Qamets Qatan Spreadsheet

[Jason Hare]

I was under the impression that since it derives from an etymological /o/, that it is still a qamats-qatan. Similar to נָעֳמִי where the vowel under the nun is a qamats-qatan because it is from an etymological /o/.

Not in this case. Remember that there was a lot of interchange between /a/ and /o/ with the Canaanite Vowel Shift. In this case, the /o/ in the singular was a historic long vowel (it's /o/ in Aramaic, too).

For whatever reason, it shifts to /a/ in the plural in Hebrew (יָמִים) but remains /o/ in the plural in Aramaic (יוֹמִין - יוֹמַיָּא).

Remember the rule of unaccented syllables:
If open, the vowel is long.
If closed, the vowel is short.

Exceptions in open syllables are marked with meteg (generally). Notice also the exception in בָּֽתִּים "houses" (unaccented closed with a long vowel) marked by meteg. In unaccented syllables, a short vowel should be followed either by silent sheva or by dagesh chazak.

[ducky]

Hi,

The vowel of the Y of the word יום is actually based on vowel "a".

When I studied, they showed us two optional reasons of why the "a" was turned to "o".

1. the word יום=yawm (in the form of semitic qatl
the "aw" is a difthong.
"aw" in Hebrew turnes to "o".

2. In Ugarit (and also, as I see mostly in Hebrew archiology) the word is written ים. and so, we have "yam" that was turned to "yom" based on the Cannanite shift.

My thought is like option two.
But for some reason, in the books, they always explains it as option 1.
(I guess too much forms in other semitic languages that push to see it that way).

But anyway, both options have the Y with vowel "a".

[Jason Hare]

It's odd that Aramaic didn't undergo the Canaanite shift (observe שְׁלָם and תְּלָת), but it has the long /o/ in this case (יוֹמָא and יוֹמַיָּא). Arabic also uses a diphthong, as you mentioned, in يَوْم yawm.

Your option 1 (which I would also see as most plausible) doesn't account for the qamats, since historically long vowels (with matres) don't normally reduce (or change class). We would expect it to behave like:

*מַוְת ← מָוֶת ← מוֹת־​◌֫ ← מוֹתִים

I think I'm just coming to the conclusion that this is one of those כָּכָה things.

[ducky]

Hi Jason,

In Hebrew, when there is a Holam, it comes from three optional reasons:
1. a:->o (Cannaite shift)
2. u->o
3. aw->o

As you said, Aramaic doesn't have the Canaanite shift, and it is not a Canaanite language.
Even though the name is just a name (it was given to that process because of the Canaanite Amarna letters, and I saw that there are also some Aramaic dialect that had it, ut not the known and common one).

But its Holam can come from the other two reasons.
In the case of יומא it is because of the diphthong.
yawma->yoma.

Arabic, also as you said, keeps the diphthong as it is (in writing) - (because Arabic people do pronounce the word as "yom" more than they say "yawm".

[Jason Hare]

Arabic, also as you said, keeps the diphthong as it is (in writing) - (because Arabic people do pronounce the word as "yom" more than they say "yawm".

That's true. I was thinking about Qur'anic recitation, not Arabic dialects. Every time I've heard the recitation of the Fatiḥa, for example, I have heard it as مَـٰلِكِ يَوْمِ ٱلدِّينِ maaliki yawmi ddin (for example, at quran.com). The pronunciation of Arabic when reciting the Qur'an is more standardized, I believe, and the diphthong is retained for official pronunciation. That's how I understand it, anyway.

[Charles Loder]

2. In Ugarit (and also, as I see mostly in Hebrew archiology) the word is written ים. and so, we have "yam" that was turned to "yom" based on the Cannanite shift.

In Ugaritic, ym /yôm(u)/ is also a contraction of a dipthong; not the Canaanite shift.

See Pardee

There is no evidence for secondary “lengthening” of the short vowels (e.g., /a/ => qameṣ in Biblical Hebrew) or for any shifts of the long vowels (e.g., the “Canaanite shift” /a/ => /o/).
(p. 25)

and

YM common noun ‘day’ /yômu/ (p. 313)

The Aramaic and Arabic evidence also indicate that the /o/ in יֹום is a contraction and not a shift.

Now, all that to say that I'm not 100% sure how (the Tiberian Masoretes [scratch that]) Sephardic readers would have pronounced the qamets in יָמִים (either as qatan or gadol). I'm curious if Qumran ever has a form like יומים???

[Jason Hare]

I'm curious if Qumran every has a form like יומים???

Are you able to find out? I don't have the DSS in my Logos package.

[Charles Loder]

Are you able to find out? I don't have the DSS in my Logos package.

I don't have any electronic copies, per se. I do have pdfs of the The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, ed. Tov.

I found this:

4Q175 l. 4
מצותי כול היומים למעאן יטב להמ

which ִis translated as:

My commandments always, so that it might go well with them

I'm assuming "always" is "כול היומים"

[Jason Hare]

Yeah, כול היומים is definitely כָּל־הַיָּמִים.

Mike Tisdell provided me with several other instances from the DSS. Here is what he sent. Not everything in the list is relevant, of course. ימים appears in significantly higher numbers in both sets of documents, but יומים (and other relevant forms) also appear.

First, from the biblical documents:



And this is from the sectarian documents:

[ducky]

Hi Charles,

When I studied, they showed us two optional reasons of why the "a" was turned to "o".

1. the word יום=yawm (in the form of Semitic qatl
the "aw" is a diphthong.
"aw" in Hebrew turns to "o".

2. In Ugarit (and also, as I see mostly in Hebrew archaeology) the word is written ים. and so, we have "yam" that was turned to "yom" based on the Canaanite Shift.

The Aramaic and Arabic evidence also indicate that the /o/ in יֹום is a contraction and not a shift.

I never claimed that Ugarit, Arabic, or Aramaic had a Canaanite Shift.

I said that when I studied, they showed us two options of how this "o" was created.
But I was wrong when I gave this word יום as the case.
After reading your comment, I try to remember, and I now remember that it was not the word יום that they showed us, but it was the word קול.
which they showed us the Ugarit "qal" vs. the Arabic "qawl".

So I made a mistake by pointing to this word יום - which everybody sees it derived from "yawm".

In Ugaritic, ym /yôm(u)/ is also a contraction of a dipthong; not the Canaanite shift.

See Pardee

There is no evidence for secondary “lengthening” of the short vowels (e.g., /a/ => qameṣ in Biblical Hebrew) or for any shifts of the long vowels (e.g., the “Canaanite shift” /a/ => /o/).
(p. 25)

and

YM common noun ‘day’ /yômu/ (p. 313)

I know Ugarit doesn't have the Canaanite Shift, and therefore, I wrote in my last comment the form "yam".

But just a question that interests me...
can you check how this word "ym" is written in Ugarit?
Is it always "ym" or does it have also occurrences of "ywm"?

and If it always just "ym", why do they see it always as "yom"?
is it only because of other languages' support? or it can be seen also by the Ugarit itself?

Also in the Hebrew archeology, the word is mostly "ym"
and I wonder... where is the rooted W?
could it be that it was pronounced as "yawm-->yam" - as if the diphthong was somehow kept softly and the W slowly "disappeared", or that it was turned to "o" - but if so, where is the W in the word?

Now, all that to say that I'm not 100% sure how (the Tiberian Masoretes [scratch that]) Sephardic readers would have pronounced the qamets in יָמִים (either as qatan or gadol). I'm curious if Qumran ever has a form like יומים???

The Qamats was sure "a", because no matter how you see it, it derived from "a" sound.

And we don't have to go to Qumran, also in the Mishna, we have the question of "מה יום מיומים"