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
Charles Loder
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2020 10:17 am

Re: Qamets Qatan Spreadsheet

Post by Charles Loder »

ducky wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:24 am 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?
According to DULAT, there are no instances of ywm in Ugaritic. From the Ugaritic script, there is no way to tell the exact realization of ym, but in vocabulary lists from Ugaritic written in Akkadian script (but the language is Ugaritic), there are forms like yu-mu that indicate an /o/ vowel.
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?
Like in Ugaritic, dipthongs in Hebrew contracted (i.e. /yawm/ > /yom/). Ugaritic does not have instances of matres lectionis, so though the word in proto-semitic was */yawm/, because the /w/ had not consonantal force in Ugaritic, it was written simply as ym. The same applies to epigraphic Hebrew. However, in epigraphic Hebrew (and contemporaneous languages) sometimes matres lectionis are used—more often, they are used for final vowels and not medial vowels, the Mesha Stele is a prime example of this, but even it is inconsistent in how matres lectionis are employed.

So in epigraphic Hebrew, it was written as ים, but definitely realized as /yom/. There are some cases where a word like עוד is found in inscriptions and it is difficult to know if this is an instance of a matres lectionis (i.e. /ôd/) or an uncontracted dipthong (i.e. /awd/).
And we don't have to go to Qumran, also in the Mishna, we have the question of "מה יום מיומים"
Thanks! I was unfamiliar with that. My Mishnaic is not as good as it should be.
ducky
Posts: 656
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Qamets Qatan Spreadsheet

Post by ducky »

Hi Charles
Charles Loder wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:58 am
ducky wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:24 am 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?
According to DULAT, there are no instances of ywm in Ugaritic. From the Ugaritic script, there is no way to tell the exact realization of ym, but in vocabulary lists from Ugaritic written in Akkadian script (but the language is Ugaritic), there are forms like yu-mu that indicate an /o/ vowel.
That's great.
Thanks.

Can you just give the reference of the text?
Charles Loder wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:58 am Like in Ugaritic, dipthongs in Hebrew contracted (i.e. /yawm/ > /yom/). Ugaritic does not have instances of matres lectionis, so though the word in proto-semitic was */yawm/, because the /w/ had not consonantal force in Ugaritic, it was written simply as ym. The same applies to epigraphic Hebrew.
But that is my problem.
This is not a matres lectionis.
It is a consonant that became silent.
There is a difference.

a matres lectionis can come and go.
A silent consonant is expected to be kept in writing.
And even though there could be cases that it disappears, I would expect to see it at least once or a few times.
Charles Loder wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:58 am However, in epigraphic Hebrew (and contemporaneous languages) sometimes matres lectionis are used—more often, they are used for final vowels and not medial vowels, the Mesha Stele is a prime example of this, but even it is inconsistent in how matres lectionis are employed.
Yes.
I read about it.
But it is not really a tough rule, because it has exceptions.
like ארור
and like זיף (which is written also as זף).
Charles Loder wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:58 am So in epigraphic Hebrew, it was written as ים, but definitely realized as /yom/. There are some cases where a word like עוד is found in inscriptions and it is difficult to know if this is an instance of a matres lectionis (i.e. /ôd/) or an uncontracted dipthong (i.e. /awd/).
Yes.
But I must say again that it is not a matres lectionis.
You gave an example of עוד - and the root consonant W is kept in writing.
So where is the root consonant W of יום?

Because my question in my mind is that if we see words that kept the diphthong "aw" (or at least some say so),
So it means that the diphthong was still "alive".
So why wasn't it exist in "ywm" and was written as יום?

why this word had this shift of "aw->o" while others didn't?

I don't know, maybe there is a quick answer, but I'm still wondering.
David Hunter
Charles Loder
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2020 10:17 am

Re: Qamets Qatan Spreadsheet

Post by Charles Loder »

ducky wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:36 am Can you just give the reference of the text?
Huehnergard UVST 133
But that is my problem.
This is not a matres lectionis.
It is a consonant that became silent.
There is a difference.

...

So where is the root consonant W of יום?
It is a matres lectionis. I think the issue is conflating sounds with script.

In Proto-Semitic the word is realized as */yawm/. The word */yawm/ does not exist in Hebrew or Ugaritic, only the form /yom/, which is spelled as ym because only the consonants are written.

In time, the waw—the written letter, not the sound /w/—came to be used as the mater for the sound /o/. You ask, "So where is the root consonant W of יום?" there is none. In Hebrew, there is no consonant (i.e. sound) /w/ in /yom/.

I hope that makes sense? Maybe others can offer better explanations.
ducky
Posts: 656
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Qamets Qatan Spreadsheet

Post by ducky »

Hi Charles,

Thanks for the reference.


**
Maybe I didn't explain my position well before.

I differ matres lectionis to two.
1. a vowel letter that became silent, and so it became also a vowel letter.
like שוק
2. original matres lectionis
like סוס

*****
My problem is this.

If in the Hebrew archeology, there are words that keep the diphthong "aw" and pronounced it like that, then we must say that the shift didn't happen yet.

And if it didn't happen yet, then the word יום had been written with this (still existing) diphthong. as "yawm".

and if you say that the shift of aw->o already happened, then we should see it also in the other words.

so this is one problem for me.

**
When I talked about the rooted W, I asked why wasn't it written.
just like the root W in מוצא and in עוד and so on.
it is strange.

****
When I look at the word יום, it is surely based on the dual root ym=ים
and then it was expanded in two ways
1. with W in the middle - ywm=יום
2. with doubling the last letter - ymm=יממה

So could it be that in the Hebrew epigraphic we're looking only at the dual form?

we see that the plural is "yamim" (as keeping the "a" sound).
Could it be that the ym=ים was also kept the "a" sound?
and just in other scripts we see it acts in its expanded way? (yawm-->yom).

Or, could it be that also the form "ym" also based on "yawm" in a way that instead of this "aw" turns to "o" - it was just loosened and pronounced "yawm->ya(w)m->yam?

***
these are just questions that I have
I'm not taking a position to any side
I'm just a little bit "troubled" about it
and maybe there is a quick answer that I don't see
David Hunter
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: Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:39 pm these are just questions that I have
I'm not taking a position to any side
I'm just a little bit "troubled" about it
and maybe there is a quick answer that I don't see
I don't see a quick answer to this one, either. It's definitely occupying us for a couple of days. ;)
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 »

Dr. John Cook offered the solution that yôm > yāmîm is a broken plural. That is, the plural is formed from a different base than the singular. This is also the case with segolates, of course. It's very common in Arabic. For example, walad "boy" > awlaad "boys" and haram "pyramid" > ahraam "pyramids." The bases are related, but their structure is different. I think he's on the right track.
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,

Just a note about segolate forms and broken plural.

I looked at the book of Blau, which he is also an expert on Arabic linguistic (and of course, Hebrew), and he differs the broken plural of Arabic from the plural of the Hebrew segolate forms (which he doesn't call it "broken").
He says that even though the plural of the segolate forms based on another form than the singular, there is a main difference, which is the suffix "im".
And he says that this suffix is not a late addon, but it is the suffix of the one-syllable base. And that is also in Arabic (with suffix "un" and "at").

****
As for ימים...
can you explain his point?
because if its base is that the ימים is based on "yawm", then how he creates "yamim" from a broken plural?
I mean, there are a lot of broken plural froms.
does he mean the "aqta:l", as you wrote above?
If so, how does he explains it?
(I'm interested).

***
as for ים in the Epigraphics...
My mind tends to take me to the simple way of seeing its base (also in the Epigraphics) as ym=ים (and not "ywm").
And with that, it had its Canaanite shift to "yom".
(just like other words as טוב for example.

(The fact that in the books, they always explain it as "ywm" really bothers me)
I understand that they base it on the Akkadian aw->u:, and also as Charles noted, the Ugarit.

But I just can't understand how is it that in the Hebrew Epigrahics the word is always written without "w".
And just from a quick look, I tried to find other words with rooted W which are written without it, and I couldn't find any.
So if it is the only word that acts like that, it is a little bit odd (but maybe I missed).
David Hunter
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: Sat Oct 24, 2020 6:35 pm Hi Jason,

Just a note about segolate forms and broken plural.

I looked at the book of Blau, which he is also an expert on Arabic linguistic (and of course, Hebrew), and he differs the broken plural of Arabic from the plural of the Hebrew segolate forms (which he doesn't call it "broken").
He says that even though the plural of the segolate forms based on another form than the singular, there is a main difference, which is the suffix "im".
And he says that this suffix is not a late addon, but it is the suffix of the one-syllable base. And that is also in Arabic (with suffix "un" and "at").

****
As for ימים...
can you explain his point?
because if its base is that the ימים is based on "yawm", then how he creates "yamim" from a broken plural?
I mean, there are a lot of broken plural froms.
does he mean the "aqta:l", as you wrote above?
If so, how does he explains it?
(I'm interested).

***
as for ים in the Epigraphics...
My mind tends to take me to the simple way of seeing its base (also in the Epigraphics) as ym=ים (and not "ywm").
And with that, it had its Canaanite shift to "yom".
(just like other words as טוב for example.

(The fact that in the books, they always explain it as "ywm" really bothers me)
I understand that they base it on the Akkadian aw->u:, and also as Charles noted, the Ugarit.

But I just can't understand how is it that in the Hebrew Epigrahics the word is always written without "w".
And just from a quick look, I tried to find other words with rooted W which are written without it, and I couldn't find any.
So if it is the only word that acts like that, it is a little bit odd (but maybe I missed).
All "broken plurals" means is that it breaks the normal pattern, that you don't do what you do in all other cases. So, kutub "book" becomes kitaab "books." Rasuul "messenger" becomes rusul "messengers." It doesn't mean that they necessarily cannot take a plural-marked suffix. I think he would take any word that operates from a secondary base for plural as broken, even if it takes a plural marker.

So, אִשָּׁה would have a broken plural by this definition, as would אִישׁ and אָחוֹת. Since segolates have two bases, they would also be "broken" by this standard. It's just that Hebrew's broken plurals do not function in the same way as Arabic's (which don't take a mark for plurality other than the changing of the base's vocalic pattern).

Interestingly, Wikipedia does have a comment on this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_plural#Hebrew
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 »

A major difference between טוב and יום is that we can very clearly see the Canaanite shift in the former, since it is טָב in Aramaic, but not in the latter, since it holds the long ô there, too.
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
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1771
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Qamets Qatan Spreadsheet

Post by Isaac Fried »

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
Post Reply