Qamets Qatan Spreadsheet

Classical Hebrew morphology and syntax, aspect, linguistics, discourse analysis, and related topics
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1185
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Qamets Qatan Spreadsheet

Post by Jason Hare »

Isaac Fried wrote: Sat Oct 24, 2020 9:10 pm Jason writes
The bases are related, but their structure is different
Would you elucidate us please as to what is the "structure" of a "base"?

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com
The base is the historical form from which other forms derive.

For example, the historical base for "king" is malk. All forms can be explained from it. If you add a possessive suffix, it becomes מַלְכּוֹ "his king," מַלְכֵּ֫נוּ "our king," etc. The independent form has undergone modification from this base by the insertion of segol to relieve the problem of a final consonant cluster (malk → málek), and the stressed syllable was then "harmonized" (Kutz & Josberger, p. 76) in some way, it generally becoming a corresponding long vowel (qudš → qúdeš → qṓdeš), a segol (málek → méleḵ) or a pataḥ in the case of gutturals (which might also change the initial segol).

The historical base for segolate plurals, however, is bisyllabic, whereas the singular was monosyllabic. So, the base for "kings" is malak (rather than malk). This is how we derive the plural məlāḵîm with an initial reduced vowel. You cannot reduce a vowel that is caught in a closed syllable (the progression from malk to malkim to malakim to mlakim is impossible).

"Structure" refers to the set of vowels that are on a given root with its various affixes.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
ducky
Posts: 656
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Qamets Qatan Spreadsheet

Post by ducky »

Hi Jason,

Very nice explanation.

**
As for the regulate forms...
I don't know why, but Blau doesn't include their plural in the group of broken plurals.
Also, in another book (an Arabic study book), in the chapter of broken plurals, I see a lot of forms, but not the plural that is parallel to the Segolates plural.
the Arabic word for ארץ is "arD", and it plural is like Hebrew:
a two-syllable form: "araD"+un=araDun.

But both books don't show this in the broken plural forms.

But never mind about the term, as long as the thing is clear.

**
About the ים
I think I need to make a restart in my mind
David Hunter
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1771
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Qamets Qatan Spreadsheet

Post by Isaac Fried »

Jason writes
The base is the historical form from which other forms derive.
What is this "historical form"?
For example, the historical base for "king" is malk. All forms can be explained from it.
It is not clear to me how "all forms" can be "explained" from it.
The independent form has undergone modification from this base
What is now this "independent form"? is it another "historical form"? Or is it another "historical base"?
qudš → qúdeš → qṓdeš
Does " → " represent what crossed the mind of the ancient Hebrew speaker before he opened his mouth, or does it represent suggestions around the nightly camp fire?

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1185
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Qamets Qatan Spreadsheet

Post by Jason Hare »

"→" means that one form led to another. For example, the common way to form a plural is by adding ​◌ִים to the word's base. The process that the base goes through is that: (1) the syllable nearest the accented syllable lengthened; and, (2) any syllable before the nearest reduced unless it was historically long (generally, the result of a diphthong) or closed.

The historic root is the theoretical form of the word before it entered any real context. It is a reconstruction used to explain the real forms that the word takes.

Take *דַּבַר (the historic root of the real form דָּבָר).

Absolute state ("independent" or "unbound" form) in the singular: *דַּבַר ← דָּבָר
The tone syllable is the last (בָר). It is generally lengthened in bisyllabic words. The first syllable (דָּ) is lengthened because it is pretonic (the "near" syllable).

Construct state in the singular: *דַּבַר ← דְּבַר-◌֫.
The tone of a construct noun is on the word that follows. Therefore, the syllable before that word is the "near" (pretonic) syllable and any syllable before that is "distant." Near vowels will either lengthen or (in a closed syllable) remain short. In this case, it is a closed syllable, so the vowel remains short. The first syllable of the word becomes "distant" from the tone, and it reduces to sheva.

Absolute state in the plural: *דַּבַר + ​◌ִים ← *דַּבַרִים ← דְּבָרִים
The stress is on the final syllable, the marker of the plural. The vowel under the bet lengthens (in the near syllable). The vowel under the dalet reduces (in the distant syllable).

Construct state in the plural: *דַּבַר + ​◌ֵי ← *דַּבַרֵי ← *דְּבְרֵי־​◌֫ ← דִּבְרֵי־​◌֫
The stress is on the following word (because of the construct state). The ending, which is historically long, remains long (in the near syllable). The two distant syllables (דַּ and בַ) both reduce to sheva. The two shevas cannot stand side-by-side, so the first resolves to chirik.

The same steps can be taken to show why דְּבָרִים takes suffixes as דְּבָרָיו (in which בָ is "near" and lengthened, while דְּ is distant and reduced) and as דִּבְרֵיכֶם (in which the tone is on the suffix, the tsere-yod is the historically long construct suffix [doesn't undergo change], and the vowels on both bet and dalet reduce to sheva, causing resolution with chirik).

Thus, all of the forms can be explained by the theoretical form *דַּבַר. Otherwise, you're just memorizing forms without any rhyme or reason.

I think I've explained this far enough, and I will not be answering any other questions that are designed simply to argue that there is no such thing as historical forms, that open and closed syllables mean nothing, that Hebrew words don't have patterns, that dagesh is meaningless, etc. I've provided a good answer, and I'm not going to let this conversation turn into those same boring arguments that have been hashed out again and again without anyone being convinced. Please, do not come back with that kind of argument.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1185
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Qamets Qatan Spreadsheet

Post by Jason Hare »

ducky wrote: Sun Oct 25, 2020 2:13 pm As for the regulate forms...
I don't know why, but Blau doesn't include their plural in the group of broken plurals.
Also, in another book (an Arabic study book), in the chapter of broken plurals, I see a lot of forms, but not the plural that is parallel to the Segolates plural.
the Arabic word for ארץ is "arD", and it plural is like Hebrew:
a two-syllable form: "araD"+un=araDun.

But both books don't show this in the broken plural forms.

But never mind about the term, as long as the thing is clear.
Absolutely. As long as the concept is grasped, terminology can be molded. :)
ducky wrote: Sun Oct 25, 2020 2:13 pm About the ים
I think I need to make a restart in my mind
It's been a nice discussion. Thanks for pushing it forward.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
Post Reply