B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

Hi,

the הוה and היה are the same - just a replacement of V and Y.
(and of course, the form הוה is the rare one).

as for the theoretical question of jussive - the reason says that it would be יְהוּ (or יֶהוּ in pausal)

*
Notice, by the way, that every time there is a Hebrew verb with the root second letter is a consonant V - it works mostly in Piel, and the Jussive is easy to be Piel too, (but never in Qal). It is just not a form Hebrew uses in that way.

ducky wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 10:26 am as for the theoretical question of jussive - the reason says that it would be יְהוּ (or יֶהוּ in pausal)

Thank you. You confirmed my thinking. Piel is fine. And can I ask what would it look like if I were to add a 3fs pronominal suffix?

Here's the background to my thinking. "Yeho" or "Yahu" could be viewed as a Divine Name (just as Yah יה), given it's occurence in the Elephantine papyrii, Mt.Ebal curse tablet and of course the theophoric names. I am toying with the idea that "calling upon the Name of the LORD" and the Jussive form of the word could be one and the same. Going further, if I add a 3fs pronominal suffix, I could result in the Tetragram. Do you see any alternative ways in which a final ה could be grammatically added to יהו ?

I'm sorry but I didn't really understand you.

3fs = 3rdperson, feminine, singular?

If so, giving an imperfect/jussive a feminine attribute is by replacing its prefix to T
turn (imperfect m) = יפנה
turn (imperfect f) = תפנה
turn (jussive m) = יפן
turn (jussive f) = תפן

The difference is in the prefix (not the suffix)
(But maybe I didn't understand you)

The idea of יָ֫הוּ as a jussive of הָוָה does have its appeal. It’s something I want to think about a little tonight before commenting, if you don’t mind.

This has to do with the idea that archaic prefix of the 3ms imperfect was ya- rather than yi- in the qal (for example, yashmur rather than yishmor). With that, we would expect perhaps yahweh as 3ms imperfect of and a truncated jussive that would create a consonant cluster (yahweh → yahw → yáhu). I appreciate the suggestion, and it’s something that I want to ponder tonight while I’m free.

Hebrew's imperfect Qal, like other Semitic languages, is based on three forms:
Yaqtul and Yaqtil (for acts)
yiqtal (for state)

I think that the root of היה fits the state form.
(plus the fact that this is the only root (with חיה) that has a guttural for the first letter and it doesn't affect the prefix of its imperfect (יהיה), so maybe it kept its original vowel since this root was very popular.
So I went like: *yihw->*yihu to יְהוּ

ducky wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 6:57 pm Hebrew's imperfect Qal, like other Semitic languages, is based on three forms:
Yaqtul and Yaqtil (for acts)
yiqtal (for state)

I think that the root of היה fits the state form.
(plus the fact that this is the only root (with חיה) that has a guttural for the first letter and it doesn't affect the prefix of its imperfect (יהיה), so maybe it kept its original vowel since this root was very popular.
So I went like: *yihw->*yihu to יְהוּ

Where can we get more information about proto-Semitic forms?

I think it can be found in every grammar book.

For example, I just looked at the Gesenius in Wikisource...
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesenius ... HGpar-47-h

I just looked quick, and I don't see that he writes the three forms specifically, but he does give examples for the different forms

ducky wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 7:13 pm I think it can be found in every grammar book.

For example, I just looked at the Gesenius in Wikisource...
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesenius ... HGpar-47-h

I just looked quick, and I don't see that he writes the three forms specifically, but he does give examples for the different forms

I’d be interested in a more comprehensive treatment of the theoretical forms and where we get them from.
The problem with Gesenius and others is that the treatment is sparse and piecemeal.