Edition 1.2
15 December
2011
History
of the Ancient and Modern Hebrew Language
By
David Steinberg
David.Steinberg@houseofdavid.ca
Home page http://www.houseofdavid.ca/
Excursus 2
Evolution
of Pronunciation and Stress
Patterns
(See
also Biblical Hebrew
Poetry and Word Play - Reconstructing the Original Oral, Aural and Visual
Experience )
Box 23 - The Nature of Stress in Ancient and Modern Hebrew
Box 24 - The Independent Pronouns in EBHP and Colloquial Arabic Dialects
Box 25 - The Case System of Proto-Hebrew and the Pronominal Suffixes of the Noun
Box 26 Nouns - Absolute, Construct and Pronominal Forms
Table
24 - History of Stress and Pronunciation of the Independant Pronoun
Table 25 - History of Stress and Pronunciation of
the Pronominal Suffixes of the Noun
Table 26 - Pronominal Object Suffixes of the SC Verb
Table 27 - Pronominal Object Suffixes of the PC Verb
Table 28 - History of the Accusative Particle
'ẹt and its Inflected Form' ōtō = "him"
Table 29 - Stressed Noun Suffixes in Biblical Hebrew
A. The
Proto-Hebrew
SC and its Carry-Over into BH
Table 31 - Reconstructed PC Forms in PH and EBHP
B. The
Biblical Hebrew Verbal System
Table
34 - Common Stative and
Similar Qal Verbs
2. Background on Biblical Hebrew Prefix Conjugation
Table 35 - History of Stress and Pronunciation of the Hebrew Verb Prefix Conjugation
Time and Modal Implications of PC in Various Categories of BH Poetry
3. Background on Biblical Hebrew Suffix
Conjugation (traditional "perfect")
Table
36 - History of Stress and Pronunciation of the Hebrew Verb - Suffix
Conjugation
4. Participles, Imperatives and Infinitives
Table 37 - History of Stress and
Pronunciation of the Hebrew Imperatives, Participles and Infinitives
Box 21 - The Nature
of Stress in Ancient and Israeli Hebrew and MSA |
“...The term stress is applied to the phonetic elevation of the
voice, although, strictly speaking, the (Biblical) Hebrew stress, unlike that
in ancient Greek and Latin, refers rather to more forceful articulation than
higher musical pitch, the latter being a secondary element as in Modern
Greek, Vulgar Latin... English, Italian etc. That the (Biblical) Hebrew stress is essentially a prominence of intensity
or force of articulation is manifest in its effects on the vocalisation. In
contrast, the contemporary Israeli pronunciation of Hebrew is characterised
by a musical pitch accent.” Quoted from Joϋon-Muraoka 1991 § 15a "Stress
and syllabification are closely related in
Hebrew, as in many languages .... In Biblical Hebrew pitch had no phonemic
function, and expiratory stress prevailed... As its results make clear, stress was
strongly centralizing (i.e., it used up most of the breath in the
pronunciation of the stressed syllables). Accordingly, other syllables became
blurred and were shortened." Quoted from Blau 2010 §2.9. Among those who have studied stress, there is no single
acceptable definition of what it is and what acoustic parameters may
contribute to it. This paper focuses on the dynamic, rhythmic distribution of
stress on the phrase level in Arabic. It attempts to determine which of the three acoustic properties intensity,
frequency, and duration contributes most to the stressed syllable in an
utterance. It also tries to ascertain whether these properties function
collectively or individually.... Intensity
is an acoustic property that corresponds to loudness. According to
Ladefoged (1993:187), "intensity is proportional to the average size, or
ampli- tude, of the variations and air pressure." Different phonetic
segments differ in sonority. Vowels within the syllable structure normally
receive higher sonority than consonants; in particular, long and open vowels
are the most sonorous and thus affect both the syllable type and structure in
an utterance.... Frequency is an acoustic feature of sound that correlates
with pitch and is measured in hertz (Hz). The pitch of a sound can be high or
low, depending primarily on the vibration of the vocal cords. The vocal cords
complete a cycle of closing and opening that depends on the varia- tion in
air pressure that occurs in one second (Cruttenden 1986:1-8; Ladefoged
1993:186-87).... The duration of a sound may affect the prominence of a
syllable. In Arabic, all vowels may occur in either short or long forms;
length is phonemic and is indicated in the transcription by a double vowel.
At the same time, all of the consonants in Arabic may occur in either single
or geminated forms. Accordingly, length for
vowels and gemination for consonants are contrastive and phonemic. Vowels can
only occur medially and finally, since no syllable or word in Arabic can have
an initial vowel. Geminate consonants also occur in medial and final
position. Consequently, a word or a syllable can start only with a single
consonant. In addition, consonant clusters with a maximum of two members
occur medially or finally.... The tentative results obtained from the analysis of the
two production experiments ... prove that the placement of stress is on the
long syllable, CVV, initially or medially.... The intensity, frequency, and
duration measurements of each of the 1,540 syllables tested form the basis of
these results. The
intensity measurements contributed the most to this conclusion, since they are more
directly associated with loudness, which is one feature that results in the
relative prominence of a syllable in an utterance. The duration measurements
support the positive results obtained from the intensity measurements.... Quoted from Al Ani
1992 |
Box 22 - The Independent Pronouns in *EBHP and Colloquial
Arabic Dialects[1] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"In its system of pronouns, Hebrew discloses, for a
number of persons, two allomorphs - one terminating in a vowel, the other
with a consonant.
A somewhat similar picture obtains in the pronominal
systems of Arabic dialects. To exemplify the lines of resemblance, we shall
here present the pronominal systems of some dialects in the Syro-Israeli
area.
The following points are
worthwhile noting; (a) the preservation, from a
historical point of view, of the final vowel in the 2nd pers. masc. sing.:
Hebrew ʾatta,
Arabic dialects inte
(and variants). (b) in the Hebrew forms for the
3rd pers. mast. and fem. sing. and plur. which have a vowel termination - huʾa,
hiʾa,
hemma,
henna - the final vowel ā
possibly goes back to ancient -at. Cf, hmt
in ancient Phoenician (Byblian) and hwt, hyt, hmt
in Ugaritic (in the genitive-accusative case) as well as the genetive-accusative
pronominal morphemes šuātu/i,
šāti/u
(third pers. masc. sing.), šuiāti, šāti
(fem. sing.), šunūti
(mast. plur.) and šināti
(fem. plur.) in Akkadian. As to the longer forms in Arabic
dialects (hūwe,
huwwi,
etc, for the masc. and hīyeʾ, hiyyi
for the fem.), there seems to be no evidence to indicate such a historical
development. What would seem plausible is either the assumption that the
longer forms have preserved the final vowel of Classical Arabic (huwa, hiya),
or, that they developed a new final vowel. But here we touch upon a rather
intricate question, the existence of a final vowel in a number pronominal
forms (cf. above table) in many Arabic dialects. |
Box 23 - The Case System[10] of Proto-Hebrew and the Pronominal Suffixes of the Noun |
As illustrated elsewhere, PH originally had a system of case endings
similar to that of Classical Arabic[11]. As in Classical Arabic, attached pronominal
suffixes, if any, followed the case endings. For the noun forms in the
singular, feminine singular this consisted of a system of three cases[12] (nominative - suffix u (constr. u > Ø during PH period);
accusative - suffix a (constr. a > Ø during PH period); genitive - suffix i (constr.
i > Ø during PH period)). Nouns in the dual, masculine plural and
feminine plural all had two cases[13] - dual - nominative - suffix áːmi (constr.
and before pronominal suffix aː); oblique
(= accusative plus genitive) - suffix áymi (constr. and before pronominal suffix ay); masculine plural - nominative - suffix úːma (constr.
and before pronominal suffix uː ); oblique - suffix íːma (constr.
and before pronominal suffix iː ); and, feminine plural - nominative - suffix óːtu (constr.
and before pronominal suffix oːt ); oblique - suffix óːti (constr.
and before pronominal suffix oːt ).[14] Thus - (1) your
(ms.) male horse would have been - Accusative (acc) - /sūˈsakã/ Genitive (gen.) - /sūˈsikã/ (2) your
(ms.) female horse would have been - Nominative
- /sūsaˈtukã/ Accusative
- /sūsaˈtakã/ Genitive -
/sūsaˈtikã/ (3) your
(ms.) two male horses would have been (suffixes added to construct form) - Nominative
- /sūˈsākã/ (4) your (ms.)
male horses would have been (suffixes added to construct form) - Nominative
- /sūˈsūkã/ Oblique -
/sūˈsῑkã/ (5) your
(ms.) female horses would have been (suffixes added to construct form) - Nominative
- /sūsōˈtukã/ Oblique -
/sūsōˈtikã/ At some time, presumably related to the drastic
reduction in the use of the dual[15] and the
decline of the case system in late BHA phase 2, the oblique
ending (íːma > íːm ) became the single suffix for mp. absolute nouns and the dual
oblique construct (ay ) became the
single suffix for mp. construct nouns and preceded pronominal suffixes
attached to plural nouns. For this reason, in the following
table, I will use the general approach in PH reconstructions of showing, where
possible, the PH vocalization that developed into the BH form. |
Box 24
Nouns - Absolute, Construct and Pronominal Forms
From
Blau 2010 §4.4.3 4.4.3.1. The normal position
of nouns, when they do not stand in a special relationship to a following
noun, is the status absolutus. If, however, a noun is
proclitic, forming a stress unit with the following noun (which stands in the
same relation to it as the genitive stands to its governing noun in languages
with case inflection), it stands in the construct (status constructus). Since in the construct no
pretonic lengthening occurs and the noun behaves as if stress were on the
following (governed) noun, it is often quite different from the absolute: דְּבַר־ ‘the speech of’ as opposed to the absolute דָּבָר; צִדְקַת (with the construct feminine ending) ‘righteousness of’ as
opposed to the absolute צְדָקָה.... The construct noun is ... proclitic in Biblical Hebrew
when the construct is hyphenated. On the other hand, the fact that Philippi’s Law (see §3.5.8.6, p. 133)
operates in construct nouns attests that they are in fact stressed. One
should not be surprised by the operation of Philippi’s Law in hyphenated construct
nouns, as is the case, e.g., in בַּת־צִיּוֺן ‘the daughter of Zion’. The vowel of the stressed construct
noun was changed by Philippi’s Law and afterward
the noun became hyphenated. 4.4.3.2.
The status pronominalis, i.e., the status of nouns
governing pronominal suffixes (which perform a function similar to that of
English possessive pronouns), resembles the construct, not only in function
but also in form. It exhibits a shift of stress (which rests on the
pronominal suffix or the vowel “connecting” it with the noun) and the
feminine ending -at. Pretonic
lengthening is excluded only before the so-called “heavy” suffixes כֶם-, כֶן- (and הֶם, הֶן; e.g., יֶדְכֶם), whereas it may occur before the others (the “light”
suffixes), because the noun forms one word with its pronominal suffixes
(i.e., they stand in internal close juncture). Therefore, pretonic
lengthening acts as it does in simple words, whereas the construct and the nomen rectum stand in internal open
juncture and, therefore, in the construct no pretonic lengthening occurs. For
the “connecting” vowels.... |
Table
2 - History of Stress and Pronunciation of the Independent
Pronoun |
|||||||
|
*PH (c. 1200 BCE) |
*/JEH/ (mainly c. 750-586 BCE) |
(c. 400-300 BCE) |
(c. 850-550 BCE) |
(c.
400 CE) |
(c. 850 CE) |
(present) |
/ˈʾanã/ > |
אני |
אני |
/ˈʾanī/[20] [ˈʔɐniˑ] |
/ˈʾanī/ > contextual pausal[22] |
/ʾăˈni/ [ʔɐ̆ˈniː] contextual pausal |
[ɐˈni] |
|
/ʾaˈnaːkũ/ > |
[י] אנכ?[23] |
אנכי |
/ʾaˈnoːkī/[24] [ʔɐˈnoːkiˑ] |
/ʾaˈnoːkī/
→ contextual |
/ʾånoˈki/ contextual pausal |
[ɐnoˈxi] (pausal [ɐˈnoxi]) |
|
2 ms. |
[ת] א |
אתה |
|
/ˈʾattaː/ → contextual pausal |
/ʾatˈtå/ contextual [ˈʔɔːttɔː] pausal |
[ɐˈtɐ] |
|
2 fs. |
|
את |
/ˈʾat(t)/ [ˈʾɐtt] standard /ˈʾatti(ː)/ occasion
possibly northern |
/ˈʾat/[26] |
/ˈʾat/ [ˈʔɐːt] |
[ɐt] |
|
3 ms. |
/ˈhuwat/ > |
הא |
הוא |
/ˈhû/? [ˈhuː] /ˈhuʾ/? [ˈhʊʔ] [ˈhʊʔɐˑ][27] |
/ˈhû/ |
/ˈhu/ [ˈhuː] |
[ˈhu] ~ [ˈʔu] |
/ˈhiyat/ > |
|
היא הוא |
*/ˈhiʾ/? [ˈhɪʔ] */ˈhiʾa(ː)/? [ˈhɪʔɐˑ] |
/ˈhî/ |
/ˈhi/ [ˈhiː] |
[ˈhi] ~ [ˈʔi] |
|
1 cp. |
נחנו |
אנחנו נחנו (rare) |
/ʾaˈnaḥnū/ [ʔɐˈnɐħnuˑ] |
/ʾăˈnaːḥnū/ |
/ʾăˈnaḥnu/ [ʔɐ̆ˈnɐ:ħnu:] |
[ɐˈnɐxnu] |
|
2 mp. |
|
אתם |
/ʾatˈtim/ [ʔɐtˈtɪm]? |
/ʾatˈtem/ |
/ʾatˈtɛm/ [ʔɐtˈtɛːm] |
[ɐˈtɛm] |
|
2 fp. |
|
/ʾatˈtin(n)/ [ʔɐtˈtɪnn]? Form 2. /ʾatˈtinnaː/ |
/ʾatˈten/ |
/ʾatˈtɛn/ [ʔɐtˈtɛːn] |
[ɐˈtɛn] |
||
3 mp. |
|
הם |
/ˈhim(m)/ [ˈhɪmm]? [ˈhɛm]? |
/ˈheːm/ |
/ˈhẹm/ [ˈhẹːm] |
[ˈhɛm], [ˈʔɛm] ~ [ˈɛm] |
|
|
Form 2. |
/ˈheːmmaː/ |
/ˈhẹmmɔ/ [ˈhẹːmmɔː] |
[ˈɛmɐ] |
|||
3 fp. |
/ˈhinn(ã)/ |
|
הן |
/ˈhin(n)/ [ˈhɪnn]? [ˈhɛn]? |
/ˈheːn/ |
/ˈhẹn/ [ˈhẹːn] |
[ˈhɛn] ~ [ˈʔɛn] ~ |
|
Form 2. |
/ˈhinna(ː)/ [ˈhɪnnɐˑ]? [ˈhɛnnɐˑ]? |
/ˈheːnːaː/ |
/ˈhẹnnå/ [ˈhẹːnnɔː] |
[ˈhɛnɐ] ~ |
Table
25 - History of Stress and Pronunciation of the Pronominal
Suffixes of the Noun |
|||||||
|
*PH (c. 1200 BCE) |
*/JEH/ (mainly c. 750-586 BCE) |
(c. 400-300 BCE) |
*/EBHP/+ *[EBHP] (c. 850-550 BCE) |
(c. 400 CE) |
(c. 850 CE) |
(present) |
1 cs. s. noun |
/íya/ > /íya/ (obl.) /ῑ/ [íː] (nom.) |
י |
י |
/î/ |
/î/ |
/í/ |
[í] |
1 cs. pl. noun |
י |
י |
[ɐ́y][33] |
/áy/ |
/áy/ [ɐ́y] |
[áy] |
|
1 cs. SC |
/nῑ/ |
ני, י |
ני, י |
/nῑ/ [niˑ] |
/nῑ/ |
/ni/ [niː] |
[ni] |
2 ms. s. noun |
|
כ[35] |
ך or rarely כה e.g. Ps 139.5; Pr 24.10 Your (ms.) |
/áka(ː)/[36] |
/áka(ː)/→ /éka(ː)/
> contextual /ékaː/ pausal |
/əˈkå/ contextual pausal |
[ˈxa] (pausal |
2 ms. pl. noun |
יכ and |
יך |
/éːkaː/ |
/ɛ́ːkå/ [ɛ́ːxɔː] |
[ɛ́xa] |
||
2 fs. s. noun |
|
ך |
/íki(ː)/[41] > /eːk/[42] [ẹːk] |
/éːk/ |
/ẹ́k/ [ẹ́ːx] |
[ɛ́x] |
|
2 fs. pl. noun |
|
יך יכי
(very rare) |
/áyki(ː)/ > |
/áyik/ |
/áyik/ [ɐ́yix] |
[áyix] |
|
3 ms. s. noun |
|
ה (normal
form), |
ו ה (rare) |
(Form 1 (usual) /áhu/ > /áhũ/ > /áw/ > /ô/ [óː] OR [óː] Form 2 (rare) /hu(ː)/ [huˑ] |
Form 1 /ô/ Form 2 /huː/ |
Form 1 Form 2 |
Form 1 [ó] Form 2 [ʔu] |
3 ms. p. noun |
ו, יו, יה(?) |
יו[46] |
Form 1 usual /áyhu(ː)/ > /áyū/ > /áyō/ > /âw/ [áːw][47] OR /áyhu(ː)/ > /áwhu(ː)/ > /áwwu(ː)/ > /áww/ > /âw/ [áːw] Form 2 (rare) /áyhu(ː)/ > [ɛ́yhuˑ]? |
Form 1 /aːw/ Form 2 /êhuː/ |
Form 1 [ɔːw] Form 2 [ẹ́ːhuː] |
Form 1 [áv] Form 2 [áʔu] |
|
3 fs. s. noun |
/hã/ |
|
ה |
/áha/ > |
/â/ > /âh/[49] OR /âh/ |
/åh/ [ɔ́ːh] |
[á] |
3 fs. p. noun |
/áyha/ |
|
יה |
/áyha(ː)/ [ɐ́yhɐˑ]? [ɛ́yhɐˑ]? |
/áyha/ → /êhaː/ |
/ɛ́hå/ [ɛ́ːhɔˑ] |
[ɛʔa] |
1 cp. s. noun |
Singular Noun /nĩ/ > (≈ independent pronoun |
|
נו |
/ínū/[50] [ɪ́nuˑ]? [ɛ́nuˑ]? |
/éːnū/ |
/ẹ́nu/ [ẹ́ːnuː] |
[ɛ́nu] |
1 cp. p. noun |
Plural Noun |
|
ינו |
/áynū/ [ɐ́ynuˑ]? |
/éːnū/ |
/ẹ́nu/ [ẹ́ːnuː] |
[ɛ́nu] |
2 mp. s. noun |
/aˈkumu/ >
/aˈkima/ (acc.) /iˈkumu/ >
/iˈkima/ (gen.) |
כם |
כם |
/aˈkima/ > [ɐˈkɪm]? /iˈkima/ > [ɪˈkɪm]? |
/ˈkem/[53] |
/ˈkɛm/ [ˈxɛːm] |
[ˈxɛm] |
2 mp. pl. noun |
/ayˈkumu/ >
/ayˈkima/ |
|
יכם |
/áyˈkima/ > /ayˈkim/ [ɐyˈkɪm]? [ɛyˈkɪm]? |
/êˈkem/ |
/ẹˈkɛm/ [ẹːˈxɛːm] |
[ɛˈxɛm] |
2 fp. s. noun |
/aˈkinna/ (acc.) /iˈkinna/ (gen.) |
|
כן |
/aˈkinna/ > /aˈkin(n)/ [ɐˈkɪnn]? [ɐˈkɛn]? OR /iˈkinna/ > /iˈkin(n)/ [ɪˈkɪnn]? [ɪˈkɛn]? |
/ˈken/ [әˈxen] |
/ˈkɛn/ [ˈxɛːn] |
[ˈxɛn] |
2 fp. pl. noun |
Plural Noun /ayˈkinna/ |
|
יכן |
/ayˈkinna/ > /ayˈkin/ [ɐyˈkɪn]? [ɛyˈkɪn]? |
/êˈken/ |
/ẹˈkɛn/ [ẹːˈxɛːn] |
[ɛˈxɛn] |
3 mp. s. noun |
/aˈhumu/ > /aˈhima/ (acc.) /iˈhumu/ > /iˈhima/ (gen.) |
ם |
Form 1 הם |
/aˈhima/ > /aˈhim/ [ɐˈhɪm] OR /iˈhima/ > /iˈhim/ [ɪˈhɪm] |
/ˈheːm/[54] |
/ˈhɛm/ [ˈhɛːm] |
[ˈɛ́m] |
|
|
Form 2 ם |
[áːm] |
/áːm/ |
/åm/ [ɔ́ːm] |
Form 1 [ɛ́m] Form 2 [ám] |
|
3 mp. pl. noun |
/ayˈhumu/ |
|
Form 1 יהם |
/ayˈhim/ [ɐyˈhɪm]? [ɛyˈhɪm]? |
/êˈhem/ |
/ẹˈhɛm/ [ẹːˈhɛːm] |
[ɛˈʔɛm] |
|
Form 2 ימו ( Poetic) |
[ɐymoˑ]? [ɛymoˑ]? |
/êmoː/ |
/ẹˈmo/ [ẹːmoː] |
[ɛmo] |
||
3
fp. |
/aˈhinna/ (acc.) /iˈhinna/ (gen.) |
|
Form 1 הן |
/aˈhinna/ > /aˈhin(n)/ [ɐˈhɪnn]? /iˈhinna/ > /iˈhin(n)/ [ɪˈhɪnn]? |
/aˈhinn/ → /ˈheːn/[56] |
/ˈhɛn/ [ˈhɛːn] |
[ˈɛ́n] |
|
Form 2 ן |
/ˈhinna/ > /ˈhin/ > /á(ː)n/ [áːn] |
/áːn/ |
/ån/ [ɔ́ːn] |
[ˈán] |
Pronominal Object Suffixes of the SC Verb[57]
|
Suffixed to Forms
Ending in Consonant |
Suffixed to Forms
Ending in Vowel |
||
|
(c. 850-550 BCE) |
EBHP */EBHP/+ *[EBHP] (c. 850-550 BCE) |
TH (c. 850 CE) |
|
1 cs. |
ánî |
ַנִי |
nî |
נִי |
2 ms. |
áka(ː) |
ְךָ |
ka(ː) |
ךָ |
2 fs. |
éːk |
ֵךְ/ ֶךְ |
k |
ךְ |
3 ms. |
áhu(ː) |
ָהוּ/ וֹ |
hu(ː) |
הוּ |
3 fs. |
áː |
ָהּ |
ha(ː) |
הָ |
1 cp. |
ánū |
ָנוּ |
nū |
נוּ |
2 mp. |
aˈkim |
ְכֶם |
|
|
2 fp. |
aˈkin |
ְכֶן |
|
|
3 mp. |
áːm |
ָם |
m |
ם |
3 fp. |
áːn |
ָן |
n |
ן |
Pronominal Object Suffixes of the PC Verb
|
Suffixed to Forms
Ending in Consonant |
Suffixed to Forms
Ending in Vowel |
||||||
|
Simple Suffixes |
Suffixes With Epenthetic nun[59] |
Simple Suffixes |
Suffixes With Epenthetic nun |
||||
|
*/EBHP/+ |
*/EBHP/+ |
TH |
*/EBHP/+ |
TH |
*/EBHP/+ |
TH |
|
1 cs. |
ínî |
ֵנִי |
ínnî |
ֶנִּי |
nî |
נִי |
ínnū |
ֶנּוּ |
2 ms. |
íka(ː) |
ְךָ |
íkka(ː) |
ֶךָּ |
ka(ː) |
ךָ |
|
|
2 fs. |
éːk |
ֵךְ |
|
|
k |
ךְ |
|
|
3 ms. |
íhu(ː) |
ֵהוּ |
ínnu(ː) |
ֶנּוּ |
hu(ː) |
הוּ |
|
|
3 fs. |
íha(ː) |
ֶהָ |
ínna(ː) |
ֶנָּה |
ha(ː) |
הָ |
|
|
1 cp. |
ínū |
ֵנוּ |
|
|
nū |
נוּ |
|
|
2 mp. |
iˈkim |
ְכֶם |
|
|
kim |
כֶם |
|
|
2 fp. |
iˈkin |
ְכֶן |
|
|
kin |
כֶן |
|
|
3 mp. |
éːm |
ֵם |
|
|
m |
ם |
|
|
3 fp. |
éːn |
ֵן |
|
|
n |
ן |
|
|
Table 28
History
of the Accusative Particle ʾẹt
and its Inflected Form ʾōtô
= "him"
*PH[60] (c.
1200 BCE) |
(c. 850-550
BCE) |
(c. 400 CE) |
(c. 850 CE) |
(present) |
/iyyāt/ > /ʾat/ |
/ˌ’at/ [ˌʔɐt]? [ˌʔɛt]? |
/ˌʾẹːt/ |
אֵת /ˌʾẹt/ *[ˌʔẹːθ] |
[ɛt] ~ [t] |
/ʾɛt/ |
אֶת־ /ʾɛt/ *[ʔɛθ] |
|||
/’ôˈtahũ/ > /’ôˈtaw/ > /’ôˈtô/ [ʔoːˈtoː] |
/’ôˈtô/ |
אוֹתוֹ /’ôˈto/ [ʔoːˈθoː] |
[oˈto] |
Table 29 - Stressed Noun
Suffixes in Biblical Hebrew |
|||||
Meaning |
*PH (c. 1200 BCE) |
(c. 850-550
BCE) |
(c. 400 CE) |
(c. 850 CE) |
(present) |
Number
and Gender Inflections |
|||||
Fem. Sing.[62] |
ה |
/áː /[65] |
/å/
[ɔː] |
[ɐ] |
|
/ītu/[66] |
ית /īt/
[íːt] |
/ít/
[íːθ] |
[ít] |
||
/ūtu/ |
ות /ūt/
[úːt] |
/ūt/
[úːθ] |
/út/
[úːθ] |
[út] |
|
Dual |
/áymi/[67] |
ים /áym/
[ɐ́ym] |
/áyim/ |
/áyim/ [ɐ́ːyim] |
[ɐ́yɪm] |
Masc. Plural |
/ῑma/
> /ῑma/ > /ῑm/ |
ים /ῑm/
[íːm] |
/ῑm/
[íːm] |
/ím/
[íːm] |
[ím] |
Fem. Plural |
/ātum/ > /ātu/ > /ōtu/ > /ōt/ |
ות /ōt/
[óːt] |
/ōt/
[óːθ] |
/ót/
[óːθ] |
[ót] |
Nouns
formed with Suffixes |
|||||
Agent of
action and/or adjective |
/ānu/
> /ān/ |
ן /ān/ [áːn] |
/ān/ [áːn] |
/ån/
[ɔ́ːn] |
[ɐ́n] |
/ānu/
>
/ōn/ |
וֹן /ōn/
[óːn] |
/ōn/
[óːn] |
/ón/
[óːn] |
[ón] |
|
Nisba -
gentilic and, more generally “belonging to”. |
/ῑyu/ > /ῑy/
> /î/[68] |
י
(ms.) /ῑ/
[íː] ים
(mp.) /ῑˈyῑm/ [iːˈyiːm] ית (fs.) /ῑt/
[íːt] יות (fp.) /ῑˈyōt/ [iːˈyoːt] |
/ῑ/
[íː] /ῑˈyῑm/
[iːˈyiːm] /ῑt/
[íːθ] /ῑˈyōt/ |
/í/ [íː] /iˈyim/ [iːˈyiːm] /ít/
[íːθ] /iˈyot/
[iːˈyoːθ] |
[í] [iˈyim] [ít] [iˈyot] |
Abstract |
/ūtu/ > /ūt/[69] |
ות (sing.) /ūt/
[úːt] |
/ūt/ [úːθ] |
/út/ [úːθ] |
[út] |
ויות (pl.) /ūˈyōt/
[uːˈyoːt] |
/ūˈyōt/ |
/uˈyot/ [uːˈyoːθ] |
[uˈyot] |
Table 30
(e.g. הַבַּיְתָה
‘homeward’)
(c. 850-550
BCE) |
(c. 400 CE) |
(c. 850 CE) |
(present) |
/ah/ [ɐh]+ |
/â/+ |
/å/ [ɔː]+ |
/a/ [ɐ]+ |
+
unstressed suffix.
See
- Tequ
- Locative ה
[1] The
material in this box was adapted from Morag 1989 pp.
111-114.
[2] Rare in BH (Num. 11.15; Dt.
5.24; Ezek. 2814), common in post-biblical Hebrew (see Kutscher 1977 p.
10 ).
[3] According to Hendel-Lambdin-Huehnergard p. 19 ʾattāh (BH).
[4] Only as a ketib form.
See Gesenius, p. 106. We shall not deal here with the forms for this person.
[5] In the Dead Sea Scrolls. See Morag 1954.
[6] In the Dead Sea Scrolls. See Morag 1954.
[7] In the Dead Sea Scrolls. See Morag 1954.
[8] Four occurrences in the Bible
(Gen. 31.6; Ezek. 13.11,20; 3417).
[9] This form occurs in BH only
when preceded by prepositions.
[11] Cf. Classical and Modern Standard Arabic Haywood and Nahmad 1965 chapt. 9.
[12] Cf. Classical and Modern Standard Arabic Haywood and Nahmad 1965 chapt. 4.
[13] Cf. Classical and Modern Standard Arabic Haywood and Nahmad 1965 chapt. 5.
[17] See Phones and Phonemes - http://www.houseofdavid.ca/anc_heb_6.htm#phone_phonym.
[18]
Note, in reconstructed [EBHP]
transliterations and sound files -
1.there is no spirantization of the bgdkpt consonants - http://www.houseofdavid.ca/anc_heb_tequ.htm#bgdpt;
2. vowel qualities are outlined here
- http://www.houseofdavid.ca/anc_heb_6.htm#ebhp_vow_qual;
3. I use the
most probable form. Where no one form stands out as most probable, I select the
one closest to the MT vocalization.
4. when multiple forms are
possible, the form used is underlined.
[19] See Harris
1939 p. 74 for אני displacing אנכי.
[20] According to Hendel-Lambdin-Huehnergard
p. 19 ’ănî (BH).
[24] According to Hendel-Lambdin-Huehnergard p. 19 ʾānōkῑ (BH).
[25] See Harris 1939 p. 75.
[27] See Gogel
p. 153 footnote 179. QH uses the longer forms. Morag 1988 (pp. 156-157) states -
Not much is known about the history of hw'h and hy'h in Hebrew prior to the Qumran
period. One may only surmise that at an earlier period there was a dialectal
variation as to the distribution of the short forms hw', hy',
hm, hn (possibly also 'tm, 'tn) and the long ones hw'h,
hy'h, hmh, hnh ('tmh, 'tnh). Needless to say, the long forms hw'h, hy'h, unattested outside QH, are in no way to be regarded as a
continuation of LBH. They definitely constitute a particularly interesting
feature of GQH, which, as proposed above, may be traced back to the morphological
structure of some old dialects.
[28] According to Hendel-Lambdin-Huehnergard p. 19 ʾantum(ũ).
[29] Hendel-Lambdin-Huehnergard p. 19 would have ʾattin(nã).
[31] Dual oblique form
which formed the basis for BH form.
[33] “When ו and י are not used as mater lectionis, they are
pronounced. This is true in the following cases where the preceding vowel is heterogeneous
…. In these combinations the ו and י probably have a consonantal value, e.g. ַי =ay, and not ai, ָו = åw and not åu.”. From Joϋon-Muraoka
1991
§ 7d.
[34] Accusative form which formed the basis for BH form due to affect of vowel harmony.
[35] N.b. there are no
special final letter forms in Paleo-Hebrew script.
[36] From Blau 2010 §4.4.3.2n.
The “heavy” suffixes are invariably
stressed. The suffix ךָ- attached to
singular nouns (as in יׇדְךָ) bears the stress as well, but this stress is secondary (see
§3.5.12.2.8, p. 147). The original penultimate stress has also been preserved
in pause (יׇדֶךָ) in plural nouns (יׇדֶיךָ).
Swee also Blau 2010 §3.5.7.3.1, 4.2.3.3.
4.2.3.3.4.
Pronominal suffixes added to a noun in the dual/plural are preceded by *-ay (the former
dual ending): יָדֶיךָ, יָדַיִךְ. The feminine suffix is -k after dual/plural as well: *yadaykĩ > *yadayk
> (by opening
of the final cluster) יָדַיִךְ.
4.2.3.3.4n.
Because of the frequency of pronominal suffixes after nouns denoting double
body parts (יָדֶיךָ ‘your
hands’, עֵינֶיךָ ‘your
eyes’), the Proto-Semitic dual ending *-ay superseded
the plural ending *-i.
Since it was
only in closed syllables that the diphthong ay developed an
anaptyctic vowel (ayi; see
§3.4.2.2, p. 96), one has to assume that ay persisted
after the -i of the feminine pronominal suffix was elided
(*yadaykĩ > *yadayk
> (by opening
of the final cluster) יָדַיִךְ;).
[40] Genitive form which formed the basis for BH form due to affect of vowel harmony.
[41] So Blau 2010 §4.2.3.3.1. The last vowel that was lost displaced the original case vowel. However, Beyer p.40 favors /ákiː/.
[42] See Harris 1939 p. 75.
[43] See Harris 1939 pp. 55-56.
[44] Only probable case is
<bw> in Ketef Hinnom inscription - Barkay et. al. 2003
p. 70.
[45] Cf. Gen 1:11(למינו)
to vs. 12 (למינהו).
[46] Anderson 1999 p.
21 "... the adding of a (silent!) yod to -āw, "his" on plural noun
stems, apparently a purely scribal marker with no phonetic value." Sarfatti 1982 p. 65
-
Third m.s. suffix added to plural endings, -w : ʾnšw
"his men" (Lachish 3:18); ʾlw "unto him" (Yavneh-Yam 13). According to Gordis ... there
are 158 words in the Bible in which the 3 m.s. pronominal suffix appears in the
ketib with the defective spelling -w, while the Qere is -yw.... The purpose of the Qere is not to correct the text (i.e. yādāw instead of yādô ), but to point out the vocalization tradition followed by the
Masoretes (read yādāw !).... Since the historical development of this suffix is *-ayhu > *-āhu > *-āu (e.g. *-yādayhu > *-yādāhu > *-yādāu ), the defective spelling (= MT ָו ) is
phonetic, while the plene spelling (= MT ָיו ) retains the etymological yod.
[49] the
restoration of the [h] could be due to the influence of Aramaic where it is
retained in 2ms and 2fs pronominal suffixes.
[51] See Harris 1939 p. 51.
[52] See Harris 1939 p. 51.
[53] Probably pronounced [әˈxem].
[54] Probably pronounced [ɐ̆ˈheːm].
[55] For the מו ending see Robertson 1972 pp. 65-69.
[56] Probably pronounced [ɐ̆ˈheːm].
[57] See any standard grammar e.g. van der Merwe et al. §17.
[58] Note,
in reconstructed [EBHP] transliterations and sound files -
1.there
is no spirantization
of the bgdkpt consonants;
2. vowel qualities
are outlined here;
3. I use the most probable form. Where no one form
stands out as most probable, I select the one closest to the MT vocalization.
4. when multiple forms are possible, the form used
is underlined.
[59] These forms were originally appended to the
imperfect, later spreading to other SC forms (see Rainey 1985 pp. 10-12). In the MT these forms should be
considered to carry no semantic value. (See Joϋon-Muraoka
1991 §61f; Greenstein 1988
p. 8 ff..)
[62] For development
see Harris 1939 p.
67-68.
[63] For loss of
mimation see Harris
1939 pp. 32-33.
[65] the
restoration of the [h] could be due to the influence of Aramaic where it is
retained in 2ms and 2fs pronominal suffixes.
4.4.5.5.
According to the evidence from the other
Semitic languages, the nominative ending of the dual was -ani and that
of the oblique case was -ayni. In Biblical Hebrew, as generally in
Semitic languages that lost case endings, the oblique case ending, representing
two cases and therefore being more frequent, superseded the nominative ending.
The dual ending is added to the singular noun (יָד - יָדַיִם). The feminine
ending is preserved before the dual ending (ֹשְנָתַיִם). In construct and status pronominalis the -n
is omitted....
[70] Joϋon-Muraoka
1991 §93c; Blau 2010 § 3.3.5.1.5,
3.3.5.2.4, 3.3.5.3.3.4, 3.3.5.3.3.4n, 3.5.7.2.3, 3.5.12.2.8n, 3.5.12.2.12,
4.4.4.13.; Blau 1981
§5.1; Manuel
1995 p. 57. For the possible origin and history of this form see The
Terminative-Adverbial in Canaanite-Ugaritic and Akkadian by E. A. Speiser, Israel
Exploration Journal Vol 4, No. 2, 1954.