Historical Linguistics of Biblical Hebrew

An Outline*

Hebrew 298 Professor Ronald Hendel

University of California, Berkeley Fall 2010

*Revised and abridged from handouts of Thomas O. Lambdin and John Huehnergard (Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University)

Revised © 2010

Please do not cite without permission.

2

Contents Preliminaries: The Semitic Language Family and Linguistic Reconstruction 4 I. Phonology 5 1. The Overlay of Phonological Systems 5 Alphabet Matres Lectionis Vowel Points Evidence for Non-Tiberian Phonology 2. Consonantal Changes 6 Unconditioned Changes Conditioned Changes Sibilants: Phonetic Changes 3. Vowel Changes 8 Original Long Vowels Diphthongs Original Short Vowels: Changes in Quantity 10 a. Preliminaries: Syllables and Stress b. The Chain of Changes Original Short Vowels: Changes in Quality 15 a. Three Laws Barth’s Law Qatqat > Qitqat Philippi’s Law b. Origins of Seghol (and Segholates) II. Nouns and Pronouns 18 1. Grammatical Features 18 Case Number and Gender State Definiteness 2. Personal Pronouns and Pronominal Suffixes 20 Independent Pronouns and Subject Suffixes (Nominative) Possessive Suffixes (Genitive) Object Suffixes (Accusative)

3. Other Pronouns (Demonstrative, Relative, Interrogative) 24

3

III. The Verbal System 25 1. Semantics of the Qal Stem 25 Situation Tense Aspect Mood 2. The Proto-Northwest Semitic Verbal System: Qal Stem 27 3. Vowel Classes of the Sound Root: Qal Stem 28 4. The Qal Stem of Weak Roots 30 I-Yod ( י"פ )

II-Waw/Yod (Hollow) ו"ע,י "ע( ) III-Yod ( ה"ל ) I-Nun ( ן"פ )

I-Guttural I-ʾAleph ( א"פ ) Geminate Roots ( ע"ע ) 5. The Derived Stems 38 Semantics of the Derived Stems

a. Situation b. Voice

Qal Passive (G-) Niphal (N) Piel (D) Pual (D-) Hiphil (C) Hophal (C-) Hithpael (Dt) Polel/Polal/Hithpolel Appendix 1: Contraction Concordance 44 Appendix 2: Cognate Consonants 45 Appendix 3: Review of A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew 46 Selected Bibliography 50

4

Preliminaries: The Semitic Language Family and Linguistic Reconstruction figure: Semitic Language Family

Central Semitic innovations: *qatala replaces perfective/preterite *yaqtul (vs. East Semitic) *yaqtulu replaces imperfective *yaqattal (vs. East Semitic and Ethiopian) Linguistic Reconstruction “house” Akkadian bītum Old South Arabic byt Ethiopic bet Arabic baytun Ugaritic bt Hebrew bayit Aramaic bēt Changes case ending: u (nominative) mimation/nunation: final m/n contraction of diphthong: ay anaptyctic vowel: i spirantization: t

5

I. Phonology

1. The Overlay of Phonological Systems Alphabet borrowed from Phoenician – ש represents /š/ and /ś/, ע may represent /ʿ/ and /ģ/ Matres Lectionis (ʾimmôt haqqerîʾâ) ● 10th cent. B.C.E: no matres lectionis (inscriptions, from Phoenician) ● 9th cent. B.C.E.: innovation of final matres (perhaps from Aramaic) waw for final ū yod for final ī he for final ā, ē, ō (for the latter, e.g. כה ,שלמה) ● 8th cent. B.C.E.: innovation of medial matres waw for internal ō, ū (from contraction of diphthong, aw > ô) yod for internal ē, ī (from contraction of diphthong, ay > ê) ● 6th - 5th cent. B.C.E.: revision of final matres waw for final ū, ō he for final ā, ē ● 1st cent. B.C.E. – C.E.: baroque orthography

internal matres used for short vowels in some scribal traditions (sometimes in SP and Qumran)

Vowel Points (niqqûd) ca. 8th-10th cent. C.E., “Masters of Tradition.” The most elaborate (and ,בעלי המסרת

eventually dominant) system: Tiberian Masoretes, esp. Aharon Ben Asher. Evidence for Non-Tiberian Phonology ● Qumran Hebrew: matres lectionis in words like לווטיק ● Samaritan Hebrew (reading tradition): madbar, ʿābed, ʾatti (2fs pronoun) ● Transcriptions in LXX, Origen’s Hexapla (secunda), Jerome, etc. Μαριαμ = מרים; μαδβαρ = מדבר; αβδαχ = עבדך (2ms suff.); αβδ = עבד note also Γομορρα = עמרה ● Babylonian and Palestinian vocalization systems Note also pausal system, probably dialectal or historically earlier, or some combination.

6

2. Consonantal Changes Unconditioned Changes ● *d and *z merge to z (d = ð, pronounced as in “thy”) PS *daqin- > Heb. zāqēn “old” *zayt- > zayit “olive” ● *t and *š merge to š (t = θ, pronounced as in “thigh”) PS *talāt- > Heb. šālôš “three” *šim- > šēm “name” ● *ḍ, *ṭ, and *ṣ merge to ṣ (ḍ = emphatic d; and ṭ = emphatic t) PS *ʾarḍ- > Heb. ʾereṣ “earth” *qayṭ- > qayiṣ “summer” *ṣidq- > ṣedeq “righteousness” ● *ģ and *ʿ merge to ʿ PS *ģalmat- > Heb. ʿalmâ “young woman” *ʿayn- > ʿayin “eye” ● *ḫ and *ḥ merge to ḥ PS * ḫamiš- > Heb. ḥāmēš “five” * ḥadat- > ḥādāš “new” Notes on development:

1. The interdental mergers (#1-3) are attested in the Canaanite languages of the first millennium B.C.E.

2. The laryngeal/pharyngeal (“guttural”) mergers (#4-5) are attested in all of the NWS languages of the first millennium B.C.E., with some survivals (cf. Greek transcriptions).

7

Conditioned Changes ● Word-initial *w > y PS *wald- > PNWS *yald- > Heb. yeled “boy” PCS *wataba *yataba > yāšab “sit” Exception: conjunction, wa-. Note that the phonetic value of w > v in postclassical Hebrew. Cf. Greek transcriptions of

as Ιαουε (Clement) and Ιαβε (Origen). It is pronounced [w] by most mizraḥi Jews יהוה(influence of Arabic).

● Assimilation of nun. *nC > CC PS *yantin > PNWS *yattin > Heb. yittēn “let him give” *bint- > *bitt > bat “daughter” ● Quiescence of ʾalep in syllable-final position. The ʾalep is preserved in spelling. PS *raʾš- > *rā(ʾ)š > Heb. rō(ʾ)š “head” *ḍaʾn- > *ḍā(ʾ)n > ṣō(ʾ)n “sheep” Note the odd (hypercorrected) spellings in MT: *biʾr- > *bē(ʾ)r > beʾēr “well” *diʾb- > *zē(ʾ)b > zeʾēb “wolf” *muʾd- > *mō(ʾ)d > meʾōd “very much” ● Syncope of intervocalic he and yod (syncope of yod = contraction of triphthong) *vhv2 > v2 *bahu (prep. + 3ms pron. suff) > *bu > bô *yuhaqtilu (Hiphil impf.) > *yaqtil > yaqtîl *vya > ā *banaya > bānāh “he built” *šatiya > šātāh “he drank” *vyu > e *yištayu > yišteh “he will drink” *yibniyu > yibneh “he will build” *śadiyu > śādeh “field” *vyv > v *yibniyu > yibnû “they will build”

8

But *ba + yad > beyād (preservation of morpheme boundary) Cf. Ugaritic and Phoenician bd ● Spirantization: b g d k p t develop postvocalic allophones (in Aramaic and Hebrew) PS *malk > Heb. melek “king” *ʾanāku > ʾănōkî “I” Notes on development:

1. Word-initial *w > y and assimilation of nun are PNWS changes.

2. Quiescence of ʾalep is prior to the Canaanite shift.

3. Syncope of intervocalic he and yod is a first millennium NWS change.

4. Spirantization is post 6th cent. BCE, after Aramaic interdental shifts: *t (written with ש) > t and *d (written with ז) > d.

Sibilants: Phonetic Changes Original śin was a lateral fricative [ɬ], pronounced like hl (cf. bōśem ≈ Greek balsam;

kaśdim ≈ Akkadian kaldu), becomes [s] Original samekh was pronounced like [č], as in “check” (Egyptian transcriptions) Original šin was perhaps [s], as in Arabic, becomes [š] In LBH, śin and samekh coalesce to [s] (note graphic interchanges) šibbōlet vs. sibbōlet (Judges 12:6), probably [š] vs. [č], representing Cis- vs.

Transjordanian dialectal pronunciations of šin, prior to samekh > [s]

9

3. Vowel Changes The original phonemic system in PS and PNWS has six vowels: long vowels: ā ī ū short vowels: a i u Original Long Vowels ● Canaanite Shift: *ā > ō *talāt- > šalōš “three” *ʾanāku > ʾānōkî “I” *bāniyu > bōneh “he builds, builder (pt.)” Note on development: Begins in southern Canaan in Late Bronze Age. Found in Amarna

letter from Jerusalem (a-nu-ki = /ʾanōkī/), but not in other Amarna Canaanite dialects and not at Ugarit (a-na-ku = /ʾanāku /, in syllabic transcription).

● Original *ī and *ū remain î and û (generally marked in MT by matres lectionis). Diphthongs: aw and ay ● *aw is retained as āwe when stressed (with addition of unstressed anaptyctic vowel to break

up consonant cluster) *máwt > māwet “death” but contracts to ô when unstressed *mawtī > môtî “my death” ● *ay is retained as ayi when stressed (with addition of unstressed anaptyctic vowel to break

up consonant cluster) *báyt > báyit “house” *ʿáyn > ʿáyin “eye, spring” but contracts to ê when unstressed *baytī > bêtî “my house” *ʿaynī > ʿênî “my eye”

10

Notes on development: 1. Diphthongs always contract in Northern Hebrew (e.g., yn in Samaria Ostraca), similarly

Ugaritic, Phoenician. 2. The contraction of diphthongs led to the reinterpretation of medial waw and yod in

traditional spelling as matres lectionis for ô and ê, which then became generalized and extended (to all o-type and i-type vowels) in spelling practice.

2. Change of quality in stressed *áyCā > -éyCā, vowel dissimilation: *sūsaykā > sûseykā (“your horses”)

Original Short Vowels: Changes in Quantity (= open and tonic syllables) Because of stress or phonetic changes, original short vowels can be lengthened, retained as

short vowels (although not always the same vowel as the original), or reduced to vocal šewa (or a ḥaṭeph vowel). Vocal šewa is always the product of reduction.

lengthened retained reduced (to šewa or ḥaṭeph vowel) *a ā a,i,e e or ă,ĕ *i ē i,a,e e or ă, ĕ *u ō u,o e or ŏ The initial situation includes the loss of final short vowels, a late 2nd or early 1st

millennium NWS change: *dabaru > PH dabar “word, thing” *dabarīma > PH dabarīm “words, things” *kataba > PH katab “he wrote” *ʾanti > PH ʾatt “you” (2fs) N.B. This change entails the loss of the case system.

a. Preliminaries: Syllables and Stress Syllables begin with a consonant. Open syllables in Biblical Hebrew are Cv (rare)

and Cv . Closed syllables are CvC and Cv C. At the end of a word, a closed syllable will end without a vowel point, e.g. ספר. In the middle of a word, however, the Masoretes felt a need to put a vowel point at the end of a closed syllable, even though there is no vowel pronounced. They used the same symbol as the symbol for vocal šewa, hence the birth of silent šewa, as in the middle of רÊמד.

11

Stress in Biblical Hebrew is almost always on the final syllable (or ultima). (The previous syllables are the penultima and the antepenultima.) The stressed syllable is known as the tone or tonic syllable. The syllable preceding the tone syllable is the pretonic syllable, and the one before that is the propretonic syllable.

Exceptions to final syllable stress are things like some pronominal suffixes (with

anceps vowels), locative he, segholates, and some forms of weak verbs. Tonic syllables can take almost any form: open: Cv (rare), Cv , or closed: CvC, Cv C. Unaccented syllables: In BH, an unaccented short vowel can only occur in a closed

syllable (CvC), e.g., midbār, sēper. An unaccented long vowel can only be part of an open syllable. (There are only two exceptions to this: bāttîm, “houses,” and ʾānnāʾ, “ah please.”)

Original short vowels in originally open unaccented syllables must lengthen or

reduce. (Remember that original long vowels always stay long.) The only confusing vowel with regard to syllabification is the qameṣ. Since the

qameṣ can stand for short o or long ā, the only way to distinguish between the two is to know something of the history of the particular word, or to trust in the metheg, which almost always signifies that the qameṣ is ā. The metheg is used fairly consistently in the Bible, but occasionally isn’t used when it would be helpful, and so the best procedure is to know something of the word itself. For example, the only instance in which the sequence CāCe turns up in a noun is before the 2ms suffix, as in ברËך , debārekā, “your word.” Otherwise a consonant with a qameṣ followed by a consonant and a šewa sign will always represent CoC in a noun form (including the infinitive construct when it is used as a noun, i.e., תביÔ kotbî, “my writing”). In verbs it is not that simple. This same grouping in a verb usually means CāCe (ÍתבÔ, kātebû, for instance). Here, you just have to know, or you have to trust in the metheg.

The ḥaṭeph vowels are a problem, but a rule of thumb is to treat them (in the context

of syllabification) as if they were regular šewa’s (sometimes vocal, sometimes silent). b. The Chain of Changes ● Nouns (including verbal nouns) and finite verbs with pronominal suffixes Propretonic and pretonic syllables Propretonic reduction will take place wherever it can, i.e., wherever the propretonic

syllable was a consonant plus an original short vowel. (Remember, original long vowels and diphthongs cannot reduce to šewa.)

12

Once propretonic reduction takes place, you must look at the original pretonic syllable. If it is a consonant plus an original short vowel (as in *dabarīm and *zaqinīm, below), we are left with an unaccented open syllable with a short vowel, impossible in Hebrew. The only two possibilities for such a syllable are reduction to vocal šewa and lengthening. If the syllable immediately preceding has already reduced to vocal šewa, as in the cases we are considering, the pretonic syllable must lengthen. (Two vocal šewa’s together in a word is an impossible situation.)

*dabarīm > *debarīm > debārîm “words, things” *zaqinīm > *zeqinīm > zeqēnîm “old” *katab + am > *ketabam > ketābām “he wrote them” If propretonic reduction cannot take place (i.e. it is a closed syllable or a long vowel), see

under pretonic reduction (below). In construct forms, assume that the tonic syllable is the first syllable of the following word.

Propretonic reduction eventually goes to zero, not vocal šewa. *ṣadaqat > *ṣadqat > ṣidqat “righteousness of” *dabaray > *dabray > dibrê “words of” (see further below, p. 15, *Qatqat > Qitqat) Different changes of *a,* i,* u in pretonic syllable a. *a always lengthens pretonically. *dabarīm > debārîm “words, things” *kawkabīm > kôkābîm “stars” *yišlaḥ + im > yišlāḥēm “he will send them” Note that in *dabarīm the original propretonic is reducible, while in *kawkabīm and

*yišlaḥim the original propretonic is irreducible. b. *i and *u in an originally open syllable either lengthen or reduce pretonically, depending

on the propretonic syllable. If the propretonic is reducible, *i and *u will lengthen pretonically. *daqinīm > zeqēnîm “old” *gadulīm > gedōlîm “big” If the propretonic is not reducible, *i and *u reduce to šewa pretonically (unlike

*a, as noted above).

13

*yiktub + im > yiktebēm “he will write them” *yintin + im > yittenēm “he will give them” *madbiḥāt > mizbiḥōt > mizbeḥōt “altars” If there is no propretonic syllable, *i tends to lengthen, *u tends to reduce. *ʿinab > ʿēnāb “grape” *gubla? > gebal “Byblos” Before an ō in the tone syllable, *i and *u both tend to reduce to šewa. *ḥimōr > ḥămôr “ass” *bukur > bekōr “first born” Tonic syllable a. *a almost always lengthens under stress *dabar > dābār “word, thing” *katab + am > ketābām “he wrote them” Exceptions: – Short *a is retained in monosyllabic nouns that originally ended in a double

consonant. *ʿamm > ʿam “people” – In the 1cs object suffix on verbs, *a does not lengthen. *qatala + nī > qeṭālánî “he killed me” b. *i and *u also generally lengthen under stress. *yiktub + im > yiktebēm “he will write them” *kabid > kābēd (adj.) “heavy” *gadul > gādōl (adj.) “big” *ʾimm > ʾēm “mother” *ʾuzz > ʾōz “strength” Note that *i and *u lengthen even in nouns that originally ended in a double consonant, unlike *a (above)

14

● Finite verbs without pronominal suffixes Pretonic and propretonic syllables In this category, it is the pretonic vowel which reduces whenever possible. This

determines the quantity of the propretonic vowel. If the pretonic vowel can be reduced to šewa, it will, and the propretonic vowel will

lengthen, if it can. *katabū > *katebū > kātebū “they wrote” *yitibū > *yišebū > yēšebû “they will sit, dwell” *yiktubū > yiktebū “they will write” *yintinū > yittenû “they will give” But, if the pretonic syllable is not reducible (i.e., it is a closed syllable or has a long

vowel), the propretonic vowel is reduced. *yudabbir > yedabbēr “he will speak” *haqīmātī > hăqîmōtî “I established” (ă instead of šewa because the h is a guttural) If the pretonic is the first syllable in the word, the vowel is lengthened. *hiqīmū > hēqîmû “they established” *yasúbbū > yāsōbbû “they will turn” Tonic syllable a. *a remains short *katab > kātab “he wrote” *yašlaḥ > yišlaḥ “he will send” b. *i and *u lengthen under stress *yantin > yittēn “he will give” *yaktub > yiktōb “he will write” *qaṭúntī > qāṭōntî “I am/became small” Note on development: The different changes in the finite verb versus the noun and verbs with

pronominal suffixes (“verby” vs. “nouny” words) probably derive from an original difference in stress position, which has become effaced (probably original antepenultimate stress in finite verbs).

15

Original Short Vowels: Changes in Quality (= closed syllables) a. Three Laws (for conditioned changes of a ~ i) ● Barth’s Law. (Proto-Hebrew) *ya- > yi- in the preformatives of the Qal imperfect/jussive. Previously there were main patterns: *yaqtul, *yaqtil, *yiqtal. *yaktub > *yiktub > yiktōb *yantin > *yittin > yittēn extended also to Niphal and Hithpael.: *yankatib > *yikkatib > yikkātēb *yatqattilu > *yitqattil > yitqattēl The original yaC- is preserved in some weak root types: I-Guttural *yaʿmudu > yaʿămōd vs. *yiḥzaqu > yeḥĕzaq Geminate *yasubbu > yāsōb vs. *yitammu > yētam Hollow *yaqūmu > yāqûm ● *Qatqát > Qitqát. In unaccented closed syllables, *a often becomes i, particularly when

followed by *a in accented syllable. (Vowel dissimilation.) (Late change; not in Samaritan, Hexapla, or Babylonian vocalization, e.g. SH madbār;

Hexapla μαδβαρ, δαβρη) *madbar > midbār (*maqtal nouns) *malḥamat > milḥāmāh (fem. *maqtalat nouns) *ṣadaqat > *ṣadqat > ṣidqat (fs. construct of *qatalat) *dabaray > *dabray > *dabrê > dibrê (mpl. construct of *qatal) Notes on development: 1. The original form (*qat-) is preserved before gutturals and doubled consonants:

maʿăbār, mattān. 2. Segholates lack the dibrê-type form: *malakay > *malkay > malkê (not milkê),

probably due to the influence of forms like malkî. 3. The Rule of Šewa (*CeCe > CiC), a synchronic rule, probably derives from a reanalysis

and generalization of some *Qatqat > Qitqat forms, such as: *dabaray > dibrê. Dibrê was at some point reanalyzed as deriving from *deberê. This may be a reflex of the

ms. construct debar (with propretonic reduction of the short a). Some such reanalysis led to the synchronic inference: *debe > dib, generalized as *CeCe > CiC.

16

● Philippi’s Law: *Philíppi > Philáppi In accented, originally closed syllables, *i often becomes *a, particularly when followed by the ultima syllable. (Vowel dissimilation.)

(Late change; not in Hexapla or Babylonian vocalization) *kabídtī > kābádtî (Qal stative) *dibbírtī > dibbártî (Piel) *hikbídtī > hikbádtî (Hiphil) N.B. Qatqat and Philippi are complementary: unaccented *CaC > CiC; accented *CíC > CáC;

note that both are late changes. b. Origins of Seghol (and Segholates) ● Segholates: *qatl, *qitl, *qutl Segholation breaks up consonant cluster (anaptyyxis): *qatl *malk > *málek > mélek (assimilation) cf. malkî, malkāh *qitl1 *qibr > *qíber > qéber (assimilation) qibrî *qitl2 *sipr > *síper > sēper (lengthening) siprî *qutl *qudš > *qúdeš > qōdeš (lengthening) qodšî Weak roots: *qayl *bayt > báyit (anaptyxis with i) bêtî *qawl *mawt > māwet môtî *qity *piry > perî piryî *qitG *zibḥ > zébaḥ (anaptyxis with a) zibḥî *qaGl *naʿr > náʿar (anaptyxis with a) náʿărî *qall *ʾamm > ʾam ʾammî *qill1 *bint > bat bittî *qill2 *’imm > ʾēm ’immî Notes on development: 1. Singular and plural have different stems, perhaps a remnant of PS broken plurals:

*malk- *malak- *sipr- *sipar- *qudš- *qudaš- 2. NWS mixing of *qatl ~ *qitl: e.g., malk ~ milk, raʾš ~ riʾš. 3. Irreconcilable developments for *qitl (qetel, qētel) and *qill (qal and qēl). Some *qitl1

forms were originally *qatl. Other *qitl1 and *qill1 forms assimilated by analogy to *qatl and *qall, respectively. Cf. biforms in some nouns: neder, nēder.

17

4. Dialectal variation: LXX Αβιμελεχ, Hexapla μαλχ, Samaritan mālek, Babylonian malak, cf. pausal málek.

● Influence of gutturals: *i often goes to e before or after a guttural or reš in an unstressed

closed syllable: *GiC > GeC; *CiG > CeG *ʿizrī > ʿezrî (cf. siprî) *ʾitmōl > ʾetmôl *yiḥzaq > *yeḥzaq > yeḥĕzaq *markabat > *mirkābāh > merkābāh Echo vowels (ḥaṭeph, rather than silent šewa) often develop after a syllable-closing

guttural, e.g., yeḥĕzaq. Syllable-opening gutturals also produce ḥaṭeph seghol (rather than vocal šewa) in some

open syllables, e.g. *ʾilōhīm > ʾĕlōhîm. Also: *a > e before virtually doubled guttural followed by ā: *CaG(G)ā > CeG(G)ā: e.g., ʾeḥāw (“his brothers”), ʾeḥād (“one”), hehārîm (“the mountains”). ● Influence of liquids: *i > e in a stressed syllable before ll, mm, nn (liquids) *karmíll > karmél “orchard” *barzíll > barzél “iron” *minmínnī > mimménnî “from me” *katabtínna > ketabtén 2fp perfect ● *i > e when the accent is retracted (to next word or previous syllable) *bin > bēn (absolute) vs. ben (construct) *yittin > yittēn vs. yitten- (with maqqep) *yaśim > yāśēm (jussive) vs. wayyāśem (conv. impf.) ● Word-final *ayu and *iyu > e (contraction of triphthong, see above, p. 7) *yištayu > yišteh *yibniyu > yibneh *śadiyu > śādeh

18

II. Nouns and Pronouns

1. Grammatical Features The basic nominal inflection of PNWS is approximately as follows: sing. plural dual masc. nom. dabaruM dabarūMa dabarāMi gen. dabariM dabarīMa dabarayMi acc. dabaraM dabarīMa dabarayMi fem. nom. malkatuM malakātuM malkatāMi gen. malkatiM malakātiM malkatayMi acc. malkataM malakātiM malkatayMi M = m (mimation) or n (nunation) Mimation after a short vowel was lost early in NWS. It exists in Amorite, but not in

Ugaritic. After a long vowel or diphthong, mimation varies with nunation in 1st millennium NWS

(Aramaic and Moabite have nunation). Case (IBHS §8.1-2) nominative = subject of clause (malkuM halaka) genitive = after prepositions (la-malkiM); and nomen rectum of construct phrase: (baytu

malkiM) accusative = direct object of clause (qaṭala malkaM) In the dual and plural, the genitive and accusative have a common set of endings, referred

to as the oblique. Number and Gender (IBHS §6-7) The distinction of number is a natural kind, as the distinction of gender in animals.

Hebrew preserves some (very old) word pairs that distinguish natural gender: ʾēm and ʾāb; ʾātôn (“she-ass”) and ḥămôr (“he-ass”). At some point the distinction of natural gender was extended to a distinction of grammatical gender.

19

The formal distinctions of number and gender in nouns (ms. *ø, fs. *at, mp.*ū, fp. *āt) may derive, at least in part, from the subject suffixes on the predicate adjective (3ms. *ø, 3fs. *at, 3mp. *ū, 3fp. *ā; see below, B1).

State (IBHS §13) The distinction between unbound and bound (i.e., absolute versus construct and suffixed

forms) was originally signaled by the presence or absence of mimation/nunation. unbound bound ms. dabaruM (~ iM, aM) dabaru (~ i,a) mp. dabarūMa (~ īMa) dabarū (~ ī) mdual dabarāMi (~ ayMi) dabarā (~ay) fs. malkatuM (~ iM, aM) malkatu (~ i,a) fp. malakātuM (~ iM) malakātu (~ i) fdual malkatāMi (~ ayMi) malkatā (~ay) This system persisted after the loss of mimation/nunation after short vowels, though some

of the contrasts were lost. With the loss of final short vowels and the attendent loss of the case system, a new system of contrasts arose in Hebrew, signaled by differences of accentuation and vocalization.

unbound bound ms. dābār debar mp. debārîm dibrê dual yādáyim yedê fs. malkāh malkat fp. melākôt malkōt Notes on development: 1. The mp and dual forms are derived from the old oblique forms: mp unbound: *dabarīma > *dabarīm > debārîm mp bound: *dabaray > *dabray > dabrê > dibrê (*Qatqat > Qitqat) dual: *yadaym(i) > yādáyim 2. The mp bound form with possessive suffix derives from the dual bound oblique form: *dabaray + ya (1cs) > debāray “my words”

20

3. The fp bound form with possessive suffix is doubly marked, with fp ending + dual oblique ending:

*malakāt > malkōt + ay + ya (1cs) > malkōtay “my queens” Definiteness The contrast of definite vs. indefinite did not exist in PS or early NWS. It is a secondary

development in Central Semitic: Canaanite (Hebrew, Phoenician) prefixed ha (+ doubling) Classical Arabic: prefixed ʾal- Inscriptional Arabic: prefixed h-, hn- (Lihyanite, Thamudic) Aramaic: suffixed -aʾ OSA: suffixed –n, -hn These definite articles probably derive from demonstrative pronouns (Rubin 2005: 65-86): “this” (near deixis) PS *hanni > PCS *han (cf. OB. annûm, annītum) > ha + doubling “that” (far deixis) PS *ʾulli > PCS ʾul (cf. OB ullûm, Heb. ʾēlleh) > ʾal

2. Personal Pronouns and Pronominal Suffixes

Independent pronouns and subject suffixes (nominative) (IBHS §16.2) independent pronouns subject suffixes (on perfect) (originally on predicate adjective) PS Hebrew PS Hebrew 1cs *ʾanã ʾănî *ʾanākũ ʾānōkî *-kũ -tî 2ms *ʾantã ʾattāh *-tã -tā 2fs *ʾantĩ ʾatt *-tĩ -t 3ms *h/šuʾã hûʾ *-a/φ -φ 3fs *h/šiʾã hîʾ *-at -āh

21

1cp *niḥnũ ʾănaḥnû *-nũ -nû 2mp *ʾantum(ũ) ʾattem *-tum(ũ) -tem 2fp *ʾantin(nã) ʾatten *-tin(nã) -ten 3mp *h/šum(ũ) hēm, hēmmāh *-ū -û 3fp *h/šin(nã) (*hēn), hēnnāh *-ā -û N.B. The notation ã, ĩ, ũ indicates an anceps vowel, whose derived forms may be long or short.

A syllable with a historical anceps vowel is usually not accented. Notes on development: 1cs: Ugaritic has both ʾan and ʾank. Classical Biblical Hebrew has both, LBH mostly ʾănî,

Rabbinic Hebrew only ʾănî. The subject suffix -tī (originally *-kũ) was probably formed by analogy with the -t of

the 2ms and 2fs pronouns and the -ī of the 1cs pronominal suffix in the genitive and accusative. The -ī of the 1cs independent pronoun, ʾănî/ʾānōkî, derives from the same analogy with the other 1cs suffixes.

2ms: The writing כתבת suggests kātabt. At Qumran sometimes written הכתבת . 2fs: Seven times written אתי, though pointed ʾatt. Occasionally the perfect is written with

.though pointed -t (kātabt) ,-תי 3fs: In the Pentateuch the pronoun is written ואה eleven times, pointed הוא (a qerê

perpetuum). This is probably a textual problem of graphic confusion (ו-י). The archaic forms הואה and היאה are found in Qumran texts (archaizing or dialectal). 1cp: Five times the form naḥnû occurs. The initial ʾă probably derives by analogy with

the 1cs ʾănî. In Jer. 42:6, אנו is written (ketib), but is read as ʾănaḥnû (qerê). The form ʾănû is normal in Rabbinic Hebrew.

2mp: The form ʾattem was formed by analogy with 2fp ʾatten < *ʾattinn. Similarly, the

subject suffix -tem was formed by analogy with 2fp -ten < *-tinn. 2fp: ʾattēnāh/ʾattēnnāh occurs four times. 3mp: The form hēmma was formed by analogy with 3fp hēnnā < *hinnā. 3fp: Note the Rabbinic Hebrew form hēn, which does not occur in BH.

22

Possessive suffixes (genitive – on nouns and prepositions) (IBHS §16.4) Possessive suffixes on the singular noun PS Proto-Hebrew Hebrew postvocalic 1cs *-ī/-ya *-ī -î -î 2ms *-kã *-ak(ā) -ekā -kā 2fs *-kĩ *-ik(ī) -ēk or -ēkî -k 3ms *-hũ *-uh(ū) -ōh/ô -hû or w 3fs *-hã *-ah(ā) -āh -hā 1cp *-nĩ *-inū -ēnû -nû 2mp *-kum(ũ) *-kimm -kem -kem 2fp *-kin(nã) *-kinn -ken -ken 3mp *-hum(ũ) *-am/-himm -ām -hem or -mô (rare) 3fp *-hin(nã) *-an/-hinn -ān -hen Notes on development: 2s and 3s: Note the vowel harmony in the Proto-Hebrew forms, based on the three original

case vowels, -a, -i, -u. 2ms: The MT spelling ך suggests the pronunciation -āk (= pausal vocalization in MT, and

as vocalized in the Hexapla). Cf. the frequent spelling כה in the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2fs: The biform -ēkî occurs five times (Northern dialect). 3ms: The older form -ōh (with final he mater) occurs over fifty times (e.g. שלמה). The historical development of *uhu > ô (2ms) and *ahā > â (3fs) provides the probable

origin of the use of he (by reanalysis) as a mater lectionis for final -ō and -ā. Later this dual signification was disambiguated by the use of waw as the mater for final -ō.

1cs: The final -û was formed by analogy with the independent pronoun ʾănaḥnû and the

subject suffix -nû. 2mp: The form -kem was formed by analogy with the 2fp -ken < *-kinn; cf. the parallel

developments in the pronoun and subject suffix, above. 3mp and 3fp: The suffixes -ām and -ān must be the result of analogy among 3mp and 3fp

object suffixes on the perfect: *qatalūhum > *qatalūm (reanalyzed as qatalū + m) *qatalū : *qatalūm :: *qatala : *qatalam after loss of final short vowels, *qatalam reanalyzed as *qatal + am

23

Possessive suffixes on the plural noun The mp base form is the old dual oblique, *dabaray- The fp base form is the normal fp plus the dual oblique ending -ay, > *malkōtay- Proto-Hebrew Hebrew 1cs *-ay + ya -ay 2ms *-ay + kã -eykā 2fs *-ay + kĩ -ayik (-aykî in N. dialect) 3ms *-ay + hũ -āyw (-eyhû in old poetry) 3fs *-ay + hã -eyhā 1cp *-ay + nū -ênû (cf. -ēnû on singular noun) 2mp *-ay + kimm -êkem 2fp *-ay + kinn -êken 3mp *-ay + himm -êhem/-ām (cf. ām on singular noun) 3fp *-ay + hinn -êhen Object suffixes (accusative – on verbs, את, and הנה) The object suffixes are equivalent to the possessive (genitive) suffixes on the noun, except

for the 1cs, -nî, whose n derives by analogy with the 1cs independent pronoun. Object suffixes on the perfect: postconsonantal after 3fs (at-) postvocalic (with 2fs tî-; 2mp tû-) 1cs -ánî -nî -nî 2ms -ekā -kā -kā 2fs -ēk -ek -k 3ms -ô/-āhû -hû/-û -hû/-w 3fs -āh -āh -hā 1cp -ānû -nû -nû 2mp -kem -kem -kem 2fp -- 3mp -ām -am -m (cf. archaic -mô, -mû) 3fp -ān -an -n Object suffixes on the imperfect follow -ē- or -en(n)-. These were probably derived by

analogy with III-Yod jussive and energic forms with object suffixes: *yabnihū (jussive) > yibnêhû (reanalyzed as yibn + êhû) *yabninhū (energic) > yibnénnû (reanalyzed as yibn + ennû)

24

3. Other Pronouns Demonstrative pronouns (IBHS §17) zeh (rarely zû), f. zōʾt (rarely zô) derive from PS *dū (gen. *dī, acc. *dā), *dāt ʾēlleh < *ʾillay consists of the base ʾill-, found in Aramaic and Ethiopic, cf. Akkadian

ullu and Arabic ʾullāʾi rare: hallāz, hallāzeh, f. hallēzū Relative pronouns (IBHS §19) ʾašer is derived from *ʾatr-, a noun originally meaning “place.” Cf. Aramaic ʾatrā,

Akkadian ʾašru, Arabic ʾatru ša (archaic) is related to Akkadian ša, and ultimately to the pronominal base of the 3rd

person *šu-, *ši- zeh, zû, zô (demonstrative pronouns) also function as relative pronouns še in LBH is a reduced form (grammaticalization) of ʾašer Interrogative Pronouns (IBHS §18) mî (“who”) < miya (Amarna), cf. Ugaritic my māh (“what”) corresponds to Arabic mâ, Ugaritic mh

25

III. The Verbal System

1. Semantics of the Qal Stem Situation (IBHS §22.2) “The linguistic term, ‘situation,’ while not entirely familiar to Semitists, covers a series of

contrasts quite familiar, particularly that of dynamic (or fientic) vs. stative. Situation, as a linguistic category, refers to the inherent meaning of the circumstance signified by the verb. Situation is therefore a quality of the lexicalization of meaning.”

(“Margins,” 154) “states are static, i.e. continue as before unless changed, whereas events and processes are

dynamic, i.e. require a continual input of energy if they are not to come to an end.” (Comrie, Aspect, 13)

dynamic verbs in the Qal are either transitive or intransitive there are many other types of situation (often called Aktionsart or lexical aspect) see below, E.1a, for other dynamic situations in the derived stems Tense (IBHS §20.2) “The system of relative tense, as with any tense system, involves the relationships among

three temporal points: that of the speaker or speech-act (S), the event (E), and the reference point (R). In this manner ... ‘a tense does not ‘situate’ a process in time, but rather ‘orders’ it relative to a point of reference.’”

(“Margins,” 158) Perfect Imperfect dynamic relative past relative non-past (present/future) stative relative non-future relative future N.B. In CBH, participle is tenseless, with imperfective aspect Aspect (IBHS §20.2) “Aspect is concerned with the ‘different ways of viewing the inner temporal constituency

of a situation’ (Comrie), in contrast to tense which describes the temporal relations between an event, a speaker, and a reference point. The primary aspectual distinction that is grammaticalized in most languages is that of perfectivity vs. imperfectivity. In Bernard Comrie’s formulation:

26

the perfective looks at the situation from outside, without necessarily distinguishing any of the internal structure of the situation, whereas the imperfective looks at the situation from inside, and as such is crucially concerned with the internal structure of the situation.

Aspect is concerned with the differing perceptions of an event, either seen from without as a bounded whole (perfective) or seen from within as an unbounded process (imperfective).”

(“Margins,” 164) Perfect = perfective aspect Imperfect = imperfective aspect Mood (IBHS §20.2) “Mood is generally defined as involving the speaker’s attitude or opinion toward a

proposition. The major contrast in mood is between the indicative (or declarative) and the modal, in which the former is unmarked for mood and the latter is marked. Like tense and aspect, mood is a key dimension of the grammaticalization of meaning, but differs functionally in that ... ‘modality ... does not relate semantically to the verb alone, or primarily, but to the whole sentence.’ This feature is of particular significance for Hebrew, since there is in many cases no contrast of verb for the semantic contrast of indicative vs. modal.”

(“Margins,” 169) modal includes two further sets of distinctions: deontic modality (speaker’s will, e.g. wish, command, permission, obligation) vs.

epistemic modality (speaker’s knowledge or opinion about a proposition, e.g. doubt, belief)

and real vs. unreal “The distinction between deontic and epistemic modality in CBH is clearly shown in the

difference betwen the modal use of the Volitionals and the Imperfect. The Volitionals are specialized for deontic modality, expressing wishes, commands, and the like, while the Imperfect may be used for either deontic or epistemic modality. Where the two overlap defines the category of deontic modality; where they diverge defines epistemic modality.”

(“Margins,” 170) “In CBH the Perfect is used to indicate unreality in both deontic and epistemic modality.

For deontic modality this includes wishes and requests. For epistemic modality this includes conditions and some kinds of questions.” (vs. real, expressed by Imperfect and Volitionals)

(“Margins,” 172)

27

2. The Proto-Northwest Semitic Verbal System: Qal Stem

● Suffix conjugation Perfect: *qatvla v = a, i, u (= theme vowel) ● Prefix conjugations Imperfect: *yaqtvlu (pl. -ūna) Jussive/Preterite: *yaqtvl (pl. -ū) Volitive: *yaqtvla, etc. Energic: *yaqtvlanna ● Imperative: *qutul, *qitil, *qatal (energic: *qutulanna) ● Participles (or verbal adjectives) Active participle: *qātil- Stative participle (or predicate adjective): *qatvl- Passive participle: *qatūl-, qatīl- ● Infinitives Infinitive absolute: *qatāl- Infinitive construct: *qatāl- (bound form) or *qitl-, *qutl- Notes on the Hebrew development: 1. The preterite *yaqtul was replaced by the perfect *qatala in most positions. It was

retained, however, in past tense narrative after the conjunction wa-, the so-called converted usage: *wayyáqtul.

2. *yaqtul was also retained as the jussive, as may be seen in contrasts such as yāqûm

(*yaqūmu) / yāqōm (*yaqum) 3. The volitive form is preserved only in the cohortative of the 1st person (ʾeqtelāh,

niqtelāh). It forms with the jussive what may be termed the “volitive” or “injunctive” paradigm, and owing to this fusion, jussive and cohortative forms are interchangeable in most constructions, including converted usage in past tense narrative.

4. The formal distinction between the jussive and the imperfect in inflection has been lost,

except for some weak forms (see 2, above). The optional -ûn in Hebrew is derived from the imperfect form.

5. The -nn- appearing before the pronominal suffixes of the imperfect is probably to be

taken back to the energic forms (see previously under pronominal suffixes). In view of the phenomenon of junctural doubling, we must posit a close relationship in pre-Hebrew between the energic and the volitive, i.e.,

naqtulanna (reanalyzed as) naqtula + na > niqtelāh nnāʾ

28

a process which led to the isolation of the particle nāʾ. 6. The converted perfect in a future or habitual (i.e. imperfective) sequence is probably the

result of several distinct forces: a. The perfect was originally not a verb but a predicate adjective or stative participle (qatil,

qatul, qatal). The original meaning is still clear in the stative verbs (like kābēd, zāqēn) and others related to them semantically (like zākar, yādaʿ), where the perfect often requires a present tense translation in English.

b. The perfect was used in PNWS (at least) in both protasis and apodosis of conditional

sentences (with reference to future time, at least from the reference point of the utterance). c. A kind of “reverse” analogy seems necessary to account for the converted perfect

sequences of Hebrew. Thus, given the ambiguity of the perfect mentioned in (a) and (b) above, the sequence

qatala wa-yaqtul apparently engendered its opposite yaqtulu wa-qatala where the perfect takes on not only the future function of the imperfect, but even its

habitual past function (i.e. imperfective aspect), a meaning which was originally totally alien to the perfect (which has perfective aspect).

7. The infinitive construct *qatāl > qetōl, varies with *qutl when suffixed, *qutlī > qotlî.

The I-yod roots have the *qitl form for the inf. cst.: šebet, šibtî.

3. Vowel Classes of the Sound Root: Qal Stem

Vowel class refers to the patterned variation in the second (“theme”) vowel of the perfect and imperfect. On the preformatives of the imperfect/jussive, see Barth’s Law (p. 14).

● dynamic verbs *(a,u) *qatala, *yaqtulu *kataba > kātab *yaktubu > yiktōb The main dynamic type. *(a,i) *qatala, *yaqtilu *natana > nātan *yantinu > yittēn

29

This originally common type became extinct in Hebrew with the exception of nātan/yittēn and the types yāšab/yēšēb, śām/yāśîm. Other *(a,i) verbs were reanalyzed as Hiphil.

*(a,a)1 *qatala, *yiqtalu *lamada > lāmad *yilmadu > yilmad A very small original class, also šākab/yiškab and rākab/yirkab. Several weak roots tend

to fall into this class. ● stative verbs *(i,a) *qatila, *yiqtalu *kabida > kābēd *yikbadu > yikbad The main stative type. As a result of Philippi’s Law (kābídtî > kābádtî), many of these

went to *(a,a)2 *(u,a) *qatula, *yiqtalu *qaṭuna > qāṭōn *yiqṭanu > yiqṭan A small stative class. According to Arabic and Akkadian, may have originally been *(u,u). *(a,a)2 *qatala, *yiqtalu *gadala > gādal *yigdalu > yigdal A small stative type, including original *(a,a), *(u,a), and *(i,a). The original*(i,a) class shows up frequently in pausal or presuffixal forms (or perhaps the

result of analogical mixing): gādal, but gedēlanî (presuffixal) qārab, but qārēbāh (pausal) gābar, but gābērû (pausal)

30

4. The Qal Stem of Weak Roots Roots I-Yod ( י"פ ) Main vowel classes dynamic *(a,i) *wataba, *yatibu *wataba > yāšab perfect *yatibu > *yitib > yēšēb imperfect *yátib > *yitib > yēšeb jussive *tib > šēb imperative *tibt > šebet infinitive construct *(a,a)1 *wadaʿa, *yadaʿu *wadaʿa > yādaʿ *yadaʿ- > *yidaʿ > yēdaʿ *daʿ > daʿ *daʿt > daʿat stative *(i,a) *wašina, *yiwšanu *wašina > yāšēn *yiwšan- → *yiyšan- > yîšan *wišan? > yešan 1. All but a few of these verbs were originally I-Waw; the change of #w- > #y- is PNWS. 2. Verbs originally I-Waw fell into two groups already in PS: (a) those having root

allomorphs without the initial w- and (b) those without this allomorph. This root allomorphism, e.g., wtb ~ tb, is extremely old (attested in Egyptian) and the reason for it cannot be determined. The root allomorph without initial w- is found in the *(a,i) and *(a,a) classes in forms such as *yatib- (not *yawtib-) and *tib (not *witib), etc.

3. The rare *(a,u) type survives only in the I-yod-ṣade roots, e.g. yāṣaq, yiṣṣōq. These

have an unusual development in the imperfect, where *wṣ > ṣṣ. The assimilation of waw to a following dental may be a Proto-Semitic rule. Other originally *(a,u) verbs were interpreted as Hiphil, e.g. ysp, where the jussive *yawsup > *yōsip (dissimilation of two u-type vowels) > yōsep, but perfect yāsap (Qal).

4. The imperfect/jussive contrast is preserved in the *(a,i) type: yēšēb/yēšeb (and

wayyēšeb).

31

5. Some *(a,i) verbs became *(a,a)1 class because of the influence of gutturals; cf. dēʿāh,

which reflects *diʿ- 6. Note that the infinitive construct of the type šebet is originallly a feminine segholate

noun (*qitl), *tibt > šebet. 7. The verb hālak falls in with the main I-Yod type *(a,i): hālak, yēlēk, lēk, leket. 8. The verb yākōl (“was able”) probably derives from the *yaqtul preterite of √khl,

*yakhul > yākōl, and reanalyzed as a perfect. The imperfect yûkal probably derives from the Qal passive *yukhal.

Roots II-Waw/Yod (Hollow) ו"ע,י "ע( ) Main vowel classes dynamic *(a,u) *qama, *yaqūmu *qama > qām *yaqūmu > yāqûm *yaqum > yāqōm (wayyāqom) *qūm > qûm *(a,i) *śama, *yaśīmu *śama > śām *yaśīmu > yāśîm *yaśim > yāśēm (wayyāśem) *śīm > śîm *(a,a)1 *baʾa, *yabāʾu *baʾa > bāʾ *yabāʾ- > yābōʾ stative *(i,u) *mita , *yamūtu *mita > mēt *yamūtu > yāmût *yamut > yāmōt (wayyāmot)

32

*(u,a) *buša , *yibāšu *buša > bōš *yibāš- > yēbōš 1. The immediate antecedents of the two main types in Hebrew – *(a,u) and *(a,i) – are

often adduced as an argument for biconsonantal roots in PS, but because these same roots are treated as triconsonantal in East Semitic and elsewhere, no economy of reconstruction is gained by adopting a biconsonantal theory. Note that the vowel contrast of imperfect/jussive is explicable as a result of contractions in triconsonantal roots (see below, #3).

2. It appears that all *(a,u) verbs are from roots II-Waw and all *(a,i) verbs are from roots

II-Yod. But the survival of other vowel classes (regardless of the middle consonant) suggests a more normal distribution at an earlier state of PS.

3. The triliteral theory requires that the prefix conjugation types *yaqūmu/*yaqum,

*yaśīmu/*yaśim, etc., arose from such forms as *yaqwum-, *yaśyim-, etc., which contracted differently in open and closed syllables:

II-Waw II-Yod imperfect *yaqwumu > *yaqūmu *yaśyimu > *yaśīmu jussive *yaqwum > *yaqum *yaśyim > *yaśim The perfect also shows differences in vowel length, presumably deriving from differing

contractions: *qawama > Proto-Heb *qama, Proto-Aramaic *qāma, Arabic qāma, Ethiopic qōma Note that *awa should contract to *ā (see p. 7); it contracts to *a in Proto-Hebrew perhaps

by analogy with the sound root *qatala. In view of these differing forms, a triliteral theory with contractions is preferable to a

biconsonantal theory.

33

Roots III-Yod ( ה"ל ) Main vowel classes dynamic *(a,i) *banaya, *yabniyu *banaya > bānāh *yabniyu > yibneh *yabniy > yiben (wayyiben) *bini > benēh stative *(i,a) *bakiya, *yibkayu *bakiya > bākāh *yibkay- > yibkeh *yibkay > yēbk (wayyēbk) 1. Hebrew has leveled through a single paradigm for the perfect and imperfect. The

imperfects converge in form, since both *iyu and *ayu > e. This provides a trigger for the mixing of perfect forms. In the perfect, note that the -ī- in bānîtî, -îtā, -ît, -înû, -îtem, and -îten reflect the original *(i,a) class (*bakiytī > bākîtî).

2. The 3fs perfect has an extra feminine suffix, probably by analogy with the sound root

3fs perfect (qātelāh < *qatal + at). This extra suffix preserves the distinction with the 3ms perfect (bānāh):

3fs *banayat > *banat + at = banatat > bānetāh Note that *aya should contract to *ā (see p. 7); it contracts to *a perhaps by analogy with

the sound root 3fs *qatalat. 3. The contrast between imperfect and jussive is maintained from PS: imperfect *yabniyu > yibneh jussive *yabniy > *yibni > *yibn > yíben But note that a few verbs do not have anaptyxis in the jussive, e.g., yēbk; yēšt. 4. As noted previously, the object suffixes on the imperfect in Hebrew derive from the III-

Yod jussive and energic forms: *yabnihū (jussive) > yibnēhû (reanalyzed as yibn + ēhû) *yabninhū (energic) > yibnénnû (reanalyzed as yibn + ennû)

34

Roots I-Nun ( ן"פ ) Main vowel classes dynamic *(a,u) *napala, *yanpulu *napala > nāpal *yanpul- > yippōl *nupul > nepōl *(a,a)1 *nagaša, *yingašu

*nagaša > nāgaš *yingaš- > yiggaš *nagaš → gaš *(a,i) *natana, *yantinu *natana > nātan *yantin- > yittēn *nitin → tēn 1. In the *(a,a)1 class the imperative and infinitive construct have assimilated to the I-Yod

type. See below (#3) for this analogy. imperfect imperative infinitive construct yēšēb šēb šebet yiggaš gaš gešet 2. lāqaḥ has assimilated to the *(a,a)1 class of I-Nun roots in the imperative and infinitive

construct: imperfect imperative infinitive construct yiqqaḥ qaḥ (also leqaḥ) qaḥat 3. In general, the I-Nun, I-Yod, and geminate roots show considerable mixing. imperfect imperative infinitive construct I-Nun yippōl nepōl nepōl normal *(a,u) yiggaš gaš gešet I-Yod yiṣṣōq ṣaq/yeṣōq ṣeqet Gem. yāsōb/yissōb sōb sebōb/sōb yētam/yittōm tōm

35

The secondary forms probably derive from analogies, perhaps triggered by the unusual I-Yod imperfect type yiṣṣōq; cf. the imperfect yiṣṣōr (from yṣr and nṣr); see above, Roots I-Yod, #3, and below, Geminate Roots, #4).

Roots I-Guttural Main vowel classes dynamic *(a,u) *ʿamada, *yaʿmudu *ʿamada > ʿāmad *yaʿmud- > yaʿămōd *ʿumud > ʿămōd stative *(a,a)2 *ḥazaqa, *yiḥzaqu *ḥazaqa > ḥāzaq *yiḥzaq- > yeḥĕzaq *ḥizaq > ḥăzaq 1. The difference in the vowels of the prefix conjugations reflects the original contrast of

verbal prefixes (Barth-Ginsberg): *yaʿmud-, yiḥzaq-. The initial ʿayin prevented the normal assimilation of ya- > yi-.

2. The plural types yaʿamdû and yeḥezqû have been affected by a variant of the Rule of

Shewa, in which the ḥaṭeph changes into the corresponding short vowel, e.g.,*CăCe > CaC: *yaʿmudū > *yaʿămedū > yaʿamdû *yiḥzaqū > * yeḥĕzeqū > yeḥezqû 3. The I-ḥet forms vary in their use of ḥaṭeph vowels, e.g., yeḥĕzaq, yeḥkam (both *a,a),

and yaḥmōl, yaḥšōb, yaḥălōm (all *a,u). One also finds variation within a root, e.g., yaḥălōm but yaḥlemû. For other I-Gutturals, note yahăpōk but ʾehpōk, yaʿăzor but wayyaʿzerû, etc.

4. The I-Guttural roots with III-Yod preserve the *ya/*yi contrast in the prefix

conjugations as well as the imperfect/jussive contrast: *(a,i) imperfect *yaʿliyu > yaʿăleh jussive *yaʿliy > yaʿal (wayyaʿal)

36

*(i,a) imperfect *yiḥrayu > yeḥĕreh jussive *yiḥray > *yiḥr > yiḥar (wayyiḥar) Roots I-ʾAleph ( א"פ ) Main vowel classes dynamic *(a,u) *ʾasara, *yaʾsuru *ʾasara > ʾāsar *yaʾsur- > yeʾĕsōr *ʾusur > ʾĕsōr stative *(i,a) *ʾamiṣa, *yiʾmaṣu *ʾamiṣa > ʾāmēṣ *yiʾmaṣ- > yeʾĕmaṣ *ʾamaṣ → ʾĕmaṣ 1. I-ʾAleph roots are a subdivision of I-Guttural. The *(i,a) imperfect yeʾĕmaṣ is

substantially identical to yeḥĕzaq. 2. The *(a,u) imperfect yeʾĕsōr (3mp yaʾasrû) involves a peculiar rule associated with

ʾaleph and the following -ō- (< *u): the disappearance of the -ō- by reduction produces a reversion to the I-Guttural type, yaʾasrû ≈ yaʿamdû.

The imperfect yeʾĕsōr was probably reformed on the basis of the imperative ʾĕsōr. Hence, for the imperfect: *yaʾsur > *yaʾsōr → yeʾĕsōr.

3. The weak *(a,u) type, with quiescent ʾaleph in the prefixed forms: imperfect *yaʾmuru > *yā(ʾ)muru > *yōʾmuru > yōʾmar jussive *yaʾmur > *yā(ʾ)mur > *yōʾmur > *yōʾmir > wayyōʾmer The change of *yōʾmur- to yōʾmar (imperfect) and *yōʾmir (jussive) is dissimilatory,

avoiding two u-type vowels in sequence (*yōʾmōr). Cf. the infinitive construct, lēʾmōr.

37

Geminate Roots ( ע"ע ) Main vowel classes dynamic *(a,u) *sababa, *yasubbu *sababa > sābab *yasubb- > yāsōb *subb? > sōb stative *(i,a) *tamima, *yitammu *tamima > *tamma > tam *yitamm- > yētam 1. The perfect has a “linking vowel” -ō- < *ā after the geminated consonant and before a

subject suffix with a consonant (i.e. 1st and 2nd person forms): sabbōtî, sabbōtā, sabbōt,... sabbōnû, sabbōtem/ten tammōtî, tammōtā, tammōt,... tammōnû, tammōtem/ten. This is probably related to the -ā- linking vowel in the Akkadian pars-ā-ta, and in some

Arabic dialects. 2. The distinction between sābab and tam points to a different treatment of *a as opposed

to *i, *u in C2vC2v sequences: *sababa > sābab *tamima > *tamma > tam 3. In the imperfect the geminated consonant gave rise to a reformation of the vocalic

pattern, where C2vC2 > vC2C2: *yasbub- > *yasubb- > yāsōb *yitmam- > *yitamm- > yētam 4. There are several I-Nun type biforms in the imperfect (see above, I-Nun): yāsōb and yissōb yētam and yittōm and yittam (probably originally a Niphal) The imperative sōb may have triggered this analogy: gaš : yiggaš :: sōb : yissōb

38

5. The Derived Stems Semantics of the Derived Stems a. Situation To the extent that verbs of the derived stems have a semantically predictable relationship to

one another and to the simple (Qal) stem, they may be schematized as follows: Situation of Qal → Factitive/Resultative/Intensive Causative 1. Stative Piel (factitive; +1 arg.) 2. Dynamic-intransitive Hiphil (transitive; +1 arg.) 3. Dynamic-transitive Piel (resultative/intensive) Hiphil (doubly trans.; +1 arg.) Factitive = “a construction in which a cause produces a state” (IBHS, 691) Causative = “a construction in which a cause produces an event” (IBHS, 691) Resultative = “the bringing about of the outcome of the action designated by the base root”

(IBHS, 400) This scheme is somewhat idealized and does not include a large number of verbs arising

from other less clear derivational processes. Some examples of this scheme: 1. Qal stative Piel (factitive, dynamic, +1 argument) mālēʾ (“be full”) millēʾ (“fill, make full”) dāšēn (“be fat”) diššēn (“fatten, make fat”) 2. Qal intransitive Hiphil (causative, transitive, +1 argument) bāʾ (“come”) hēbîʾ (“bring, cause to come”) nāpal (“fall”) hippîl (“cause to fall”) 3a. Qal transitive Piel (resultative/intensive, transitive) šābar (“break”) šibbēr (“make broken, smash”) zārāh (“scatter”) zērê (“make scattered, disperse”) 3b. Qal transitive Hiphil (causative, doubly transitive, + 1 argument) ʾākal (“eat”) heʾĕkîl (“feed, cause X to eat Y”) nāhal (“inherit”) hinḥîl (“cause X to inherit Y”) In this model the Hiphil is associated with transitive and intransitive dynamic verbs, and

the Piel with stative verbs and dynamic-transitive verbs. This is statistically so, but secondary use of these forms has tended to erase these original distinctions. That is, Hiphil forms are fairly common from stative roots (in which case Piel and Hiphil are virtually synonymous). Many Piel forms from dynamic roots are denominative, de-adjectival, or

39

de-participial – cf. bārûk (passive participle) and bērēk (Piel) – and are fairly easy to distinguish from the original group.

b. Voice (IBHS §21.2) active medio-passive reflexive Qal Qal passive and Niphal Niphal Piel Pual Hithpael Hiphil Hophal Hithpael Although the real system is far from clear, in early Semitic there were at least three ways to

express the medio-passive of a corresponding active verb: (1) the internal passive (Qal Passive, Pual, Hophal); (2) the forms with prefixed -t-, designated Gt (Grundstamm), Dt (doubled), and Ct (causative; of which only the Hithpael survives in Hebrew); and (3) the form with a prefixed -n-, designated N, apparently only derivable from the G verb. Notes on these three types:

1. Internal Passive. It is possible that the internal passives were originally merely the

stative form of a dynamic transitive verb, and only secondarily did the active and passive forms split into two independent systems.

2. Forms with prefixed -t-. It is probable that every dynamic transitive verb, whether G,

D, or C, had corresponding -t- forms, expressing the reflexive/reciprocal or middle meaning of the verb. In Aramaic and Ethiopic these -t- forms took over the role of the passive, with the complete loss of the internal passive. In Arabic, Akkadian, and to a lesser extent Hebrew, the -t- forms remain distinct from the passive system, but their function in each language is somewhat different.

3. The N verbs, on the other hand, seem definitely to be associated with the G verb. They

are probably originally part of the G system, and their full inflection too may be a secondary development. It is possible that the N form originally produced a dynamic intransitive verb relative to a dynamic transitive verb, and that the coalescence with the medio-passive/reflexive systems above was secondary.

In Hebrew the Qal passive became obsolete, surviving forms being taken by the

grammarians as Pual or Hophal. The Niphal, while retaining its old role as an intransitive verb, also took over the function of the passive. The three -t- forms, Gt, Dt, and Ct became obsolescent as derived forms, but survived in a merged type, Dt (Hithpael), as isolated lexical items. To judge from the popularity of the Hithpael in post-biblical Hebrew, it is likely that it had a more vigorous existence in other dialects of Hebrew during the early phases of the language.

40

Qal Passive (G-) (IBHS §22.6) perfect *qutala > quttal (should be qōtal) imperfect *yuqtal > yuqtal The perfect form with reduplication of the second consonant is probably the result of

misconstrual as a Pual . (Cf. forms like sōbab which were reinterpreted as Polal, see below, p. 43.) Note that the imperfect falls together with the Hophal. Some examples are:

perfect luqqaḥ, yullad, ʾukkal, hōrag imperfect yuqqaḥ, yuttan, yuqqam (√nqm) Many Niphal imperfects in the earlier books are probably Qal Passive imperfects, e.g.,

ywld (yûllad), pointed yiwwalēd. Eventually the Niphal subsumes the semantic role of the Qal Passive (see above).

Niphal (N) (IBHS §23) perfect *naqtala > niqtal imperfect *yanqatilu > yiqqātēl jussive *yanqatil > yiqqātēl imperative *inqatil? > hiqqātēl The change in the perfect from *naqtal to niqtal is apparently due to the *qatqat > qitqat

dissimilation. The change of the prefix vowel in the imperfect from *yaC to yiC is probably a generalization of the Barth-Ginsberg change of *yaC > yiC in the Qal.

The imperative form with initial h- is probably formed by analogy with the Hiphil

imperative: H jussive: imperative :: N jussive : imperative *yaqtil : *haqtil :: *yiqqatil : *hiqqatil Piel (D) (IBHS §24) perfect *qattila > *qittil > qittēl imperfect *yuqattilu > yeqattēl jussive *yuqattil > yeqattēl imperative *qattil > qattēl The earliest form of the perfect cannot be reconstructed with certainty; Arabic and Ethiopic

suggest *qattala, while Hebrew and Aramaic suggest *qattila. The best solution is that

41

*qattala > *qattila by paradigmatic leveling of -aC1C1i- from the imperfect *yuqattilu. The change from *qattil > *qittil is obscure (*CaCCiC > CiCCiC).

Note the influence of Philippi’s Law in the 1st and 2nd person perfect forms: *dibbirtī >

dibbartī, etc. In II-Guttural roots (including reš in this instance), “compensatory” lengthening is normal

with reš, ʾaleph, and usually ʿayin, since these consonants do not double. So-called “virtual doubling” is common with he and ḥet:

*barrika > *birrika > *birik > bērēk *šaḥḥita > *šiḥḥita > šiḥēt (virtual doubling) Pual (D-) (IBHS §25) perfect *kuttaba > kuttab imperfect *yukuttabu > yekuttab Note that roots II-Guttural show the same variations between compensatory lengthening

and virtual doubling as the Piel: *burraka > *burak > bōrak Hiphil (C) (IBHS §27) perfect *haqtila > *hiqtil → hiqtîl (not hiqtēl) imperfect *yuhaqtilu > *yaqtil → yaqtîl (not yaqtēl) jussive *yuhaqtil > *yaqtil > yaqtēl imperative *haqtil > haqtēl The first problem here is the same as the Piel: Arabic and Ethiopic suggest a base form

*haqtala for the perfect, while Hebrew and Aramaic suggest *haqtila. Probably *haqtala > *haqtila by the influence of -aCCi- from the imperfect *yuhaqtilu. The change from *haqtil > *hiqtil is obscure, as in the Piel (*CaCCiC > CiCCiC). Note that the *ha- of the perfect is preserved in I-yod roots: hôlîd < *hawlida.

The major problem is, of course, the long vowel -ī- in the perfect hiqtîl and the imperfect

yaqtîl. The only possible source for this is by analogy with the Hiphil forms of Hollow roots (II-waw/yod), e.g., hēqîm/ yāqîm:

perfect *haqīma > *hiqīm > hēqîm *haqimtī > *hiqimtī > hiqamtī (Philippi) > hēqamtî imperfect *yuhaqīmu > *yaqīm > yāqîm jussive *yuhaqim > *yaqim > yāqēm

42

Note the alternation between -ī- and -i- in the Hollow forms; this is original with this

system, the long vowel occurring in open syllables and the short vowel in closed syllables (see above). At some point in the development of the Hiphil of sound roots, the following analogical changes took place:

1cs perfect : 3ms perfect :: 1cs perfect : 3ms perfect *hiqimtī : *hiqīm :: *hiqtiltī : *hiqtīl 3ms jussive : 3ms imperfect :: 3ms jussive : 3ms imperfect *yaqim : *yaqīm :: *yaqtil : *yaqtīl Note that the distinction between languages with H-causative vs. Š-causative corresponds

to the distribution of 3rd person pronouns with h or š – *huʾa vs. *šuʾa, etc. (see p. 19). Hophal (C-) (IBHS §28) perfect *huqtala > hoqtal imperfect *yuhuqtalu > yuqtal Note that the initial vowel in the perfect alternates between u/o. Hithpael (Dt) (IBHS §26) perfect *hitqattila > hitqattēl imperfect *yatqattilu > *yitqattil > yitqattēl jussive *yatqattil > *yitqattil > yitqattēl imperative *hitqattil > hitqattēl The perfect and imperative forms were probably originally *taqattila and *taqattil, which

would yield *taqattēl. The forms with initial h- were probably reformed by analogy with the Hiphil jussive : imperative (cf. the development of the Niphal imperative).

H jussive : imperative :: Ht jussive : imperative *yaqtil : *haqtil :: *yitqattil : *hitqattil Note the generalization of Barth-Ginsberg, *ya > yi, in the imperfect, as in the Niphal

imperfect. Note the metathesis with a root beginning with a sibilant, *hitšammira > hištammēr, and

the metathesis plus assimilation with a root beginning with an emphatic, *hitṣaddiqa > hiṣṭaddēq (tṣ > ṣṭ), or a dental, *hitzakkira > hizdakkēr (tz > zd).

The form hištaḥaweh is probably not originally a Hithpael, but a Št of √ḥwy.

43

Polel/Polal/Hithpolel The equivalent of Piel/Pual/Hithpael from hollow and geminate roots. Polel Polal Hithpolel perfect qōmēm qōmam hitqōmēm imperfect yeqōmēm yeqōmam yitqōmēm Either a retention of an old stem type otherwise unknown, or generated by reanalysis of the

Qal Passive as a new form, Polal (passive stem), and analogical creations of Polel (active stem) and Hithpolel (reflexive stem):

Qal Passive of √sbb *subaba > sōbab *yusabbu → *yusubab > yesōbab

The imperfect *yusabb- probably changed to yusubab by analogy with the perfect *subab. With the demise of Qal Passive, sōbab, yesōbab were reanalyzed as new passive stem, the Polal. The active Polel was generated by analogy with Polal (and the ē of the Polel imper-fect by analogy with tone vowel of the Piel). The reflexive Hithpolel was generated simi-larly. Hollow roots were drawn into this paradigm by mixing/analogy with geminate roots.

44

Appendix 1: Contraction Concordance Triphthongs (with he, yod) [see p. 7] *vhv2 > v2 *bahu > *bu > bô *yuhaqtilu > *yaqtil → yaqtîl *vya > ā *banaya > bānāh *šatiya > šātāh *vyu > e *yištayu > yišteh *yibniyu > yibneh *śadiyu > śādeh *vyv > v *yibniyu > yibnû N.B. *ba + yad > beyād (preservation of morpheme boundary) Diphthongs (with waw, yod) [see p. 9] *aw > āwe when stressed: *mawt > māwet “death” *aw > ô when unstressed: *mawtī > môtî “my death” *ay > ayi when stressed: *bayt > bayit “house” *ay > ê when unstressed: *baytī > bêtî “my house” N.B. change of quality in stressed *áyCā > -éyCā: *sūsaykā > sûseykā “your horses” Old Contractions in II-Waw/Yod verbs [see p. 31] *wu > ū in originally open syllable: *yaqwumu > *yaqūmu *wu > u in originally closed syllable: *yaqwum > *yaqum *yi > ī in originally open syllable: *yaśyimu > *yaśīmu *yi > i in originally closed syllable: *yaśyim > *yaśim *awa > a: *qawama > *qama (perhaps by analogy with *qatala) *iyi > i: *śiyima > *śima

45

Appendix 2: Cognate Consonants labials dentals interdentals sibilants palatal “guttural” liquids PS p b m t d ṭ θ ð θ ð s z ṣ š ś k g q ʾ h ḥ ḫ ģ ʿ l n r Akk. p b m t d ṭ š z ṣ ṣ s z ṣ š ś k g q ʾ h ḥ ḥ ʿ ʿ l n r Ug. p b m t d ṭ θ d/ð θ/ģ ð s z ṣ š š k g q ʾ h ḥ ḫ ģ ʿ l n r Heb. p b m t d ṭ š z ṣ ṣ s z ṣ š ś k g q ʾ h ḥ ḥ ʿ ʿ l n r Ph. p b m t d ṭ š z ṣ ṣ s z ṣ š ś/s k g q ʾ h ḥ ḥ ʿ ʿ l n r Aram. p b m t d ṭ t[š] d[z] ṭ[ṣ] ʿ[q] s z ṣ š ś k g q ʾ h ḥ ḥ ʿ ʿ l n r Arab. f b m t d ṭ θ ð θ ð s z ṣ s š k j q ʾ h ḥ ḫ ģ ʿ l n r Eth. f b m t d ṭ s z ṣ ð s z ṣ s š k g q ʾ h ḥ ḫ ʿ ʿ l n r OSA p b m t d ṭ š z ṣ ṣ s z ṣ š š k g q ʾ ʾ ʾ ḫ ʾ ʾ l n r N.B. Old Aramaic graphemes are indicated by brackets [x], prior to the consonantal mergings of later Aramaic dialects. N.B. For some clarification of the sibilant situation, see p. 8.

46

Appendix 3

A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew: Based on the Recitation of the Law in Comparison with the Tiberian and other Jewish Traditions, by Zeʾev Ben-Ḥayyim.

Author: Hendel, Ronald

Article Type: Book review

Publication: Hebrew Studies 43 (2002), pp. 240-44

A GRAMMAR OF SAMARITAN HEBREW: BASED ON THE RECITATION OF THE LAW IN COMPARISONWITH THE TIBERIAN AND OTHER JEWISH TRADITIONS. By Zeʾev Ben-Ḥayyim. Revised Edition in English. Pp. xviii + 491. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2000. Cloth, $50.00.

The study of Hebrew and its history is considerably enriched by the appearance of the Eng-lish translation of Ben-Ḥayyim's magisterial Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew. It appeared in He-brew in 1977 as volume 5 of Ben Ḥayyim's The Literary, and Oral Traditions of the Samaritans (Jeru-salem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1957-1977). Ben-Ḥayyim is widely acknowledged as the leading scholar of Samaritan Hebrew, and this volume has already achieved the status of a classic. The dissemination of his decades of study and massive erudition will be greatly facili-tated by this careful and authoritative translation, which also includes some clarifications andminor restructuring. Abraham Tat, another distinguished scholar of Samaritan studies, helped to shepherd this translation project to fruition (and is so acknowledged on the title page), andassistance was also given by a number of other eminent Hebrew linguists in Israel. Samaritan Hebrew is essentially a literary dialect, more precisely, a reading tradition of aparticular text, the Samaritan Pentateuch. (There are also Samaritan prayers and liturgical texts composed in this literary dialect.) This linguistic tradition has been preserved and transmitted in a particular community--the Samaritan community in and around She-chem/Nablus--over the last (approximately) 2200 years. There is no doubt that the Samaritan reading tradition has changed somewhat over that time, just as the parallel Tiberian reading tradition has changed somewhat. There is also no doubt that Samaritan Hebrew preserves lin-guistic traits that were shared by other Hebrew dialects in the late Second Temple Period, andis therefore rooted in a Hebrew vernacular of this period. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls shows a number of traits that are also found in Samaritan Hebrew, but not in Tiberian Hebrew,thus demonstrating the antiquity of these aspects of Samaritan Hebrew. The textual fixity of the Samaritan Pentateuch has served in some cases as a preservative agent for this reading tradition, since sometimes the distinctive forms (vis a vis Tiberian He-

47

brew) are fixed in the consonantal text, for example, the second feminine singular personalpronoun אתי, vocalized ʾatti (versus Tiberian Hebrew את, ʾatt). Most of the time, however, the reading tradition has been preserved solely in Samaritan oral tradition. (Note that the ver-nacular tongue among the Samaritans is Arabic, and in earlier times was Aramaic.) Hebrewprobably ceased being a vernacular in the late Second Temple period or shortly thereafter. Ben-Ḥayyim succinctly states his evidentiary sources and their ancient roots: “This descrip-tion is based on the language-type reflected in their [i.e., the Samaritans’] Torah reading, which I heard and learned from priests and other experts of various ages. This reading links upwith one of the final stages of Hebrew speech development prior to its cessation in ancienttimes.” His volume is therefore a work of ethnolinguistic research on a current community and a complex discussion of the linguistic history of Hebrew from ancient times. The plan of this volume follows conventional grammatical categories: Phonology (pp. 29-95), Morphology [of the Verb] (pp. 96-224), Pronoun (pp. 225-239), Noun (pp. 240-304), Numer-als (pp. 305-312), Particles (pp. 313-322), and Some Points of Syntax (pp. 323-332). The author adds a useful Epilogue (pp. 323-344), which catalogues some of the connections between Sa-maritan Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew and between Samaritan Hebrew and Jewish Aramaic. There follows a comprehensive Inventory of Forms (pp. 345-464), which catalogues all the nouns and verbs of Samaritan Hebrew according to their morphological pattern. There arenumerous cross-references, the volume is well-organized, and the discussions are marked by meticulous attention to details and methodological circumspection. The following are some gleanings from Ben Ḥayyim's treasure trove. I have selected a few features of Samaritan Hebrew that are of particular interest to Hebrew specialists--dialectal features that differ from the comparable features in Tiberian Hebrew and that arguably stemfrom relatively early times. None of them are distinctively Late Biblical Hebrew developments (such as weakening of gutturals, disuse of internal passives and infinitive absolutes, collapse ofthe Classical Hebrew tense/aspect system, and increased use of participles, all amply attestedin Samaritan Hebrew). These features likely derive from the period of Classical Hebrew and are preserved in Samaritan Hebrew and, in some cases, other non-Tiberian Hebrew dialects. These details will give a sense of the importance of Samaritan Hebrew--and of Ben-Ḥayyim's massive contribution--to our understanding of the history of Hebrew. (In the following, SH = SamaritanHebrew, TH = Tiberian Hebrew, DSS = Dead Sea Scrolls, LBH = Late Biblical Hebrew.) 1. Diphthongs (1.4.4). As one would expect, SH falls on the northern side of the north/southisogloss in the treatment of diphthongs. In Hebrew inscriptions from the north, diphthongsalways contract, for example, qṣ (*qêṣ) in the Gezer calendar and yn (*yên) in the Samaria os-traca versus qáyiṣ and yáyin in TH and yyn in an Arad ostracon. In SH, one finds contracted forms such as bit/bet (vs. TH báyit), mot (vs. TH māwet), and īn (vs. TH ʿáyin). Curiously, one also

48

finds such SH forms as yayyen, with doubled middle radical, instead of the expected *yīn (vs. TH yáyin). 2. Canaanite Shift (1.5.2.4-7). In some cases, SH preserves the original *ā, where one would expect it to have turned to ō by the Canaanite Shift. So one finds ānāki (vs. TH ʾānōkî) from original *ʾanāku; šēlāš (vs. TH šālôš) from original *ṯalāṯ; lā (vs. TH lōʾ) from original *lāʾ; and kā(vs. TH kô) from original *kā. Ben Ḥayyim thinks that the Canaanite shift might originally havebeen conditioned by stress or position in word sequence, and that these are remainders fromold biforms. 3. Pronouns (3.1) and Pronominal Suffixes (2.0.13; 3.2). The second feminine singular pronoun is atti (vs. TH ʾatt) from *ʾantĩ (the final i is an anceps vowel, meaning there were ancestral biforms with long and short i). Interestingly, the consonantal form אתי occurs seven times in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible, though vocalized as TH ʾatt. As one would expect, in SH the second feminine singular subject suffix on the perfect also has the form -ti. The second masculine plural pronoun is attimma (vs. TH ʾattem), both from *ʾattimmã (which was formed by analogy with the second feminine plural pronoun *ʾattinnã). The consonantal form אתמה is also found in texts from the DSS. In SH the second masculine plural subject suffix on the perfect also has the form -timma. Other pronominal suffixes also preserve some interesting dialectal forms, for example, the second masculine singular accusative pronominal suffix -āk/k (post-consonantal/postvocalic, respectively) (vs. TH -ekā/kā) from *-akã. The SH type of pronunciation is reflected in the nor-mal biblical writing ך- (and is once pointed -āk in TH, Ps 53:6), and is preserved also in the Greek transcription in the Hexapla, -αχ. It is also equivalent to the TH pausal forms bāk, lāk, ʾōtāk. 4. *Qatqat > qitqat (4.2.3). The dissimilation of short *a in unaccented closed syllables in words of this pattern is a late TH phenomenon and is not found in SH (nor in Babylonian He-brew or Hexaplaric transcriptions). For example, SH madbār (vs. TH midbār) from *madbar; maqdāš (vs. TH miqdāš) from *maqdaš; šāʿba (vs. TH šibʿâ) from *šabʿat. 5. Philippi's Law (1.5.2.1, 2.1.2-3). The dissimilation of short *i in accented, originally closed syllables (*Philippi > Philáppi) occurs regularly in monosyllabic words in SH but not always inpolysyllabic. For example, bat (= TH) from original *bint; lab (vs. TH lēb) from *libb. In polysyl-labic words, Philippi's Law operates in forms like zāqānti (= TH zāqantî) from *zaqintī But Phi-lippi's Law did not affect Piel qattilti (vs. TH qittaltî) from original *qattiltī, and Hiphil aqtilti (vs. TH hiqtaltî) from original *haqtiltī. Ben Ḥayyim notes that SH preserves the original form in thePiel and Hiphil, perhaps reinforced by the equivalent Aramaic forms.

49

6. Segholate nouns (4.1.3). In SH the segholate nouns (*qatl, *qitl, *qutl became bisyllabic (as in TH), but retain a reflex of the original vowel more often than TH. Thus *malk becomes mālek in SH (vs. TH melek); *napš becomes nāfeš (vs. TH nepeš); *qašt becomes qāšet (vs. TH qešet). Note that qātel is commonly the pausal form in TH (e.g., nāpeš, qāšet), probably retaining a dialectal variant. For *qitl forms, *ṣidq becomes ṣēdeq in SH (vs. TH ṣedeq); *biṭn becomes bēṭen (vs. TH beṭen). Note that TH also has the development *qitl > qētel, for example, *sipr > sēper. Obviously, there were alloforms of segholate nouns in various Hebrew dialects (note forms like αβδ in the Hexaplaric transcription, vs. TH ʿebed, SH ʿābed). 7. Penultimate stress (1.4.6-8). Ben-Ḥayyim argues that penultimate stress in many SH forms is a relatively late development, after a period in which it, like TH, had (with a few exceptions) ultimate stress. It is possible, however, that in verbs penultimate stress reflects the earlier He-brew situation, which was unchanged in SH and other dialects. Whether early or late, several forms in SH have analogues in pausal forms in TH and in DSS forms. Examples are the Qal per-fect second feminine singular form, SH qātālā (vs. TH qātelâ), from *qatalat. The SH form is equivalent to the TH pausal form qātālâ. In the Piel imperfect third masculine plural, the SH form is yēqattēlu (vs. TH yeqattelû) from *yuqattilū. The SH form is similar to the TH pausal form yeqattēlû. There is evidence of penultimate stress in DSS in forms like יקטולו (vs. TH yiqtelû) from *yaqtulū. The DSS form is the same as the TH pausal form yiqtō1û. Penultimate stress versus ul-timate stress seems to have varied according to dialects in Late Biblical Hebrew, each appar-ently preserving earlier traits. In sum, this volume is a magnificent contribution to Hebrew scholarship. Ben-Ḥayyim notes that several reviewers of the original Hebrew edition recommended that the work be madeavailable in a European language, and twenty-three years later he and his team have made good on this desideratum. Ben-Ḥayyim has devoted his scholarly life to studying the Samaritan tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic, and his monumental labor and erudition have earned the gratitude of us all. Ronald Hendel University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720 COPYRIGHT 2002 National Association of Professors of Hebrew

50

Selected Bibliography Historical Linguistics Bloomfield, Leonard. Language History. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965. Campbell, Lyle. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. 2nd ed.; Cambridge: MIT Press, 2004. Historial Linguistics of Biblical Hebrew Blau, Joshua. Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew: An Introduction. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2010. Lambdin, Thomas O., and John Huehnergard. The Historical Grammar of Classical Hebrew: An Outline. Cambridge, Mass., 1998. Unpublished course handout. Sáenz-Badillos, Angel. A History of the Hebrew Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1993. [HHL] Biblical Hebrew Syntax Waltke, Bruce K. and Michael O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona

Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990. [IBHS] Central and Northwest Semitic Garr, W. R. Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine: 1000-586 B.C.E. Philadelphia: University of

Pennsylvania Press, 1985; rpt, Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Huehnergard, John. “Features of Central Semitic.” Pp. 155-203 in Biblical and Oriental Essays

in Memory of William L. Moran, ed. A. Gianto. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2005.

Phonology: Sibilants Faber, Alice. “Semitic Sibilants in an Afro-Asiatic Context.” JSS 29 (1984) 189-224. Hendel, Ronald. “Sibilants and šibbōlet (Judges 12:6).” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 301 (1996): 69-75. Steiner, Richard. The Case for Fricative-Laterals in Proto-Semitic. New Haven: AOS, 1977.

51

Phonology: Original Short Vowels Blake, Frank R. “Pretonic Vowels in Hebrew.” JNES 10 (1951) 243-55. Garr. W. R. “Pretonic Vowels in Hebrew.” VT 2 (1987) 129-53. Phonology: Three Laws Hasselbach, Rebecca. “The Markers of Person, Gender, and Number in the Prefixes of G- Preformative Conjugations in Semitic.” JAOS 124 (2004) 23–35. (Barth’s Law) Blake, Frank R. “The Apparent Interchange Between a and i in Hebrew.” JNES 9 (1950) 76-83. (Qatqat > Qitqat) Lambdin, Thomas O. “Philippi’s Law Reconsidered.” Pp. 135-45 in Biblical Studies Presented

to Samuel Iwry, ed. A. Kort and S. Morschauser. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1985. Nouns and Pronouns Fox, Joshua. Semitic Noun Patterns. HSS 59. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003. Rubin, Aaron. Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization. HSS 57. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns,

2005. Verbs Hendel, Ronald. “In the Margins of the Hebrew Verbal System: Situation, Tense, Aspect,

Mood.” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 9 (1996) 152-81.

Huehnergard, John. “Hebrew Verbs I-w/y and a Proto-Semitic Sound Rule.” Pp. 457-74 in Memoriae Igor M. Diakonoff, eds. L. Kogan et al. Winona Lake: Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005.

Jenni, Ernst. Das hebräische Piʿel. Zurich: EVZ-Verlag, 1968. Kouwenberg, N. J. C. Gemination in the Akkadian Verb. Leiden: Brill, 1997.