫דְתִּי with the suffix ךָ; cf. Lv 11, Ez 38, and § 44 d. Especially is this the case in a large number of segholates from the ground-form qaṭl, when combined with singular suffixes, e.g. צִדְקִי my rIghteousness, for ṣadqî.
t (b) In a loosely-closed syllable, i.e. one followed by an aspirated Begadkephath, as דִּמְכֶם your blood, for דַּמְכֶם, and so commonly in the st. constr. plur. of segholates from the ground-form qaṭl, e.g. בִּגְדֵי from בֶּגֶד (ground-form bagd) a garment. In most cases of this kind the attenuation is easily intelligible from the nature of the surrounding consonants. It is evident from a comparison of the dialects, that the attenuation was consistently carried out in a very large number of noun and verb-forms in Hebrew, as will be shown in the proper places.[16]
u 4. Seghôl arises, in addition to the cases mentioned in o and p, also from the weakening of ā of the final syllable in the isolated cases (־ֶה for ־ָה) in 1 S 28 (? see § 48 d), ψ 20 (?), Is 59, Pr 24 (see § 48 l); for examples of Locative forms in ־ֶה see § 90 i end.
v 5. Among the Ḥaṭaeph-sounds ־ֲ is shorter and lighter than ־ֱ, and consequently the vowel group ־ַֽ ־ֲ is shorter than ־ֶֽ ־ֱ; e.g. אֱדוֹם Edom, but אֲדֹמִ֫י (Edomite), shortened at the beginning because the tone is thrown forward; אֱמֶ֫ת (ʾemèth) truth, אֲמִתּ֫וֹ his truth; נֶֽעֱלָ֫ם hidden, pl. נַֽעֲלָמִ֫ים; הֶֽעֱבַ֫רְתִּי but וְהַֽעֲבַרְתִּ֫י; but also conversely נַֽעֲשָׂה fem. נֶעֱשְׂתָה cf. § 63 f, 3.
w 6. To the chapter on vowel changes belongs lastly the dissimilation of vowels, i.e. the change of one vowel into another entirely heterogeneous, in order to prevent two similar, or closely related vowels, from following one another in the same word.[17] Hence לוּלֵא for lû lô (unless). Cf. also חִיצוֹן from חוּץ; רִאשׁוֹן from רֹאשׁ; תִּיכוֹן from תּוֹךְ; נִכְחוֹ from נֹ֫כַח; עֵירֹם from stem עוּר; most probably also יִלּוֹד offspring, קִפּוֹד porcupine, for יֻלּ׳, קֻפּ׳, see § 68 c, note.—On the proper names יֵהוּא and יֵשׁוּעַ, which were formerly explained in the same way, see now Prätorius, ZDMG. 1905, p. 341 f.
a 1. According to § 26 m a half-syllable, i.e. a consonant with Šewâ mobile (always weakened from a short vowel), can only occur in close dependence on a full syllable. If another half-syllable with simple Šewâ follows, the first takes a full short vowel again.[18] This vowel is almost always Ḥireq. In most cases it is probably an attenuation of an original ă, and never a mere helping vowel. In some instances analogy may have led to the choice of the ĭ. Thus, according to § 102 d, the prefixes בְּ, כְּ, לְ before a consonant with Šewâ mobile become בִּ, כִּ, לִ, e.g. בִּפְרִי, כִּפְרִי, לִפְרִי; before יְ they are pointed as in בִּֽיהוּרָה (from bi-yehedûā, according to § 24 c); so too with Wāw copulative, e.g. וִֽיהוּרָה for וִיְ׳ attenuated from וַי׳. The first half- syllable, after the restoration of the short vowel, sometimes combines with the second to form a firmly closed syllable, e.g. לִנְפֹּל Nu 14 for lĭnephōl, and so almost always in the infin. constr. after ל (§ 45 g); in isolated cases also with כְ, as כִּזְכֹּר Jer 17.
b 2. If a guttural with Ḥaṭeph follows, the original ă of the prefixes is retained before Ḥaṭeph Pathaḥ, but before Ḥaṭeph Seghol or Ḥaṭeph Qameṣ it is modified to the short vowel contained in the Ḥaṭeph. Thus arise the vowel groups ־ַֽ ־ֲ, ־ֶֽ ־ֱ, ־ָֽ ־ֳ, e.g. וַֽאֲנִי and I, כַּֽאֲשֶׁר as, לַֽעֲבֹד to serve, לֶֽאֱכֹל to eat, לָֽחֳלִי in sickness. On the Metheg with every such short vowel, see § 16 f, δ. Sometimes here also a fully closed syllable is formed. In such a case, the prefix takes the short vowel, which would have belonged to the suppressed Ḥaṭeph, e.g. לַחְטֹב for לַֽחֲטֹב; לַחְמָם Is 47 for לַֽחֲמָם (see § 67 cc); לֶאְסֹר but also לֶֽאֱסֹר; and even וַעְצֹר Jb 4, cf. Gn 32. So always in the Infin. and Imperat. Qal of the verbs הָיָה to be and הָיָה to live, e.g. לִֽהְיוֹת to be, וִֽהְיוּ and be ye; even with מִן, as מִֽהְיוֹת, on which cf. § 102 b; but וֶֽהְיֵה and be, וֶֽחְֽיֵה and live, have ĕ instead of ĭ under the prefix. For the Metheg, cf. § 16 f, ε.
c 3. When a Ḥaṭeph in the middle of a word, owing to flexional changes, would stand before a vocal Šewâ, it is changed into the short vowel, with which it is compounded. This applies especially to cases in which the Ḥaṭeph stands under a guttural instead of quiescent Šewâ, as an echo of the preceding short vowel, e.g. יַֽעֲמֹד he will stand (for יַעְמֹד), but plur. יַעֽמֲדוּ for yaamedhû, and נֶֽהֶֽפְכוּ for nĕhäphekhû (they have turned themselves), פָּֽעָלְךָ thy work, cf. § 26 k. The syllables are to be divided yăʿă-medhû, and the second ă is to be regarded exactly as the helping Pathaḥ in נַ֫עַד, &c.[19]
d 4. At the end of words, syllables occur which close with two consonants (§ 10 i, § 26 r), but only when the latter of the two is an emphatic consonant (ט, ק) or a tenuis (viz. בּ, דּ, ךּ, תּ[20]), e.g. יֵשְׂטְ let him turn aside, וַיַּשְׁקְ and he caused to drink, אָמַ֫רְתְּ thou (fem.) hast said, וַיֵּבְךְּ and he wept, וְיֵרְדְּ and let him have dominion, וַיִּשְׁבְּ and he took captive.
e This harsh ending is elsewhere avoided by the Masora,[21] which inserts between the two final consonants a helping vowel, usually Seghôl, but with medial or final gutturals a Pathaḥ,[22] and after י a Ḥireq, e.g. וַיִּ֫גֶל and he revealed, for wayyigl; יִ֫רֶב let it multiply, for yirb; קֹ֫דֶשׁ holiness, ground-form qudš; נַ֫חַל brook, ground-form naḥl; שָׁלַ֫חַתְּ[23]for שָׁלַחְתְּ thou hast sent; בַּ֫יִת house, ground-form bayt. These helping vowels are, however, to be regarded as exactly like furtive Pathaḥ (§ 22 f, g); they do not alter the monosyllabic character of the forms, and they disappear before formative suffixes, e.g. קָדְשִׁ֫י my holiness, בַּ֫יְתָה home-ward.
f 5. On the rise of a full vowel in place of a simple Šewâ, under the influence of the pause, see § 29 m; on initial אֵ for אֱ, see § 23 h.
a 1. The principal tone rests, according to the Masoretic accentuation (cf. § 15 c), as a rule on the final syllable, e.g. קָטַ֫ל, דָּבָ֫ר, דְּבָר֫וֹ, דְּבָרִ֫ים, קְטַלְתֶּ֫ם, קָֽטְלוּ֫, קִדְר֫וֹן—in the last five examples on the formative additions to the stem. Less frequently it rests on the penultima, as in לַ֫יְלָה night, קָטַ֫לְתָּ, קַ֫לּוּ, קָ֫מוּ; but a closed penultima can only have the tone if the ultima is open (e.g. קָטַ֫לְתָּ, לֵ֫כְנָה, קֹ֫מְנָה), whilst a closed ultima can as a rule only be without the tone if the penultima is open, e.g. וַיָּ֫קֶם, וַיָּ֫קָם; see also below, e.
b A kind of counter-tone or secondary stress, as opposed to the principal tone, is marked by Metheg (§ 16 c). Words which are closely united by Maqqeph with the following word (§ 16 a) can at the most have only a secondary tone.
c 2. The original tone of a word, however, frequently shifts its place in consequence either of changes in the word itself, or of its close connexion with other words. If the word is increased at the end, the tone is moved forward (descendit) one or two places according to the length of the addition, e.g. דָּבָ֫ד word, plur. דְּבָרִ֫ים; דִּבְרֵיכֶ֫ם your words; קֹ֫דֶשׁ holy thing, plur. קָֽדָשִׁ֫ים; קָטַ֫לְתָּ with suffix קְטַלְתָּ֫הוּ, with Wāw consecutive וְקָֽטַלְתָּ֫. On the consequent vowel-changes, see § 27 d, i–m.
d 3. On the other hand, the original tone is shifted from the ultima to the penultima (ascendit):
(a) In many forms of the Imperfect, under the influence of a prefixed Wāw consecutive (וַּ see § 49 c–e), e.g. יֹאמַ֫ר he will say, וַיֹּ֫אמֶר and he said; יֵלֵ֫ךְ he will go, וַיֵּ֫לֶךְ and he went. Cf. also § 51 n on the impf. Niphʿal, and § 65 g, end, on the impf. Piʿel; on these forms in Pause, when the ו consec. does not take effect, see below, p.
e (b) For rhythmical reasons (as often in other languages), when a monosyllable, or a word with the tone on the first syllable, follows a word with the tone on the ultima, in order to avoid the concurrence of two tone-syllables[24]. This rhythmical retraction of the tone, however (נָסוֹג אָחוֹר receding, as it is called by the Jewish grammarians), is only admissible according to a, above, provided that the penultima, which now receives the tone, is an open syllable (with a long vowel; but see g), whilst the ultima, which loses the tone, must be either an open syllable with a long vowel, e.g. קָ֣רָא לָ֑יְלָה Gn 1, 4, 27, Ex 16, ψ 5, 104, Dn 11, or a closed syllable with a short vowel, e.g. תֹּ֣אכַל לֶ֫חֶם Gn 3, Jb 3, 22.[25] The grave suffixes ־כֶם, כֶן, ־הֶם, ־הֶן are exceptions, as they never lose the tone. Moreover a fair number of instances occur in which the above conditions are fulfilled, but the tone is not retracted, e.g. esp. with הָיָה, and before א; cf. Qimḥi, Mikhlol, ed. Rittenberg (Lyck, 1862), p. 4b, line 13 ff.
f Although Ṣere can remain in a closed ultima which has lost the tone, it is perhaps not to be regarded in this case (see § 8 b) as a long vowel. At any rate it then always has, in correct editions, a retarding Methog, no doubt in order to prevent its being pronounced as Seghôl, e.g. לְבָ֣עֵֽר קָ֑יִן Nu 24; cf. Nu 17, Ju 20, Is 66, Jer 23, Ez 22, ψ 37, and even with a following furtive Pathaḥ Pr 1, 11, &c., although there is no question here of two successive tone-syllables. In other cases the shortening into Seghôl does take place, e.g. ה֫וֹלֶם פַּ֫עַם who smiteth the anvil, Is 41, for הוֹלֵ֫ם פַּ֫עַם; מֵ֫אֶת שֶׁ֫מֶר 1 K 16.—The retraction of the tone even occurs when a half-syllable with a Šewâ mobile precedes the original tone-syllable, e.g. וַיּ֫אֹמְרוּ לוֹ Gn 19, and frequently; י֫וֹרְדֵי בוֹר ψ 28; טָ֫מְנוּ לִי ψ 31; מְטֹ֣עֲנֵי חָ֫רֶב Is 14; as also when the tone-syllable of the second word is preceded by a half-syllable, e.g. ע֫שֶֹׁה פְּרִי Gn 1 (on the Dag. f., cf. § 20 f); לָ֫תֶת לְךָ Gn 15 (cf. § 20 c).
g According to the above, it must be regarded as anomalous when the Masora throws back the tone of a closed ultima upon a virtually sharpened syllable with a short vowel, e.g. אַ֫חַר כֵּן 1 S 10, § 101 a; וְכִ֫חֶשׁ בּוֹ Jb 8, cf. Lv 5, Ho 9; לְצַ֫חֶק בָּ֫נוּ Gn 39; whereas it elsewhere allows a closed penultima to bear the tone only when the ultima is open. Still more anomalous is the placing of the tone on a really sharpened syllable, when the ultima is closed, as in הֻ֣קַּם עָל 2 S 23; נִ֣כַּר שׁוֹעַ Jb 34; cf. also יֻֽקַּם־קָ֫יִן Gn 4, with Metheg of the secondary tone. We should read either הֻקַּ֣ם, or, with Frensdorff, Massora Magna, p. 167, Ginsb., Kittel, after Bomb., הֻ֣קַם. Other abnormal forms are וַיַּחֲזֶק בּוֹ Ex 4 (for similar instances see § 15 c, end) and וַיִּ֣הְיוּ שָׁם Dt 10.
h (c) In pause, see i–v.
The meeting of two tone-syllables (see e, f) is avoided also by connecting the words with Maqqeph, in which case the first word entirely loses the tone, e.g. וַיִּכְתָּב־שָׁ֫ם and he wrote there, Jos 8.
i 4. Very important changes of the tone and of the vowels are effected by the pause. By this term is meant the strong stress laid on the tone-syllable in the last word of a sentence (verse) or clause. It is marked by a great distinctive accent, Sillûq, ʾAthnâḥ, and in the accentuation of the books תא״ם, ʿÔlè weyôrēd (§ 15 h). Apart from these principal pauses (the great pause), there are often pausal changes (the lesser pause) with the lesser distinctives, especially Segolta, Zaqeph qaṭon, Rebhîaʿ, and even with Pašṭa, Tiphḥa, Gereš, and (Pr 30) Pazer.[26]
The changes are as follows:
k (a) When the tone-syllable naturally has a short vowel, it as a rule becomes tone-long in pause, e.g. קָטַל, קָטָ֑ל; מַ֫יִם, מָ֑יִם; קָטַ֫לְתָּ, קָטָ֫לְתָּ. An ă which has been modified to Seghôl usually becomes ā in pause, e.g. קֶ֫שֶׁר (ground-form qašr) in pause קָ֫שֶׁר 2 K 11; אֶ֫רֶץ אָ֑רֶץ Jer 22; also in 2 K 4 read קָשֶׁב with ed. Mant., &c. (Baer קָשֵָׁב).—דִּבֶּר becomes in pause דִּבֵּר.
l Sometimes, however, the distinct and sharper ă is intentionally retained in pause, especially if the following consonant is strengthened, e.g. יֻכַּ֑תּוּ Jb 4, or ought to be strengthened, e.g. כְּבַֽת 2 S 12, בַּֽז Is 8, &c.; but also in other cases as זָקַ֑נְתִּי Gn 27, because from זָקֵן, cf. below, q; עַ֑ד Gn 49; וְהִקְדַּ֑שְׁנוּ 2 Ch 29 (so Baer, but Ginsb. הקדָּ׳, ed. Mant. הקדָ׳); and regularly in the numeral אַרְבַּע four, Lv 11, &c. In the accentuation of the three poetical books (§ 15 d) the use of Pathaḥ with ʾAthnaḥ is due to the inferior pausal force of ʾAthnaḥ, especially after ʿÔlè weyored (§ 15 o); cf. ψ 100, Pr 30, and Qimḥi, Mikhlol, ed. Rittenberg, p. 5b, line 4 from below. Compare the list of instances of pausal ă and è in the appendices to Baer’s editions.
m (b) When a full vowel in a tone-bearing final syllable has lost the tone before an afformative, and has become vocal Šewâ, it is restored in pause as tone-vowel, and, if short, is lengthened, e.g. קָטַ֫ל, fem. קָֽטְלָה (qāṭelā), in pause קָטָ֑לָה; שִׁמְעוּ (šĭmeʿû), in pause שְׁמָֽעוּ (from sing. שְׁמַע); מָֽלְאָה, מָלֵאָ֑ה; יִקְטְלוּ, יִקְטֹ֫לוּ[27] (sing. יִקְטֹ֫ל). The fuller endings of the Imperfect וּן and ־ִין (§ 47 m and o) alone retain the tone even when the original vowel is restored. In segholate forms, like לְחִי, פְּרִי (ground-form laḥy, pary), the original ă returns, though under the form of a tone-bearing Seghôl, thus לֶ֫חִי, פֶּ֫רִי; original ĭ becomes ē, e.g. חֲצִי, in pause חֵ֫צִי; original ŏ (ŭ) becomes ō, חֳלִי (ground-form ḥuly), in pause חֹ֫לִי ( 93 x, y, z).
n On the analogy of such forms as לֶ֫חִי, &c., the shortened Imperfects יְהִי and יְחִי become in pause יֶ֫הִי, יֶ֫חִי, because in the full forms יִהְיֶה he will be, and יִחְיֶה he will live, the ĭ is attenuated from an original ă. Similarly שְׁכֶם shoulder, in pause שֶׁכֶם (ground-form šakhm), and the pron. אֲנִי I, in pause אָ֫נִי; cf. also the restoration of the original ă as è before the suffix ־ְךָ thy, thee, e.g. דְּבָֽרְךָ thy word, in pause דְּבָרֶ֫ךָ; יִשְׁמָרְךָ֫ he guards thee, in pause יִשְׁמְרֶ֫ךָ; but after the prepositions בְ, לְ, (אֶת) אֵת the suffix ־ְךָ in pause becomes ־ָךְ, e.g. בָּךְ, לָךְ, אִתָּךְ.
o (c) This tendency to draw back the tone in pause to the penultima appears also in such cases as אָֽנֹכִ֫י I, in pause אָנֹ֑כִי; אַתָּ֫ה thou, in pause אָ֑תָּה (but in the three poetically accented books also אַ֑תָּה, since in those books ʾAthnaḥ, especially after ʿÔlè weyôrēd, has only the force of a Zaqeph; hence also יִמָּֽלְא֑וּ Pr 24 instead of יִמָּלֵ֫אוּ)[28]; עַ֫תָּה now, עָ֑תָּה; and in other sporadic instances, like כָּ֫לוּ ψ 37 for כָּל֫וּ; but in 1 S 12 תִּסָּפֽוּ with Baer and Ginsb., is to be preferred to the reading of ed. Mant., &c.
p (d) Conversely all forms of imperfects consecutive, whose final syllable, when not in pause, loses the tone and is pronounced with a short vowel, take, when in pause, the tone on the ultima with a tone-long vowel, e.g. וַיָּ֫מָת and he died, in pause וַיָּמֹ֫ת.
q Of other effects of the pause we have still to mention, (1) the transition of an ē (lengthened from ĭ) to the more distinct ă (see above, l), e.g. הֵתַז for הֵתֵז Is 18 (cf. § 67 v; § 72 dd); קָמַל Is 33; אָצַל 1 Ch 8 (beside אָצֵל [, see v. 37. Cf. טָֽבְאַֽל׃ Is 7 (טָֽבְאֵל Ezr 4); שָׁשַֽׁר׃ Jer 22; סְפָרַ֑ר Ob 201; וַיִּנָּפַֽשׁ׃ Ex 31; וַיֵּֽאָנַֽשׁ׃ 2 S 12 (below, § 51 m)—S. R. D.]); הֵפַר Gn 17; הַפְצַר 1 S 15; תְּאַחַֽר ψ 40; הַרְחַק Jb 13, mostly before liquids or sibilants (but also הָשַֽׁב Is 42, and without the pause תֵּרַד La 3). So also וַיֵּ֫לֶךְ (shortened from יֵ֫לֵךְ) becomes in pause וַיֵּלַ֫ךְ; cf. וַיּׄלַ֫ךְ La 3; תָּלַ֑ן for תָּ֑לֶן Ju 19. On Seghôl in pause instead of Ṣere, el. § 52 n, 60 d, and especially § 75 n, on וֶהָֽיֶה Pr 4 and 7.
r (2) The transition from ă to è in the ultima; so always in the formula לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד (for עַד) for ever and ever.
s (3) The pausal Qameṣ (according to § 54 k, lengthened from original ă) in Hithpaʿēl (but not in Piʿĕl) for Ṣere, e.g. יִתְהַלָּךְ Jb 18 for יִתְּהַלֵּךְ. But pausal forms like סָ֫תֶר, שָׁ֫בֶט (in the absol. st. סֵ֫תֶר, שֵׁ֫בֶט) go back to a secondary form of the abs. st. סֵ֫תֶר, שֵׁ֫בֶט.
t (4) The restoration of a final Yodh which has been dropped from the stem, together with the preceding vowel, e.g. בְּעָ֫יוּ, אֵתָ֫יוּ Is 21, for בְּעוּ, אֱתוּ, the latter also without the pause Is 56; cf. Jb 12, and the same occurrence even in the word before the pause Dt 32, Is 21.
u (5) The transition from ô or ō to ā in pause: as שְׁאָלָה Is 7, if it be a locative of שְׁאֹל, and not rather imperat. Qal of שָׁאַל; שָׁכָֽלְתִּי Gn 43 for שָׁכֹֽלְתִּי; עָז Gn 49; יִטְרָף Gn 49; perhaps also שִׁרְיָן 1 K 22, Is 59, and מִשְׁקָ֫לֶת Is 28, cf. 2 K 21. On the other hand the regular pausal form יֶחְפָּץ (ordinary imperfect יַחְפֹּץ) corresponds to a perfect חָפֵץ (see § 47 h).
v (6) When a Pathaḥ both precedes and follows a virtually strengthened guttural, the second becomes ā in pause, and the first Seghôl, according to § 22 c and § 27 q, e.g. אַחַי my brothers, in pause אֶחָ֑י. Similarly in cases where an original Pathaḥ after a guttural has been attenuated to i out of pause, and then lengthened to ē with the tone (cf. § 54 k), e.g. יִתְנַחֵם, but in pause יִתְנֶחָ֑ם Dt 32; cf. Nu 8, 23, Ez 5, ψ 135.—On pausal Ṣere, for Seghôl, in infin., imperat., and imperf. of verbs ל״ה, see § 75 hh.
w [Other instances of the full vowel in lesser pause, where the voice would naturally rest on the word, are Gn 15 יעבֹדו, Is 8, 40, Ho 4, 8, Dn 9, and very often in such cases.]
SECOND PART
ETYMOLOGY, OR THE PARTS OF SPEECH
a 1. Stems in Hebrew, as in the other Semitic languages, have this peculiarity, that by far the majority of them consist of three consonants. On these the meaning essentially depends, while the various modifications of the idea are expressed rather by changes in the vowels, e.g. עמק (עָמֵק or עָמֹק; the 3rd pers. sing. perf. does not occur) it was deep, עָמֹ֫ק deep, עֹ֫מֶק depth, עֵ֫מֶק, a valley, plain. Such a stem may be either a verb or a noun, and the language commonly exhihits both together, e.g. זָרַע he has sown, זֶ֫רַע seed; חָכַם he was wise, חָכָם a wise man. For practical purposes, however, it has long been the custom to regard as the stem the 3rd pers. sing. Perf. Qal (see § 43), since it is one of the simplest forms of the verb, without any formative additions. Not only are the other forms of the verb referred to this stem, but also the noun-forms, and the large number of particles derived from nouns; e.g. קָדַשׁ he was holy, קֹ֫דֶשׁ holiness, קָדוֹשׁ holy.
b Sometimes the language, as we have it, exhibits only the verbal stem without any corresponding noun-form, e.g. סָקַל to stone, נָהַק to bray; and on the other hand, the noun sometimes exists without the corresponding verb, e.g. אֶ֫בֶן stone, נֶ֫גֶב south. Since, however, the nominal or verbal stems, which are not now found in Hebrew, generally occur in one or more of the other Semitic dialects, it may be assumed, as a rule, that Hebrew, when a living language, also possessed them. Thus, in Arabic, the verbal stem ʾăbĭnă (to become compact, hard) corresponds to אֶ֫בֶן, and the Aramaic verb negab (to be dry) to נֶ֫גֶב.
c Rem. 1. The Jewish grammarians call the stem (i.e. the 3rd pers. sing. Perf. Qal) שֹׁ֫רֶשׁ root. Hence it became customary among Christian grammarians to call the stem radix, and its three consonants litterae radicales, in contradistinction to the litterae serviles or formative letters. On the correct use of the term root, see g.
d 2. Others regard the three stem-consonants as a root, in the sense that, considered as vowelless and unpronounceable, it represents the common foundation of the verbal and nominal stems developed from it, just as in the vegetable world, from which the figure is borrowed, stems grow from the hidden root, e.g.
| Root: | מלך, | the indeterminate idea of ruling. |
| Verb-stem, מָלַךְ he has reigned. | Noun-stem, מֶ֫לֶךְ king. |
For the historical investigation of the language, however, this hypothesis of unpronounceable roots, with indeterminate meaning, is fruitless. Moreover, the term root, as it is generally understood by philologists, cannot be applied to the Semitic triliteral stem (see f).[30]
e 3. The 3rd sing. Perf. Qal, which, according to the above, is usually regarded, both lexicographically and grammatically, as the ground-form, is generally in Hebrew a dissyllable, e.g. קָטַל. The monosyllabic forms have only arisen by contraction (according to the traditional explanation) from stems which had a weak letter (ו or י) for their middle consonant, e.g. קָם from qăwăm; or from stems whose second and third consonants are identical, e.g. צַר and צָרַר (but see below, §§ 67, 72). The dissyllabic forms have themselves no doubt arisen, through a loss of the final vowel, from trisyllables, e.g. קָטַל from qătălă, as it is in literary Arabic.
f 2. The law of the triliteral stem is so strictly observed in the formation of verbs and nouns in Hebrew (and in the Semitic languages generally), that the language has sometimes adopted artificial methods to preserve at least an appearance of triliteralism in monosyllabic stems, e.g. שֶׁ֫בֶת for the inf. constr. of verbs פ״ו; cf. § 69 b. Conversely such nouns, as אָב father, אֵם mother, אָח brother, which were formerly all regarded as original monosyllabic forms (nomina primitiva), may, in some cases at least, have arisen from mutilation of a triliteral stem.
g On the other hand, a large number of triliteral stems really point to a biliteral base, which may be properly called a root (radix primaria, bilitteralis), since it forms the starting-point for several triliteral modifications of the same fundamental idea. Though in themselves unpronounceable, these roots are usually pronounced with ă between the two consonants, and are represented in writing by the sign √, e.g. √כר as the root of כָּרַר, כָּרָה, כּוּר, אָכַר. The reduction of a stem to the underlying root may generally be accomplished with certainty when the stem exhibits one weak consonant with two strong ones, or when the second and third consonants are identical. Thus e.g. the stems דָּכַךְ, דּוּךְ, דָּכָא, דָּכָה may all be traced to the idea of striking, breaking, and the root common to them all is evidently the two strong consonants דך (dakh). Very frequently, however, the development of the root into a stem is effected by the addition of a strong consonant, especially, it seems, a sibilant, liquid or guttural.[31] Finally, further modifications of the same root are produced when either a consonant of the root, or the letter which has been added, changes by phonetic laws into a kindred letter (see the examples below). Usually such a change of sound is accompanied by a modification of meaning.
h Examples: from the root קץ (no doubt onomatopoetic, i.e. imitating the sound), which represents the fundamental idea of carving off, cutting in pieces, are derived directly: קצץ and קצה to cut, to cut off; the latter also metaph. to decide, to judge (whence קָצִין, Arab. qâḍi, a judge); also קָצַב to cut off, to shear, קָצַף to tear, to break, קָצַע to cut into, קָצַר to cut off, to reap. With a dental instead of the sibilant, קט, קד, whence קָטַב to cut in pieces, to destroy, קָטַל to cut down, to kill, קָטַף to tear off, to pluck off. With the initial letter softened, the root becomes כס, whence כָּסַח to cut off, and כָּסַם to shave; cf. also נכס Syr. to slay (sacrifice), to kill. With the greatest softening to גז and גד; גָּזַז to cut off, to shear; גָּזָה to hew stone; גּוּז, גָּזַם, גָּזַע, גָּזַל, גָּזַר to cut off, to tear off, eat up; similarly גָּדַד to cut into, גָּדַע to cut off; cf. also גָּדָה, גָּדַף, גָּדַר. Allied to this root also is the series of stems which instead of a palatal begin with a guttural (ח), e.g. חָרַד to split, cut; cf. also חדל, חדק, חדר, חדשׁ, and further חוּס, חוּץ, חזה, חזז, חטב, חטט, חטף, חסל, חסם, חסף, חצב, חצה, חצץ, חצר in the.
The root הם expresses the sound of humming, which is made with the mouth closed (μύω); hence הָמַם, הוּם, הָמָה, (נָאַם) נָהַם Arab. hámhama, to buzz, to hum, to snarl, &c.
As developments from the root רע cf. the stems רָעַד, רָעַל, רָעַם, רָעַע, רָעַץ, רָעַשׁ. Not less numerous are the developments of the root בר (פר, פל) and many others.[32]
Closer investigation of the subject suggests the following observations:
i (a) These roots are mere abstractions from stems in actual use, and are themselves not used. They represent rather the hidden germs (semina) of the stems which appear in the language. Yet these stems are sometimes so short as to consist simply of the elements of the root itself, e.g. תַּם to be finished, קַל light. The ascertaining of the root and its meaning, although in many ways very difficult and hazardous, is of great lexicographical importance. It is a wholly different and much contested question whether there ever was a period in the development of the Semitic languages when purely biliteral roots, either isolated and invariable or combined with inflexions, served for the communication of thought. In such a case it would have to be admitted, that the language at first expressed extremely few elementary ideas, which were only gradually extended by additions to denote more delicate shades of meaning. At all events this process of transformation would belong to a period of the language which is entirely outside our range. At the most only the gradual multiplication of stems by means of phonetic change (see below) can be historically proved.
k (b) Many of these monosyllabic words are clearly imitations of sounds, and sometimes coincide with roots of a similar meaning in the Indo-Germanic family of languages (§ 1 h). Of other roots there is definite evidence that Semitic linguistic consciousness regarded them as onomatopoetic, whilst the Indo-Germanie instinct fails to recognize in them any imitation of sound.
l (c) Stems with the harder, stronger consonants are in general (§ 6 r) to be regarded as the older, from which a number of later stems probably arose through softening of the consonants; cf. פזר and בזר, צחק and שׂחק, צעק and זעק, עלץ and עלז, עלס; רקק and רכךְ, and the almost consistent change of initial ו to י. In other instances, however, the harder stems have only been adopted at a later period from Aramaic, e.g. טעה, Hebr. תעה. Finally in many cases the harder and softer stems may have been in use together from the first, thus often distinguishing, by a kind of sound-painting, the intensive action from the less intensive; see above קצץ to cut, גזז to shear, &c.
m (d) When two consonants are united to form a root they are usually either both emphatic or both middle-hard or both soft, e.g. קץ, קט, כס, גז, גד never כץ, גץ, גט, גס, קז. Within (triliteral) stems the first and second consonants are never identical. The apparent exceptions are either due to reduplication of the root, e.g. דדח (ψ 42, Is 38), Arabic דאדא, or result from other causes, cf. e.g. בבּה in the Lexicon. The first and third consonants are very seldom identical except in what are called concave stems (with middle ו or י), e.g. נון, צוץ; note, however, נגן, נתן, שׁמשׁ, שׁרשׁ, and on עלע Jb 39 see § 55 f. The second and third consonants on the other hand are very frequently identical, see § 67.[33]
n (e) The softening mentioned under l is sometimes so great that strong consonants, especially in the middle of the stem, actually pass into vowels: cf. § 19 o, and עֲזָאזֵל Lv 16 ff. if is for עֲזַלְזֵל.
o (f) Some of the cases in which triliteral stems cannot with certainty be traced back to a biliteral root, may be due to a combination of two roots—a simple method of forming expressions to correspond to more complex ideas.
p 3. Stems of four, or even (in the case of nouns) of five consonants[34] are secondary formations. They arise from an extension of the triliteral stem: (a) by addition of a fourth stem-consonant; (b) in some eases perhaps by composition and contraction of two triliteral stems, by which means even quinquiliterals are produced. Stems which have arisen from reduplication of the biliteral root, or from the mere repetition of one or two of the three original stem-consonants, e.g. כִּלְכֵּל from כול or כיל, סְחַרְחַר from סחר, are usually not regarded as quadriliterals or quinqueliterals, but as conjugational forms (§ 55); so also the few words which are formed with the prefix שׁ, as שַׁלְהֶ֫בֶת flame from לָהַב, correspond to the Aramaic conjugation Šaphʿēl, שַׁלְהֵב.
q Rem. on (a). The letters r and l, especially, are inserted between the first and second radicals, e.g. כָּסַם, כִּרְסֵם to eat up; שַׁרְבִּיט = שֵׁ֫בֶט sceptre (this insertion of an r is especially frequent in Aramaic); זַלְעָפָה hot wind from זָעַף to be hot. Cf. Aram. עַרְגֵּל to roll, expanded from עַגֵּל (conjugation Paʿēl, corresponding to the Hebrew Piʿēl). In Latin there is a similar expansion of fid, scid, tud, jug into findo, scindo, tundo, jungo. At the end of words the commonest expansion is by means of ל and ן, e.g. גַּרְזֶן axe, כַּרְמֶל garden-land (from כֶּ֫רֶם), גִּבְעֹל corolla (גָּבִיעַ cup); cf. § 85, xi.
r Rem. on (b). Forms such as צְפַרְדֵּעַ frog, חֲבַצֶּ֫לֶת meadow-saffron, צַלְמָוֶת shadow of death,[35] were long regarded as compounds, though the explanation of them all was uncertain. Many words of this class, which earlier scholars attempted to explain from Hebrew sources, have since proved to be loan-words (§ 1 i), and consequently need no longer be taken into account.
s 4. A special class of formations, distinct from the fully developed stems of three or four consonants, are (a) the Interjections (§ 105), which, as being direct imitations of natural sounds, are independent of the ordinary formative laws; (b) the Pronouns. Whether these are to be regarded as the mutilated remains of early developed stems, or as relics of a period of language when the formation of stems followed different laws, must remain undecided. At all events, the many peculiarities of their formation[36] require special treatment (§ 32 ff.). On the other hand, most of the particles (adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions) seem to have arisen in Hebrew from fully developed stems, although in many instances, in consequence of extreme shortening, the underlying stem is no longer recognizable (see § 99 ff.).
P. Dörwald, ‘Die Formenbildungsgesetze des Hebr.’ (Hilfsbuch für Lehrer des Hebr.), Berlin, 1897, is recommended for occasional reference.
a 1. The formation of the parts of speech from the stems (derivation), and their inflexion, are effected in two ways: (a) internally by changes in the stem itself, particularly in its vowels: (b) externally by the addition of formative syllables before or after it. The expression of grammatical relations (e.g. the comparative degree and some case-relations in Hebrew) periphrastically by means of separate words belongs, not to etymology, but to syntax.
b The external method (b) of formation, by affixing formative syllables, which occurs e.g. in Egyptian, appears on the whole to be the more ancient. Yet other families of language, and particularly the Semitic, at a very early period had recourse also to the internal method, and during their youthful vigour widely developed their power of forming derivatives. But the continuous decay of this power in the later periods of language made syntactical circumlocution more and more necessary. The same process may be seen also e.g. in Greek (including modern Greek), and in Latin with its Romance offshoots.
c 2. Both methods of formation exist together in Hebrew. The internal mode of formation by means of vowel changes is tolerably extensive (קָטַל, קָטֵל, קָטֹל; קִטֵּל, קֻטַּל, &c.). This is accompanied in numerous cases by external formation also (הִתְקַטֵּל, הִקְטִיל, נִקְטַל, &c.), and even these formative additions again are subject to internal change, e.g. הָתְקַטַּל, הָקְטַל. The addition of formative syllables occurs, as in almost all languages, chiefly in the formation of the persons of the verb, where the meaning of the affixed syllables is for the most part still perfectly clear (see §§ 44, 47). It is also employed to distinguish gender and number in the verb and noun. Of case-endings, on the contrary, only scanty traces remain in Hebrew (see § 90).
CHAPTER I
THE PRONOUN.
Brockelmann, Semit. Sprachwiss., p. 98 ff.; Grundriss, i. 296 ff. L. Reinisch, ‘Das persönl. Fürwort u. die Verbalflexion in den chamito-semit. Sprachen’ (Wiener Akad. der Wiss., 1909).
a 1. The personal pronoun (as well as the pronoun generally) belongs to the oldest and simplest elements of the language (§ 30 s). It must be discussed before the verb, since it plays an important part in verbal inflexion (§§ 44, 47).
b 2. The independent principal forms of the personal pronoun serve (like the Gk. ἐγώ, σύ, Lat. ego, tu, and their plurals) almost exclusively to emphasize the nominative-subject (see, however, § 135 d). They are as follows:
| Singular. | Plural. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1st Com. I. | אָֽנֹכִ֫י in pause אָנֹ֫כִי; | we. | אֲנַ֫חְנוּ in pause אֲנָ֫חְנוּ |
| אֲנִי, in pause אָ֫נִי | (נַ֫חְנוּ, in pause נָ֫חְנוּ), (אנו) | ||
| 2nd m thou. | (אַתָּ) אַתָּ֫ה, in pause | ye. | m. אַתֶּם |
| אָ֫תָּה or אַ֫תָּה | |||
| 2nd f thou | אַתְּ (אַתְּי properly אַתִּי), | (אַתֵּ֫נָּה) אַתֵּ֫נָה; (אַתֶּן) אַתֵּן | |
| in pause אָתְּ | |||
| 3rd m he (it) | הוּא | they. | הֵם (הֶם־), הֵ֫מָּה |
| 3rd f she (it) | הִיא | הֵ֫נָּה after prefixes הֵן, הֶן | |
The forms enclosed in parentheses are the less common. A table of these pronouns with their shortened forms (pronominal suffixes) is given in Paradigm A at the end of this Grammar.
Remarks.
First Person.
c 1. The form אָֽנֹכִי is less frequent than אֲנִי.[37] The former occurs in Phoenician, Moabite, and Assyrian, but in no other of the kindred dialects;[38] from the latter the suffixes are derived (§ 33). The ô most probably results from an obscuring of an original â (cf. Aram. אֲנָא, Arab. ’ána). The pausal form אָ֫נִי occurs not only with small disjunctive accents, but even with conjunctives; so always in חַי אָ֫נִי as I live! also Is 49 with Munaḥ, ψ 119 with Merkha (which, however, has been altered from Deḥî), and twice in Mal 1. In all these cases there is manifestly a disagreement between the vocalization already established and the special laws regulating the system of accentuation.
d 2. The formation of the plural, in this and the other persons, exhibits a certain analogy with that of the noun, while at the same time (like the pronouns of other languages) it is characterized by many differences and peculiarities. The short form (אָנוּ) אנו from which the suffix is derived occurs only in Jer 42 Kethîbh. The form נַ֫חְנוּ (cf. § 19 h) only in Ex 16, Nu 32, La 3; נָחְ֑נוּ in pause, Gn 42; in Arabic năḥnu is the regular form. In the Mišna (אָנוּ) אנו has altogether supplanted the longer forms.
e 3. The pronoun of the 1st person only is, as a rule in languages, of the common gender, because the person who is present and speaking needs no further indication of gender, as does the 2nd person, who is addressed (in Greek, Latin, English, &c., this distinction is also lacking), and still more the 3rd person who is absent.
II. Second Person.
f 4. The forms of the 2nd person אַתָּה, אַתְּ, אַתֶּם, אַתֵּ֫נָה, &c., are contracted from ’antā, &c. The kindred languages have retained the n before the ת, e.g. Arab. ’ántā, fem. ’ánti, thou; pl. ’ántum, fem. ’antúnna, ye. In Syriac אַנת, fem. אַנתי are written, but both are pronounced ’at. In Western Aramaic אַנְתְּ is usual for both genders.
g אַתָּ (without ה) occurs five times, e.g. ψ 6, always as Kethîbh, with אַתָּה as Qerê. In three places אַתְּ appears as a masculine, Nu 11, Dt 5, Ez 28.
h The feminine form was originally אַתִּי as in Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic. This form is found seven times as Kethîbh (Ju 17, 1 K 14, 2 K 4, 8, Jer 4, Ez 36) and appears also in the corresponding personal ending of verbs (see § 44 f), especially, and necessarily, before suffixes, as קְטַלְתִּ֫ינִי, § 59 a [c]; cf. also î as the ending of the 2nd fem. sing. of the imperative and imperfect. The final î was, however, gradually dropped in pronunciation, just as in Syriac (see above, f) it was eventually only written, not pronounced. The י therefore finally disappeared (cf. § 10 k), and hence the Masoretes, even in these seven passages, have pointed the word in the text as אַתְּי to indicate the Qerê אַתְּ (see § 17). The same final ־ִי appears in the rare (Aramaic) forms of the suffix ־ֵ֫ כִי, ־ַ֫ יְכִי (§§ 58, 91).
i 5. The plurals אַתֶּם (with the second vowel assimilated to the fem. form) and (אַתֶּן) אַתֵּן, with the tone on the ultima, only partially correspond to the assumed ground-forms ʾantumū, fem. ʾantinnā, Arab. ʾắntŭm (Aram. אַתּוּן, אַנְתּוּן) and ʾăntú̆nna (Aram. אַתֵּין, אַנְתֵּין). The form אַתֵּן is found only in Ez 34 (so Qimḥi expressly, others אַתֶּן); אַתֵּ֫נָה (for which some MSS. have אַתֵּ֫נָּה) only four times, viz. Gn 31, Ez 13, 34; in 13 אַתֶּם (before a מ) is even used as feminine.
III. Third Person.
k 6. (a) In הוּא and הִיא (hû and hî) the א (corresponding to the ʾElif of prolongation in Arabic, cf. § 23 i) might be regarded only as an orthographic addition closing the final long vowel, as in לוּא, נָקִיא, &c. The א is, however, always written in the case of the separate pronouns,[39] and only as a toneless suffix (§ 33 a) does הוּא appear as הוּ, while הִיא becomes הָ. In Arabic (as in Syriac) they are written הו and הי but pronounced húwă and hı́yă, and in Vulgar Arabic even húwwa and hı́yya. This Arabic pronunciation alone would not indeed be decisive, since the vowel complement might have arisen from the more consonantal pronunciation of the ו and י; but the Ethiopic weʾetû (=huʾa-tû) for הוּא, yeʾetî (=hiʾa-tî) for הִיא (cf. also the Assyrian ya-u-a for יֵהוּא) show that the א was original and indicated an original vocalic termination of the two words. According to Philippi (ZDMG. xxviii. 175 and xxix. 371 ff.) הוּא arose from a primitive Semitic ha-va, הִיא from ha-ya.
l (b) The form הוּא also stands in the consonantal text (Kethîbh) of the Pentateuch[40] (with the exception of eleven places) for the fem. הִיא. In all such cases the Masora, by the punctuation הִוא, has indicated the Qerê הִיא (Qerê perpetuum, see § 17). The old explanation regarded this phenomenon as an archaism which was incorrectly removed by the Masoretes. This assumption is, however, clearly untenable, if we consider (1) that no other Semitic language is without the quite indispensable distinction of gender in the separate pronoun of the 3rd pers.; (2) that this distinction does occur eleven times in the Pentateuch, and that in Gn 20, 38, Nu 5 הִוא and הִיא are found close to one another; (3) that outside the Pentateuch the distinction is found in the oldest documents, so that the הִיא cannot be regarded as having been subsequently adopted from the Aramaic; (4) that those parts of the book of Joshua which certainly formed a constituent part of the original sources of the Pentateuch, know nothing of this epicene use of הוּא. Consequently there only remains the hypothesis, that the writing of הוא for היא rests on an orthographical peculiarity which in some recension of the Pentateuch-text was almost consistently followed, but was afterwards very properly rejected by the Masoretes. The orthography was, however, peculiar to the Pentateuch-text alone, since it is unnecessary to follow the Masora in writing חִיא for הוּא in 1 K 17, Is 30, Jb 31, or הוּא for הִיא in ψ 73, Ec 5, 1 Ch 29. The Samaritan recension of the Pentateuch has the correct form in the Kethîbh throughout. Levy’s explanation of this strange practice of the Masoretes is evidently right, viz. that originally הא was written for both forms (see k, note), and was almost everywhere, irrespective of gender, expanded into הוא. On the whole question see Driver, Leviticus (in Haupt’s Bible), p. 25 f. In the text Driver always reads הא.
m 7. The plural forms (הֵ֫מָּה) הֵם and הֵ֫נָּה (after prefixes הֵן, הֶן) are of doubtful origin, but הֵם, הֵמָּה have probably been assimilated to הֵ֫נָּה which goes back to a form hı́nnā. In Western Aram. הִמּוֹן, הִמּוֹ (הִנּוּן, אִנּוּן), Syr. henûn (ʾenûn), Arab. húmû (archaic form of hum), and Ethiop. hômû, an ô or ô is appended, which in Hebrew seems to reappear in the poetical suffixes ־מוֹ, ־ָ֫ מוֹ, ־ֵ֫ מוֹ (§ 91 l, 3).
n In some passages הֵ֫מָּה stands for the feminine (Zc 5, Ct 6, Ru 1; cf. the use of the suffix of the 3rd masc. for the 3rd fem., § 135 o and § 145 t). For the quite anomalous עַד־הֵם 2 K 9 read עָֽדֵיהֶם (Jb 32).
o 8. The pronouns of the 3rd person may refer to things as well as persons. On their meaning as demonstratives see § 136.
Brockelmann, Semit. Sprachwiss., p. 100 f.; Grundriss, i. 306 ff. J. Barth, ‘Beiträge zur Suffixlehre des Nerdsemit.,’ in the Amer. Journ. of Sem. Lang., 1901, p. 193 ff.
a 1. The independent principal forms of the personal pronoun (the separate pronoun), given in the preceding section, express only the nominative.[41] The accusative and genitive are expressed by forms, usually shorter, joined to the end of verbs, nouns, and particles (pronominal suffixes or simply suffixes); e.g. הוּ (toneless) and וֹ (from āhû) eum and eius, קְטַלְתִּ֫יהוּ I have killed him (also קְטַלְתִּיו), קְטַלְתָּ֫הוּ or (with āhû contracted into ô) קְטַלְתּ֫וֹ thou hast killed him; אוֹר֫וֹ (also אוֹרֵ֫הוּ) lux eius.
The same method is employed in all the other Semitic languages, as well as in the Egyptian, Persian, Finnish, Tartar, and others; in Greek, Latin, and German we find only slight traces of the kind, e.g. German, er gab’s for er gab es; Greek, πατήρ μου for πατὴρ ἐμοῦ; Latin, eccum, eccos, &c., in Plautus and Terence for ecce eum, ecce eos.
b 2. The case which these suffixes represent is—
(a) When joined to verbs, the accusative (cf., however, § 117 x), e.g. קְטַלְתִּ֫יהוּ I have killed him.
c (b) When affixed to substantives, the genitive (like πατήρ μου, pater eius). They then serve as possessive pronouns, e.g. אָבִי (ʾābh-î) my father, סוּסוֹ his horse, which may be either equus eius or equus suus.
d (c) When joined to particles, either the genitive or accusative, according as the particles originally expressed the idea of a noun or a verb, e.g. בֵּינִי, literally interstitium mei, between me (cf. mea causa); but הִנְנִי behold me, ecce me.
e (d) Where, according to the Indo-Germanic case-system, the dative or ablative of the pronoun is required, the suffixes in Hebrew are joined to prepositions expressing those cases (לְ sign of the dative, בְּ in, מִן from, § 102), e.g. לוֹ to him (ei) and to himself (sibi), בּוֹ in him, מִנִּי (usually מִמֶּ֫נִּי) from me.
f 3. The suffixes of the 2nd person (־ְךָ, &c.) are all formed with a k-sound, not, like the separate pronouns of the 2nd person, with a t-sound.
So in all the Semitic languages, in Ethiopic even in the verbal form (qatalka, thou hast killed=Hebr. קָטַ֫לְתָּ).
g 4. The suffix of the verb (the accusative) and the suffix of the noun (the genitive) coincide in most forms, but some differ, e.g. ־נִי me, ־ִי my.
Paradigm A at the end of the Grammar gives a table of all the forms of the separate pronoun and the suffixes; a fuller treatment of the verbal suffix and the mode of attaching it to the verb will be found in § 58 ff., of the noun-suffix in § 91, of the prepositions with suffixes in § 103, of adverbs with suffixes § 100 o.
b Rem. 1. The feminine form זֹאת has undoubtedly arisen from זָאת, by obscuring of an original â to ô (for זָא = זֶה cf. the Arab. hâ-ḏâ, this, masc.; for ת as the feminine ending, § 80), and the forms זֹה, זוֹ, both of which are rare,[44] are shortened from זֹאת. In ψ 132 זוֹ is used as a relative, cf. זוּ below. In Jer 26, Kethîbh, הַזּאֹתָה (with the article and the demonstrative termination ־ָה) is found for זֹאת. The forms אֵלֶּה and אֵל are the plurals of זֶה and זֹאת by usage, though not etymologically. The form אֵל occurs only in the Pentateuch (but not in the Samaritan text), Gn 19, 26, &c. (8 times), always with the article, הָאֵל [as well as אֵלֶּה, הָאֵלֶּה frequently], and in 1 Ch 20 without the article [cf. Driver on Dt 4].[45] Both the singular and the plural may refer to things as well as persons.
c 2. In combination with prepositions to denote the oblique case we find לָזֶה to this (cf. for לָ, § 102 g), לְזֹאת, לָזֹאת to this (fem.), לְאֵ֫לֶּה, לָאֵ֫לֶּה to these; אֶת־זֶה hunc, אֶת־זֹאת hanc, אֶת־אֵ֫לֶּה hos, also without אֶת־, even before the verb ψ 75, &c. Note also מְחִיר זֶה pretium huius (1 K 21), &c.
- ↑ Prätorius, Ueber den rückweich. Accent im Hebr., Halle, 1897, p. 17, &c., remarks that Pathaḥ furtivum has not arisen merely under the influence of the guttural, but is due to a duplication of the accented syllable, so that e.g. יָשִׁיב, יָצוּד would also be pronounced yasîibh, yaṣûudh although the short intermediate vowel was not so noticeable as before a guttural.
- ↑ In Jer 22, נֵחַנְתְּ is unquestionably a corruption of ננחת for נֶֽאֱנַ֫חַתְּ.
- ↑ Only apparent exceptions are such proper names as עֲשָׂהאֵל, פְּדָהצוּר, which are compounded of two words and hence are sometimes even divided. Cf. forms like חֲזָאֵל for חֲזָהאֵל. Another exception is יְפֵהפִיָּה, the reading of many MSS. for the artificially divided form יְפֵה־פִיְּה in the printed texts, Je 46.
- ↑ Or as consonantal vowels (see above), and are then transcribed by P. Haupt, Philippi, and others, as u̯, i̯, following the practice of Indogermanic philologists. וּ for וְ and, alone is a standing exception, see § 26. 1 and § 104 e. On י=i at the beginning of a word, cf. § 47 b, note. According to § 19 a, end, initial ו in Hebrew almost always becomes י; always in verbs originally פ״ו, § 69 a. Apart from a few proper names, initial ו occurs only in וָו hook, וָלָד child Gn 11, 2 S 6 Kethîbh [elsewhere יֶ֫לֶד], and the doubtful וָזָד Pr 21.
- ↑ According to Abulwalid, Ben-Naphtali regarded the Yodh in all such cases as a vowel letter.
- ↑ Instances in which no contraction takes place after ă are, מַיְמִינִים 1 Ch 12; אַיְסִירֵם Ho 7 (but cf. § 70 b); הַיְשַׁר ψ 5 Qerê; the locatives בַּ֫יְתָה, מִצְרַ֫יְמָה, &c.—On the suffix ־ָ֫ יְכִי for ־ָ֫ יִךְ see § 91 l.—Sometimes both forms are found, as עַוְלָה and עוֹלָה; cf. חַי living, constr. state חֵי. Analogous is the contraction of מָ֫וֶת (ground-form mawt) death, constr. מוֹת; עַ֫יִן (ground-form ʿayn [ʿain]) eye, constr. עֵין.
- ↑ The Arabic, in such cases, often writes etymologically גַּלַי, but pronounces galā. So the LXX סִינַי Σινᾶ, Vulg. Sina; cf. Nestle, ZAW. 1905, p. 362 f. But even in Arabic שלא is written for שָׁלַו and pronounced salā.
- ↑ By vocales impurae the older grammarians meant vowels properly followed by a vowel letter. Thus כְּתָב kethâbh was regarded as merely by a licence for כְּתָאב, &c.
- ↑ Cf. C. H. Toy, ‘The Syllable in Hebrew,’ Amer. Journal of Philol., 1884, p. 494 ff.; H. Strack, ‘The Syllables in the Hebrew Language,’ Hebraica, Oct. 1884, p. 73 ff.
- ↑ We are not taking account here of the few eases in which initial Yodh is represented as simple i, by being written אִי or אִ, see § 24 e, and especially § 47 b, note; nor of certain other eases in which א with an initial vowel has only a graphic purpose, though it is indispensable in an unpointed text.
- ↑ In opposition to this fundamental law in Hebrew (a long vowel in an open syllable), the original short vowel is found always in Arabic, and sometimes in the other Semitic languages, except of course in the case of naturally long vowels. The above examples are pronounced in Arabic bĭkă, qătălă, ʿĭnăb. Although it is certain therefore that in Hebrew also, at an earlier period, short vowels were pronounced in open syllables, it may still be doubted whether the present pronunciation is due merely to an artificial practice followed in the solemn recitation of the O.T. text. On this hypothesis we should have still to explain, e.g. the undoubtedly very old lengthening of ĭ and ŭ in an open syllable into ē and ō.
- ↑ That these pretonic vowels are really long is shown by Brockelmann, ZA. xiv. 343 f., from the transcription of Hebrew proper names in the Nestorian (Syriac) punctuation, and e.g. from the Arabic ʾIbrâhîm=אַבְרָהָם. He regards their lengthening in the syllable before the tone as a means adopted by the Masoretes to preserve the pronunciation of the traditional vowels. This explanation of the pretonic vowels as due to a precaution against their disappearing, is certainly right; as to whether the precaution can be ascribed to the Masoretes, see the previous note. For the pretonic vowel the Arabic regularly has a short vowel (lăhŭm, yăqŭm, &c.), the Aramaic simply a vocal Šewâ (לְהוֹן, יְקוּם, קְטַל, לְבַב); and even in Hebrew, when the tone is thrown forward the pretonic vowel almost always becomes Šewâ, see § 27. It would, however, be incorrect to assume from this that the pretonic vowel has taken the place of Šewâ only on account of the following tone-syllable. It always arises from an original short vowel, since such a vowel is mostly lengthened in an open syllable before the tone, but when the tone is moved forward it becomes Šewâ.
- ↑ In exceptions such as שָֽׁת־לִי Gn 4 (where šāt is required by the character of the form, although the closed syllable has lost the tone owing to the following Maqqeph), Metheg is used to guard against a wrong pronunciation; similarly ē is sometimes retained before Maqqeph, e.g. שֵֽׁם־ Gn 2; עֵֽץ־ Gn 2.
- ↑ See § 9 e, f. ĭ occurs thus only in the particles אִם, עִם, מִן; but these usually (מִן always) are rendered toneless by a following Maqqeph. Cf. also such forms as וַיִּשְׁבְּ § 26 r and § 75 q.
- ↑ So the LXX write Μελχισεδέκ for מַלְכִּיצֶ֫דֶק.
- ↑ Analogous to this attenuation of ă to ĭ is the Lat. tango, attingo; laxus, prolixus; to the transition of ă to ĕ (see above, a), the Lat. carpo, decerpo; spargo, conspergo.
- ↑ Cf. Barth, Die Nominalbildung in den semit. Spr., p. xxix; A. Müller, Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1892, p. 177 f., and Nestle, ibid., p. 573 f.
- ↑ Except וְ and, which generally becomes וּ before a simple Šewâ, cf. § 104 c.
- ↑ In Ju 16 read תַּֽאַרְגִי not (with Opitius, Hahn and others) תארגּי.
- ↑ With a final ףְּ, the only example is תּוֹסְףְּ Pr 30, where several MSS. and printed editions incorrectly have ףְ without Dageš. Instead of this masoretic caprice we should no doubt read תּ֫וֹסֶף.
- ↑ An analogy to this practice of the Masora is found among the modern Beduin, who pronounce such a helping vowel before h, ḥ, ḫ, ġ; cf. Spitta, Gramm. des arab. Vulgärdialektes von Aegypten, Lpz. 1880, § 43 d.
- ↑ On the apparent exceptions דֶּשֶׁא, &c., cf. § 22 e; other instances in which א has entirely lost its consonantal value, and is only retained orthographically, are חֵטְא sin, גַּיְא valley (also גַּי), שָׁוְא vanity (Jb 15 Kethîbh שָׁו).
- ↑ In this form (§ 65 g) the Dageš lene remains in the final Tāw, although a vowel precedes, in order to point out that the helping Pathaḥ is not to be regarded as a really full vowel, but merely as an orthographic indication of a very slight sound, to ensure the correct pronunciation. An analogous case is יִחַדְּ yiḥăd from חָדָה (§ 75 r).
- ↑ Even Hebrew prose proceeds, according to the accentuation, in a kind of iambic rhythm. That this was intended by the marking of the tone, can be seen from the use of Metheg.—Jos. Wijnkoop in Darche hannesigah sive leges de accentus Hebraicae linguae ascensione, Ludg. Bat. 1881, endeavours to explain, on euphonic and syntactical grounds, the numerous cases in which the usual retraction of the tone does not occur, e.g. וּבוֹרֵא֣ ח֫שֶׁךְ Is 45, where the object probably is to avoid a kind of hiatus; but cf. also Am 4. Prätorius, Ueber den rückweich. Accent im Hebr., Halle, 1897, has fully discussed the nasog ’aḥor.
- ↑ The reading עֲדָ֑יִים (so even Opitius and Hahn) Ez 16 for עֲדָיִי֑ם is rightly described by Baer as ‘error turpis’.—That an unchangeable vowel in a closed final syllable cannot lose the tone is shown by Prätorius from the duplication of the accent (see above, § 22 f).
- ↑ In most cases, probably on account of a following guttural or (at the end of a sentence) וּ (cf. e.g. Ex 21, Jer 3 [but Ginsb. ותחנַף], Ru 4, Ec 11 [but Ginsb. יכשַׁר]; before וְ Jer 17) [see also § 29 w]. שָׁפָ֣ט אֶת־ 1 S 7, וָאָ֣רֶץ Is 65, Pr 25, where ā has munaḥ, are very irregular, but the lengthening here is probably only to avoid the cacophony šāphắṭ ʾĕt. In the same way הֲיִצְלָח Ez 17 (with Mahpakh before הֲ) and וַיִּקְרָם Ez 37 (with Darga before עֲ) are to be explained. The four instances of אָנִי for אֲנִי apparently require a different explanation; see § 32 c.—The theory of Olshausen and others that the phenomena of the pause are due entirely to liturgical considerations, i.e. that it is ‘a convenient way of developing the musical value of the final accents by means of fuller forms’ in liturgical reading (Sievers, Metr. Studien, i. 236, also explains pausal forms like קָטָ֫לָה, יִקְטֵֹ֫לוּ as ‘late formations of the grammarians’) is contradicted by the fact that similar phenomena are still to be observed in modern vulgar Arabic, where they can only be attributed to rhythmical reasons of a general character.
- ↑ Such a pausal syllable is sometimes further emphasized by strengthening the following consonant, see § 20 i.
- ↑ יִפְּל֑וּ ψ 45, cf. also יִבָּֽלְמ֑וּ ψ 40, is to be explained in the same way, but not הִמָּֽלִטִ֑י Zc 2, where, on the analogy of הִשָּׁמֵ֫רוּ Je 9, we should expect הִמָּלֵ֫טִי.
- ↑ On the questions discussed here compare the bibliography at the head of § 79.
- ↑ Cf. Philippi, ‘Der Grundstamm des starken Verbums,’ in Morgenländische Forschungen, Leipz. 1875, pp. 69–106.
- ↑ That all triliteral stems are derived from biliterals (as König, Lehrg. ii. 1, 370; M. Lambert in Studies in honour of A. Kohut, Berl. 1897, p. 354 ff.) cannot be definitely proved.
- ↑ Cf. the interesting examination of the Semitic roots QR, KR, XR, by P. Haupt in the Amer. Journ. of Sem. Lang., xxiii (1907), p. 241 ff.
- ↑ Consonants which are not found together in roots and stems are called incompatible. They are chiefly consonants belonging to the same class, e.g. גכ, גק, כק, דט, תט, בף, מף, זד, זס, זץ, צס, אע, חע, &c., or in the reverse order.
- ↑ In Hebrew they are comparatively rare, but more numerous in the other Semitic languages, especially in Ethiopic.
- ↑ So expressly Nöldeke in ZAW. 1897, p. 183 ff.; but most probably it is to be read צַלְמוּת darkness from the stem צלם [Arab. ẕalima, to be dark].
- ↑ Cf. Hupfeld, ‘System der semitischen Demonstrativbildung,’ in the Ztschr. f. d. Kunde des Morgenl., vol. ii. pp. 124 ff., 427 ff.
- ↑ On the prevalence of אָנֹכִי in the earlier Books compare the statistics collected by Giesebrecht in ZAW. 1881, p. 251 ff., partly contested by Driver in the Journal of Philology, 1882, vol. xi. p. 222 ff. (but cf. his Introduction, ed. 6, p. 135, line 1 f.), but thoroughly established by König in Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1893, pp. 464 ff. and 478, and in his Einleitung in das A.T., p. 168, &c. In some of the latest books אנכי is not found at all, and hardly at all in the Talmud. [For details see the Lexicon, s. v. אֲנֹי and אָנֹכִי.]
- ↑ In Phoenician and Moabite (inscription of Mêšaʿ, line 1) it is written אנך, without the final ־ִי. In Punic it was pronounced anec (Plaut. Poen. 5, 1, 8) or anech (5, 2, 35). Cf. Schröder, Phöniz. Sprache, p. 143. In Assyrian the corresponding form is anaku, in old Egyptian anek, Coptic anok, nok.
- ↑ In the inscription of King Mêšaʿ (see § 2 d), lines 6 and 27, we find הא for הוּא, and in the inscription of ʾEšmunʿazar, line 22, for הִיא, but in the Zenjirli inscriptions (see § 1 m) both הא and הו occur (Hadad i, l. 29).
- ↑ Also in twelve places in the Babylonian Codex (Prophets) of 916 A.D.; cf. Baer, Ezechiel, p. 108 f.; Buhl, Canon and Text of the O.T. (Edinb. 1892), p. 240.
- ↑ On apparent exceptions see § 135 d.
- ↑ In many languages the demonstratives begin with a d-sound (hence called the demonstrative sound) which, however, sometimes interchanges with a sibilant. Cf. Aram. דֵּן, דֵּךְ masc., דָּא, דָּךְ fem. (this); Sansk. sa, sā, tat; Gothic sa, sô, thata; Germ. da, der, die, das; and Eng. the, this, that, &c. Cf. J. Barth, ‘Zum semit. Demonstr. ḏ,’ in ZDMG. 59, 159 ff., and 633 ff.; Sprachwiss. Untersuchungen zum Semit., Lpz. 1907, p. 30 ff. [See the Lexicon, s. v. זֶה, and Aram. דא, די.]
- ↑ That זֶה may stand for the feminine, cannot be proved either from Ju 16 or from the certainly corrupt passage in Jos 2.
- ↑ זֹה 2 K 6, and in seven other places; זוֹ only in Hos 7, ψ 132.
- ↑ According to Kuenen (cf. above, § 2 n) and Driver, on Lev 18 in Haupt’s Bible, this אֵל is due to an error of the punctuators. It goes back to a time when the vowel of the second syllable was not yet indicated by a vowel letter, and later copyists wrongly omitted the addition of the ה. In Phoenician also it was written אל, but pronounced ily according to Plautus, Poen, v, 1, 9.