00-Blau.

book Page i Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Phonology and Morphology

of Biblical Hebrew
00-Blau.book Page ii Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic

edited by

M. O’Connor† and Cynthia L. Miller

1. The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches, edited

by Cynthia L. Miller
2. Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew: An Introduction, by
Joshua Blau
3. A Manual of Ugaritic, by Pierre Bordreuil and Dennis Pardee
4. Word Order in the Biblical Hebrew Finite Clause: A Syntactic and
Pragmatic Analysis of Preposing, by Adina Moshavi
00-Blau.book Page iii Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Phonology and Morphology

of Biblical Hebrew
An Introduction

Joshua Blau

Winona Lake, Indiana

Eisenbrauns
2010
00-Blau.book Page iv Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

ç Copyright 2010 by Eisenbrauns.

All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.

www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Blau, Joshua, 1919–
[Torat ha-hegeh veha-tsurot. English]
Phonology and morphology of Biblical Hebrew : an introduction / Joshua
Blau.
p. cm. — (Linguistic studies in Ancient West Semitic ; 2)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-57506-129-0 (hardback : alk. paper)
1. Hebrew language—Phonetics. 2. Hebrew language—Phonology.
3. Hebrew language—Morphology. I. Title.
PJ4576.B5513 2010
492.4u15—dc22
2010008908

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American
National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed
Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. †‘
00-Blau.book Page v Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Contents

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Publisher’s Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1. Linguistics: Historical, Comparative, Synchronic . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2. A Short Description of Biblical Hebrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3. Dialect Diversity in Biblical Hebrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4. The Later History of Hebrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.5. Biblical Hebrew and Semitic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.6. A Family-Tree Model for Semitic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.7. A Wave Model for Semitic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.8. Afro-Asiatic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.9. Sound Shifts and Relative Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.10. Etymology and Sound Shifts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1.10.1. Introduction 28
1.10.2. Etymology and Regular Sound Shifts 30
1.10.3. Etymology and “Weak” Sound Shifts 37
1.11. Change in Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
1.12. Reconstruction of Proto-Semitic Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
1.13. Internal Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
1.14. Exceptions to Sound Shifts, Real and Apparent . . . . . . . . . . 47
1.15. Analogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
1.16. Sound Shifts, Analogy, and Exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
1.17. Loan Words, “Weak” Phonetic Change,
and Pseudo-Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
1.18. Conflicts of Function and Language Change . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
1.19. Assimilation, Dissimilation, Metathesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
1.20. Divisions of the Study of Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
2. Phonetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
2.2. Consonants and Vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
2.3. Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
2.4. Place of Articulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
2.5. Resonance Chamber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

v
00-Blau.book Page vi Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Contents vi

2.6. Voiced and Unvoiced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

2.7. Emphatics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
2.8. Summary of the Consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
2.9. Stress and Syllabification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3. Phonology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.2. Hebrew and the Proto-Semitic Consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.2.1. Hebrew Script 73
3.2.2. An Example of Polyphony: ‡in 73
3.2.3. The Origins of Polyphonic Sin 74
3.2.4. Other Cases of Polyphony 75
3.2.5. Hebrew and Proto-Semitic Consonants 76
3.3. The Consonants of Hebrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
3.3.1. Classification of the Consonants 76
3.3.2. The BGDKPT Consonants 78
3.3.2.1. Stop-Spirant Contrast 78
3.3.2.2. The History of the Process 79
3.3.3. Laryngeals and Pharyngeals 81
3.3.3.1. Non-Gemination 81
3.3.3.2. Furtive pata˙ 83
3.3.3.3. Influence on Neighboring Vowels 84
3.3.3.4. A Historical Question 86
3.3.4. Aleph (Glottal Stop) 86
3.3.4.1. In the Writing System 86
3.3.4.2. Elision 87
3.3.4.3. Associated Vowel Shifts 88
3.3.4.4. Non-Radical Aleph 89
3.3.5. He (Laryngeal Fricative) 89
3.3.5.1. In the Writing System 89
3.3.5.2. History of Use in the Writing System 90
3.3.5.3. Elision 92
3.3.5.4. Assimilation 93
3.3.5.5. I-h Verbs 94
3.4. The Semi-Consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
3.4.1. Introduction 96
3.4.2. Diphthongs in aw, ay 96
3.4.3. Other Diphthongs in w/y 97
3.4.4. Triphthongs 97
3.4.5. Word-Final -aw, -ay 99
3.4.6. Word-Final -Cw, -Cy 102
3.4.7. Semi-Consonants and Weak Verbs 102
00-Blau.book Page vii Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

vii Contents

3.4.8. The Semi-Consonant w 103

3.4.9. The Semi-Consonant y 105
3.5. The Vowels of Hebrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
3.5.1. Introduction: Vowel Systems 105
3.5.2. Tiberian Vocalization 106
3.5.3. Sephardic Pronunciation 108
3.5.4. Tiberian Vowels Once Again 110
3.5.5. Vowels: The Semitic Background 111
3.5.6. Vowels: The Hebrew Phonemes 112
3.5.6.1. The Basic System 112
3.5.6.2. The Problem of segol 112
3.5.6.3. The Problem of swa 113
3.5.6.4. Pronunciation of swa 116
3.5.6.5. The Problem of swa Again 117
3.5.6.6. The Transitional Character of Tiberian Hebrew 118
3.5.6.7. Other Vocalization Systems 118
3.5.7. The History of the Vowels 119
3.5.7.1. Short Vowels in Closed Syllables 119
3.5.7.2. Lengthening of Final a 121
3.5.7.3. Vowels in Open Penultimate Syllables 123
3.5.7.4. The Problem of Pretonic Lengthening 123
3.5.7.5. Explanations for Pretonic Lengthening 125
3.5.7.6. Pretonic Lengthening and Vowel Processes
Related to a 129
3.5.8. The i and e Class Vowels (˙iriq, ßere, segol ) 132
3.5.9. The u and o Class Vowels (qibbuß, suruq,
˙olam, qamaß) 136
3.5.10. The Tiberian Vowels 137
3.5.11. On dages, mappiq, meteg, and maqqaf 138
3.5.12. Stress 143
3.5.12.1. Introduction 143
3.5.12.2. The History of Hebrew Stress 144
3.5.13. Pausal Forms 154
4. Morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
4.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
4.1.1. Morphemes, Free and Bound 156
4.1.2. Parts of Speech 157
4.2. Pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
4.2.1. The Basics of Pronouns 158
4.2.2. Independent Personal Pronouns 159
4.2.2.1. Introduction 159
00-Blau.book Page viii Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Contents viii

4.2.2.2. First-Person Singular Independent Pronouns 159

4.2.2.3. Second-Person Singular Independent Pronouns 161
4.2.2.4. Third-Person Singular Independent Pronouns 162
4.2.2.5. Dual Independent Pronouns 164
4.2.2.6. First-Person Plural Independent Pronouns 165
4.2.2.7. Second-Person Plural Independent Pronouns 166
4.2.2.8. Third-Person Plural Independent Pronouns 168
4.2.3. Suffixed Personal Pronouns 168
4.2.3.1. Introduction 168
4.2.3.2. First-Person Singular Suffixes 168
4.2.3.3. Second-Person Singular Suffixes 169
4.2.3.4. Third-Person Masculine-Singular Suffixes 171
4.2.3.5. Third-Person Feminine-Singular Suffixes 172
4.2.3.6. First-Person Plural Suffixes 173
4.2.3.7. Second-Person Plural Suffixes 174
4.2.3.8. Third-Person Plural Suffixes 174
4.2.4. Demonstrative Pronouns 176
4.2.4.1. Deictic and Anaphoric Functions 176
4.2.4.2. Near and Far Demonstratives 176
4.2.4.3. Adjectival Function 177
4.2.4.4. Local, Temporal, Presentative Senses 178
4.2.4.5. Comparative Analysis 179
4.2.5. The Definite Article 179
4.2.6. Relative Pronouns 181
4.2.6.1. Syntactic Features 181
4.2.6.2. Origins of the Relative Pronouns 183
4.2.6.3. Interrogative Pronouns as Relatives 185
4.2.7. Interrogative Pronouns 186
4.3. Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
4.3.1. Biradicalism and Triradicalism 187
4.3.2. Tenses 189
4.3.2.1. Introduction 189
4.3.2.2. Tense Approach 189
4.3.2.3. Bauer’s Approach 199
4.3.2.4. Aspectual Approaches 201
4.3.3. The Marking of Persons in the Imperative,
the Prefix-Tense, and the Suffix-Tense 203
4.3.3.1. Person-Marking on Imperative 203
4.3.3.2. Person-Marking on the Prefix-Tense 204
4.3.3.3. Three Moods of the Prefix-Tense 206
4.3.3.4. Person-Marking of the Suffix-Tense 208
00-Blau.book Page ix Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

ix Contents

4.3.4. The Infinitive 212

4.3.4.1. Two Varieties of Infinitive 212
4.3.4.2. The Construct Infinitive 213
4.3.4.3. Absolute Infinitive 214
4.3.5. Verbal Themes 216
4.3.5.1. Introduction 216
4.3.5.2. Qal 219
4.3.5.2.1. Introduction 219
4.3.5.2.2. Suffix-Tense 220
4.3.5.2.3. Prefix-Tense 221
4.3.5.2.4. The Imperative 224
4.3.5.2.5. The Participles 225
4.3.5.2.6. The Infinitives 226
4.3.5.3. Nif ºal 227
4.3.5.4. Piººel 229
4.3.5.5. Puººal 232
4.3.5.6. Hitpaººel 232
4.3.5.7. Hif ºil 234
4.3.5.8. Hof ºal 236
4.3.6. Rare Verbal Themes 237
4.3.7. Phonological Variations 237
4.3.7.1. I-Laryngeals/Pharyngeals 237
4.3.7.2. II-Laryngeals/Pharyngeals 238
4.3.7.3. III-Laryngeals/Pharyngeals 239
4.3.8. The Weak Verbs 240
4.3.8.1. Introduction 240
4.3.8.2. Weak I-aleph Verbs 240
4.3.8.3. I-n Verbs 241
4.3.8.4. I-y(w) Verbs 243
4.3.8.5. III-aleph Verbs 248
4.3.8.6. III-y Verbs 248
4.3.8.7. II-w/y Verbs 252
4.3.8.7.1. Historical Derivation 252
4.3.8.7.2. Qal 252
4.3.8.7.3. Nif ºal 255
4.3.8.7.4. Hif ºil and Hof ºal 256
4.3.8.7.5. Piººel, Puººal, Hitpaººel 256
4.3.8.8. Mediae Geminatae Verbs 258
4.4. The Noun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
4.4.1. A Synopsis 260
4.4.2. Gender 263
00-Blau.book Page x Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Contents x

4.4.3. Statuses: Absolute, Construct, Pronominal 265

4.4.4. The Cases 266
4.4.5. Dual and Plural 270
4.4.6. Nominal Patterns 274
4.5. Remarks on the Numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
4.5.1. The Cardinal Numbers 279
4.5.2. The Ordinal Numbers 282
5.1. Remarks on Prepositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
5.2. Remarks on Connective and Conversive Waw . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
Paradigms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
Index of Scripture Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
Index of Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
00-Blau.book Page xi Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Abbreviations

1cs first-person common singular

2fp second-person feminine plural, etc.
2ms second-person masculine singular, etc.
3cd third-person common dual
Akk Akkadian
Arab (Classical) Arabic
Aram Aramaic
BHeb Biblical Hebrew
D The theme with doubled second radical (piººel, puººal, hitpaººel)
ET English translation
Heb Hebrew
PS Proto-Semitic
Ug Ugaritic

Bibliographical Abbreviations

BDB = Brown, Driver, and Briggs 1907

Bergsträsser = Bergsträsser 1918–29
CAT = Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartín 1995
Grammar = Blau, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew 2, 1993
Middle Arabic = Blau, Studies in Middle Arabic and Its Judaeo-Arabic
Variety (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988)
Studies = Blau, Studies in Hebrew Linguistics (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1996; in
Hebrew)
Topics = J. Blau, Topics in Hebrew and Semitic Linguistics (Jerusalem:
Magnes, 1998)
UT = Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965)

Phonetic Symbols

a (pata˙ –") open front vowel, unrounded

å (˙a†af pata˙ –“ ) ultra-short open unrounded front vowel, etc.
b2 the fricative counterpart of b, phonetically identical to v
C (any) consonant
d6 the conventional sign for Arabic ”, originally an emphatic fricative
lateral (ß3)

xi
00-Blau.book Page xii Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Abbreviations xii

q voiced th; also the fricative counterpart of d

q5 voiced emphatic th, ß3, in Arabic | (which is conventionally transcribed
by z5)
e (ßere –E) a half-closed unrounded front vowel
gö (gö ) the fricative counterpart of g, phonetically identical to g%
g% voiced fricative velar (Arabic ˝), phonetically identical to gö
˙ j, voiceless fricative pharyngeal
h see x
k the fricative counterpart of k, phonetically identical to x
o (˙olam –o; in Sephardic tradition, this is the pronunciation of qamaß
qa†an as well) rounded half-closed back vowel
pö the fricative counterpart of p, phonetically identical to f
q uvular voiceless plosive
¶ c, originally voiceless lateral sibilant, today pronounced as s (BHeb c)
t voiceless th; also the fricative counterpart of t
V (any) vowel
x voiceless fricative velar (Arabic ˘, also transcribed h), phonetically
identical to k
æ (segol –<) half-open front vowel without lip-rounding
æ* (˙a†af segol –”) ultra-short half-open front vowel without lip-rounding
O (qamaß –:) rounded half-open back vowel (or perhaps it was spread?),
according to the Tiberian pronunciation (a according to the Sephardic
pronunciation)
O* (˙a†af qamaß –’) ultra-short half-closed rounded back vowel
´ central vowel (mobile swa, which, however, in the Tiberian tradition is
usually pronounced å)
ª a, a pharyngeal voiceless fricative (glottal stop)
º [, a pharyngeal voiced fricative
u indicates that the vowel is stressed; it has been consistently applied to
mark penult stress
* marks a reconstructed form
¯ over a letter marking a vowel indicates that the vowel is long; over
t p k d g b it (optionally) marks their spirant pronunciation; over h/a it
(optionally) denotes its use as vowel letter
* over a vowel indicates that the vowel is ultra-short
. dot under a consonant indicates its emphatic pronunciation
õ under bgdkpt marks their spirant pronunciation; for typographical
reasons, this line is put above g p: gö pö.
yyy in quotations of the Hebrew text denotes the Tetragrammaton
00-Blau.book Page xiii Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Publisher’s Foreword

This book has been in development over an extraordinarily long time. In a

conversation in Jerusalem in 2002, Prof. Michael P. O’Connor and Prof. Rich-
ard C. Steiner originated the idea of publishing an English translation of Prof.
Joshua Blau’s study on the phonology and morphology of Biblical Hebrew.
This discussion occurred while Prof. O’Connor was participating in an inter-
national research group on the subject of Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Se-
mitic Setting (the papers that this group presented were eventually published
as Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting, ed. Steven Fassberg and
Avi Hurvitz; Jerusalem: Magnes / Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006). Prof.
O’Connor suggested that the English translation of Prof. Blau’s work appear
in the Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic series he co-edited with
Prof. Cynthia L. Miller, and Prof. Blau was most agreeable to this proposal.
The manuscript of the English translation arrived in late 2002, and it was
apparent that some editorial and bibliographical work was needed to achieve
what both Prof. Blau and Prof. O’Connor believed the book could accom-
plish. Prof. O’Connor himself undertook this work and, in addition to his
other duties in the Dept. of Semitics at the Catholic University of America,
completely reworked the bibliography, reorganized major sections of the dis-
cussion, and otherwise personally oversaw the entire project. This took no
small amount of time, and other responsibilities often delayed his work. The
first portions of the book were sent in proof to Prof. Blau in 2005, and work on
the remainder proceeded in fits and starts.
Then, in June 2007, Michael O’Connor died after a short illness, a death
that shocked all of us who knew him. At that point, his editorial work was
only perhaps half completed. Picking up the pieces was no minor task; much
of the work had to be completed by O’Connor’s series co-editor, Prof. Miller.
Various staff members at Eisenbrauns and I also read the manuscript and
proofs for consistency and organization, prepared the paradigms and indexes,
and managed much trans-Atlantic correspondence. The net effect of O’Con-
nor’s tragic death, however, was that there were still more delays. Prof. Blau,
throughout all of this, has been unfailingly patient and kind; it has been a plea-
sure to work with him.

xiii
00-Blau.book Page xiv Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Publisher’s Foreword xiv

Now that the work is complete, we all feel certain that the finished work is
an appropriate testimony to the distillation of a life’s work in Biblical Hebrew
(on the part of Prof. Blau) and the memory of a dearly beloved friend (Prof.
O’Connor).
Jim Eisenbraun,
Publisher, Eisenbrauns
March 2010
00-Blau.book Page 1 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1. Introduction

1.1. Linguistics: Historical, Comparative, Synchronic

1.1.1. Change is one of the intrinsic qualities of any living or spoken lan-
guage. Historical linguistics, today often called diachronic, attempts to de-
scribe the rules behind these changes. In the nineteenth century, a century
whose interests were first and foremost historical, general linguistics was sim-
ply identified with historical linguistics. Indeed, it was during that century that
a standard model of language change was devised and the regularity of sound
change convincingly established.
1.1.2. As a matter of fact, even dead languages, that is, languages used
only in writing, exhibit change. A case in point is Hebrew itself: during the
centuries when it was used only for cultural purposes (from about 200 to 1900
c.e.), it underwent continual change, reflecting varied mixtures of the forms
of the language used in earlier periods as well as exhibiting the influence of
non-Hebrew vernaculars.
1.1.3. Comparative linguistics, which, to a great extent, forms the subject
of this book, is also historically oriented. It treats genetically related lan-
guages and attempts, by comparing them, to reconstruct their previous stages.
1.1.4. In contrast, synchronic linguistics is interested in the state of a lan-
guage at a given time rather than language change. Its rise is connected with
the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913), who, in his Cours de
linguistique général (posthumously published in Paris in 1922; see de Saus-
sure 1959, 1967), disparaged historical linguistics as “atomistic”; he believed
that it focused on mere details and neglected what really matters. He extolled
a synchronic approach as capable of discovering the system of a language,
which he saw as the goal of genuine linguistics. In his opinion, a language
makes up a closely knit system, comparable to a chessboard. A small change
in the position of one chess piece, even one of inferior rank, may completely
change the relations between all the pieces and thus the whole system. In a
language as well, the change of one small item may alter the relation between
various features of the language and thus give rise to a different system.
1.1.5. The following examples, taken from various fields of Hebrew, will
elucidate the contrast of historical-comparative and synchronic approaches to
language.
1.1.6. Phonetics. The historically long o in †ob2 ‘good’ and in ºopö ‘bird’
have different historical (diachronic) origins. In †ob2 the o developed from long

1
00-Blau.book Page 2 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.1.7. ∑ Historical and Synchronic Linguistics 2

stressed a (cf. Aram †ab2 , with the same sense), while in ºopö the o arose by
monophthongization of the diphthong aw (cf. Aram ºawpö). In these cases, his-
torical linguistics employs the comparative method, adducing material from a
related language (Aramaic) in order to describe the different backgrounds of o
in these words.
1.1.7. Synchronic linguistics, on the other hand, does not differentiate be-
tween the o of †ob2 and that of ºopö. Their different origins do not concern such
an approach; it is their equivalent behavior that is relevant. In the system of
Biblical Hebrew both o’s remain without change, e.g., in inflection. Thus, for
instance, the plurals of these words preserve the o, although it loses the stress:
†ob2 im ‘good ones’ and ºopöot ‘birds’.
1.1.8. Now consider the historically short o in dob2 ‘bear’, which arose from
original u. In the Tiberian vowel system length has ceased to play a phonemic
role (see §3.5.2.1, p. 106), and thus †ob2 , ºopö, and dob2 have the same vowel.
However even in synchronic terms the o of dob2 does not belong in the same
category as the vowel of †ob2 and ºopö, because it changes to u in dubbim
‘bears’, in contradistinction to †ob2 im and ºopöot.
1.1.8n. In accordance with the Tiberian vocalization system, in which length plays no pho-
nemic role, vowel length is not marked here: the first vowel of †ob2 im and of ºopöot is iden-
tical to the o of dob2 . We do not concern ourselves with the question of the level on which
the o of dob2 has to be set off; it may be a matter of phonemics or of morpho-phonemics.
1.1.9. The main concern of synchronic linguistics is to show how the o
marks a different meaning (i.e., constitutes a different phoneme), viz., to show
that the replacement of the o by another vowel gives rise to a different “word.”
This is the case with ºopö ‘bird’, which may be opposed to u in ºupö ‘fly!’ and a
in ºapö ‘he flew’. These oppositions demonstrate that in Biblical Hebrew o is a
part of the vowel system. It is the system that concerns synchronic linguistics.
1.1.10. Morphology. The approach of historical linguistics, e.g., to the
nominal patterns seen in the nouns t´hom ‘abyss’ and k´tab2 ‘writing’ is quite
different from that of synchronic linguistics. In historical terms, both words
are reflections of the original historical pattern qi†ºal. A historical account at-
tempts to discover why these two words, built on the same original pattern,
have different shapes. It treats them together, because of their common origi-
nal pattern. It separates t´hom from b´ros ‘juniper(?)’, despite their identical
synchronic pattern, since the latter, being a loan word from (or at least corre-
sponding to) Akk buras(um), originally belongs to the pattern qu†ºal.
1.1.11. Synchronic linguistics analyzes words according to their shape
without regard to their historical origin. Here the concern would be with their
appearance in Biblical Hebrew according to the Tiberian vocalization. There-
fore, such an approach, on the one hand, groups t´hom and b´ros together, al-
though their historical patterns differ; on the other hand, it separates t´hom
and k´tab2 , although their historical pattern is identical, because in the syn-
chronic system of Biblical Hebrew they are distinct.

spread is 12 points long

00-Blau.book Page 3 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3 Historical and Synchronic Linguistics ∑ 1.1.15.

1.1.12. Syntax. Syntax is the linguistic domain in which the systematic

character of language is especially conspicuous, as it deals with the system-
atic arrangement of words and sentences. Nevertheless, even in this field, his-
torical linguistics is more prone to treat isolated items, rather than the system.
Let us illustrate this by the analysis of the function of the active participle in
Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew.
1.1.12n. Some linguists attribute the function of the verbal forms to morphology rather
than to syntax. On this conception, morphology deals not only with the growth and shape
of forms but also with their meaning and usage. See Ries (1st ed. 1894, 2nd ed. 1927) and,
in his wake, Bergsträsser 2.6 and throughout his second volume.
1.1.13. A historical treatment of the Biblical Hebrew active participle
would stress that it has, to a great extent, preserved its nominal character and
has not been fully absorbed into the system of tenses. In analyzing Rabbinic
Hebrew, where the participle marks present and future, such a treatment
would emphasize the greater absorption of the participle into the tense system.
In Modern Hebrew, where the participle refers mainly to the present, it re-
mains part of the tense system.
1.1.14. Historical linguistics (at least as practiced at the beginning of the
twentieth century) is concerned with bringing into full relief the changes af-
fecting the participle during the various periods of the Hebrew language; it
pays only limited attention to the whole of the tense system at every period.
Synchronic linguistics, in contrast, aims at determining the function of the
participle in the tense system of any given period. For Biblical Hebrew prose,
a synchronic account would state that the system of tenses is primarily based
on two verbal forms, each of them occurring both without and with preposi-
tive w´/wa. One simple form, q†l, marks past, the other, yq†l, marks present/
future (and durative/iterative past); when preceded by w-, it is q†l that refers to
present/future (and durative/iterative past), and yq†l to the past (see §4.3.2.2.1,
pp. 189ff.). The participle, to a great extent, stands outside this system. As to
Rabbinic Hebrew, synchronic linguistics would characterize its tense system,
more or less, by the opposition q†l ‘past’ : participle ‘present/future’; yq†l ex-
presses a subjective view of the facts and is used in modal and subjunctive
senses (Mishor 1983). In Modern Hebrew, the synchronic approach would
consider the participle to be a part of a ternary system in which q†l marks the
past, the participle the present, and yq†l the future. Such an approach would
not concern itself with the participle alone and its changes during the various
periods of Hebrew but with the whole tense system at a given period and the
role of the participle in it.
1.1.15. Though historical(-comparative) linguistics is, as a rule, atomistic,
this need not be the case. In principle, it may compare the linguistic systems
of different languages or of one language at different periods. Thus the tense
system of Biblical Hebrew, in which the participle does not constitute an inte-
gral part of the tense system, may be compared with that of Rabbinic Hebrew,
00-Blau.book Page 4 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.1.16. ∑ Generative Linguistics; Philology 4

in which the participle has been, to a great extent, absorbed into the tense sys-
tem. Thus historical and synchronic approaches may be united.
1.1.16. A word may be said about generative linguistics. In the United
States, and in its wake in other countries as well, this new school of linguistics
emerged during the 1960s. Founded by Noam Chomsky, the school has fo-
cused on syntax; even generative phonology is more dependent on syntax than
the phonology of other linguistic methods (see, e.g., Chomsky 1965, 1995).
The great merit of the generative school was that it introduced the notion of
grammaticality and thus succeeded in sharpening the proper understanding of
many linguistic structures. It is a pity, however, that it has relied so much on
the competence of the individual speaker and has thus tended to refrain from
utilizing written sources as a corrective. At any rate, the generative method is
much less appropriate to written or dead languages like Biblical Hebrew, since
scholars lack the linguistic instinct that is so central for its work. Moreover,
since Biblical Hebrew has a rather limited corpus, the most obvious approach
is the analysis of this corpus, rather than extracting from it a set of rules to pro-
duce grammatically correct sentences. Although study of Biblical Hebrew in a
generative framework is by no means impossible, it is, in my opinion, not the
most effective way to master the language’s difficulties. Moreover, a genera-
tive approach has difficulties in coping with the multilayered character of the
Biblical Hebrew corpus.
1.1.16n. The older terms, transformational or generative-transformational linguistics, re-
fer to the important role played by the idea of transformations, relating, e.g., passive sen-
tences to corresponding active ones.
For an example of generative work on Biblical Hebrew, see the work of Malone, espe-
cially his 1993 volume. In my opinion, when Malone’s studies, no doubt the most impor-
tant representative of the generative approach to Biblical Hebrew linguistics, are stripped
of their generative framework and clad in traditional diachronic terms, they become much
easier to understand.

1.1.17. Some scholars use the terms linguistics and philology as near syn-
onyms, both denoting the study of language, although the term philology
stresses historical and comparative aspects. For others, however, linguistics
refers to the study of language in itself, whereas philology aims at the study
of language in order to understand texts. According to this view, the purpose
of this book is philological, viz., the better understanding of the Bible by
deeper insight into its language. It is our conviction that proper understanding
of Biblical Hebrew sound shifts is necessary for the correct understanding of
the text. Interpreters of a biblical passage often have recourse to, e.g., com-
parative etymology in order to elucidate the meaning of a dubious word. It is
imperative for them to understand properly the mechanisms involved, in or-
der to make an accurate decision. It is for this reason that they use philology
(linguistics).
00-Blau.book Page 5 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

5 Description of Biblical Hebrew ∑ 1.2.4.

1.1.18. In this work, we shall for the most part apply the diachronic-
comparative approach. Synchronic investigation is not congenial to Biblical
Hebrew, since the corpus does not reflect a closely knit linguistic system but is
profoundly multilayered. It is not useful to analyze such a language with the
tools of synchronic linguistics.

1.2. A Short Description of Biblical Hebrew

1.2.1. Biblical Hebrew, as shown by its very name, is preserved primarily
in the Bible. Contemporary inscriptions, like those of Gezer, Siloam, Lachish,
Tel Arad, Óashavya (Yavneh Yam), Samaria, etc., do not add much to our
knowledge, though they contain some interesting linguistic features (Renz
and Röllig 1995; Ahituv 1992, 2005; Donner and Röllig 1973). They are for
the most part short and, since they are written without vocalization and con-
tain few vowel letters, they convey limited linguistic information (Gogel
1998). Transcriptions of Hebrew words, especially of proper nouns in the an-
cient versions of the Bible, notably the Old Greek (Septuagint), reveal vocal-
ization. Such information is difficult to use. One must constantly bear in mind
that the transcribing language has limited resources for marking the sounds of
Hebrew. Therefore, on the whole, biblical linguistics must be based on the
Bible.
1.2.2. The impediments offered by the Bible itself to the study of Biblical
Hebrew are formidable. The size of the Bible is quite restricted, and being a
book of religion, it does not reflect the whole compass of life. Further, one
must not lose sight of the facts that Biblical Hebrew is a literary language and
that the Bible itself underwent several redactions. These two facts explain the
limited variation, historical and dialectal, found in Biblical Hebrew, even
though the Bible was written over hundreds of years and stems from various
regions of the Holy Land.
1.2.3. In the biblical text itself three layers are to be distinguished, dimin-
ishing in antiquity and importance: the consonantal skeleton, the vowel let-
ters, and the vocalization (and cantillation) marks.
1.2.4. The most ancient and important layer is the consonantal skeleton.
Even this most hallowed part of the biblical text underwent changes. For ex-
ample, changes in pronunciation led to changes in spelling. Originally ¶in and
samek represented two distinct sounds (see §3.2.2, p. 73); these sounds later
merged, and since ¶in was pronounced like samek, the latter was sometimes
substituted for it (as wyt:s} ‘winter’, instead of the orginal wyt:c‘*, Song 2:11).
Antiquated forms were sometimes replaced by current ones; e.g., the older
form yniT&Ej}T" ‘under me’, 2 Sam 22:37, 40, 48, was replaced by the more com-
mon and (presumably) later form, yT:j}T", Ps 18:37, 40, 49. Similarly, synonyms
replaced obsolete words, as can be seen in parallel passages occurring in
00-Blau.book Page 6 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.2.5. ∑ Layers of Biblical Hebrew 6

Chronicles in contrast with Kings and in the readings exhibited by “vulgar”

Qumran biblical texts.
1.2.4n. It is generally assumed that such processes replaced obsolete forms with current
forms, but it is possible that the opposite occurred, that puristic redactions expurgated liv-
ing features in favor of features preferred in literature. On this point, see Bergsträsser
(1909), who argues that sometimes sœ has been expurgated in favor of ªåsœr.
1.2.5. Such alteration stopped at some point, generally set in the Hellenis-
tic–Roman period. (The assessment of the history of the biblical text, and thus
the place of the Samaritan Pentateuch and the “vulgar” Qumran biblical texts,
is beyond the scope of this book.) By the time of the Masoretic manuscripts
(10th c. c.e. and later) the process was long over. The discrepancies among
these manuscripts are so few that their uniformity has perhaps to be explained
according to the “one-recension” or even “archetype” theory.
1.2.6. The vowel letters (y, w, h, a), originally and in retrospect at least,
mark some of the (historically long) vowels. Their use arose through phonetic
development, as when *bayt ‘house’ in construct shifted to tyBE, yet it contin-
ued to be spelled with yod, which thus became a vowel letter denoting e. Dif-
ferences in the usage of vowel letters are more conspicuous and of later origin
than differences in the consonantal layer of the text.
1.2.6n. This description of the origin of vowel letters is not meant to exclude the possi-
bility that the Biblical Hebrew use of vowel letters was transferred from another language.
1.2.7. In ancient inscriptions, the occurrence of the vowel letters is rather
restricted, and it stands to reason that they were also less frequent in the origi-
nal biblical text, as reflected, e.g., in deviations of the Septuagint from the
Masoretic Text. Within the Bible, there is no consistency in the use of vowel
letters, and sometimes there is extreme variation even in the same book.
1.2.7n. For the use of the vowel letters w and y in the Pentateuch, which represents the
most archaic orthographic level of the Bible, see Blau 1995 = Topics, 21–25.
1.2.8. Over the course of time the use of vowel letters becomes more and
more frequent. The tendency is to mark all originally long vowels with vowel
letters, with the notable exception of word-internal original a. Nevertheless,
even the same word may be spelled differently; both scriptio defectiva (i.e.,
without vowel letters to mark originally long vowels) and (the much less fre-
quent) scriptio plena (i.e., with vowel letters to mark originally short vowels)
are found. As a rule, no vowel letter is used word-internally in the vicinity of
the same letter marking a consonant (thus‚ μyi/G, rather than μyyi/G*, ‘nations’).
Moreover, a vowel letter is only rarely used when the following syllable con-
tains one (as t/lqø ‘voices’, rather than t/l/q). There exist some differences
between the Tiberian and other traditions with regard to the use of vowel let-
ters. Nevertheless, the uniformity mentioned above (§1.2.5) obtains in the
sphere of vowel letters as well.
00-Blau.book Page 7 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

7 Description of Biblical Hebrew ∑ 1.3.1.

1.2.9. The latest layer attested in the text of the Bible comprises the vowel
and cantillation marks. These developed between ca. 600 c.e. (the date of
the final redaction of the Talmud, in which they are not mentioned) and the be-
ginning of the tenth century (when dated manuscripts are found). Such marks
are, however, based on a much older tradition. Because of the sanctity of the
Bible, Jews quite early started to make extraordinary efforts to preserve the
holy text. The scholars who transmitted the tradition of the pronunciation of
the holy text were the Masoretes, originally ‘those who count’, i.e., those who
count the verses and letters of the Bible (Ben-Óayyim 1957).
1.2.10. The Masoretes established the system of q´re ‘that which is read’
and k´tib2 ‘that which is written’. As a rule, the k´tib2 bears the vocalization of
the reading preferred by the Masoretes, viz., the q´re, and the consonants of
the latter are written without vocalization in the margin. Accordingly, the k´tib2
is of mixed nature: the letters represent the k´tib2 , the vocalization the q´re.
1.2.10n. For the problematic nature of the relation of q´re and k´tib, see Breuer 1981:
260–66; 1994–95: 292–96.
1.2.11. The same discrepancy is also found with the so-called q´re per-
petuum, found with some frequently occurring words. These words are always
(or very often) read differently from the k´tib2 . Here the q´re, assumed to be
known, is omitted altogether and is suggested only by the vocalization of the
k´tib2 . Instances of q´re perpetuum are the Tetragrammaton; μlçwry, to be pro-
nounced μyil"v…Wry] ‘Jerusalem’; and, in the Pentateuch, awhI when it is to be read
ayhI ‘she’.
1.2.12. The only vocalization and cantillation system used today is the so-
called Tiberian vocalization. It represents the most elaborate system and is
the only one completely preserved. Therefore, it serves as the base for the
grammatical investigation of Biblical Hebrew. In principle, however, the
Tiberian vocalization, despite its diffusion, does not take precedence over the
other vocalization systems, the Babylonian and Palestinian. (The Babylonian
vocalization has been treated in a masterful way by Yeivin 1985.) These are
called the superlinear vocalizations, because they put all of the vocalization
marks over the letters. The most prominent feature of the Babylonian vocal-
ization is the correspondence of pata˙ to both Tiberian pata˙ and segol. The
Palestinian vocalization has two main subtypes and varies greatly (Revell
1970). It has mainly been preserved in Jewish liturgical poetry, the so-called
piyyu†, which contains many biblical quotations (Yahalom 1997).‘

1.3. Dialect Diversity in Biblical Hebrew

1.3.1. Despite the overall uniformity of Biblical Hebrew, some information

about dialect diversity may be elicited from the Bible and contemporary
00-Blau.book Page 8 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.3.2. ∑ Dialect Diversity; Poetry 8

inscriptions. In some cases the evidence is straightforward. According to the

well-known incident in Judg 12:6, the Ephraimites pronounced tl<Bø&s I for stan-
dard tl<Bø&v¥ ‘ear (of corn)’ (see §1.10.3.21, p. 40). The Samaria ostraca (from
the first half of the eighth century b.c.e.) have tç ‘year’ (as in Aramaic) for
standard hn;v…, and ˆy, reflecting yen ‘wine’ for standard ˆyiy '‡ , thus attesting to the
monophthongization of ay in stressed closed syllables in the Northern dialect.
1.3.1n. This monophthongization may be reflected in the word play in Amos 8:1–2 involv-
ing the words qayiß ‘summer-fruit’ and qeß ‘end’: the pun would have been more powerful
in the speech of the population of the Northern Kingdom, whom Amos was addressing, if
Amos pronounced qayiß as qeß.

1.3.2. Various other features have been claimed to be peculiar to the North-
ern tribes, including the use of sœ ‘who, that’ or forms like deºa ‘to know’, in-
stead of standard daºat, or infinitives of III y verbs terminating in -o, rather
than in -ot.
1.3.2n. An example of the last would be ºå¶o ‘to do’ in contrast to standard ºå¶ot. G. A.
Rendsburg deals with the identification of Northern features in various biblical passages;
see, e.g., Rendsburg (1990), always closely reasoned, but not always convincing.

1.3.3. More of the history of Biblical Hebrew can be inferred from the vari-
ous genres attested by the Bible. Besides Standard Biblical Hebrew, repre-
sented by pre-exilic biblical prose (also referred to as “Classical [Biblical]
Hebrew”), one can distinguish Archaic and Late forms of the language.
1.3.4. Archaic Biblical Hebrew is represented by early biblical poetry, in-
cluding that contained in the Pentateuch and the early Prophets. Like poetic
language in general, it tends to preserve archaic forms. These are attested not
only in the field of vocabulary (like ˙aruß ‘gold’, ªty ‘to come’), but also out-
side it.
1.3.5. Morphological elements are involved. The 3mp pronominal suffix
has the form -mo, and the 3ms suffix may be spelled with h. The form ªaz´lat
‘she has gone’ (Deut 32:36) exhibits the archaic 3fs ending of the suffix-tense
(which, through Aramaic influence, also recurs in later books). Nouns are apt
to terminate in -i/-o in the construct, and -i is found in additional cases as
well. The noun ¶adœ@ ‘field’ appears in the archaic form ¶aday.
1.3.6. Syntactic markers are affected as well. The prepositions ªœl ‘to’, ºal
‘on’, and ºad ‘up to’ have the “poetic” forms ªœ*le, ºåle, and ºåde. The definite
article ha-, which is a comparatively late phenomenon (see §4.2.5.4, p. 180), is
less frequent in poetry, as is the relative pronoun ªåsœr (see §4.2.6.2.1, p. 183).
The form ªet/ ªœt-, which in Standard Biblical Hebrew marks nouns as definite
direct objects, was probably originally restricted to pronominal suffixes, and
only later used before nouns; it, too, is rare in Archaic Biblical Hebrew.
1.3.7. Nouns and verbs also show differences. Construct forms may pre-
cede prepositional phrases (as, e.g., ryxIQB: " tj"m}c¥ ‘rejoicing at harvest’ Isa
00-Blau.book Page 9 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

9 History of Hebrew ∑ 1.4.2.

9:2). The short prefix-tense may refer to the past even if not preceded by the
“conversive” waw. Although this feature is archaic, it seems that the generally
haphazard use of the tenses does not reflect archaic usage only but is the result
of a mixture of various tense systems.
1.3.8. Late Biblical Hebrew, as reflected in post-exilic prose, exhibits the
development of Biblical Hebrew in the direction of Rabbinic Hebrew, as
well as ever-increasing Aramaic influence. Vocabulary changes, including
words quite common in Rabbinic Hebrew, first appear in Late Biblical He-
brew, as, e.g., ßrk ‘to need’ (ÚK<&r ]x: ‘your need’ 2 Chr 2:15) and ksr ‘to be ap-
propriate’. The form ynia“ ‘I’ replaces the earlier alternation of ynia“ and ykInoa:.
Even the spelling changes and becomes fuller in later books. The tendency (in
Ezra/Nehemiah, though not in Chronicles) is to use the long prefix-tense after
the “conversive” waw (as hl:B}a"t}a<w; ‘and I mourned’ Neh 1:4). The use of ªet
with the pronominal suffix becomes more common than object suffixation on
the verb. The use of the participle becomes more frequent, presumably owing
to its increasing integration into the tense system. After ªaz ‘then’ the suffix-
tense is employed, rather than the prefix-tense used earlier. Similarly, the
prefix-tense following “conversive” waw (wayyipö ºal) tends to be replaced by
the suffix-tense following connective waw (upöa ºal), because the suffix-tense
has become, as in Rabbinic Hebrew, the sole past tense. This change is also
seen in the use of the suffix tense to indicate iterative/continued past. The use
of the absolute infinitive in the sense of the imperative has become obsolete.
The preposition l´- is used to mark the direct object.

1.4. The Later History of Hebrew

1.4.1. Around 200 c.e. Yehuda Hanasi (or Judah the Prince, traditionally
known as Rabbi) and his pupils collected the oral tradition of the Law in the
Mishnah, the Tosefta, the Beraytot, and the oldest halakhic midrashim, formu-
lated in a Hebrew customarily termed Rabbinic Hebrew or Mishnaic He-
brew. This language thus became a literary language.
1.4.1n. In the past, views were divided as to its origins: Was Rabbinic Hebrew from its
very beginning an artificial dialect, used only as a literary language in scholarly religious
circles, exhibiting a would-be (Biblical) Hebrew and corrupted by the influence of Ara-
maic? Or was it based on a spoken variety of Hebrew?
1.4.2. Abraham Geiger, who published the first scholarly grammar of Rab-
binic Hebrew (1845), claimed that it was an artificial language that was never
spoken. It may be that he convinced himself of this view because, being the
head of the Jewish Reform movement in Germany, he was interested in de-
scribing Mishnaic literature as artificial, and this, according to his Romantic
Weltanschauung, was a negative feature. His view was contested throughout
00-Blau.book Page 10 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.4.3. ∑ History of Hebrew 10

the remainder of the nineteenth century. Some of his opponents were Jews
prompted to claim that Rabbinic Hebrew was once a spoken language in part
out of respect for Mishnaic literature (like Heinrich Graetz, S. D. Luzatto; see,
e.g., Graetz 1902: 461–62). Others were Zionists (like Eliezer Ben-Yehuda),
who were interested in a spoken Hebrew language (see, e.g., Ben-Yehuda
1919).
1.4.3. Early in the twentieth century, M. H. Segal, also a Zionist, proved
that Rabbinic Hebrew cannot be regarded as mere Biblical Hebrew influenced
by Aramaic (Segal 1908–9). He collected those traits of Rabbinic Hebrew dif-
fering from Biblical Hebrew that cannot be accounted for by Aramaic influ-
ence. For example, the use of nitpaººal for the suffix-tense of hitpaººel arose
through the influence of nif ºal on hitpaººel: no Aramaic influence can be as-
sumed in this case, since nif ºal, the catalyst of this phenomenon, is totally ab-
sent from Aramaic.
1.4.4. Today it is generally accepted that Rabbinic Hebrew cannot be seen
as an artificial language of the Rabbis that was never spoken. This was dem-
onstrated by the recovery, among the Dead Sea Scrolls, of texts in a form of
Hebrew very close to Rabbinic Hebrew. The Copper Scroll, written around
100 c.e., reflects some sort of (Proto-)Rabbinic or Mishnaic Hebrew. Even
closer to Rabbinic Hebrew is the language of some of the letters of Bar-
Koziba (Bar-Kokhba), the leader of the Second Jewish Revolt (132–135
c.e.), as J. T. Milik, the first editor of these letters, recognized (1961: 70).
These letters finally proved that Rabbinic Hebrew was indeed based on a liv-
ing dialect and that Hebrew was a living language in the first part of the sec-
ond century c.e.
1.4.5. Milik was aware of the long debate when he wrote, “The thesis of
scholars like Segal, Ben-Yehuda, and Klausner, according to whom Mishnaic
Hebrew was a language spoken by the population of Judah in the Persian and
Greco-Roman periods, is no longer a hypothesis; it is an established fact”
(1961: 70).
1.4.6. The following model of the situation of Rabbinic Hebrew, the lan-
guage of the Mishnah, in the first centuries of the Christian era may be posited:
the people of the Judean countryside in the main spoke Mishnaic Hebrew; the
Judean towns and cities were bilingual, using both Mishnaic Hebrew and Ara-
maic. The population of the Galilee, attached rather late to the Maccabean
kingdom, spoke Aramaic only. The suppression of the Bar-Koziba revolt had
disastrous results: the Judean population was in part exterminated and in part
deported. The subsequent migration of the spiritual élite to the Galilee caused
Hebrew to become extinct within a generation or two. It is possible that spoken
Hebrew might have lingered in some remote rural areas in Judea (see §1.11.8,
p. 43).
00-Blau.book Page 11 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

11 Rabbinic and Modern Hebrew ∑ 1.4.10.

1.4.6n. See further Kutscher (1982: 115–16). In this account of the Semitic languages of
Palestine, I do not take into account the strong Greek influence throughout the area; see
Lieberman 1942, 1950.
1.4.7. So far, we have dealt with the last centuries of the life of spoken
Rabbinic Hebrew. We have not yet treated the origins of Rabbinic Hebrew,
which cannot be considered a direct continuation of Biblical Hebrew. Though
a later form of the language, it also exhibits, as later dialects often do, traits
that have to be regarded as more archaic than the corresponding Biblical He-
brew features. Rabbinic Hebrew, for example, forms demonstrative phrases
with a (formally) indeterminate noun preceding the demonstrative pronoun hz,
unlike the Biblical Hebrew pattern of a noun determined by the definite article
preceding hZ,h". Accordingly, we posit that Rabbinic Hebrew stems from a di-
alect spoken in biblical times, one that (almost) did not gain entry into the lan-
guage of the Bible, because it was not a literary language. (Proto-)Rabbinic
Hebrew is, nevertheless, reflected in Late Biblical Hebrew deviations from
the standard, presumably because the dialect that formed the base of Standard
Biblical Hebrew had become extinct, through the vexations of the exile; only
(Proto-)Rabbinic Hebrew survived as a living language.
1.4.8. Because Hebrew ceased to be spoken around 200 c.e., we distin-
guish two phases of Rabbinic Hebrew. The living language Rabbinic He-
brew I was the language of the Tannaim, the authors of the Mishnah, and
related literature. The primarily written language Rabbinic Hebrew II was
the language of the Amoraim, the authors of the Talmudim, and the later
midrashim. Rabbinic Hebrew II is characterized by traits that occur in all
later, artificial layers of Hebrew: it reflects, on the one hand, a mixture of the
preceding layers of Hebrew (i.e., Biblical Hebrew, Rabbinic Hebrew I), and
on the other, foreign influence (primarily of Aramaic).
1.4.9. During the long years of exile, through late antiquity, the Middle
Ages, and the Early Modern Period, Jews in traditional Jewish society used
Hebrew as a language of culture and education. Around the beginning of the
twentieth century, Hebrew was revived in the Holy Land as a language of
everyday use in speech and in writing. This quite singular event resulted from
the cooperation of various propitious factors. (For particulars, see Blau 1981c:
18–20.) First, a sufficient number of people had received their education in
traditional Jewish society, using Hebrew as a language of culture, and were
therefore able to switch over to its use in speech as well. Second, the Zionist
ideal aimed at the revival of Hebrew as a national language. Third, Hebrew
had long been the natural lingua franca between Jews stemming from differ-
ent communities living in the Holy Land because no other generally accepted
language existed there at the time.
1.4.10. Since the various registers of Hebrew, on which its revival was
based, constituted a mixture of (almost) all the preceding layers of Hebrew
00-Blau.book Page 12 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.5. ∑ Semitic 12

(like every earlier variety of artificial Hebrew), Modern Hebrew too con-
tains many Biblical and Rabbinic as well as later Hebrew elements. It also re-
flects strong foreign (“Standard Average European”) influence. As a living
language, it has also been affected by natural inner development. Accord-
ingly, speakers of Biblical Hebrew would not have understood Modern He-
brew. Conversely, however, speakers of Modern Hebrew understand previous
layers of Hebrew quite easily, if they are acquainted with the subject matter.

1.5. Biblical Hebrew and Semitic

1.5.1. If one compares Biblical Hebrew with another so-called Semitic lan-
guage, such as Aramaic or Arabic, one is struck by their similarity. Even a lin-
guistically naive person realizes that many of the words used in one of these
languages occur in an identical or similar form in others (e.g., ªarbaº ‘four’ in
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic; pt˙ ‘to open’ in Hebrew and Aramaic, ft˙ in
Arabic). The linguist is even more impressed by the similarity of the gram-
matical structure, since even the far-reaching overlap of words does not prove
that the similarity is not due to sheer accident. Words can easily be loaned
from one language to the other, and cultural symbiosis between languages
sometimes results in a very great number of borrowed words (as happened
when an influx of Aramaic words changed the vocabulary of Rabbinic He-
brew). Nonetheless, the shared vocabulary among the Semitic languages des-
ignates some of the most basic notions of life, and so this vocabulary is much
less likely to be the result of only borrowing. The far-reaching identity of
grammatical structures demonstrates even more convincingly that these lan-
guages are similar because they are historically related, stemming from a
(common) proto-language.
1.5.2. It is usual to call these related languages Semitic, and the assumed
proto-language Proto-Semitic. The term Semitic languages was proposed by
A. L. Schlözer in 1781, basing his notion on the list of nations in Genesis 10,
where the ancestor of the “Semitic” nations was Shem. This list, to be sure,
deals with nations and races, rather than with languages. Nevertheless, this
term is short and to the point, and it is as good as any artificial term; it has
rightly been accepted.
1.5.2n. Holger Pedersen, in his excellent survey The Discovery of Language (1965: 118),
claims, without a proper reference, that it was the great philosopher G. W. Leibniz at the
beginning of the eighteenth century who first used this term. Leibniz treats the matter in
his short treatise Brevis designatio meditationum de originibus gentium ductis potissimum
ex indicio linguarum (1710). There he divides the languages known from antiquity into
two groups, the Japhetic or northern languages, those of Europe (named for the son of
Prometheus), and the Aramaic or southern languages (named for Abraham’s native re-
gion). His Aramaic group is certainly comparable to the Semitic family: it includes Ara-

spread is 6 points short

00-Blau.book Page 13 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

13 Semitic ∑ 1.5.6.

bic, Syriac, Chaldean (as what is now known as Aramaic was then called), Syriac
(Christian Aramaic), Hebrew, Punic (Phoenician), and Amharic, as well as Egyptian (in-
cluding Coptic). But the term Semitic is not used. See also Waterman 1978: 59–60.
1.5.3. Because of the far-reaching similarity of the Semitic languages, their
connection was recognized early. As a matter of fact, it was in the realm of the
Semitic languages that comparative linguistics began, viz., among medieval
Jews speaking Arabic and belonging to both the Jewish and the Arab cultures.
They were deeply steeped in Jewish culture and thus were acquainted with He-
brew and Aramaic. In addition, they spoke (Neo-)Arabic and wrote literary Ara-
bic; moreover, in the wake of Arab culture, they were interested in grammar.
1.5.3n. Thus the Algerian Yehuda ibn Quraysh (presumably living in the second half of the
ninth century) recognized the affinity of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic. With the Spaniard
Iß˙aq ibn Baron (ca. 1100), who also analyzed common grammatical features, medieval
comparative Semitics reached its peak. The Spanish Muslim Ibn Óazm (994–1064 c.e.)
recognized the affinity of Arabic and Hebrew as well; nevertheless, not being well versed
in Hebrew, he had rather rudimentary views.

1.5.4. In contrast, the recognition of the Indo-European language family as

a whole, which eventually proved decisive for the development of compara-
tive linguistics and on which the comparative investigation of every language
family (including Semitic) is based, was comparatively late. The differences
between languages of the various branches of the Indo-European phylum
(e.g., between English, Greek, and Russian) are so significant that it was only
around the end of the eighteenth century that William Jones, Friedrich von
Schlegel, Franz Bopp, Rasmus K. Rask, and Jacob Grimm initiated Indo-
European comparative studies.
1.5.4n. Slightly earlier, Hungarian scholars had recognized the affinity of Hungarian with
Lapp and Finnish, although the differences between these languages are quite conspicu-
ous. J. Sajnovics published his Demonstratio idioma Ungarorum et Lapponum idem esse
in 1770 in Copenhagen (reprinted 1968), and S. Gyarmathi his Affinitas linguae Hungari-
cae cum linguis Fennicae originis grammatice demonstrata in 1799 in Göttingen (re-
printed 1968).

1.5.5. In the following, we shall mention some of the common features of

the Semitic languages, starting with vocabulary and continuing with structural
(grammatical) features. The best introduction to the Semitic languages is still
Bergsträsser (1923; ET 1978).
1.5.6. Vocabulary. Many of the most basic notions are designated by iden-
tical words in the Semitic languages. We adduce here the Hebrew words only;
the reader will find the Semitic cognates in the usual biblical dictionaries,
which, almost without exception, contain etymological comparisons, and es-
pecially in the appendix to Bergsträsser’s Introduction (1923: 181–92; ET
209–23).
00-Blau.book Page 14 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.5.7. ∑ Semitic 14

1.5.7. ba: ‘father’, ˆz,a&ø ‘ear’, ja: ‘brother’, μaE ‘mother’, πa" ‘nose’, ≈r,a<&
‘land’, hV…aI ‘woman’, ˆ/ta: ‘she-ass’, tyiB"& ‘house’, ˆBE ‘son’, tB" ‘daughter’, μD;
‘blood’, baEz] ‘wolf’, rk:z; ‘male’, [r'z , & ‘seed’, r/mj“ ‘ass’, b/f ‘good’, dy; ‘hand’,
μ/y ‘day’, bk:/K ‘star’, bl<K<& ‘dog’, vb"l: ‘to dress’, hl:y]l" & ‘night’, ˆ/vl: ‘tongue’,
μyim"& ‘water’, tmE ‘to die’, ˆyi["& ‘eye’, hl:[: ‘to ascend’, hP< ‘mouth’, lg,r,& ‘foot’, bn;[E
‘wine grape’, br'q : ‘to go near’, varø ‘head’, μ/lv… ‘peace’, μv´ ‘name’, μyim"&v…
‘heaven’, [m"v… ‘to hear’, ˆv´ ‘tooth’, hq:v‘hI ‘to give to drink’, as well as most of
the numerals.
1.5.8. Grammatical features. The most conspicuous shared grammatical
feature is the striking relation between consonants and vowels, especially in
verbs. A comparison between various verbal themes, for instance, results in
the recognition of the distinct role of consonants and vowels. The consonants
bear the main meaning, whereas vowels modify it, often according to a certain
pattern, which, though not predictable, is frequently regular. Thus we have
jr'B: ‘to flee’ and rk"z; ‘to remember’ and their hif ºil forms j'yrib}hI ‘to drive out’
and ryKIz]hI ‘to remind’. The opposition of these forms leads to the conclusion
that the basic meaning (‘to flee’, ‘to remember’) is borne by the consonants,
whereas the vowels modify it according to the pattern in the simple and causa-
tive senses. We can speak of two discontinuous morphemes, viz., the conso-
nantal root plus the vowel pattern that adds to the meaning of the root.
1.5.9. These patterns are not always predictable. They are, however, regu-
lar enough, at least in verbs, that the different roles of consonants and vowels
are quite obvious. Whereas the patterns for verbs are restricted and regular,
and their meanings are rather limited, this is less so for verbal substantives
and adjectives.
1.5.10. The situation is different for the category of substantives proper,
also called old or primitive nouns, those that belong to the most basic stratum
of the language (e.g., most of the nouns listed in §1.5.7). Here, the division be-
tween consonants and vowels is even more blurred, and most of these nouns
cannot be analyzed as being composed of two discontinuous morphemes.
Rather, these nouns show a base in which the role of consonants and vowels
does not differ: dy; ‘hand’, e.g., exhibits the base yaq, which cannot be decom-
posed any further ( just as English ‘hand’ cannot be decomposed into the con-
sonants hnd and the vowel a; see §4.3.1.3, p. 187). Nevertheless, in the de-
nominative verb hd;y; ‘to throw’, derived from dy; and transferred to a triradical
root, the consonants bear the main meaning and the vowels only modify it.
1.5.11. Closely connected to the special role played by the consonants is
triradicalism. Verbs, at least synchronically, are almost always triradical, i.e.,
they have three radical consonants, which bear the main meaning. Even if his-
torically it appears that some verbs are of biradical origin (as tmE ‘to die’), syn-
chronically they have to be regarded as triradical (cf. tw,m:& ‘death’ derived from
tmE). Moreover, verbal nouns and adjectives are triradical as well, though in a
00-Blau.book Page 15 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

15 Semitic ∑ 1.5.15.

less conspicuous manner than verbs. Regarding substantives proper, the prim-
itive nouns that cannot be decomposed into a consonantal root and vowel pat-
tern, often possess only two consonants (as μD; ‘blood’, dy; ‘hand’) and
sometimes even only one (hP< ‘mouth’, μyim"& ‘water’, the second m being an
ending). Whenever a verb is derived from such a noun, it is given a three-con-
sonant shape, since verbs are synchronically invariably (at least) triradical
(like μMEDi ‘to bleed’ in Modern Hebrew, derived from μD; ‘blood’; the above-
mentioned Biblical Hebrew hd;y ; ‘to throw’, derived from dy; ‘hand’).
1.5.12. We have already mentioned that verbal patterns (the so-called
verbal themes or stems) are rather restricted. The similarity between these pat-
terns in different Semitic languages demonstrates the close affinity between
the various Semitic languages quite clearly, as does the similarity of some
nominal patterns (such as those with prefixed m, e.g., j'TEp}m" ‘key’).
1.5.13. The gender distinction is based on the opposition masculine :
feminine, and it is not restricted to nouns and adjectives but extends to verbs
as well (in the second and third persons; the first person does not differentiate
between genders). The masculine noun is, as a rule, unmarked; the feminine
noun is marked, usually, by *-at. This *-at developed in different directions.
(See further Blau 1980 = Topics, 126–37.) On the one hand, the a dropped and
only -t remained; on the other, in final position, the -t was dropped in the ab-
solute, with *-a, i.e., h–:, alone marking the feminine. There exists an old layer
of substantives in which feminine nouns are unmarked, such as μaE ‘mother’,
ˆ/ta: ‘she-ass’. Among these, substantives denoting the paired parts of the
body stand out in relief: dy; ‘hand’, lg,r& , ‘foot’, ˆyi["& ‘eye’. (It has been claimed
that the feminine gender of the paired body parts arose through metanalysis;
see below, §4.4.2.3, p. 263.)
1.5.14. Verbless clauses are quite usual. Since nouns are quite often used
as predicates of these sentences, they are often called nominal clauses. Since,
however, certain types of adverbials (especially local adverbials, as in dl<Y,h& "
μv… ‘the child [is] there’) may be used as predicates of these sentences, the
(less usual) term “verbless clauses” is preferable.
1.5.15. Finally, we can group together a small number of exceptional mor-
phological features involving some of the various Semitic languages. We be-
gin with a problem in gender agreement. Ordinarily, the masculine form is
unmarked, and the feminine marked by *-at. A strange morphological phe-
nomenon characterizes the cardinal numbers 3–10: it is the feminine that is
unmarked, the masculine being marked by *-at. This feature is of special im-
portance for the study of Semitic, since, as Antoine Meillet (1951: 58) noted,
exceptional morphological features are the soundest proof for the affinity of
languages. This is so because, although morphological features may be bor-
rowed in cases of very close contact between languages, exceptional morpho-
logical features can hardly pass from one language to another. Another such
00-Blau.book Page 16 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.5.16. ∑ Family-Tree Model 16

feature, proving the affinity of Hebrew and Arabic, is the word for ‘son’, sin-
gular Heb ˆBE/Arab ªibn ‘son’ with i, in contrast to the plural μyniB: /banuna with
a. Similarly, at least in Hebrew, Ugaritic, Aramaic, and Arabic, the plural of
monosyllabic nouns is formed from a disyllabic basis with a after the second
radical (see §4.4.5.10, p. 273). Noteworthy also is the derivation of the de-
monstrative pronouns from roots containing q > z in the singular, but l in the
plural.
1.5.16. The vocabulary and grammatical features listed here show that the
Semitic languages belong together, and much more material could easily be
adduced.

1.6. A Family-Tree Model for Semitic

1.6.1. The most common model for explaining such far-reaching similarity
between languages is the so-called family-tree (Stammbaum) theory. It pos-
its a proto-language, in our case Proto-Semitic, from which the similar lan-
guages (the Semitic languages) stem, just as the members of a family stem
from one common ancestor. The relatives on the farther branches of the fam-
ily tree have a more distant connection with each other than the nearer ones,
and the languages depicted on the longer branches of the family tree are sup-
posed to be more and more distant from the proto-language. The usual family-
tree diagram employed for depicting the Semitic languages is shown here
(fig. 1). (For further discussion, see Blau 1978a = Topics, 308–32.)
1.6.2. Such a model is useful, but further explanation and qualification is
needed. (After explaining some features of Semitic using a family-tree model,
we shall turn to a wave model in §1.7 to explain others.) It is difficult to estab-
lish the exact degree of affinity between related languages, and the process de-
pends on which feature or group of features an analyst considers to be decisive
for the classification. (See §§1.7.5–1.7.16 below for discussion of conflicting
evidence and evaluation of various features.) Shared innovations are an im-
portant clue for fixing relationships between languages, since, if they are cor-
rectly identified, they would have come into being when the languages now
possessing them still formed a unity (Hetzron 1974). It is possible, however,
that a feature identified as a shared innovation is in fact the result of parallel
developments in the languages (see §1.7.15, p. 22).
1.6.3. Shared innovations of the West Semitic languages, which are absent
from Akkadian (East Semitic), include the suffix-tense form paºala and the in-
ternal passive with characteristic u vowel. Because of these and other fea-
tures, Akkadian is different from all the other Semitic languages: it was only
after Akkadian had separated itself from the other Semitic languages that the
suffix-tense paºala and the internal passive developed.
00-Blau.book Page 17 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

17 Family-Tree Model ∑ 1.6.4.

Proto-Semitic

West Semitic East Semitic

Akkadian
Northwest Semitic Southwest Semitic (Babylonian, Assyrian)

Arabic South Arabian Ethiopic

Amorite Ugaritic Canaanite Aramaic

Old Canaanite Phoenician Moabite Ammonite Edomite Hebrew

(Amarna)

Biblical Hebrew, Rabbinic Hebrew, Medieval Hebrew, Modern Hebrew

Fig. 1. The Semitic languages: the tree model (languages and language fam-
ilies or groups).

1.6.3n. We have not taken Eblaite or other “Palaeosyrian” languages into consideration.
Most scholars consider it to be East Semitic; some scholars regard Eblaite as belonging to
Northwest Semitic. Since the information available is so restricted and uncertain, we deem
it more prudent to set this material aside at this stage.
1.6.4. In fig. 1, Arabic, South Arabian, and Ethiopic are grouped together
as Southwest Semitic. South Arabian and Ethiopic are quite close. For lin-
guistic and historical reasons, it seems certain that Ethiopia was semitized by
tribes speaking South Arabian. The connection of Arabic with the other
Southwest Semitic languages has been questioned (see Goldenberg 1977:
473–75 and references). Despite this questioning, we consider the extension
00-Blau.book Page 18 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.6.5. ∑ Family-Tree Model 18

of the broken plural and of the verbal form paºala to be shared innovations
characterizing Arabic, South Arabian, and Ethiopic and establishing them as a
separate subgroup.
1.6.4n. We do not consider the occurrence of comparable features in other Semitic lan-
guages to be remnants of a former wider use. In our opinion, the other languages have pre-
served the original range of these features, while only in Southwest Semitic were they
extended (Blau 1978a = Topics, 316–17). Consider broken plurals. Even if broken plurals
turn out to be an ancient Semitic feature, it is the widespread formal identity of the shapes
of broken plurals in Arabic, South Arabian, and Ethiopic that is crucial. Goldenberg
(1977: 474) calls attention to the fact that, e.g., actual Tigre broken plural forms, though
they follow the same derivational principles as Arabic, are different from the forms in Ara-
bic (as Tigre ªasay´f ‘swords’ in contrast with Arabic suyuf ). This, however, does not dis-
prove the special affinity between Arabic and Ethiopic. The differences in forms are due to
the great variety of broken plurals, which enables the transition from one pattern to the
other. Even Neo-Arabic dialects reflect variations in the actual broken plural forms. The
identity of the derivational principles in the broken plural is so far-reaching in Arabic and
the other Southwest Semitic languages that it has to be explained as a shared innovation.
1.6.5. The overall structure of the Northwest Semitic branch has been
widely discussed. There are no documents in Amorite. This language is en-
tirely reconstructed from names occurring in Akkadian texts that do not fit the
structure of Akkadian personal names but instead show Northwest Semitic
name formations. At least two different layers of such names have to be dif-
ferentiated. Some scholars regard this language as belonging to the Canaanite
branch (“East Canaanite”); others consider it to be Aramaic. We take it as a
separate branch of Northwest Semitic.
1.6.6. The Canaanite branch of Northwest Semitic includes, in addition to
Hebrew, several languages of which little is known. Some of these languages
are known only from Iron Age and later inscriptions; these include Moabite,
Phoenician (and its descendant Punic), Ammonite, and Edomite. Moabite is
the language closest to Hebrew; it may even be regarded as belonging to the
same dialect group as Hebrew. For all practical purposes, it is extant only in
the Meshaº inscription.
1.6.6n. Most of the important Canaanite inscriptions are available in Donner and Röllig
1968–73; updated bibliography can be found in Krahmalkov 2002 and Parker 2002.
1.6.7. Old Canaanite is reflected in the glosses and deviations from cor-
rect Akkadian found in the Amarna correspondence. These letters were sent
by minor kings and chiefs in Late Bronze Age Syria–Palestine to Pharaoh;
they were found at Tell el-Amarna in Egypt and date from around 1400 b.c.e.
Since the scribes were not well trained in Akkadian, they deviated from cor-
rect Akkadian in the direction of Canaanite, especially in the use of verbs, and
sometimes explained Akkadian words by Canaanite glosses. These deviations
enable the reconstruction of some traits of the language spoken in the various
cities of Palestine and Syria in the second half of the second millennium b.c.e.
00-Blau.book Page 19 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

19 Wave Model ∑ 1.7.4.

This is the most ancient layer of Canaanite known to us, spoken nearly on the
eve of the invasion of the Israelite tribes. W. L. Moran (1950, 2003) has un-
earthed several facts that show various features of Hebrew and Phoenician in
a new light, and A. F. Rainey (1996) has recently summarized the state of our
understanding.

1.7. A Wave Model for Semitic

1.7.1. The family-tree model of Semitic is not without difficulties. Accord-

ing to it, one would expect languages appearing on two remote branches to be
more different in all their conspicuous features than languages on closer
branches. Further, one would expect languages on nearer branches to be more
similar in all their decisive traits. Nevertheless, this is not the case. Sometimes
the discrepancies between the way different features appear across the Semitic
family are so great that one can imagine drawing different family trees for ev-
ery feature.
1.7.2. Some features of Akkadian provide a case in point. Basing ourselves
on the absence of the suffix-tense paºala and the internal passive, we have dis-
sociated Akkadian from Hebrew and other West Semitic languages. Notwith-
standing this, Akkadian has several sound shifts in common with Hebrew: in
both languages t shifts to s (Heb hV…aI ‘woman’, Akk assatu ‘wife’), q to z
(Heb baEz], Akk zibu ‘wolf’), ˛ and Î to ß (Heb ≈jE, Akk ußßu ‘arrow’; Heb ≈r,a<&,
Akk erßetu ‘land’). For these shifts, Aramaic, closer on the family tree to He-
brew, shows different correspondences. Such a pattern, quite different from
what one would have expected, has to be accounted for.
1.7.3. The basic assumption of centrifugal development behind the
family-tree model leads us to expect that the languages emerging from the an-
cestor were at first similar and later on became more different. This assump-
tion is not valid. The history of languages in general and of the Semitic lan-
guages in particular reveals cases in which the development was the opposite:
in this centripetal pattern, the dialects, initially more different, become in-
creasingly similar. The Neo-Arabic dialects, especially the sedentary ones,
differed from each other in the first centuries of Islam and later grew more and
more alike. (For details, see Blau 1965: 15.)
1.7.4. It is because of such shortcomings of the family-tree theory that in
the second half of the nineteenth century a different model was proposed. The
wave theory (Wellentheorie), in fact, does not pretend to replace the family-
tree theory, but rather to complement it.
1.7.4n. Johannes Schmidt in 1872 based the term wave theory on the image of waves mov-
ing through water, because, in his opinion, changes in language diffuse like waves.
Around the same time, Hugo Schuchardt expressed similar views.
00-Blau.book Page 20 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.7.5. ∑ Wave Model 20

1.7.5. Seeking to describe the intricate development of languages, the

wave theory gives up the assumption, hidden in the family-tree model, that
when languages separate, they lose touch. Of course, it may happen that re-
lated languages become totally separated. For example, a dialect group may
emigrate overseas (as did the Saxons, when they penetrated England) or an-
other linguistic community may drive a wedge between two related linguistic
groups (as happened to the Romanians, who were separated by Slavs from the
other [Vulgar] Latin speakers). Nevertheless, as a rule, the separation between
various dialect groups is not total, and a linguistic feature, arising in one dia-
lect, may diffuse over a wide area. A superficial observer may take this feature
to be an early phenomenon, inherited from a proto-language, when it is, as a
matter of fact, a late innovation that has spread between various languages
and dialects through linguistic contact.
1.7.6. In order to visualize such a development, let us assume a chain of re-
lated dialects, spread out across an expanse of territory: a b c d e f g h. (Recall
that linguistics makes no hard-and-fast distinction between dialect and lan-
guage.) The dialects close to each other (as a-b, e-f, etc.) are similar, even mu-
tually intelligible. Remote dialects are also distant in linguistic affinity. Thus,
b and h, for instance, are not merely different dialects but different languages;
the intermediate dialects (from c to g) constitute a gradual transition from one
to the other (from b to h). Now, let us assume that for political, economic, or
cultural reasons dialect b prevails over its environment and becomes a center
of attraction for the other dialects. In the course of time, the speakers of the
neighboring dialects will give up their native languages and become speakers
of dialect b as well. Eventually only dialect h remains (more or less) intact,
because, for instance, a natural obstacle protects it from the overwhelming in-
fluence of b. As a result of this development, b and h become adjacent lan-
guages (no longer mere dialects, since the differences between them are quite
obvious): b h. A superficial observer would suppose that b and h split from a
proto-language. As a matter of fact, however, they never split; instead, they
are the remnants of a series of dialects that had previously been characterized
by gradual transitions.
1.7.6n. Compare Hugo Schuchardt’s famous description of dialects (Schuchardt 1922b)
situated in the borderland between France and Italy. Some of these dialects may easily be
associated with French or Italian, respectively. Others, however, withstand any classifica-
tion, and one wonders, are they still French or already Italian (or vice versa)? See further
Schuchardt (1922a: 191–93).
In order to make the description above clearer, I did not take into account the
fact that the separating factor need not be that of geographical continuity.
Sometimes easy access to communication draws farther dialects nearer,
whereas obstacles may cut off dialects that are geographically close.

spread is 12 points short

00-Blau.book Page 21 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

21 Wave Model ∑ 1.7.11.

1.7.7. The wave model can be useful in studying the Semitic languages as
well. Even a hasty glance at the map of the Semitic languages, past and
present, reveals the geographical continuity of these languages, which has
made linguistic contact regular. Close contact between the Semitic languages
is well attested throughout history. (See also Blau 1978a = Topics, 308–9.)
Further, Semitic languages (most anciently Akkadian, then Aramaic, later Lit-
erary Arabic) were established as regional linguae francae, used for cultural
and other purposes in preference to local languages.
1.7.8. Accordingly, in the description of the development of the Semitic
languages, it is imperative to complement the family-tree model with the
model of the wave theory and to allow for the importance of linguistic contact.
1.7.9. A case in point is the development of the Canaanite dialects (and
perhaps of the Northwest Semitic languages in general). According to the
family-tree hypothesis, Proto–Northwest Semitic branched off from Proto–
West Semitic, and then separated into various languages, including Canaanite
and Ugaritic. Later Canaanite broke up into Hebrew, Phoenician, and so on,
each subdivision growing more and more differentiated and distinct. Never-
theless, this rather simplistic description has justly been questioned. (See,
e.g., Friedrich [1951: 1], who was, to be sure, overeager in establishing addi-
tional language groups.)
1.7.10. The family-tree model has not been validated by the linguistic
character of Ugaritic. This language, written in cuneiform-alphabetic signs,
was first discovered at the end of the 1920s in northern Syria, and shows a sur-
prising affinity to Hebrew not only in literary poetic structure but also in vo-
cabulary and in some grammatical features. Nevertheless, it must not be
classed with the Canaanite languages. First, it lacks features that are associ-
ated with Canaanite, e.g., the shift of stressed a to o. (The absence of this fea-
ture is, however, not decisive, since it may be due to the early attestation of
this language, before the shift had taken place.) Second, it has sound shifts
different from those obtaining in all the Canaanite dialects. (The most impor-
tant is the shift of q to d, whereas in the Canaanite languages q changes to z;
see Blau 1978a = Topics, 325–26.) Accordingly, Ugaritic has to be considered
a language separate from Canaanite. At least some of the surprisingly similar
features of Canaanite and Ugaritic have to be attributed to linguistic contact,
an assumption that fits well with the literary affinities, due to literary contact.
(Some of the shared features of Ugaritic and Hebrew may be due to “pre-
served archaism” in both languages, rather than to shared innovation; cf. Blau
1978a = Topics, 324–25.)
1.7.11. There are similar problems elsewhere in Northwest Semitic. The
language of Yaªudi and that of the inscription from Deir ºAlla do not fit
into the family-tree hypothesis, as if languages developed only centrifugally,
00-Blau.book Page 22 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.7.12. ∑ Wave Model 22

being at the beginning more similar and becoming over the course of time
more different.
1.7.11n. Concerning “Yaªudic,” Friedrich (1951: 153–62) regards it as a separate linguistic
entity. Dion (1974) and Tropper (1993), rightly in my opinion, consider it to be an archaic
Aramaic dialect (see Blau 2007: 217–18).
The language of Deir ºAlla represents, in my opinion, a different language family, close
to Aramaic but not identical to it, pace, e.g., Tropper (1993), who regards it as an archaic
Aramaic dialect, and Hackett (1984), who considers it to be more closely related to South
Canaanite dialects of its time, viz., the first half of the first millennium b.c.e., than to
Aramaic.

1.7.12. Moreover, one must not lose sight of the fact that the languages of
the Israelite tribes were very close to the dialects of the Canaanites whom they
conquered, thus indicating a very complicated development. (Various schol-
ars, notably Hans Bauer and in his wake Harris Birkeland, regarded Hebrew
as a “mixed language” derived from pre-conquest Hebrew and Canaanite; cf.
§§3.5.7.5.8–3.5.7.5.10, p. 127)
1.7.13. Thus we must consider the possibility that the development of
Northwest Semitic was quite different from what is suggested by the family-
tree model. Perhaps there existed no period in which the speakers of the lan-
guages that we call Northwest Semitic lived together. Instead, it may be that
the speakers of these languages split off from the West Semitic stock in
waves, moving into the Fertile Crescent and there coming into contact with
other languages. Through such a process the Northwest Semitic type known
to us might have emerged.
1.7.14. The development of the Canaanite dialects might have been quite
similar. It may be that the Canaanite language type does not stand at the be-
ginning of the development but, rather, came into being at its end (see Fried-
rich 1951: 1). A group of quite different dialects tended through contact to
become more and more similar (compare the case of the Neo-Arabic dialects
noted above in §1.7.3, p. 19). Had Ugaritic not disappeared so early, it might
also have acquired Canaanite traits and lost its non-Canaanite features, be-
coming, in the end, a genuine Canaanite language. This, of course, is mere
speculation. An opposed set of inferences is possible, i.e., that the Canaanite
language type branched off from Northwest Semitic in accordance with the
family-tree model, but some dialects were later attracted by the Canaanite dia-
lects, influenced by them and influencing them, in accordance with the wave
model. The same could be true for Northwest Semitic.
1.7.15. One additional factor has to be taken into consideration in the de-
velopment of languages in general: the possibility of parallel development.
The fundamental difficulty of distinguishing between initial identity and (in-
dependent) parallel development was justly regarded by A. Meillet to pertain
to the very essence of comparative linguistics. Because of the very close affin-
00-Blau.book Page 23 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

23 Wave Model ∑ 1.7.17.

ity of the Semitic languages, which are as similar to each other as languages
belonging to separate branches of the Indo-European family, the possibility of
parallel development is considerable. Each language provides similar starting
points for various phenomena, sometimes even quite specific phenomena.
1.7.15n. The key passage is Meillet 1958b. See also Blau 1980 = Topics, 126–37; 1968b =
Topics, 273–75; 1978a = Topics, 309, 318–20; and below, §3.5.7.2.1n, p. 121. Parallel de-
velopment, for all its importance, must be dealt with in the framework of general compara-
tive linguistics, as an integral part of it. It must not be misrepresented as the cornerstone of
a new conception of historical linguistics, as if it could replace family tree and wave
models, as has been done, in a somewhat fanciful way, by Lutz Edzard (1998).
1.7.16. Accordingly, a realistic model for the development of the Semitic
languages has to allow not only for their splitting off from a common stock,
but also for mutual contact and parallel development. Therefore it is perhaps
more expedient to group the Semitic languages in the following way:

East Semitic: Akkadian.

Northwest Semitic: Amorite; Aramaic; Ugaritic; Canaanite.
Southwest Semitic: Arabic; South Arabian; Ethiopic.

Fig. 2. The Semitic languages: the list model.

This list model has an additional advantage over the family-tree model. The
latter implies that all the Semitic languages derive from the same proto-
language, as if Proto-Semitic were a uniform language, without dialectal vari-
ations. It stands to reason, however, that every language, especially if spread
over broad territories, shows dialectal variations, and for Proto-Semitic, in-
deed, this is rather likely. Evidence is provided by alternations such as the
causative prefixes h/ ª/s (see §4.3.5.7.3, p. 234), for which dialectal variation
could well account.
1.7.17. Such dialectal variations would make the reconstruction of Proto-
Semitic even more of an imaginary endeavor than proto-language reconstruc-
tion usually is. Reconstruction would also be difficult because the various
features reconstructed for Proto-Semitic would be of varying ages. The attri-
bution of features of different ages to the synchronic system of one language
would be tantamount, to use Charles Bally’s witty formulation, to a portrait of
a man built up of photographs taken at different ages, with a baby’s mouth, an
adult’s beard, and an old man’s wrinkles (quoted in Leroy 1967: 137). Further,
the various features attributed to Proto-Semitic are not only hypothetical but
necessarily deficient, since they are based on literary documents accidentally
preserved in the various Semitic languages.
00-Blau.book Page 24 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.8. ∑ Afro-Asiatic 24

1.8. Afro-Asiatic

1.8.1. In recent times, the affinity between the Semitic languages and other
groups of languages has been emphasized; these are Egyptian, Berber (or
Lybico-Berber), and some other African language families (Chadic, Cushitic,
Omotic). The once usual name “Hamito-Semitic languages” for this larger
group is now less common because it allegedly wrongly suggests that the Se-
mitic languages stand in opposition to the other groups, which together con-
stitute a supposed Hamitic group. Rather, each family has to be regarded as a
separate entity within the larger family, and indeed each evinces scattered, yet
surprising, similarities with the Semitic languages. The name used today is
Afro-Asiatic languages or Afrasian.
1.8.2. The actual comparative analysis of these languages has to overcome
tremendous obstacles. The Semitic languages and Egyptian are known from
ancient times; the other languages, however, are only known from recent
times, with some exceptions in the Berber group. So far, scholars have not
succeeded in building up a model for the affinity between these languages and
the Semitic languages. Even the most basic issues are completely obscure,
e.g., whether some or all of these languages reflect an original affinity with Se-
mitic or, rather, during their history, had become semitized (or possibly egyp-
tianized). Perhaps comparative work analyzing the internal workings of these
groups will enable future scholars to extrapolate some of the results reached to
the larger family.
1.8.3. So far, however, the many claims made seem to be premature. Thus
it has been claimed on the strength of features found in some African lan-
guages that the Semitic languages show features found in languages of the er-
gative type. In such languages the status (and case marking) of the subject of
an intransitive verb is similar to that of the object of a transitive verb. In En-
glish we can contrast The window broke and I broke the window; window has
a similar status in both, the undergoer of the action. This analogy is limited,
since modern English does not possess cases. Only if the subject of intransi-
tive break (The window broke) has the same case as the object of transitive
break (I broke the window) do we have a proper ergative construction. It has
been claimed that in Semitic languages there are vestiges of this construction,
yet the proofs adduced are meager indeed.
1.8.3n. Thus Lipinski (1997: 259, par. 32.11) contends that in the Arabic sentence aå>Eå å˜aåK
¥îL ka:na ªaxa: li: ‘he was a brother to me’, aå>Eå ªaxa: terminates in predicative -a:, suppos-
edly marking the predicate of an ergative construction. The sentence in correct Classical
Arabic is, instead, ¥îL aÅ>Eå å˜aåK kana ªaxan li:, with tanwin -an (denoting the accusative), and
it is much more tenable to regard this accusative as a development of the adverbial con-
struction *‘he stood as a brother to me’ > ‘he was a brother to me’.
Further, Lipinski suggests that the -a suffix of the Arabic perfect 3ms (e.g., fari˙a ‘he
was glad’; cf. Lipinski 1997: 360, par. 40.3) reflects the predicative suffix of the ergative
00-Blau.book Page 25 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

25 Sound Shift ∑ 1.9.3.

attached to an originally intransitive stative. This is not convincing, although it is not to-
tally out of question. Were the final -a of fari˙a in fact a nominal ending, one wonders
why in the 3fs (e.g., fari˙at ‘she was glad’) there is no trace of the -a ending (the form is
not *fari˙ata), since everything indicates that the final -t was not followed by a vowel; cf.,
e.g., Bauer-Leander 1922: 309, par. 42g.

1.9. Sound Shifts and Relative Chronology

1.9.1. Consider the following groups of pairs of words in Hebrew and
Arabic.

A. Heb q["z; Arab zaºaqa ‘to cry’ B. Heb jb"z; Arab qaba˙a ‘to
sacrifice’
Heb lz'n; ‘to flow’; Arab nazala Heb ˆz,aø& Arab ªuqn ‘ear’
‘to go down’
Heb zg'r; ‘to be agitated’; Arab Heb zj"a: Arab ªaxaqa ‘to take’
ªirtajaza ‘to thunder’

In the six Hebrew words, z occurs twice in initial, twice in medial, and twice
in final position, demonstrating that its use is not restricted to any special po-
sition in the word. In Group A, Heb z corresponds to Arab z, while in Group B,
it is Arab q that matches Heb z. What is the reason for this different behavior?
1.9.2. For argument’s sake, let us begin by assuming that Hebrew, rather
than Arabic, has preserved the original structure. This would mean that in
Proto-Semitic these words exhibited z, and that it was Arabic that retained it
in Group A and shifted it to q in Group B. Such a view would require that
sound shifts be irregular and unpredictable, since there is no reason for the dif-
ferent behavior of the putative original z in Group B. As noted, the difference
cannot be explained by the position of the sound in the word or root.
1.9.3. It cannot even be claimed that the different consonantal environment
in these groups brought about the different behavior of supposed Proto-
Semitic z, since such differences occur in identical environments as well.
Even in identical (or very similar) roots, z occurs alongside q. Consider three
examples. (1) Compare Heb [r'z;, Arab zaraºa ‘to sow’, with Heb ['/rz], Arab
qiraº ‘arm’. (2) As we have seen, Heb ˆz,aø& corresponds to Arab ªuqn ‘ear’;
nevertheless, Heb μyin'z& ]amø ‘scale’ matches Arab mizan. (3) Heb z[", root ºzz, ‘to
be strong’ goes with Arab ºaziz, yet Heb zy[IhE, root ºwz, ‘to bring into safety’
matches Arab ªaºaqa, root ºwq.
1.9.3n. The root ‘to sow,’ Heb [r'z;, Arab zaraºa, presents a surprise in Ugaritic. There drº
‘to sow’ is attested. Since in Ugaritic d may correspond to q, this form attests, prima facie,
PS qrº, contravening regular sound correspondences. I am, however, inclined to posit for
Ugaritic original PS *zrº and attribute qrº to contamination with the synonymous qrª ‘to
sow’; see §§1.10.3.5–6, p. 38, and §1.16.7, p. 52.
00-Blau.book Page 26 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.9.4. ∑ Sound Shift 26

In Heb μyin'z& ]amø ‘scale’, the a is surprising, since the word is to be derived, as demon-
strated by Arabic, from the root wzn (>yzn), rather than from ªzn. Just as bv…/m ‘seat’, from
the root wsb (>ysb), is spelled without a, so one would have expected μyin'z& ]amø without a as
well. The a is due to the influence of μyin'z& ]a: ‘(two) ears’, since speakers were reminded of
(two) ears by the two scales of the balance. It is interesting to note that in Biblical Aramaic
(Dan 5:27) aY; n'z& ] amø is spelled with a as well, although in Aramaic ‘ear’ is derived from ªdn,
and not from ªzn. This derivation makes the possibility of any impact of ªdn on moz´-
nayya quite unlikely. The aleph is due, no doubt, to the influence of Hebrew.

1.9.4. If we were to assume that it was only by chance that these roots split
into two secondary roots, one containing z, the other q, this would be tanta-
mount to positing anarchy in sound shifts. Therefore, such a view has to be
abandoned. The analysis of the linguistic facts clearly demonstrates that
sound shifts are regular, as long as other factors do not interfere. This as-
sumption is not only demonstrated by hundreds and hundreds of cases of regu-
lar development in various languages and regular correspondences between
related languages, but it has also enabled important findings that otherwise
would not have been made. Therefore, a different assumption has to be made
which does not contravene the basic principle of historical linguistics that
sound shifts are regular.
1.9.5. We shall posit that it was Arabic, rather than Hebrew, that preserved
the state of Proto-Semitic for z/q. In Hebrew PS q in every position has con-
sistently shifted to z. Accordingly, we have to postulate historically the exis-
tence of two kinds of z in Hebrew. One (found in Group A), let us call it z1,
stems from PS z and corresponds to z in Arabic and the other Semitic lan-
guages. The other, let us call it z2, originates in PS (and corresponds to Arab)
q (as in Group B). The Proto-Semitic interdentals take on various identities,
and this q was not quite stable in various Semitic languages: in Akkadian and
in Ancient Ethiopic (Gºez) it shifted, as in Hebrew, to z; in Aramaic it shifted
to d; in Classical Arabic and Epigraphic South Arabian it was preserved.
1.9.5n. The history of this interdental in Ugaritic is interesting (see further Blau 1968a =
Topics, 339–41). At the time of the invention of the Ugaritic alphabet q still existed, and a
special letter (the sixteenth in the Ugaritic alphabet) was invented for it. Nevertheless, at
the time of the transmission of the Ugaritic literature, the sound had shifted to d (as in Ara-
maic). In some words the archaic spelling, marking q by a special letter, still obtained.

1.9.6. The chart below of some Hebrew words containing z2 and their cor-
respondences (see p. 27) in other Semitic languages is not without interest.
1.9.6n. The Aramaic forms in the chart require a word of explanation: In Aramaic b, g, d,
k, p, t after vowels have shifted, as in Biblical Hebrew, to spirants; accordingly, d after
vowels has become q, which here, however, does not represent PS q but an allophone of q.
Similarly PS b has become b2 . The -a suffixed to Aramaic nouns serves, originally at least,
as a postpositive definite article. The noun with the article is said to be in the “emphatic
state.” Regarding Ugaritic ªaxd, note that the archaic spelling ªaxq is attested as well. Aram
deb2 a means ‘jackal’, and Ethiopic (Gºez) z´ªb means ‘hyena’. Akkadian nominal forms
00-Blau.book Page 27 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

27 > z ∑ 1.9.9.
SoundqShift

Heb Akk Aram Ugar Arab Gºez

‘to sacrifice’ jb"z; — dOba˙ db˙ qaba˙a zab˙a

‘ear’ ˆz,aø& uzn(um) ªuqna ªudn ªuqn(un) ª´zn
‘to take’ zj"a: axaz(um) ªå˙aq ªaxd ªaxaqa ªaxaza
‘wolf’ baEz] zib(um) debõa — qiªb(un) z´ªb
‘fly’ bWbz] zubb(um) dabbabõa — qubab(un) z´nb

terminate in -um (we are quoting Akkadian verbs in the infinitive form), Arabic forms end
in -un. Gºez z´nb reflects the dissimilation of bb (in original *z´bb) to nb.
1.9.7. As shown, the correspondences between the various Semitic lan-
guages are entirely regular. Heb z2, for which we posit PS q, as preserved, e.g.,
in Arabic, always corresponds to Akk and Ethiopic z and Aram and Ugaritic d.
It is this empirical regularity that serves as the basis of the determining prin-
ciple of linguistics, viz., that sound shifts are regular.
1.9.8. The notions of the historical relationship between languages and of
the regularity of sound shifts have been shaped only since the last quarter of
the eighteenth century (see §§1.5.3–1.5.4, p. 13). The principle of the regular-
ity of phonetic change was especially stressed from the 1870s on by the Jung-
grammatiker or Neogrammarian school, which was at first centered around
the University of Leipzig. These scholars, somewhat unfortunately, called the
sound shifts sound laws (Lautgesetze) and thus initiated a long and not very
fruitful discussion about the extent to which these sound laws may be com-
pared with natural laws. In their opinion sound “laws” operated blindly and
with blind necessity. The most important practical distinction between sound
shifts and natural laws is that the latter are eternal, whereas sound shifts are re-
stricted in time. Phonetic changes operate for a certain time, after which hab-
its of pronunciation may change and thus induce different sound shifts.
1.9.8n. Neogrammarian slogans include Hermann Osthoff ’s formulation, “Die Laut-
gesetze wirken blind, mit blinder Notwendigkeit” (“Sound laws operate blindly, with
blind necessity”), and the statement of Osthoff and Brugmann, “Aller Lautwandel, so weit
er mechanisch vor sich geht, vollzieht sich nach ausnahmslosen Gesetzen” (“Every sound
change, insofar as it proceeds mechanically, is completed according to exceptionless
laws” (Osthoff and Brugman 1878: xiii).
1.9.9. As we have seen (§1.9.5), PS q had shifted in Hebrew to z. At a cer-
tain period speakers of Hebrew became unable to pronounce q and constantly
substituted z for it. At a later period, other phonetic changes arose, which once
more introduced q into Hebrew. At this period d after vowels became spiran-
tized, i.e., it shifted to q. If the sound shift q to z had still operated at this pe-
riod, d should have first shifted to q, and afterwards to z. Accordingly, we have
00-Blau.book Page 28 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.9.10. ∑ Relative Chronology; Etymology 28

to posit that at the time of the spirantization of d the sound shift q to z had
ceased to operate.
1.9.9n. We are speaking here of sounds. As a matter of fact, a great difference between the
functions of q in these two periods obtains. In the first period, it was a phoneme, in the sec-
ond, initially at least, a mere allophone. See §3.3.2.1, p. 78, on the spirantization of d,
along with b, g, k, p, t.
1.9.10. The recognition that sound shifts are restricted in their operation
enables us often to establish their relative chronology. It is clear that the spi-
rantization of d is later than the shift of q to z; that is, the shift of q to z pre-
ceded the spirantization of d after vowels and had already ceased to operate
when the spirantization occurred. (It is not possible to determine in the same
way the absolute chronology of these shifts, i.e., to establish the actual periods
in which they took place.)
1.9.11. The shift of q to z occurred under every circumstance; it is uncon-
ditioned, and because of its operation q completely disappeared from ancient
Hebrew. In contrast, the shift of d to q occurred only after vowels; it was con-
ditioned, and therefore d not after a vowel remained in Hebrew and did not
disappear.

1.10. Etymology and Sound Shifts

1.10.1. Introduction
1.10.1.1. Etymology deals with the original formation and meaning of
words. Greek etymos means ‘true’, as if the ‘true’ meaning were at stake,
based, it seems, on the Stoic notion that the original meaning of each word was
onomatopoetic (an imitation of sound), disclosing the initial connection be-
tween the sound of the word and the object or action it marks. For the most
part, etymology is diachronic, attempting to trace the history of words by find-
ing out their early forms and meanings, and working back, as far as the exist-
ing documents allow. Comparative etymology attempts to discover the affinity
between the vocabularies of related languages. It is customary to base the
etymology of biblical vocabulary on comparative evidence, the more so be-
cause it is of limited extent only. Judiciously done, it is of no mean impor-
tance. An example will suffice to illustrate our claim.
1.10.1.1n. For the vocabulary of Biblical Hebrew, see the various editions of Wilhelm Ge-
senius’ dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew. The first German lexicon was published in 1812,
while the Latin lexicon appeared in 1835–58. The best known dictionary in the Gesenius
tradition and the most widely used English biblical lexicon is the excellent, though some-
what outdated, work of F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs (1907), generally quoted
as BDB. In the same tradition, in German, and up to the same standard is the likewise
somewhat obsolete dictionary of F. Buhl (1915), nominally the seventeenth edition of Ge-
senius’ German work.
00-Blau.book Page 29 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

29 Etymology ∑ 1.10.1.3.

More modern dictionaries, such as the various editions of the work of Ludwig Koehler
and W. Baumgartner, are not up to the same standard, with the notable exception of their
Aramaic portion, composed and guided by Baumgartner (Koehler and Baumgartner 1953,
1958, 1996, 2000; Holladay 1971; Reymond 1991). E. Klein has published A Comprehen-
sive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English (1987).

1.10.1.2. The biblical verb jf"B: denotes, as a rule, ‘to be confident, secure’,
as Judg 18:7 j'fEbøW fqEvø ‘secure and confident’. A problem arises with Jer 12:5.
The verse begins with the exclamation: ËyaEw ] ÚWa& l} Y' w' hT:x}r'& μylIg]r'Ata< yKI
μysIWSh"Ata< hr,j“t"T‘} because [if ] you have run with footmen and they have wea-
ried you, then how can you contend with horses?’ It continues: μ/lv… ≈r,a<&b}W
ˆDer]Y'h" ˆ/ag]BI hc≤[“T" ËyaEw ] j'fE/b hT:a." According to the ordinary signification of
jfb, this would have the quite absurd meaning: ‘and [if ] in the land of peace
you are confident, then how will you do in the swelling of the Jordan?’ This
suggests that one is safer in the jungles along the Jordan, a dangerous area
where lions make their covert, than in the land of peace! In Arabic, however,
ba†a˙ahu means ‘he threw him down’ and ªinba†a˙a ‘he fell (upon his face)’.
It appears that jfb in the sense of ‘to fall’ was still preserved in Biblical He-
brew, and that this sense was later forgotten through the influence of the
meaning ‘to be secure’. In Jer 12:5, at any rate, j'fE/b has preserved the mean-
ing of ‘falling’ and the lines have to be translated ‘and [if ] in the land of peace
you fall down, then how will you do in the swelling of the Jordan?’ The Tar-
gum corroborates this suggestion, translating j'fE/b by lypn ‘falling’.
1.10.1.2n. Apparently, jf"B: ‘to be secure’ and ªinba†a˙a ‘to fall’ are not homonyms, i.e.,
they are not words that, though identical in sound, have no historical connection. Rather
this is a case of polysemy, i.e., the words are derived from one root which, by semantic
shift, has developed different significations. The semantic shift was ‘to fall’ > ‘to lie’ > ‘to
lie in security, to be secure’, as in Ps 22:10–11: μj<r;&mE yTIk}l"v
& ‘h: Úyl<[& : yMIaI ydev‘Al[" yjIyfIb}m" , lit-
erally, ‘(you) are letting me lie on my mother’s breasts; I was cast upon you from the
womb’, i.e., ‘(you) are making me secure on my mother’s breasts; I have been made secure
and confident in you from the womb’. For a similar development, cf. Arab saqa†a ‘to fall’,
fq' v… ‘to be quiet’.

1.10.1.3. In spite of the great merits of etymology, the etymologist must

beware of pitfalls. He has to take heed lest he attribute to words a meaning at-
tested in other languages, rather than the meaning demanded by context. A
case in point is Isa 2:16, hD;m}j<h" t/YkIc‘AlK: l["w ] vyv¥r]T" t/Ynia’AlK: l["w ] ‘and on all
the ships of Tarshish and on all pleasant t/YkIc‘’. The word t/YkIc‘ was con-
nected by many scholars with Heb tyKIc‘m" ‘figure’ and Aram ak:s} (originally
akc*) ‘to look out’ and therefore interpreted as ‘imagery’. Nevertheless, the
context clearly demands ‘ship’, rather than a metonymic expression such as
‘imagery’, and scholars who interpreted t/YkIc‘ as ‘imagery’ were simply mis-
led by etymology. In fact, Ugaritic tkt ‘a kind of ship’ substantiates the con-
tention that t/YkIc‘ denotes ‘ships’ from the point of view of etymology.
00-Blau.book Page 30 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.10.1.4. ∑ Etymology 30

1.10.1.3n. Ugaritic tkt should, according to regular sound shift, correspond to twykv*. This
does not, however, necessarily imply that the original biblical reading was with v, since
the word may well be borrowed (in both languages) from Egyptian; thus Hebrew and Uga-
ritic may here reflect different adaptations of the same Egyptian word.
1.10.1.4. Sometimes etymology misleads the scholar in matters of mate-
rial culture. Thus ˆj:l}v¨ ‘table’ was connected with Arabic salaxa ‘to strip off
hide’ and interpreted as having been a leather mat spread on the ground and
used as a table, as is usual in Arab Bedouin societies. Nevertheless, archaeo-
logical evidence from the biblical period points to tables made of wood, as is
also required by Exod 37:10. With the discovery of Ugaritic, which attests to
tl˙n ‘table’ (rather than *slxn), the connection with Arabic slx can finally be
refuted.
1.10.1.4n. Tropper (2000: 109) claims that the t of Ugaritic tl˙n corresponds to PS s, and
he is inclined to regard this as a loan word (and, indeed, Ugaritic t may reflect s in loan
words, Tropper 2000: 108). Therefore, he considers its derivation from ÷slx (Arabic slx) to
be possible. Although this supposition would account for t, it does not explain the occur-
rence of ˙, rather than the expected x, if the Ugaritic word were in fact related to ÷*slx.
One could, to be sure, posit a loan from a language in which x had shifted to ˙; neverthe-
less, such an assumption is nothing more than an unnecessary and desperate attempt to
save the derivation of tl˙n from ÷slx.

1.10.2. Etymology and Regular Sound Shifts

1.10.2.1. If we continue with the word ˆj:l}v¨ ‘table’, we can explore the
complexity of regular sounds shifts, since this word contains two of the He-
brew sounds that represent mergers from Proto-Semitic. We will explain why
theoretically Heb v (ˆj:l}v)¨ could correspond to Ugar t (tl˙n) on the one hand
and to Arab s (slx) on the other hand, as well as why theoretically Heb j (ˆj:l}v)¨
could correspond to Ugar ˙ (tl˙n) on the one hand and to Arab x (slx) on the
other hand.
1.10.2.2. If we compare Hebrew roots containing s or ˙, a picture similar to
that observed with z (in §§1.9.6–1.9.7, pp. 26–27) emerges. Heb s in one
group of roots corresponds to s in other Semitic languages; specifically, Heb s
corresponds to Akk, Aram, and Ugar s, and Arab and Eth (Gºez) s. This s we
shall call s1. In contrast, for another group of Hebrew roots containing s
(which we shall call s2) other sounds correspond in other Semitic languages:
Akkadian has s, agreeing with Hebrew, but we find Aram t, Ugar and Arab t,
and Eth (Gºez) s.
1.10.2.2n. Minor adjustments that are relevant to the examples will be cited in every case.
Akkadian shows some dialectal variation that is not germane. Arab and Gºez s, in contrast
with s in the other languages, seems to be secondary. In the related language Epigraphic
South Arabian, on the other hand, s has been preserved, and it is also attested in Modern
South Arabian languages. Against the earlier view, that in Epigraphic South Arabian s had
shifted to s, as if this shift were a common Southwest Semitic feature, see, e.g., Beeston
00-Blau.book Page 31 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

31 s / t ∑ 1.10.2.3.2.
Etymology

1984: 9 and n. 15; Blau 1977e: 90–92 = Topics, 73–75. (This s is conventionally rep-
resented as s1. In this same scheme, s2 corresponds to the Modern South Arabian non-
emphatic lateral and to Heb ¶in and Arab s, and s 3 to Heb s and Arab s.)
1.10.2.3. Let us look at the following examples involving the root sny ‘year’
and ‘to change’, containing s1, and ‘two’ and ‘to do a second time’, with s2.

Heb Akk Arab Gºez Aram Ugar

‘year’ hn;v… sattu(m) sana — s´na snt
‘to change’ hN;v¥ sunnu(m) — — sanni ?
‘two’ &
μyin'v‘ sina ªitnani sanita t´ren tn
‘to do again’ hn;v… sanu(m) tana — t´na tny

In Hebrew and Akkadian, by dint of the shift t > s2, the two roots sny/tny have
become homonymous. It is only synchronically that hn;v… ‘year’ and hN;v¥ ‘to
change’ can be derived from the same root, although both begin with s1. hn;v…
belongs to the very old stratum of primitive nouns with biconsonantal roots
(see §1.5.7, p. 14, §1.5.10, p. 14), and it is, prima facie, difficult to imagine that
‘to change’ is derived from it, as if ‘change’ were a distinctive characteristic of
a ‘year’.
1.10.2.3n. A supposed link between ‘change’ and ‘year’ has often been alleged; see, e.g.,
BDB. Semantically it is more plausible to connect μyin'v& ‘ ‘two’, beginning with s2 , also a bi-
consonantal noun, and the verb ‘to do again’. Historically, there was no connection what-
ever between these words, since ‘two’ begins with s2 , and ‘change’ with s1. Nevertheless,
synchronically, after the initial t in ‘two’ had shifted to s, the two words were felt to be
related, since if something shifts to a second thing, it changes. This intricate connection
between various roots clearly demonstrates the importance of strictly adhering to the as-
sumption of the regularity of sound shifts. This is the only way to disentangle, at least to
some extent, the complicated relations between various roots. See also immediately below!

The table requires some annotation.

1.10.2.3.1. ‘year’: Akk sattu(m) reflects original *santu(m) with assimi-
lated n, as does Aram (emphatic state) aT:v" ‘the year’. The original feminine
ending is -(a)t; in Hebrew and Aramaic this ending had shifted in final posi-
tion to -a (spelled h-;): Heb hn;v…, Aram hn;v‘.
1.10.2.3.2. ‘to change’: Akk sunnu(m), being an infinitive, terminates in
the nominal ending -u(m). The existence of this root in Ugaritic is uncertain.
1.10.2.3.2n. In what follows we shall not call attention to the Akkadian nominal ending
-um. It is customary in Akkadian transcriptions to mark with a circumflex long vowels that
arose by contraction (e.g., û) and to mark other long vowels with a macron (e.g., u). In or-
der not to complicate matters, we mark all long vowels with a macron.
00-Blau.book Page 32 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.10.2.3.3. ∑ Etymology
s / t and ˙ / x 32

1.10.2.3.3. ‘two’: The final -a of Akk sina is the dual ending, as are Heb
-áyim, Arab -ani, and Aram -en. In Arabic, t, being without a vowel, is pre-
ceded by a prosthetic aleph. Gºez sanita denotes ‘the second/next day’. Aram
t´ren emerged from original *t´nen, cf. Aram tinyan ‘second’. The shift of the
last radical from n to r is also attested in Aram bar ‘son’ < *bin, and †mr ‘to
hide’ < †mn.
1.10.2.4. Heb j also corresponds to two different sets of sounds in other
Semitic languages. On the one hand, it corresponds to Akk W (“zero”), Aram,
Ugar, Arab, Gºez (and ESA) ˙; in such cases, we shall call it ˙1. On the other
hand, it may correspond to Aram ˙, Akk, Ugar, Arab, Gºez (and ESA) x, and
in these cases we shall call it ˙2.
1.10.2.4n. With the exception of x (generally transliterated h in Akkadian), Akkadian la-
ryngeals and pharyngeals have weakened to become a glottal stop or have disappeared en-
tirely. Nevertheless, they have often left traces of their former presence in the surrounding
vowels. It appears that the weakening of the laryngeals and pharyngeals occurred through
the impact of Sumerian, a non-Semitic language of unknown linguistic affinity, whose
speakers preceded and deeply influenced the Semites in Babylon in language and culture,
including writing. The merger of ˙1 and ˙2 is found in Aramaic as in Hebrew.

1.10.2.5. If we examined these data and proposed that Hebrew (which ex-
hibits s and ˙ only, as does Aramaic), reflects the original state of Semitic, we
would be obliged to suppose complete arbitrariness in the behavior of these
sounds in the other Semitic languages, which, in this case, varied without any
apparent reason. Basing ourselves on the principle of the regularity of sound
shifts, we can instead explain these data for Proto-Semitic by proposing the
existence of s1 (pronounced s) and s2 (pronounced t), and the existence of ˙1
(pronounced ˙) and ˙2 (pronounced x), respectively. The information of the
many Semitic languages is thus accounted for. Here are some examples of
both s1 /s2 and ˙1 /˙2:
1.10.2.6. ts1º ‘nine’, Heb [væT& E, Akk tisu(m), Aram tOsáº, Gºez t´sºu, Arab
tisº(un), Ugar tsº, ESA tsº.
1.10.2.6n. The Hebrew form was originally *tis º, which developed in H to [væT& E (note the
penultimate stress!) with the insertion of an anaptyctic vowel (see §4.4.5.10, p. 273;
§4.5.1.11, p. 282).
In Akkadian, the º disappeared.
The different syllable structure of Aramaic (in contrast with [væTE& < *tisº ) is due to an in-
ternal development, the so-called sursaut (a vocalic “jump”). This was caused, it seems,
not only because the anaptyctic (final) vowel had become phonemically relevant and at-
tracted the stress, but also by the analogy of certain disyllabic nouns. These originally had
two short vowels in a (first) open and a (second) closed syllable and had become identical,
in the pronominal state, with originally monosyllabic nouns. Thus, e.g., *haqar ‘majesty’
> Aram håqár, with pronominal suffix haqri, which was identical in shape with the status
pronominalis of monosyllabic nouns, like yar˙i ‘my month’, thus giving rise to forms like
y´ra˙. See Spitaler 1968: 94–96; Blau 2000: 520. In Gºez, the final -u is a special suffix.
00-Blau.book Page 33 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

33 t and ˙ / x ∑ 1.10.2.19.
s /Etymology

1.10.2.7. qds1 ‘to be cultically clean, hallowed’, Heb vdq, Akk, Aram,
Ugar, ESA qds, Arab, Gºez qds.
1.10.2.8. s1m ‘name’, Heb μv´´, Akk sum(um), Aram μv¨, Ugar sm, Gºez
s´m, Arab ªism(un), ESA sm.
1.10.2.8n. In Akkadian and Aramaic, the u is presumably due to the assimilation of origi-
nal i to the following m. The Arabic word has a prosthetic vowel that is used only at the
absolute beginning of an utterance (and in the dictionary form, as here).
1.10.2.9. lbs1 ‘to dress’, Heb, Akk, Aram, Ugar, ESA lbs, Arab, Gºez lbs.
1.10.2.10. ms2 l ‘to be (a)like, etc.’, Heb, Akk msl, Aram mtl, Gºez msl,
Arab, ESA mtl.
1.10.2.11. s2br ‘to break’, Heb rb"v…, Akk sbr, Aram tbr, Gºez sbr, Ugar,
Arab, ESA tbr.
1.10.2.11n. The Arabic word means ‘to destroy’.
1.10.2.12. ˙1rs2 ‘to plow’, Heb vr'j:, Aram ˙rt, Gºez ˙rs, Ugar, Arab, ESA
˙rt.
1.10.2.12n. The occurrence of this root in Akkadian is dubious, since eresu ‘to sow’ may
correspond to Arab wrs.
1.10.2.13. ˙1rs1 ‘craftsman’, Heb vr;h:, Ugar ˙rs.
1.10.2.14. ˙2rs1 ‘deaf, mute’, Heb vrejE, Aram ˙arsa (emphatic state), Arab
ªaxras(u).
1.10.2.14n. Arab ªaxras(u) belongs to an exceptional class of nouns that end in -u (rather
than in -un).
1.10.2.15. ˙1bl ‘rope’, Heb lb<j<&, Akk ebl(um), Aram ˙åb2 al/˙åb2 el, Ugar,
ESA ˙bl, Gºez ˙abl, Arab ˙abl(un).
1.10.2.15n. The Hebrew was originally *˙abl, which developed to lb<j<& (note the penult
stress!) with the insertion of an anaptyctic vowel.
In Akkadian, as noted, ˙1 disappeared (or rather shifted to ª).
The Aramaic form again shows sursaut (§1.10.2.6n). Some words show derived sense:
the Ugaritic noun means ‘band, group’, and the Epigraphic South Arabian means ‘pact,
contract’.
1.10.2.16. ˙2 bl ‘to corrupt, to injure’ (with various semantic variations),
Heb, Aram ˙bl, Akk, Arab, Gºez(?), ESA xbl.
1.10.2.17. ˙2ms1 ‘five’, Heb vmEj:, Akk xams(um), Aram ˙åmes, Ugar, ESA
xms, Arab xams(un), Gºez xams.
1.10.2.17n. In Arabic and Gºez, the numeral is monosyllabic. In Aramaic, other forms
exist as well.
1.10.2.18. ˙2nq ‘to strangle’, Heb qn'j:, Akk, Gºez, Arab xnq, Aram ˙nq.
1.10.2.19. These regular sound correspondences provide the basis for the
study of Semitic etymology. As we shall see, there are many complexities and
risks involved in etymology. It is because of these that the excellent (yet
00-Blau.book Page 34 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.10.2.20. ∑ Etymology 34

outdated) biblical dictionary of C. Siegfried and B. Stade (1893) renounced

comparative etymology entirely, claiming that it harms more than it helps.
Such a procedure, however, surely throws the baby out with the bathwater.
1.10.2.19n. A fruitful way of determining the exact meaning of words, without necessarily
having recourse to etymology, was developed by Moshe Held and, in his wake, by his
pupil Harold R. (Chaim) Cohen. They seek to establish the meaning of a difficult word by
examining synonyms in related Semitic languages used in the same environment. Thus,
e.g., the meaning of the hapax legomenon πx<q,& ‘foam’ in Hos 10:7 μyim"& yneP} l[" πx<q,&K} ‘as foam
upon the water’, can be elucidated by a parallel expression in Akkadian in which xubus
‘foam’ occurs. See, e.g., Held 1965, 1970–71, 1973, 1974, 1982, 1985; Cohen 1978, 1989.

1.10.2.20. Comparative etymology, when judiciously researched, is indeed,

of great value. Above all, it has to be based on sound knowledge of the lan-
guages compared. It does not suffice to look in the dictionaries of the com-
pared languages for corresponding roots. The etymologist must carefully dis-
tinguish between basic and secondary meanings. Often, the compared lan-
guage has a root with a signification that, on the face of it, offers the meaning
required by the biblical passage compared. Nevertheless, deeper scrutiny re-
veals that this is due to secondary development of meanings not attested in
Biblical Hebrew.
1.10.2.21. This danger is especially great in comparisons with Arabic. Its
vast vocabulary was already used for comparisons in the Middle Ages, and
since the days of Albert Schultens (1686–1750) it has often been abused for
comparative biblical etymology. Because we do not possess modern dictio-
naries of Classical Arabic based on readings of texts, comparison with Arabic
was carried out with the help of the native dictionaries. These, however, have
a rather atomistic approach, without any attempt to distinguish between basic
and occasional meanings. Scholars have wrongly sought to elucidate difficult
biblical passages on the basis of many of these occasional meanings, based on
special context. In the Middle Ages, Jona ibn Jana˙ (11th century), the great-
est medieval Hebrew grammarian and lexicographer, interpreted Amos 6:5
lb<N;&h" yPIAl[" μyfIr]Pøh" on the basis of an Arabic verb as ‘those who improvise on
the harp’. This interpretation fits the context very well. Nevertheless, it cannot
be substantiated on the strength of Arabic, since the basic meaning of Arabic
fr† is ‘to precede’, which shifted to ‘to do hastily’, and only then to ‘to impro-
vise’. It is quite unlikely that the same semantic shift took place in Hebrew,
where the basic meaning is absent. (See further Blau 1987a: 96 = Studies, 201.)
1.10.2.22. Nevertheless, the most fundamental requirement of a compara-
tive etymology is that the scholar not be misled by external similiarities be-
tween words, but rather that he/she adhere to rigorously observed, precise
rules of sound shifts. If this is not done, etymology is apt to turn into nothing
more than a game.
00-Blau.book Page 35 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

35 Etymology; Semantic Connections ∑ 1.10.2.26.

1.10.2.23. In many cases, strict adherence to the regularity of sound shifts

enables us to disentangle the connections of words and to discover hom-
onyms. We have already seen that ‘two’ μyin'&v‘ begins with s2. One might (as
noted above) seek to connect it with hN;v¥ ‘to change’, beginning with s1. The
notions of ‘changing, diversifying’ on the one hand, and of ‘two, second’ on
the other, are related. Nevertheless, the fact is that hn;v… ‘to change’ is histori-
cally not related to μyin'&v‘ ‘two’. In the wake of the shift of t to s in Hebrew,
however, a (historically) homonymous root sny developed, and since ‘two’
and ‘to change’ are semantically closely related, the historical homonymy of
the root sny has developed into a synchronic polysemy. Synchronically, ‘two’
and ‘to change’ are felt to be semantic modifications of the same basic idea, so
that the synchronic root exhibits polysemy.
1.10.2.23n. In such cases, one may also speak of mutual contamination of the two words
or roots. Cf. also Blau 1957c: 101–2 = Studies, 173–74. A difficult phrase in Ugaritic de-
serves attention here. In the poetic Kirta epic, the phrase wtn . ndr occurs (CAT 1.15 [= UT
128] III 29). This is sometimes interpreted as ‘and he changed [i.e., abrogated] the vow’. If
this is correct, then the semantic change ‘to make something into another thing (< a sec-
ond)’ > ‘to change it’ has taken place in Ugaritic, which thus has tny ‘to change’, where
other Semitic languages have s1ny.

1.10.2.24. The case of sny also teaches us an important caveat in etymol-

ogy: even meanings that, prima facie, are very close to each other may histori-
cally be derived from different roots. In the case of sny, it was only due to
chance that we could prove that the notion of one root, denoting both ‘two’
and ‘to change’, is fallacious, since one meaning is attested in other Semitic
languages with s1, the other with s2. When the circumstances are not so favor-
able and the data not so abundant, nothing certain can be stated. We have en-
tertained the notion that ‘year’ and ‘change’ may be related. Nevertheless,
nothing certain can be said of them, since both of them begin with s1. There-
fore, they may well reflect Proto-Semitic homonymy. We have certainly ar-
rived at the limits of our knowledge.
1.10.2.25. Semantic connections are more difficult to place in a scholarly
framework than phonetic relations. The most one can do is to trace such se-
mantic connections and demonstrate semantic shifts. This, however, can only
be done post factum. We must not attempt to connect everything that can be
connected, lest we end up connecting everything with everything else, as has
been done, for instance, in various attempts to demonstrate the biradical origin
of all roots in the Semitic languages (see, e.g., Botterweck 1952). When perus-
ing such works, one has the feeling that the etymologies included in them,
though not impossible in principle, have such slim chances of reflecting reality
that it would be much more prudent to refrain from proposing them altogether.
1.10.2.26. The juxtaposition of possible parallel semantic shifts is much
more firmly based on reality. Thus, it is possible to recognize that verbs
00-Blau.book Page 36 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.10.2.27. ∑ Semantics; Sound Shifts 36

denoting ‘covering, dressing’ may also have the meaning of ‘being faithless,
deceiving’, as attested by the pairs dg'B: / dg,B& < and l["m: / ly[Im}. In these pairs, the
first words (dg,B& < and ly[Im}) denote ‘garment, robe’, the second (dg'B: and l["m:)
‘to lie, act treacherously’. In other cases, ‘covering’ may shift to ‘being weak,
fainting’. Thus πFE["t}hI / πLE["t}hI mean not only ‘to cover oneself’, but also ‘to
be weak, to faint’. Arab wasiya means ‘to cover’, wusiya ºalayhi ‘it was cov-
ered over him’ > ‘he fainted’. We may conclude that ‘weakening’ was con-
ceived as being connected with ‘being covered’.
1.10.2.26n. For the first illustration, see Palache (1959: 10–12); note also Arab wll. For the
second, the semantic pattern argues against Jacob Barth’s view that there were two hom-
onymous verbs πFE["t}hI; he connected the meaning ‘to be weak’ with Arab ºa†iba ‘to per-
ish’ (Barth 1893: 27–28). In principle, this is possible. Nevertheless, given the semantic
shift ‘to be covered’ > ‘to be weakened’, the odds are against Barth’s view, the more so,
since Barth also based himself on (an admittedly light) phonetic change: p (º†p) in contrast
to b (º†b). For the term “weak” phonetic shift, see §1.10.3 and Blau 1977e: 67–69 = Topics,
50–52.

1.10.2.27. Notwithstanding such patterns of semantic shifts, an etymology

has a much better chance of being on solid ground in phonology if it shows
regularity of sound shifts. The importance of such shifts is especially conspic-
uous in those cases in which Proto-Semitic sounds, reconstructable from other
Semitic languages, have merged in Hebrew. Thus one might easily see an af-
finity between Heb br,j<& ‘sword’ and byrij”h< ‘to destroy’. The word br,j<&, corre-
sponding to Arab ˙arb(un) ‘war’, could easily be seen as the means par
excellence of destruction. Nevertheless, historically, these two roots have to
be distinguished, since the ˙ of br,j<&, as demonstrated by Arab ˙arb(un), is ˙1,
while byrij”h< corresponds to Arab xarraba, i.e., it begins with ˙2.
1.10.2.28. The strict application of sound shifts may also affect the philol-
ogy of the biblical text. Whenever difficulties in the understanding of a verse
arise, scholars are tempted to emend it, a procedure understood to be licit be-
cause of the very intricate way that the biblical text has reached us. A parallel
but distinct procedure has arisen in the last half-century: some scholars have
used the vast vocabulary of Akkadian, in addition to Arabic, and, applying the
regular sound shifts to words of those languages, have sought to attribute to
biblical words new meanings. Effectively, new homonyms are found in the
biblical text. So, e.g., we have already discussed the complex character of the
root sny in Hebrew. Modern biblical philologists have further expanded its ex-
tension. It has been claimed that hn;v… may also denote ‘to be eminent’, in ac-
cordance with Arabic sny, and that hn,v‘mI designates ‘equivalent’, based on a
certain interpretation of Akkadian mistannu(m).
1.10.2.29. The question arises whether such an excessive number of hom-
onyms is likely to have existed in Biblical Hebrew. The biblical texts are, to
be sure, of great variety, stemming from different parts of Palestine over a
00-Blau.book Page 37 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

37 “Weak” Sound Shifts ∑ 1.10.3.4.

very long period, yet the biblical corpus reflects nevertheless a surprisingly
homogeneous text, which certainly underwent redaction, so that the supposed
plethora of homonyms is surprising.
1.10.2.29n. The issue is well treated in Barr 1968: 125–55. The examples cited here are
noted with references in Barr’s appendix of examples, 1968: 337 ##328 and 329.

1.10.3. Etymology and “Weak” Sound Shifts

1.10.3.1. We have so far dealt with cases reflecting absolute regularity of
sound correspondences, the great majority of cases. It is worthwhile to treat
some of the cases, representing a minority, in which deviations from the ac-
cepted sound shifts occur; these may be dubbed “weak” phonetic changes
(see further §1.17.2, p. 54). Phonetic changes are absolutely regular only in
clearly delimited speech communities. Where these communities are fluid, ir-
regularities may occur.
1.10.3.2. Consider a group of Akkadian words. We have seen that PS x cor-
responds to ˙2 in Akkadian, Ugaritic, Arabic, Gºez, and Epigraphic South Ara-
bian, whereas ˙1 disappears in Akkadian and is preserved as ˙ in Hebrew,
Aramaic, Ugaritic, Arabic, Gºez, and Epigraphic South Arabian. Since in Heb
and Aram ˙1 (˙) and ˙2 (x) have coalesced in ˙, nothing may be inferred from
the occurrence of ˙ in words or roots found only in these languages. There are,
however, some cases in which Akkadian x corresponds to ˙1 (˙) in Ugaritic,
Arabic, Gºez, and Epigraphic South Arabian. This is the case, e.g., with the
roots xpr ‘to dig’, rxß ‘to wash’, and xkm ‘to understand’. In these cases the se-
mantic correspondence is so clear that the exceptional phonetic correspon-
dence can hardly be doubted.
1.10.3.3. The situation may even be more intricate. In the case of Akkadian
x there is a certain regularity, i.e., the exception is attested in a number of ex-
amples. In some cases, comparative etymology may unearth unparalleled
oddities inherent in individual words, as if to suggest that every word has its
own history. Thus, until the discovery of Ugaritic we had no qualms about the
etymology of Heb zrº ‘to sow; seed’: since it corresponds to zrº in Aramaic
and Arabic, z1rº was posited for it. In Ugaritic, however, the root appears as
drº, and since, as a rule, PS q shows up as Ugar d, the Ugaritic root has to be
interpreted as reflecting original *qrº, i.e., z2rº (see §1.9.3n, p. 25).
1.10.3.4. Three different explanations have been proposed for this anom-
aly. The first involves borrowing. It has been suggested that the q is original
and that Aram and Arab zrº are borrowed from a dialect in which q had shifted
to z. On the Arabic side, this suggestion would work, since the Arabic form
could easily be an Aramaic loan, as are many other Arabic agricultural terms.
The Aramaic form is more difficult: it is not easy to find a Semitic dialect in
which q had become z and from which Aramaic might have borrowed this
word. It cannot be an Akkadian loan, since in Akkadian the º disappears. The
00-Blau.book Page 38 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.10.3.5. ∑ “Weak” Sound Shifts 38

Aramaic could be a borrowing from Hebrew or a related dialect. This is, how-
ever, culturally and geographically unlikely. Therefore, pending further dis-
coveries, the explanation of this irregular sound correspondence by the as-
sumption of borrowing seems unlikely, though by no means impossible.
1.10.3.4n. The Ugaritic example is complicated by the fact that the verb ‘to sow’ has the
shape drº, while the noun ‘seed, offspring’ is attested as both drº and *qrº (For this prob-
lem, see Blau 1968a = Topics, 339–43). For the borrowing suggestion, see UT, p. 387; for
the lexical data, see del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín 2000, 2003.
1.10.3.5. Another category of explanation, which, along with borrowing is
often used to explain exceptional sound correspondences, is contamination,
the blending of different roots. The present problem can be explained through
either of two possible cases of contamination. One involves a III-y root. Heb
hr;z; ‘to winnow’ stems from *qry, i.e., z2ry, preserved in Arabic and Epi-
graphic South Arabian and corresponding to dry in Ugaritic and Aramaic. We
could postulate that Heb zrº reflects original z1rº (as assumed before the dis-
covery of Ugaritic) and attribute Ugar drº (< qrº) to the impact of the related
agricultural term qrw/y.
1.10.3.6. Further evidence suggests yet another explanation, the one I pre-
fer. There are words that reflect a III-ª root for ‘to sow’ (§1.9.3n, p. 25): Arab
qrª/qra ‘to sow’, Epigraphic South Arabian mqrªt ‘sown field’, and Gºez zrª
‘to sow; seed’. Thus, I would posit the existence of a Proto-Semitic doublet
z1rº/qrª ‘to sow’, the contamination of which gave rise to Ugar drº (< qrº).
1.10.3.7. Exceptional sound correspondence is, in fact, often due to bor-
rowing. Sometimes a language presents a doublet of words, one with the
regular sound correspondence and one that has been borrowed and therefore
has an exceptional correspondence. The two words may have the same or
somewhat different meanings. Such a doublet is Heb nßr/n†r ‘to watch’. Be-
fore we analyze these two verbs, some introductory expanations are needed.
1.10.3.8. Three Proto-Semitic sounds have coincided in Heb ßade. ß1 cor-
responds to Arabic ß, the emphatic counterpart of s. ß2 corresponds to Arabic
». In standard pronunciation, this is pronounced as emphatic z, transcribed ˛;
in Bedouin dialects, however, and sometimes also in standard pronunciation,
it is pronounced as emphatic voiced th, i.e., q0. (This second sound is posited
for Proto-Semitic.) Finally, ß3 corresponds to Arabic d0 âd. This pronunciation
of d0 âd, however, is secondary; the sound was originally an emphatic lateral.
Akkadian behaves as Hebrew and has ß in all three cases. All the Semitic lan-
guages have ß for Heb ß1. In Ugaritic, ß2 is perserved, while ß3 has shifted to ß.
Aramaic has † for ß2, and º (º2) for ß3. The surprising variety of realizations for
ß3 in the Semitic languages is due to the fact that, being a lateral sound, it was
phonetically quite isolated. The more isolated a sound is, the more it can
change phonetically without causing phonemic (or systemic) changes. This
same phenomenon can be illustrated with the velar stops. In the triad g k q, we
have the voiced velar stop g, its unvoiced counterpart k, and the unvoiced uvu-

spread is 9 points long

00-Blau.book Page 39 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

39 ß ∑ 1.10.3.17.
“Weak” Sound Shifts

lar stop q. Since q is more isolated than g and k, it may change from unvoiced
to voiced (e.g., uvular g occurs in Arabic dialects) without any alteration of
the phonemic system. In contrast, if k had become voiced and, accordingly,
identical to g, the phonemic opposition of k:g would have disappeared and the
phonemic system changed.
1.10.3.8n. The secondary pronunciation of ß3 as Arab d0 âd represents the occlusive pronun-
ciation of ß2 (i.e., q0), as pronounced in the so-called city dialects; see Fischer (1972: 17,
par. 27, rem. 2). The original pronunciation as lateral is still preserved in Modern South
Arabian dialects; see Steiner 1977, 1991.
The thorny problem of Ugaritic w corresponding to PS ß2 is mentioned below (§1.10.3.18n,
p. 40).
In Old Aramaic (9th–7th centuries b.c.), ß2 is still spelled ß, presumably a Canaanite
spelling for the still preserved PS ß2. (The Old Aramaic use of the alphabet involved several
cases of polyphony.) Old Aramaic q [= q2] is used for ß3. (See Blau 1987b: 3–4 = Topics,
290–91.)

1.10.3.9. Here are some examples of the three Proto-Semitic sounds that
merged in Heb ßade.
1.10.3.10. ß1: PS ß1r˙2, ‘to shout’, Heb jr'x:, Aram ßr˙, Akk, Arab, Gºez ßrx.
1.10.3.11. PS qrß1 ‘to bite, pinch, etc.’, Heb, Aram, Arab, Gºez, Ugar qrß,
Akk krß.
1.10.3.11n. According to Geers’ Law, when two non-identical emphatic consonants occur
in an Akkadian root, one of them loses its emphasis through dissimilation.

1.10.3.12. ß2: PS ˙1ß2ß2. ‘arrow, luck’, Heb ≈jE, Akk ußß(um), Aram ˙†, Ugar
˙˛, Arab ˙a˛˛(un), Gºez ˙aßß.
1.10.3.13. PS ß2ll ‘shadow’, Heb lxE, Akk ßill(um), Aram †´lla, Ugaritic ˛l,
Arab ˛ill(un), Gºez ßlalot.
1.10.3.14. PS ß2 pr ‘nail, claw’, Heb ˆr,Pø&xI, Akk ßupr(um), Aram †´pöar,
Arab ˛ufr(un), Gºez ß´fr.
1.10.3.14n. Note that in Gºez, Arabic, and Epigraphic South Arabian the phoneme f corre-
sponds to p in other languages; f (transcribed pö) in Hebrew and Aramaic is but an allo-
phone of p after vowels, see §3.3.2.1.1, p. 78.

1.10.3.15. ß3: PS ªrß3 ‘land, earth’, Heb ≈r,a<&, Akk erßet(um), Aram ªåraº
(Old Aram ªåraq), Ugaritic ªarß, Arab ªard0 (un), Gºez not attested, ESA ªrd0 .
1.10.3.16. PS ºß3 ‘wood, tree’, Heb ≈[E, Akk iß(um), Aram ªaº (Old Aram
ºq), Ugar ºß, Arab ºid0 at(un) (in a restricted sense, ‘tree having thorns’), Gºez
º´d0 ,
1.10.3.17. PS r˙1ß3 ‘to wash’, Heb ≈j"r;, Akk rxß, Aram r˙º, Ugar r˙ß, Arab
r˙d0 , Gºez r˙d0 (‘to sweat’).
1.10.3.17n. Akk erßet(um), with the feminine ending -at/-et, is an example of a note-
worthy phenomenon: feminine nouns without a feminine ending (like ≈r,a& <), often belong-
ing to the archaic layer of the language, tend to add the feminine suffix in order to mark
their gender externally.
00-Blau.book Page 40 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.10.3.18. ∑ “Weak”
ß; sibbólœt
Sound Shifts 40

The Aramaic form of ‘wood’ is unusual. It shows assimilation of i > a with º (*ºiº > *ºaº)
and dissimilation of one of the two º (< *ºaº). Such a dissimilation is quite common in or-
der to avoid two laryngeals/pharyngeals in the same word. The a is long because this bi-
radical noun has been adapted to the pattern of triradicals, as if it belonged to a II w root.
The Akkadian for ‘to wash’ irregularly exhibits x for Proto-Semitic ˙, a phenomenon
discussed in §1.10.3.2, p. 37.
1.10.3.18. Now let us return to the Hebrew doublet nßr/n†r ‘to watch’. He-
brew and Akkadian have nßr, and Aramaic has n†r. In the related sense ‘to
look’ Gºez has nßr and Arabic n˛r. Thus, the PS form is nß2r. Heb n†r is, ac-
cordingly, exceptional. In all likelihood, it is an Aramaic borrowing (or a loan
from another language in which ˛ had shifted to †).
1.10.3.18n. In Ugaritic the expected n˛r does not exist; nwr ‘to guard’ is attested, but its
connection with n˛r is contested. For details and the weak sound change from PS ˛ to Uga-
ritic w in general, see Blau 1977e: 70–72 = Topics, 53–55.
1.10.3.19. Another Proto-Semitic root yields a doublet in Heb, m˙ß/m˙q
‘to shatter/to destroy’, it seems, from PS m˙2 ß3; cf., e.g., Arab mxd0 ‘to shake
violently’. The form m˙ß represents the genuine Hebrew correspondent. The
form m˙q agrees with Old Aramaic and may be a borrowing; given that it oc-
curs only in the poetic context of Judg 5:26, it may be an archaic form pre-
served in poetry. In fact, there may be a third form. The Aramaic form *m˙º
developed by dissimilation to m˙ª/m˙y (ajm occurs in Biblical Aramaic), and
this may be reflected in the Hebrew verb m˙y ‘ to wipe out’.
1.10.3.20. It is evident that comparative etymology has to be based on
close examination of the details. Even minor misinterpretations may lead to
completely wrong ideas. One example will suffice.
1.10.3.21. According to the famous incident told in Judges 12, Jephthah’s
forces were able to catch disguised Ephraimites attempting to cross the Jordan
by demanding that they say sibbólœt, which the Ephraimites were not able to
do; they said rather sibbólœt (Judg 12:6). The apparent biblical view that in
the Ephraimite dialect s had shifted to s was challenged, because no known
Northwest Semitic language lacks the phoneme s. Therefore, it has been sug-
gested that the s of sibbólœt is not s1, as it is generally posited for ‘ear of corn’,
according to the evidence of all the Semitic languages. Rather, it is proposed,
Jephthah’s forces (stemming from Gilead) had preserved t, whereas in the
speech of the Ephraimites (and other Hebrew speakers) it has merged with s.
The Ephraimites were asked to pronounce *tibbólœt (written in the Bible
tl<Bø&v¥, because Hebrew script lacked a sign for marking t), and they were un-
able to utter it. This stimulating suggestion is based on the false idea that Ara-
maic had a word for ‘ear of corn’ like tibbólœt. The only evidence for this is
alleged Judeo-Aramaic ylbwt in Pseudo-Jonathan’s translation of Gen 41:5ff.;
nevertheless, this form is a learned, hypercorrect formation, not reflecting
genuine tradition. Accordingly, because of this small etymological detail, the
whole superb building collapses.

spread is 9 points long

00-Blau.book Page 41 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

41 Change in Language ∑ 1.11.3.

1.10.3.21n. The suggestion of tibbólœt was discussed by Speiser (1942), who cites earlier
literature. The artificial character of the Pseudo-Jonathan form was demonstrated as early
as 1905(!) by S. Fraenkel in a short, but very important remark. Fraenkel calls it a “ ‘ge-
lehrte’ aramaisierende Rückbildung” (“a learned Aramaizing back-formation”). Cf. Blau
1970c: 48 n. 9. It was only many decades later that Ralph Marcus (1942) and E. Y. Kut-
scher (1967: 173–74), ignorant of Fraenkel, rediscovered this fact.
Later, in the wake of Marcus’s and Kutscher’s papers, the fact that sibbólœt ‘ear of
corn’ contains s1 was generally acknowledged. Scholars then suggested that sibbólœt in
Judges is a different word, denoting ‘stream’, which begins with s2, although there is no
proof for this in any Semitic language. For details, see Rendsburg 1992; cf. 1988a, 1988b.
Nevertheless, this theory, too, has no foundation and is contradicted by the cognates of
sibbólœt ‘stream’ in Palestinian Judaeo-Aramaic and Syriac, which prove that sibbólœt,
whether denoting ‘ear of corn’ or ‘stream’, contains s1. Two small phonetic details have
disproved many scholarly papers. See Blau 2001: 3–9.

1.11. Change in Language

1.11.1. We have proceeded so far on the assumption that languages do
change and posited this fact as self-evident. And, indeed, change is the hall-
mark of every living language. Although speakers of a language, in principle,
attempt to adhere to the system of the language as they know it in order to be
properly understood and—once understood, in order not to appear odd—other
forces propel changes in the system.
1.11.2. One of the most important reasons for linguistic change is that the
younger generation does not accept the language of adults as a whole, as a
complete entity in itself. Children rather acquire language by action, listen-
ing to the speech of the older generation and attempting to imitate it, and this
action is apt to result in changes. (As Wilhelm von Humboldt put it, language
is energeia rather than ergon.)
1.11.3. Social strata in the community affect the language as well. A once
variable feature may become the indicator of a certain sector of the speech
community, which may even become more conspicuous and prestigious in the
younger generation. The social standing of that stratum and the degree of its
prestige determine the nature of these changes to a great extent, and the tempo
of the changes is a corollary of the external and internal situations of the
speech community. If circumstances are relatively calm and no strong exter-
nal influence is felt, then conservative forces may have the upper hand. Their
prestige is strong enough to check innovations. Changes are then compara-
tively few and even those may disappear through the reputation of the élite. At
times of upheaval, however, the authority of the once prestigious classes is
reduced, and new centers of imitation arise. Then other sectors of the popula-
tion set the pattern for the speech community in general and the younger gen-
eration in particular, who tend to alter their speech habits at a much quicker
pace. Social tensions intensify and accelerate the emergence of new linguis-
tic features.
00-Blau.book Page 42 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.11.4. ∑ Change in Language 42

1.11.3n. On social mechanisms of language change, see especially the work of William
Labov and his students, e.g., Labov 1965, 1980, 1994.
1.11.4. Social and generational factors alone do not account for language
change, since change is inherent in the system itself. The phonological sys-
tem often lacks equilibrium, and linguistic changes occur in order to reach a
state of better balance. However, since optimum balance is never attained,
change becomes an intrinsic part of the language.
1.11.4n. See especially Martinet 1970.
1.11.5. Scholars are at variance as to the beginnings of sound change. It is
generally assumed that at a certain time a generation becomes unable to pro-
duce certain sounds and, instead, produces others. It seems, however, more re-
alistic to assume that phonological changes do not affect an entire group of
words at once, but rather start in a few words (or even in one word), and later
spread to other words that contain the same phoneme. The notion of the reg-
ularity of sound shifts applies to the final result of these changes: then,
indeed, one sound has changed to another in each of its occurrences. Never-
theless, before the shift is completed, it appears only in some of its occur-
rences. Dialect geography confirms this view, often attesting to different
reflections of one phoneme in the same environment.
1.11.5n. The view that change happens across-the-board is held by generative linguists,
who assume a systemic change in competence. For the contrary view, accepted here, see
Sommerfelt 1962: 72–80.
1.11.6. Changes are often due to external influence. In principle, if the ex-
ternal influence is not too far-reaching, the linguistic system of the borrowing
language acts as a sort of regulating force, only admitting changes that do not
contravene it. If the impact of the other language is opposed altogether to the
linguistic system of the borrowing language, the latter may even react by hy-
percorrection and so preserve its inherited system.
1.11.7. Hebrew, in the period of the Second Temple, was decisively influ-
enced by Aramaic. Hebrew, as a rule, preserved short a (and sometimes short
i) in open syllables preceding the stress, whereas Aramaic reduced them. The
influence of the Aramaic vowel system threatened to destroy the Hebrew one.
Since, through the influence of Aramaic, Hebrew speakers lost the ability to
pronounce short vowels in open pretonic syllables, by a kind of hypercorrec-
tion in Hebrew these short vowels were lengthened and the vocalic structure
of the language partly preserved (see §§3.5.7.5.12–3.5.7.5.13, p. 128). In
other cases, however, the external influence was so strong that the Hebrew
system was superseded by the Aramaic structure. Thus, *samaru# shifted to
Wrm}v…, reducing, as in Aramaic, the pretonic a. Further, it appears that the sys-
tem of tenses in Rabbinic Hebrew, totally different from that of Biblical He-
brew and almost exactly parallel to Aramaic, arose through the impact of the
00-Blau.book Page 43 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

43 Bilingualism; Substrate ∑ 1.12.1.

latter (Kutscher 1982: 131–32). In these cases, the influence of the foreign
language was too strong and the power of resistance of the indigenous lan-
guage too weak to counteract the external influence.
1.11.8. If the influence of a foreign language becomes overwhelming, the
speakers of the influenced language become bilingual. They still speak their
original language; however, they also become conversant with the new lan-
guage. The period of bilingualism may be rather protracted. A case in point
involves Rabbinic Hebrew. Since the influence of Aramaic on Rabbinic He-
brew was far-reaching, it appears that the inhabitants of the Judean cities had
already become bilingual during the period of the Second Temple. It may
well be that only the male population became bilingual. Since housewives, as
a rule, were less in touch with sources of external influence, it is plausible
that they continued for a long time to speak only Hebrew, and this situation
provided one of the main reasons for the prolonged period of bilingualism.
1.11.9. Another way to look at this situation is in terms of substrate the-
ory. In a substrate setting, one language (the “substrate”), which may even be
partially extinct, continues to influence the prevailing language (the “super-
strate”) for a long time. In the present case, this means that several generations
after the male population had completely switched to the prevailing language
outside the home, they still continued using their original language at home,
because the women still spoke that language. A case in point may be the well-
known story that the maidservant of Rabbi (Judah the Prince, ca. 200 c.e.)
still knew rare Hebrew words that were unknown to the rabbis assembled in
Judah’s house. Another factor apt to prolong bilingualism might also have
played a role: the maidservant might have come from a small village. It stands
to reason that linguistic changes connected with administration and trade
reach cities before reaching villages, so Rabbi’s maidservant may have con-
tinued speaking Hebrew long after city dwellers had already switched to Ara-
maic. Since, through these factors, bilingualism is apt to become a protracted
process, it makes sense that the slowly disappearing language (the “sub-
strate”) leaves its traces in the prevailing language (the “superstrate”).
1.11.9n. It is possible that the stories about Rabbi’s household are apocryphal, their point
being that Rabbi’s house was so learned that even his maidservant was more knowledge-
able than ordinary rabbis.

1.12. Reconstruction of Proto-Semitic Forms

1.12.1. We have already stressed the fact that we do not have the ability to
reconstruct Proto-Semitic as such. Nevertheless, the attempt to reconstruct a
possible Proto-Semitic form may be important, because it may enable us to
consider the forms of the individual languages from a different vantage point.
Needless to say, reconstruction has to be based on meticulous observation of
00-Blau.book Page 44 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.12.2. ∑ Reconstruction of Proto-Semitic Forms 44

the sound shifts involved. Reconstructed forms are marked with an asterisk, in
order to stress that they are supposed forms, not attested ones.
1.12.1n. Older generations of linguists, more confident of their ability and their results, at-
tempted to compose stories in the alleged proto-languages. The most famous attempt was
that of August Schleicher (1821–1868), who wrote a Parable of the Horse and the Lamb in
his reconstructed putative Proto-Indo-European. Our knowledge of the relative chronol-
ogy of various shifts is not sound enough, and any such attempt of necessity mixes up dif-
ferent levels of the language. See §1.7.17, p. 23.

1.12.2. In the process of reconstruction, one should not lose sight of the
fact that words from the same root and (almost) identical in meaning in vari-
ous Semitic languages may reflect originally different patterns, which can-
not be traced back to a common Proto-Semitic etymon. We have already
mentioned (in §§1.10.3.13–14, p. 39) Gºez ßlalot ‘shadow’, which differs
from monosyllabic Heb lxE, Akk ßill(um), Aram †´lla (emphatic state), Uga-
ritic ˛l, Arab ˛ill(un). The Hebrew word for ‘nail, claw’, ˆr,Pø&xI, is clearly differ-
ent from the monosyllabic nouns attested in the other Semitic languages, viz.,
Akk ßupr(um), Aram †´pöar , Gºez ß´fr, Arab ˛ufr(un). Heb μ/ty; ‘orphan’ con-
trasts with monosyllabic Aram yatma (emphatic state) and bisyllabic Arab ya-
tim(un). Nevertheless, the number of words reflecting the same pattern in the
various Semitic languages is legion.
1.12.3. A good example is ‘nose’. In Hebrew we have the form πa" (dual
μyiP"&a" ‘face’). The verb πN'a"t}hI ‘to be angry’, derived from πa" (ˆ/rj“) ‘anger’ (lit-
erally ‘the heat of the face’), proves that its original form is *ªanp. (The singu-
lar form has f [pö], rather than p, due to the preceding vowel, which turns the
plosive p into the spirant f [pö]. See §3.3.2.1, pp. 78–79.) Cognate forms include
Akk app(um), Ugaritic ªap, Aram *ªånapö, emphatic state ªappa, emphatic plu-
ral ªappayya, Gºez ªanf, Arab ªanf(un). The various forms reflect (1) the as-
similation of n to the immediately following p in Akkadian and Northwest
Semitic, and (2) the shift of the plosive p to the spirant f, which arose uncondi-
tionally in Gºez and Arabic; and after a vowel, when not doubled, in Hebrew
and Aramaic (transcribed pö ). Thus, one can safely conclude that the PS form
was *ªanp, although, as far as we know, no Semitic language has exactly pre-
served it without any change.
1.12.3n. The Aramaic form *ªånapö reflects sursaut (§1.10.2.6n, p. 32), and, through dis-
similation, the partial restoration of the n.

1.12.4. Let us consider two words containing diphthongs. The forms for
‘house’ include Heb tyiB"&, Akk bit, Ugar bt, Aram bayta (emphatic), Gºez bet,
Arab bayt. The words for ‘death’ are Heb tw,m:&, Akk mut, Ugar mt, Aram
mawta (emphatic), Gºez mot, Arab mawt. The diphthong ay/aw is sometimes
preserved and sometimes reduced (to e-i/o-u); its preservation sometimes in-
volves an anaptyctic vowel dividing the original diphthong into two syllables
00-Blau.book Page 45 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

45 Reconstruction of Proto-Semitic Forms ∑ 1.12.7.

(ayi/awœ). One may conclude that the Proto-Semitic forms contained diph-
thongs as well: *bayt/*mawt.
1.12.4n. In Biblical Aramaic, in the emphatic forms, t shifts to t after the diphthong; cf.
§3.3.2.1.1n, p. 78. For the languages with cases (Akkadian and Arabic), for now, I am ig-
noring the original case endings, for which see §4.4.4, pp. 266ff.

1.12.5. Occasionally, an original Proto-Semitic form is preserved in one or

another of the languages. The exact shape of PS *salam ‘peace’, e.g., is pre-
served in Akk salam. The forms in the other languages all emerge from this
Proto-Semitic form. Heb μ/lv… had original a in its second syllable. The o in
the second syllable is due to the so-called Canaanite vowel shift a > o in
stressed syllables (see §3.5.9.2, p. 136). The first syllable originally contained
short a, which in Hebrew has been lengthened (and later rounded) to qamaß,
owing to the so-called pretonic lengthening (see §3.5.7.6, p. 129). In Aramaic,
on the contrary, the original short vowel of the pretonic open syllable has been
reduced: s´lam. In both Gºez salam and Arab salam, PS s has shifted to s.
(Since the vocalization of Ugaritic slm is not known, we do not treat it here.)
Thus the original Proto-Semitic form has been preserved in Akkadian only.
1.12.6. As with πa" ‘nose’, it is often the case that the Proto-Semitic form is
not attested in any of the known languages and has to be reconstructed piece-
meal from the various languages. This is also true of the word ‘soul’. This
noun has the Hebrew form vp<n,,& arising from *naps by the insertion of an
anaptyctic vowel, and later assimilation of the original vowel to the anaptyctic
one. The fact that the last vowel is anaptyctic is reflected by the absence of
stress on it, even though in Hebrew most words bear ultimate stress. More-
over, as stated in §1.12.3 BHebabove, in both Hebrew and Aramaic, p has
shifted to pö (= f ) following a vowel. As for the other Semitic languages, the
forms are Aram n´pöes, alongside emphatic napösa, Ugar nps, Gºez nafs, Arab
nafs, and Akk napist. The Arabic and Gºez forms exhibit the unconditioned
shifts s > s and p > f; in those languages f has totally superseded p. Akk napist
terminates in the feminine ending -t, in contradistinction to the other Semitic
languages, where this noun is feminine but has no feminine ending. Accord-
ingly, it makes sense to reconstruct *naps as the PS form, although it is not at-
tested exactly in this form in any Semitic language.
1.12.6n. Akkadian here manifests the tendency, found in various Semitic languages, to add
the feminine ending to feminine nouns that lack the feminine ending (cf. §1.10.3.17n,
p. 39, on erßet[um]).
It appears that Ugar nps should be interpreted as *naps, comparable to the Proto-Semitic
form; however, it is not attested as such.

1.12.7. In some cases, the reconstructed Proto-Semitic form enables us to

understand an individual form better. The word ‘honey’ is Heb vb"D], Akk
disp, Aram *d´b2 as (with sursaut, §1.10.2.6n, p. 32), emphatic dib2 sa/dub2 sa,
00-Blau.book Page 46 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.13. ∑ Internal Reconstruction 46

(Epigraphic) Gºez d´bs, Arab dibs; the word does not occur in Ugaritic. The
Akkadian form shows metathesis and assimilation of the b to p. At first
glance, the evidence suggests two different patterns for this noun: vb"D] in He-
brew, *dibs in the other languages. The final pata˙ (rather than qamaß), how-
ever, suggests a reconsideration of the supposed Hebrew proto-form. Hebrew
nominal syllable structure (see §3.5.7.1.2, p. 119) demands a long vowel in a
final stressed syllable terminating in a simple consonant; therefore dy; ‘hand’
contains qamaß, rather than pata˙. Moreover, Heb vb"D] with pronominal suf-
fixes reflects dibsi yv¥b}Di. Thus we suggest that the pata˙ in Heb vb"D] is due to
foreign (Aramaic) influence. The Aramaic word is a segolate form in which,
as usual in Aramaic (due to sursaut), the anaptyctic vowel (the pata˙) has at-
tracted the stress. Thus, all the forms, including the Hebrew, can be derived
from dibs.
1.12.7n. Of the two Aramaic emphatic forms, one has the original i and the other reflects i
> u, due to the assimilation of the i to the labial b/bõ .

1.13. Internal Reconstruction

1.13.1. We have so far sought to reconstruct aspects of Biblical Hebrew by

dint of comparative evidence derived from other Semitic languages. Some-
times, however, it is not necessary to have recourse to other Semitic lan-
guages, and the reconstruction may be done by internal means. It is possible to
arrive at earlier stages of a language even if the analysis is limited to its own
features. In some cases, the outlines of a certain structure are discernible, yet
some details do not fit, and it is possible to account for such discrepancies by
reconstructing a linguistic stage in which this structure applies to all details.
The very fact that this reconstruction accounts for features that otherwise
seemed exceptional makes it quite likely.
1.13.2. Biblical Hebrew pausal stress falls, in the main, on the penult when
the word terminates in a vowel, but on the ultima when the word ends in a con-
sonant. Thus we have penultimate stress in pausal Wrm:&v… ‘they kept’, Wrmø&v‘yi
‘they will keep’, yTIr]m:&v… ‘I kept’. (The last form has the same stress in context.)
We have ultimate stress in pausal (and contextual) rm:&v… ‘he kept’, rb:&D; ‘thing’.
These words with ultimate stress, when they precede pronominal suffixes,
show “connecting” vowels (as in Wnr;&m:v‘ ‘he kept us’, Wnre&b:D] ‘our thing’); the
connecting vowels are in the penult and thus take pausal stress. The 3fs suffix-
tense lacks such a “connecting” vowel (Wnt}r;&m:v‘ ‘she kept us’); the final t in this
form is original, and the form ending in –â (hr;m}v)… is a later development.
1.13.2n. The pausal stress system treated here is the more basic system; the contextual
stress system reflects a later stage of development. See §3.5.12.2.5, p. 146.
00-Blau.book Page 47 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

47 Internal Reconstruction; Exceptions to Sound Shifts ∑ 1.14.2.

1.13.3. The 3fs suffix-tense form is a clue to an earlier stage of the lan-
guage. That form originally ended in a consonant, which is maintained when
a pronominal suffix is added, and the form shows penultimate pausal stress.
We may conclude that the forms that now get ultimate pausal stress originally
ended in a short vowel. These final short vowels were dropped in final posi-
tion (giving the forms ultimate stress) but preserved in medial position, i.e.,
preceding pronominal suffixes. The so-called “connecting” vowels are, his-
torically speaking, remnants of these short-vowel endings. Thus we may re-
construct original *samára, *dab2 árv, and overall we reconstruct a stage of the
language with uniform penultimate stress (cf. §3.5.12.2.2, p. 144).
1.13.4. Another example of internal reconstruction involves the behavior
of the stop or plosive consonants b, g, d, k, p, t. Generally, these sounds be-
come spirants only in postvocalic position: yKIl}m" ‘my king’ in contrast to
μykIl:m} ‘kings’. This overall structure has exceptions: ykEö l}m" ‘kings of’ (con-
struct), where the k is a spirant, although it is not postvocalic. It appears that
we should posit an original vowel preceding this k as well, *malvke. This sug-
gestion is supported by the absolute plural form, which does have a vowel, a,
preceding the k: μykIl:m} (cf. §4.4.5.10, p. 273).
1.13.5. For an isolated language, internal reconstruction is a most impor-
tant substitute for comparative linguistics. It enables the linguist to reconstruct
features, which, for the want of related languages, would be otherwise un-
known. For a language like Biblical Hebrew, its importance is somewhat lim-
ited. It is, for instance, much easier to reconstruct the fact that rm"&v… and rb:&D;
originally ended with short vowels by comparison with other Semitic lan-
guages that have final short vowels. In contrast, for reconstructing the exis-
tence of a vowel preceding the k of ykEö l}m" , internal reconstruction is, in fact, the
simplest solution.

1.14. Exceptions to Sound Shifts, Real and Apparent

1.14.1. Historical linguistics is based on the assumption that sound shifts
are regular, and, under the same conditions, sounds change in the same way
(§1.9.4, p. 26). Accordingly, if sounds do not behave regularly, particular at-
tention should be paid to them in order to discover the special conditions caus-
ing the irregular behavior of these sounds.
1.14.1n. See Blau 1979a = Topics, 26–34.
1.14.2. In some cases, a closer look at the apparently irregular behavior
of these sounds enables us to discover unknown stages in the development of
the language in which these sounds occurred in special phonetic environments,
accounting for their seemingly aberrant comportment. The most famous case
of such a discovery is the sound shift known as “Verner’s Law.”
00-Blau.book Page 48 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.14.3. ∑ Canaanite Shift and Stress System 48

1.14.3. In the heyday of the Neogrammarians (§1.9.8, p. 27), in the 1870s,

an anomaly in the regular correspondence of Germanic t to Indo-European t
was observed. Generally when the other Indo-European languages have inter-
vocalic voiceless stops, e.g., t, the Germanic languages have voiceless spi-
rants, as t (Latin frater ‘brother’, Gothic brotar). Nevertheless, some ancient
Germanic words contain d, i.e., a voiced stop, instead of the expected t (Latin
pater ‘father’, Gothic fadar). If one admitted the possibility of irregular sound
change, one could claim that the shift of intervocalic t to d in words like fadar
represented merely the beginning of this process, not yet completed. Never-
theless, in 1876, the Danish linguist Karl Verner accounted for these apparent
contradictions by observing that they result from different positions of stress
in the words. (He convincingly reconstructed the stress patterns with the help
of Sanskrit and Greek.) Thus voiceless spirants (like t) occur in Germanic
after a stressed syllable, otherwise they become voiced stops (like d). Strict
adherence to the notion of the absolute regularity of sound shifts made the re-
construction of linguistic development possible.
1.14.4. A similar assumption as to earlier stress patterns in Biblical He-
brew may explain the apparently irregular behavior of PS a. Generally, PS a is
reflected in Heb o: PS katib in contrast to Heb btEKø ‘one writing’, PS ¶imªal in
contrast to Hebrew lamOc‘ ‘left hand’. In some cases, however, Heb a corre-
sponds to PS a. Among these exceptions we shall mention ¶imªaliy > ylIam:c‘
‘left’ (adjective), ºarim μyri[: ‘towns’, galut tWlG; ‘exile’. It seems that this ir-
regularity is due to the fact that the shift of a to o in Hebrew was not uncondi-
tioned but occurred only in stressed syllables. The stress system attested in the
Bible does not account for the operation of this shift. Thus ˆ/v & l: ‘tongue’ and
laO&mc‘ reflect, to be sure, stressed o < a; and the forms cited above, ylIam:c‘, etc.,
show the preservation of unstressed a. But btE&K ø exhibits unstressed o < a. Thus
we have to posit a stress system for early Biblical Hebrew in which the
stressed vowel was the last long vowel in any word. Accordingly, we posit for
*katib a stress different from btE&K,ø viz., that it was stressed on a, this being the
last (and only) long vowel, which accordingly shifted to o. The forms ˆ/v & l:
and laO&mc‘ reflect stressed o < a as well. In ylIa& m:c‘, μyr&i[:‚ tW&lG; , the a was fol-
lowed by another long vowel, which accordingly attracted the stress. There-
fore, this unstressed a has been preserved and did not shift to o. It was
adherence to the principle of regularity of sound shifts that enabled us to re-
construct the earliest stage of biblical stress possible.
1.14.4n. This stress-system reconstruction is the opinion of the majority of scholars and is,
in our opinion, correct. See §3.5.9.2, p. 136; §3.5.12.2.18, p. 153. A substantial minority
disagree with this view.
00-Blau.book Page 49 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

49 Analogy ∑ 1.15.4.

1.15. Analogy

1.15.1. In most cases, deviations from the expected results of sound shifts
are the result of analogy, caused by the influence of a word or construction
that has some formal or semantic connection.
1.15.2. Analogy may obtain between words semantically related or op-
posed. Thus hV…v¥ ‘six’ with double V influenced ‘five’ to become hV…mIj“, and
conversely the construct of ‘six’ tv≤v& ´ rhymes with five’s construct tv≤mE&j“. Un-
der the influence of ˆ/vari ‘first’, the forms ˆ/kyTI ‘medial’ and ˆ/xyqI ‘last’
arose; for ‘last’ we would have expected *qißßon, since the root is qßß.
1.15.2n. The form tv≤v´& could also have arisen independently: in *sisst the consonant clus-
ter sst might have been simplified to st, thus giving rise to *sist > tv≤v´&. Cf. hV…aI ‘woman,
wife’, construct *ªisst > *ist > tv≤a& E.
1.15.3. Grammatical analogy obtains between the different members
of a morphological class. Thus the plural of *maqam > μ/qm: ‘place’ is
*maqamat > t/m/qm}. As we have just seen (§1.14.4, p. 48), only stressed long
a shifted to o. The proto-form *maqamat! bore its stress on the second a, the
last long vowel in the word. Accordingly, only this a should have shifted to o,
yielding *m´qamot. Nevertheless, *m´qamot was re-derived from the singu-
lar of this word, μ/qm:, where the proto-a was stressed and had become o. Had
*m´qamot not been adjusted to μ/qm: and become t/m/qm}, the singular and
plural pattern of this noun would have differed and the paradigm would have
become irregular.
1.15.3n. For *m´qamot, *maqamot would be more accurate, since at this period, it seems,
short vowels distant from stress had not yet been reduced. We use *m´qamot for simplic-
ity’s sake.
1.15.4. A similar uniformity is found in the suffix-tense and the participle
of II-w/y verbs. The sound shift stressed a > o, did not affect the first-person
qámti, qámnu and second-person qámta, qamt, qamtœ! m, qamtœ! n, since the
forms contain short a, but it should have influenced the third-person forms
and yielded *qom, *qoma(t), *qomu. Similarly, the participle would have had
o: *qom, *qo!ma(t), μymI&q,: t/m& q:. (In the last two forms, the a was unstressed
and therefore did not shift to o.) These third-person suffix-tense forms and the
singular participle instead show the same vowel quality (a/a) as the first- and
second-person suffix-tense forms and the plural participles. As in the case of
*m´qamot, one vowel spread over the whole paradigm: in the case of *m´qa-
mot, it was o that prevailed; in the case of *qam it was a, which was shortened
to a when it came to stand in a closed syllable.
1.15.4n. The first- and second-person suffix forms are shortened from *qamta, etc., in
closed syllable, since at that stage, long vowels were excluded from closed syllables
(§3.5.12.2.14n, p. 151). This happened before the sound shift a > o took effect; accordingly,
00-Blau.book Page 50 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.15.5. ∑ Analogy 50

T:m}q'&, etc., were not affected by it. We do not reconstruct here the original 2fs form *qamti,
because the shape of the suffix does not affect the issue. In the participle, o had not been
shortened, because it stood originally in an open syllable, since *qom terminated in case
endings: *qomu/*qoma/*qomi. The 3ms suffix form originates from *qoma.
1.15.5. We have seen paradigmatic analogical pressure in the singular
and plural of a noun and a participle, as well as in the conjugational paradigm
of a verb. Paradigmatic analogy may spread over various verbal themes as
well. Thus, in Hebrew in particular and in Northwest Semitic in general, ini-
tial w had shifted to y, as anyone opening a Hebrew dictionary will immedi-
ately realize: words with initial w are almost entirely missing from Hebrew
vocabulary. Thus Arabic walada ‘to give birth’ corresponds to Heb dl"y;. The
same applies to the piººel dLEyi ‘to assist in birth’. Thus, one would have ex-
pected in the prefix-tense *y´walled, rather than dLEy'y,] and in the participle
*m´wallœ! dœt ‘midwife’ rather than td,L< &y'm}, because in these forms w was not
initial. Nevertheless, by paradigmatic analogy, the y spread from the suffix-
tense (and imperative and infinitives), where w was initial and therefore had
shifted to y, over the whole paradigm of piººel. Since the piººel is closely re-
lated to the hitpaººel, in which the w should also have been preserved through-
out the whole paradigm, being always in medial position, the y also spread
over the whole hitpaººel.
1.15.6. Grammatical analogy may also obtain between isomorphic forms of
various words. Thus, there occur already in Biblical Hebrew shifts from verbs
III-ª to III-y (§4.3.8.5.1, p. 248), and in Rabbinic Hebrew this shift has further
developed. The verb ac…n; ‘to bear’ can have the sense ‘to forgive’, and in Ps
32:1 the construct form of the qal passive participle yWcn] (from root acn) ‘he
who is forgiven’ occurs, parallel to yWsK}, from a genuine III-y verb, ‘he who is
covered’; this form cannot be derived by sound shift from an underlying aWcn].
Rather, it has to be explained by the impact of verbs III-y: since verbs III-ª and
III-y coincided in various forms, as in qal 3ms ac…n; and hn;q; ‘he bought’, other
forms of verbs III-ª were also formed by analogy to III-y verbs. (The aleph of
ac…n; is only a vowel letter, as is the he of hn;q;). This may be expressed by the
following proportion: hn;q : : ac…n; = yWnq:, construct yWnq} : x; the x is yWcn;, construct
yWcn]. This form of analogy is usually called proportional analogy.
1.15.7. So frequent are the various cases of analogy that it has to be re-
garded as one of the two pillars of linguistic change, the other being sound
shift. Whenever a linguist encounters an exception to regular sound shift, s/he
attempts to explain that deviation by the assumption of analogy.

1.16. Sound Shifts, Analogy, and Exceptions

1.16.1. We have already mentioned that sound shifts are limited in time
(see §§1.9.9–1.9.10, pp. 27–28). Thus, the shift of stressed long a to o stopped
00-Blau.book Page 51 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

51 Sound Shift and Analogy ∑ 1.16.4.

operating at a certain point in history. After this shift had stopped acting,
stressed long a arose, e.g., in the final syllables of nouns (like dag ‘fish’, ac-
cording to the Sephardic pronunciation) and did not shift to o, because this
shift was no longer in force.
1.16.1n. In contrast to Hebrew, Phoenician in this position exhibits o; this may be inter-
preted as continuation of the shift seen in Hebrew (the Canaanite shift) or it may reflect a
second, similar shift. According to the pronunciation reflected in the Tiberian and Babylo-
nian vocalizations, in this position dOgö occurs, with an open back vowel, exhibiting a new
sound shift a > O after the old one, (stressed) a > o, had ceased operating.

1.16.2. We have been describing sound shifts as the main forces changing
language, and analogy as a source of interference with them. Such a view is
by no means entirely accurate. Analogy may be so powerful that it literally
wipes out the results of a sound shift. It is possible that the original sound
change would have disappeared completely except for some traces of it that
have managed to subsist. Thus, grammars report that according to Hebrew, iw
shifted to i; cf., e.g., yiqaq ‘it will burn’ < *yiwqaq, and so in (almost) all the
I-w verbs that do not drop their first radical. As a matter of fact, however, it
appears that this alleged sound shift is actually an analogy, in our case of
verbs I-y (like vb"yyi ‘it will become dry’ < *yiybas) and even the strong verb
(like bK"v‘yi ‘he will lie’). The genuine sound shift was instead iw > u, only pre-
served in some residues, as in the very frequent verb lk"Wy ‘he will be able’
from *yiwkal, which, because of its frequency (see §1.16.4) resisted analogy.
1.16.2n. See further Blau 1971a: 1–5 = Topics, 185–89.

1.16.3. The great majority of words are arbitrary signs, and there is no con-
nection between their sounds and the object or action they name. An ex-
ception is provided by the sound-imitating or onomatopoetic words. It may
happen that the connection between an onomatopoetic word and its meaning
is so strong that it resists any sound shift that threatens to sever this connec-
tion. Thus, German Kuckuk ‘cuckoo’, clearly an onomatopoetic word imitat-
ing the sound produced by this bird, should have changed according to
German sound shifts. However, since the changed word would not have ex-
pressed the connection with its meaning, the word resisted this change and re-
mained sound-imitating.
1.16.4. We have already mentioned (see §1.16.2) that highly frequent
words resist analogy. Because of their frequency, these words are so firmly
preserved in memory that analogy is not apt to uproot them. The very common
verb lk"Wy ‘he is able’ preserved the genuine sound shift iw > u and resisted the
analogical pressure of verbs like vb"yyi. This is the reason that in so many lan-
guages (including English) the verb ‘to go’ is conjugated in an exceptional
way. Because of its frequency, this verb is apt to undergo sound changes
without allowing for the leveling force of paradigmatic analogy. Similarly, in
00-Blau.book Page 52 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.16.5. ∑ Irregular Sound Shifts 52

Hebrew, ˚lh ‘to go’ is highly irregular: in the qal imperative and prefix-tense
and in the whole of the hif ºil the first radical h is omitted and hlk behaves as
if it were derived from ylk: ËlE, ËlEye, ËylI/h, ËylI/y. (For details, see §3.3.5.5,
pp. 94ff.) The suppletive paradigm hV…aI ‘woman’, plural μyv¥n,; was not leveled
out by paradigmatic pressure because of its high frequency.
1.16.4n. The words for ‘woman’ exhibit two totally different roots: hV…aI < ªinsat, has s2,
based on the other Semitic languages, while μyv¥n; has s1. The occurrence of s in both words
facilitated the combination of the two words into one paradigm in Hebrew.
1.16.5. Many high-frequency words do not refer directly to reality (even ab-
stract reality), i.e., they do not act as content words but rather fulfill certain
functions in the sentence, as prepositions and conjunctions; these are dubbed
function words. Although these words play important roles in sentences, serv-
ing, so to say, as their backbone, they are in many cases proclitic, being closely
attached in pronunciation to the following word and having no accent. Being
frequent and sometimes pronounced without care, they tend to be shortened, as
shown by monosyllabic prepositions like l}, B}, K}, ˆmI or conjunctions like w], yKI. In
many ways, function words do not constitute real exceptions to regular sound
shifts, because they occur under special phonetic conditions. Nevertheless,
their form is so conspicuous that we must mention them in this context.
1.16.5n. The proclitic character of many of these words is reflected in their being joined in
spelling to the next word; one-letter words are always attached to the following word in
Hebrew writing. An example of a proclitic content word from another Semitic language is
Arabic haqa ‘this’, which in many dialects changes to ha.
1.16.6. Some of these high-frequency words occur in an excited context,
reflecting exclamation, surprise, command, etc. Again, their exceptional be-
havior does not constitute a real exception to sound shift, because they occur
in special phonetic conditions.
1.16.7. Sometimes, the blending of synonymous or semantically related
roots (contamination) creates the impression of an exceptional sound shift.
Thus Ugar drº ‘to sow’ (see §1.9.3n, p. 25; §1.10.3.6, p. 38), on the face of it,
suggests that PS zrº ‘to sow’ shifted in Ugaritic to drº, as if reflecting an ex-
ceptional Ugaritic sound shift z1 > d; in Ugaritic, as a rule, as in other Semitic
languages, z1 is preserved. As a matter of fact, however, drº reflects the blend
of the PS doublet ‘to sow’ zrº and qrª, which gave rise to Ugaritic qrº ‘to sow’.
Another case in point is perhaps Heb ˚sm ‘to mix’; this seems to correspond to
Arabic msj, which, according to regular sound correspondence, should appear
as Heb ˚cm*, rather than ˚sm. It is not unlikely that the samekh is due to the
impact of ˚sn in the same sense. In this instance, accordingly, words with
similar sense were attracted in form, as in the Ugaritic case. Similarly, the
form in Dan 8:13 yni/ml}P" ‘someone’ reflects the contamination of the two syn-
onyms yni/lP} and yni/ml}a".

spread is 12 points short

00-Blau.book Page 53 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

53 Suppletion; Loan Words ∑ 1.17.1.

1.16.7n. BHeb gz,m:& ‘mixture’ (pausal form) belongs with Aramaic mzg ‘to mix’ (loaned
into Arabic). These forms suggest that it is possible that there was an original Semitic root
msk, related to mzg, and that this was the source of Heb ˚sm ‘to mix’. Morover, the s of
msk may reflect the late spelling of s for ¶, because they came to coincide in pronunciation
(see Blau 1970c: 117).
1.16.8. Inversely, words with similar form are apt to converge in sense as
well. It may well be that the many groups of verbs with the first two radicals
identical (like drp ‘to divide’, ≈rp ‘to break through’, [rp ‘to let loose’, etc.)
and related meanings, reflect, partly at least, development of such lexical con-
taminations, rather than residues of ancient biradicalism.
1.16.9. Analogy and frequency interact in complex ways. Paradigmatic
pressure does not always suffice to eliminate paradigmatic differences. A case
in point is provided by the independent personal pronouns (ynia“ – hT:a" – aWh,
etc.). Because of their extraordinary frequency (see §1.16.4, p. 51), they were
less exposed to analogical leveling. Nonetheless, cases of analogy do occur
even in these very frequent words; Wnj}n'a& “ ‘we’ arose from the expected form
Wnj}n' & (attested in the Bible and also epigraphically) through the analogical im-
pact of ynia“ ‘I’.
1.16.10. Suppletion or metaplastic formation involves paradigms derived
from different bases. This occurs with less frequent words as well, such as ‘to
be good’ qal suffix-tense b/f, root †wb, qal prefix-tense bf"yyi, root y†b. In the
hif ºil, forms derived from †wb and y†b alternate and are pronounced the same,
although spelled differently, byfImE, byfIymE. In some cases, suppletion reveals
rather intricate linguistic development, as in the suppletion of the apparent
puººal jQ' lU ‘he was taken’ in the suffix-tense by the apparent hof ºal jQ' y u in the
prefix-tense. On closer inspection, both sets of forms turn out to represent the
qal passive (see §4.3.5.1.2, p. 217). Consider the use of the qal suffix-tense of
lvk ‘to fall’ alongside the nif ºal prefix-tense (lvæK: – lv´K:yi); the nif ºal suffix-
tense and the qal prefix-tense are rare. This pattern presumably attests to an
earlier qal, which was later superseded by the nif ºal. The Masoretes vocalized
the prefix-tense lçky, etc., which could be interpreted both as qal (lvøk}yi *) and
nif ºal (lv´K:yi), according to the late usage of nif ºal. They were, however, pre-
vented from doing so in the suffix-tense lvæK:, etc., because of the absence of
the nun.
1.16.10n. On Heb lvk ‘to fall’, see Ginsberg 1929–30.

1.17. Loan Words, “Weak” Phonetic Change,

and Pseudo-Corrections
1.17.1. We have already noted that loan words may reflect deviations from
sound shifts, but these are only apparent, since such words exhibit the sound
00-Blau.book Page 54 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.17.2. ∑ “Weak” Phonetic Change; Pseudo-Corrections 54

system of their original languages (§1.10.3.4, p. 37; §1.10.3.7, p. 38). In a He-

brew doublet for ‘to watch’, rx"n; shows agreement with Hebrew sound shifts,
and rf"n; reflects Aramaic shifts. Two such doublets in Hebrew exhibiting s2 in
the genuine Hebrew form and t in the form loaned from Aramaic are
v/rB} /t/rB} ‘cypress?’ and vr'j: ‘to plough’/ tr'j: ‘to incise, engrave’. In the
last case, the loan word has a slightly different meaning from that of the gen-
uine Hebrew word.
1.17.2. Through deviations from regular sound shifts, as well as through
the not entirely predictable processes of assimilation, dissimilation, haplol-
ogy, and metathesis (see §1.19, pp. 57ff.), low-yield diachronic correspon-
dences arise, which were described by Yakov Malkiel as “ ‘weak’ phonetic
change.” The weakness may be due not to unpredictability but to rarity, as in
the case with iw > u (§1.16.2, p. 51), a true sound shift, which became quite
exceptional in Hebrew by morphological analogical pressure.
1.17.2n. On “weak” phonetic change, see Malkiel 1962; Blau 1977e = Topics, 50–103.

1.17.3. Hypercorrections and pseudo-corrections in general may be con-

ducive to “weak” phonetic change as well. Whenever two forms of a language
clash and one is more prestigious than the other, the speaker of the lower form
is apt to imitate the higher one. Often s/he lacks apposite knowledge and uses
an in-between form, non-existent at least in the given environment. Such a
form is neither at home in the person’s own (lower) speech (because s/he “cor-
rected” the form s/he would have used) nor in the higher language (because
s/he was not able to produce the form used there). Such a form may be called
pseudo-correct (Blau 1970c). If the speaker overshoots the mark and uses a
“higher” form, although the higher language demanded a form similar to that
used in the lower speech, we speak of a hypercorrection. Such forms may be-
come productive and eventually may become a part of the language.
1.17.4. In Biblical Hebrew, monosyllabic nouns as a rule become bisyl-
labic through the insertion of an anaptyctic vowel and are stressed on the pe-
nult. Thus *malk ‘king’ becomes Ël<m<&. Only rarely do Hebrew words follow
the Aramaic course, whereby the anaptyctic vowel attracts the stress and the
original vowel is reduced. We mentioned above (§1.12.7, p. 45) one such
noun, vb"D] ‘honey’; the phenomenon is also attested in Ëb"s} ‘entanglement’
(Bauer and Leander 1922: 580su). Because of the rarity of this feature, one
would not consider it a sound shift, even a weak one, were it not for two spe-
cial groups: nouns III-y and II-ª. For the first group, the stress on the anaptyc-
tic vowel is understandable. In contrast, we shall see that this phenomenon in
nouns II-ª is pseudo-correct.
1.17.5. Thus, if our assumption is valid, it was the combination of this fea-
ture in III-y nouns and the pseudo-correct use of the feature in II-ª nouns that
made the change of stress in monosyllabic nouns a veritable sound shift.
00-Blau.book Page 55 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

55 Pseudo-Correction; Function ∑ 1.18.2.

There is a special phonetic reason for the change of the stress in nouns III-y, as
in yriP} ‘fruit’ < *piry. The form *piry shifted (by the insertion of anaptyctic i)
to *píriy > *píri, and then the long i attracted the stress and the first vowel was
reduced. No such reason obtains for II-ª nouns. We reconstruct the develop-
ment this way: in vernacular speech the aleph of such nouns was elided, so
that original *biªr became *ber, yet in the higher language the ª was pre-
served. On the analogy of biblical forms like the more vulgar μyariqO ‘calling’,
instead of the expected standard form μyaIr]qO, a more elegant pseudo-form was
coined for *ber, viz., raEB}.
1.17.5n. For particulars, which are somewhat intricate because of the occurrence of paral-
lel features in the Babylonian and Samaritan traditions, see Blau 1970c: 28–29; Ben-
Óayyim 2000: 67 n. 95.

1.18. Conflicts of Function and Language Change

1.18.1. There are cases in which the normal function of sound shifts would
have neutralized oppositions in the paradigm. In such cases, paradigmatic
pressure against the free operation of the sound shift may abolish it. In the
Semitic languages final vowels mark the opposition between the 2ms and 2fs
personal pronoun and suffix-tense forms; so in Arabic 2ms ªanta katabta and
2fs ªanti katabti. The dropping of such final vowels by the sound shift that
caused the omission of final short vowels in many Semitic languages, includ-
ing Hebrew, would have caused the disappearance of gender distinction in the
second person. Three outcomes are found. First, there are Semitic dialects in
which this sound shift overcame the morphological resistance and neutralized
gender distinction. On the second and third options, one form dropped its final
vowel, where the other preserved it and so the gender distinction persisted.
The second option was based on the analogy of the 2fs imperative and prefix-
tense (e.g., Heb ybIt}KI, ybIT}k}TI), which terminate in a long i; thus ªanti katabti
was preserved, whereas the 2ms became ªant katabt. This is the case in Ara-
maic and many Arabic dialects. Hebrew, however, in which a is more apt to
be preserved than the other vowels, chose the third option. The 2fs final -i was
dropped and the 2ms final -a was lengthened and preserved: T:b}t"&K: hT:a," T}a"
T}b}t"K:. (See §4.2.2.3, p. 161.)
1.18.1n. The final vowels mentioned above may have been anceps (i.e., either long or
short, depending on context) with a tendency to shorten, or they may simply have been
short vowels. For gender neutralization in some Iraqi dialects of Arabic, see Jastrow 1978:
214–31. There are also Maghrebine dialects in which even the 1s suffix-tense is identical
to the now epicene (common gender) 2s. On the tendency of Hebrew to preserve a, see
Steiner 1979: 169; and §3.5.7.2.3n, p. 122; §3.5.7.6.1, p. 129.
1.18.2. It seems that sound shifts are not totally independent of the
function that the sounds fulfill. This is, of course, contrary to the demand of
00-Blau.book Page 56 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.18.3. ∑ Function 56

the Neogrammarians that only phonetic conditions should be taken into con-
sideration. As already noted, the notion that paradigmatic pressure may influ-
ence sound shift (§§1.15.3–1.15.5, pp. 49–50) goes against this demand. For
the whole problem, see Blau 1979a = Topics, 26–35.
1.18.3. Consider an example of several sound shifts interacting in Ara-
maic. In Nestorian Syriac, PS ˙ (˙1) had shifted to x (and thus coincided with
original x = ˙2). In Aramaic in general and in Syriac in particular, the bgdkpt
stops are spirantized in post-vocalic position, and thus k shifts to x (or at least
to a very similar sound). Nevertheless, the two sounds, identical for all prac-
tical purposes, are not mistaken for each other, because, it seems, the first
functioned as a phoneme, the second as an allophone (i.e., a variant, used un-
der clearly set conditions) of a phoneme. It is, it seems, because of their dif-
ferent functions that x < ˙ and x < k are differentiated and not confused.
1.18.4. If this proves true, it may be of no mean importance for the relative
and even absolute chronology of Biblical Hebrew’s history. It is generally ac-
cepted that the (Proto-Semitic) phonemes t, q, x, w had disappeared prior to
the postvocalic spirantization of t, d, k, and g respectively. Had the phonemes
t, q, x, w still existed when t, d, k, and g had become spirantized, they would
have been, prima facie, mixed up, since they were phonetically (almost) iden-
tical. We are especially interested in the problem of x and w. The Septuagint
uses two sorts of transcription to transliterate names containing ˙ and º: more
or less, ˙1 and º1 are transcribed by W, ˙2, and º2 (corresponding to Arabic
ghayn) by Greek khi (c) and gamma (g) respectively. This would, however,
entail that in the third century b.c.e., at the time of the translation of the Sep-
tuagint, ˙2 and º2 still existed. (For details, see Blau 1982a.) Therefore, the spi-
rantization of at least k and g would have to be even later, as is generally
claimed (see, e.g., Bergsträsser 1.40, §6m), since otherwise they would have
been confused. This would involve, however, great chronological difficulties
for explaining forms like ykEö l}m" ‘the kings of’. Were the spirantization a late
feature, *malake (> ykEö l}m") would not exhibit a spirantized k, because a be-
tween l and k would have disappeared earlier. However, if we rely on what
may be inferred from Nestorian Syriac, it is not necessary to pospone the spi-
rantization. Even if the phonemes x and w co-existed with the allophones x/k
and gö/g, they would not necessarily have been mixed up, since their functions
were different, just as the case was in Nestorian Syriac.
1.18.4n. The view presented here is not the only possible interpretation of the facts. Rich-
ard Steiner, in a lecture in Jerusalem in 2002, suggested that the spirantization of b, d, p, t
was on the whole realized in the third century c.e., yet that of k /g was blocked by the ex-
istence of x/g% , and was carried out only after x/g% had disappeared.
00-Blau.book Page 57 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

57 Assimilation; Dissimilation ∑ 1.19.5.

1.19. Assimilation, Dissimilation, Metathesis

1.19.1. Assimilation and dissimilation are both propelled by clear causes,
which is not usually the case with sound change. Nevertheless, these two pro-
cesses are regular only in relatively few cases; as a rule, they are sporadic and
unpredictable. For this reason they sometimes lead to “weak” phonetic
changes (§1.17.2, p. 54).
1.19.2. Assimilation results from the speaker’s inertia, endeavoring to
speak with the least possible effort. Accordingly, the speaker does not always
clearly differentiate between sounds in sequence but instead makes them more
uniform, not exerting her/himself overmuch in moving the speech organs.
The most conspicuous case of assimilation in Biblical Hebrew, almost totally
regular, is that of n to an immediately following consonant: *yinpol > yippol
‘he will fall’. (For exceptions, see §3.3.1.9, p. 77.) The assimilation in this
case is total (because the n becomes totally identical with the following con-
sonant, in our case p). It is also regressive (because the following sound, the p,
assimilated it in a backward movement) and continuous (because the assimi-
lated n and the assimilating p were in direct contact, without any interrupting
sound).
1.19.3. Also frequent and regular is the assimilation of the t of the hitpaººel
to a preceding sibilant: qDef"x}hI < *hißtaddeq ‘he justified himself’. Here the as-
similation is apparently grammatically conditioned, since it is limited to the
hitpaººel only. Through the impact of the directly preceding emphatic ß, t be-
came emphatic as well, i.e., it shifted to †. In this case too, the assimilation is
continuous, but it is only partial (the t has not become ß) and progressive, be-
cause it was the preceding sound that assimilated to the following one.
1.19.3n. This account depends on the assumption that this assimilation is later than the
metathesis of the first-radical sibilant and the t of the hitpaººel. If it is so, then *hitßaddeq
first became *hißtaddeq and only then did the t become †. If the assimilation occurred ear-
lier than the metathesis, the assimilation is regressive: *hitßaddeq became *hi†ßaddeq and
then by metathesis qDef"x}hI. This, however, is less likely, since then one would have ex-
pected the t of the hitpaººel to be assimilated to a following q as well, which is not the case
(cf. vDeqt
" }hI ‘he was hallowed’).
1.19.4. According to the testimony of other Semitic languages, the original
form of yyid]Gi ‘my lamb’ was *gaqyi. In this case a, a vowel, is assimilated to
the (half-)consonant y. The assimilation is discontinuous, partial, and regres-
sive. Monosyllabic nouns like *malk ‘king’ became, through an anaptyctic
vowel, disyllabic: *málæk. By assimilation of a to the æ, it shifted to Ël<m<&. In
this case, the assimilation was total, regressive, discontinuous, and between
vowels. (This is thus a sort of vowel harmony.)
1.19.5. Dissimilation stems from the difficulty of repeating the same
sound or similar sounds. Therefore, originally similar sounds become less
alike, in order to facilitate their pronunciation. A double consonant (CC) may
00-Blau.book Page 58 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.19.6. ∑ Dissimilation 58

be dissimilated into rC or lC. Thus, e.g., fybIr]væ ‘scepter’ derives from

*sabbi†; cf. fb<v´ ‘stick’; ['BOl}Gi ‘Gilboa (a mountain-ridge)’, originated from
*gibboa º; cf. h[:b}Gi ‘hill’. The dissimilation in these cases is contiguous, partial
(since the dissimilated sound has not disappeared), and regressive.
1.19.6. We have already mentioned that Arab s corresponds to Heb s1
(§1.10.2.2n, p. 30). Accordingly, one would expect for Heb *sams > vm<v& ≤
‘sun’ a form like Arab *sams, yet the Arabic word is sams, where the initial s
arose through discontinuous, partial, and regressive dissimilation.
1.19.6n. It is not impossible that the original form contained two different sibilants that
were assimilated in Hebrew.

1.19.7. Dissimilation is frequent in reduplicated biradical roots, like

*kabkab ‘star’, which became *kawkab, and finally bk:/K. In this case, too, the
dissimilation is non-continuous, partial, and regressive.
1.19.8. So far, we have dealt with the dissimilation of consonants; dissim-
ilation of vowels occurs as well. An especially important case is the dis-
similation of u/o > i preceding u/o (regressive, partial, and discontinuous
dissimilation). This is seen in *˙ußon ‘outer’, derived from ≈Wj ‘outside’,
which shifts to ˆ/xyjI; *tokon ‘middle’ (adjective), derived from Ëw,T:& / Ë/T
‘midst’, which becomes ˆ/kyTI; and ['v¨/hy] ‘Joshua’ > *['v¨/y > ['Wvye, from which
Jesus stems. In these cases, the dissimilation is, as often, regressive.
1.19.9. Progressive vowel dissimilation is found in special cases. In alEWl
‘if not’ = Wl + alø it is progressive, presumably because the preservation of Wl
was more important for communication (marking a condition) than that of alø
‘not’. In verb forms such as zjEayo ‘he will take’ < *yo˙uz, special conditions
also prevail: regressive dissimilation would have given rise to *ye˙uz. This
form is odd: the verbal prefix ye-, to be sure, does exist (lq"ye, r/aye , v/bye ‘he is
small’, ‘it is dawning’, ‘he is shamed’), but it is marginal. Moreover, there was
morphological pressure from the parallel hp<ayo ‘he bakes’, hb<ayo ‘he is willing’.
The dissimilation of *ªanoku to ykInoa: ‘I’ was influenced by the pronominal suf-
fixes -i and -ni (see §4.2.3.2.1, p. 168; Blau 1979c: 146–48= Topics, 347–49).
In these three cases progressive dissimilation prevailed, even though normally
vowel dissimilation is regressive.
1.19.10. So far, the cases of dissimilation treated were partial: the dissimi-
lated sound is not entirely lost. Total dissimilation is reflected by the disap-
pearance of the (second) glottal stop in *ªaª˙uz ‘I shall take’. This yields an
intermediate form *ªa!˙uz, exhibiting compensatory lengthening of the a;
from this, by the shift a! > o and the above-mentioned dissimilation (§1.19.9),
*ªo!˙ez > zjE&aO arose.
1.19.10n. For the place of the stress in the last form, see §3.5.12.2.18, p. 153. This account
condenses the historical development of the conjugation of the prefix-tense of zja. At first,
it seems, the ª of the root disappeared in the 1cs prefix-tense by dissimilation, in order to
00-Blau.book Page 59 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

59 Haplology; Lexicography ∑ 1.20.2.

avoid two glottal stops in the same syllable, and the preceding a was lengthened (ªaª > a)
to become later, by the Canaanite shift, o. Only later, through paradigmatic analogy, did
long o, not followed by the glottal stop, spread through the whole paradigm of the qal
prefix-tense: zjEayo, zjEaTø.
1.19.11. Haplology is a special case of total consonant dissimilation, men-
tioned in the example of zjE&aO. In Biblical Hebrew, this feature is perhaps at-
tested in the phrase hT:a" ˆaEm: μaI ‘if you refuse’ (Exod 7:27; 9:2; 10:4; Jer
38:21), if indeed it stands for ªim *m´maªen . . . (with the piººel participle) and
does not represent an archaic qal participle. In this case, the vowel following
the totally dissimilated consonant disappears as well, so that the whole syl-
lable is omitted. Thus, it makes sense that jt"P<& denoting ‘at the door’ and tyiB"&
‘in the house’ (see, e.g., Gen 38:11; 43:19), respectively, exhibit haplology of
b´pöœ!ta˙ and b´b2 áyit. The assumption that these forms are adverbial accusa-
tives cannot by itself explain the frequency of this usage in nouns beginning
with a labial, although it might have been an additional factor.
1.19.12. Metathesis is the transposition of sounds in a word. It may be
regular and predictable: the t of the hitpaººel is regularly transposed after a
first-radical sibilant: j'BET"v‘hI ‘to triumph’; the metathesis is, it seems, gram-
matically conditioned. All the other cases are sporadic and unpredictable, of-
ten occurring (in form of doublets) alongside the original form: hl:m}c¥ / hm:l}cæ
‘garment’, cb<K<& / bc≤K<& ‘lamb’.

1.20. Divisions of the Study of Language

1.20.1. It is customary to distinguish between grammar and lexicogra-

phy: grammar deals with anything general and regular in language, whereas
lexicography treats singular features. Therefore, one would not look in the
dictionary to learn how to form the plural of, e.g., rm"v… ‘he preserved’ (viz.,
Wrm}v…), because this formation is regular and predictable. It belongs instead to
grammar. In contrast, we would consult the dictionary to find out if the root
rmv occurs in the qal and, if so, what its meaning is. The occurrence of the qal
of a given root is not predictable, since there are many roots for which no qal
is attested. Moreover, there is no complete regularity in the meaning of qal
forms. It is accordingly an individual phenomenon, and its proper place is in
the dictionary.
1.20.1n. Instead of lexicography, some scholars use the term lexicology, while others dis-
tinguish between lexicography and lexicology.
1.20.2. This division between grammar and lexicography has a central
value rather than clear-cut boundaries. No biblical grammar will omit the
fact that the plural of the demonstrative pronoun hz, / tazO is hL<aE&, although this
is a completely irregular formation. The plural may have its own entry in a
00-Blau.book Page 60 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.20.3. ∑ Lexicography; Verbal Themes 60

dictionary or it may be included with the singular forms. The exceptional be-
havior of ˚lh ‘to go’ or of hw,j“T"v‘hI ‘to bow’ must be mentioned in a grammar
as well as in a dictionary. Word derivation is an important borderline area.
Individual instances may be regular and thus belong to the grammar, while
others may be exceptional and, theoretically at least, be a part of the dictio-
nary only. Practically speaking, derivation in general is treated in grammars,
but also in dictionaries under various derivational affixes and derived words.
1.20.3. A related problem is whether the verbal themes (binyanim, stems)
should be considered a part of the conjugation, belonging to grammar, or a
facet of word derivation, belonging to lexicography. Scholars are at variance.
As a rule, grammars deal with conjugation together with the treatment of the
verbal themes. Nevertheless, Heinz Grotzfeld in his grammar of the Arabic
dialect of Damascus (1964) treated the verbal themes separately from the con-
jugation because of their unpredictability, both in meaning and occurrence.
The most important consideration is practical. It is easy and lucid to treat the
formation of the verbal theme together with the formation of the suffix-tense
and prefix-tense. Grotzfeld, in separating them, sacrificed perspicuity and
easy arrangement to theory; the effort may be correct but not worthwhile.
Connected with this problem is the question whether every verbal theme
should appear in the dictionaries as a separate entry, let us say, j'BET"v‘hI under
this letter sequence, rather than under jbv. Scholarly tools for Biblical He-
brew never use such a scheme but rather arrange the lemmata according to
two systems. BDB (originally 1907) and the concordance of Mandelkern
(originally 1896), for instance, are arranged according to roots. This has the
great advantage that scholars—and these works address scholars—often ana-
lyze roots, and here they are grouped together. The disadvantage is that many
Hebrew nominal roots are opaque in derivation, and it is only with a cross-
reference that ordinary readers can find the lemma. Even a noun having such
a clear derivation as hr;/T ‘law’ will not be found by many readers if it is put
under hry or yry. Is it really justifiable to cite tpE/m under tpa or hn;WmT} under
ˆym? Most other dictionaries take a middle course, which is quite appropriate:
only the verb is adduced under the root, while the other parts of speech (listed
in the root entry) are given in their letter sequence. Since the derivation of
verbs is completely transparent even for students, this arrangement does not,
as a rule, cause any difficulties. For scholarly dictionaries, at any rate, the ar-
rangement of the various verbal themes under separate lemmata is out of the
question. Even if it were shown that the various verbal themes have to be con-
sidered separate words, such a separation would make such a dictionary diffi-
cult or useless for scholars, because of the absence of predictability of verbal
themes and because many scholars are interested in the root.
1.20.3n. See Grotzfeld 1964: 53–62. More recently Uzi Ornan has applied Grotzfeld’s ap-
proach to Hebrew (e.g., Ornan 1971: 124–28).
00-Blau.book Page 61 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

61 Phonemics; Morphology; Syntax ∑ 1.20.7.

1.20.4. In connection with this discussion, it is worth emphasizing that ver-

bal themes are predictable in their formation, except that the formation of the
qal prefix-tense is not predictable from the qal suffix-tense and vice versa.
1.20.5. The arrangement of popular dictionaries of Modern Hebrew is
guided by the needs of the unsophisticated reader. To repeat: every dictionary
should be formed for the benefit of its special circle of readers; thus, the future
Great Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language by the Academy of the
Hebrew Language will be arranged in its entirety according to roots.
1.20.6. In other fields of grammar, too, areas overlap. Traditional gram-
mars are divided into phonemics (or phonology, dealing with the smallest
units of language, i.e., sounds or phonemes), morphology (dealing with
“words,” or more accurately, with the smallest units that carry meaning, the
morphemes), and syntax (which analyzes the functions and relations of words
in the formally independent units of language, i.e., in sentences). If, in the
sentence r/a yhIy]w' ‘and there was light’ (Gen 1:3), we treat the relations and
functions of the two words (their order, predicate – subject; their concord), we
treat syntax. If we are interested in how to form the plural of these words or in
what the form of w' ‘and’ is, we have passed to morphology. If we treat the
sound represented by w, we are dealing with phonetics (the features of sounds)
and phonemics (relative to sounds that are distinct within BHeb).
1.20.7. This schema has its focal value, but once again the boundaries be-
tween these areas are often blurred. It is clear that the formation of the femi-
nine hl:/dG} ‘great’ from the masculine l/dG: belongs to morphology, since it
was by means of the regular suffix h-; that the feminine was formed. What is
the theoretically proper place for dealing with the feminine usage of rdeG :
‘fence’? In this case, the gender is not marked by any suffix; it is shown only
by concord, i.e., by syntactic means. Should we therefore separate the analysis
of the feminine nouns terminating in h-; from the list of nouns that have no spe-
cial ending and yet are syntactically (not morphologically!) feminine? Simi-
larly, what is the appropriate place for the analysis of the use of tenses?
Customarily, it belongs to syntax. Nevertheless, John Ries, in his influential
book Was ist Syntax (1894) claimed that the place for such problems is mor-
phology, since syntax treats the relations between words and not individual
words; in this view, he was followed by Bergsträsser (see §1.1.12n, p. 3). We
could argue that it is not the isolated verb that denotes an event at a given time,
but rather its relation to its subject that refers to the time of the event. If this is
really the case, then tense usage should be located in syntax. Recently, a nice
safety valve was found: for such cases a separate division of study was set up,
morphosyntax. (Similarly, for borderline cases between phonemics and mor-
phology, we have morphophonemics.) Creating new divisions of a field is
not, however, a deus ex machina, solving all difficulties. New difficulties will
00-Blau.book Page 62 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

1.20.8. ∑ Word Derivation; Semantics 62

arise: what are the exact boundaries between morphosyntax and syntax, on the
one hand, and morphosyntax and morphology, on the other, etc.?
1.20.8. We have already mentioned the topic of word derivation, which is
attached to many grammars. In the Semitic languages in general and in Bib-
lical Hebrew in particular, word derivation is achieved by morphological
means. Therefore, morphology seems to be the apposite place for it. However,
in Indo-Germanic languages, including English, where morphological deriva-
tion is comparatively marginal and words are frequently derived from word-
groups, it is perhaps preferable to devote a separate section to word derivation.
1.20.9. A further division of grammar is semantics, which is concerned
with meanings but, unlike dictionaries, it attempts to find what is general and
regular about them. Biblical semantics is not much developed, and we are still
in need of judicious works in this area.
00-Blau.book Page 63 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

2. Phonetics

2.1. Introduction

2.1.1. Phonetics deals with the physical character of vocal sounds as they
concern linguists; the exposition of phonetics presented here is brief. There
are five ways of subdividing the vocal sounds. The basic contrast is (1) be-
tween consonants and vowels (§2.2). They can also be distinguished on the
basis of (2) duration (§2.3); (3) place of articulation (§2.4); (4) resonance
chamber (§2.5); and (5) vocal cord movement (§2.6). We must also deal with
the special Semitic category of emphatics (§2.7). After summarizing the ma-
jor features of the Hebrew consonants (§2.8), we conclude this section with a
discussion of stress and syllabification (§2.9).

2.2. Consonants and Vowels

2.2.1. Sounds may be divided into consonants and vowels. These terms,
though generally accepted and firmly rooted, are not fully appropriate in ety-
mological terms, since they refer to different criteria. The term “consonant”
marks function, i.e., it is applied to a sound which does not serve by itself as
sonant but must occur with a sonant (con ‘with’ + sonant). Thus the opposed
term should be “sonant,” a sound capable of forming a syllable. The opposed
term that is used, “vowel” (related to “vocal”), describes its character: a vowel
is a vocal sound, and its opposed term should be ‘a noisy sound’ (Geräusch-
laut). This etymological disparity is generally ignored today, and the pair con-
sonant : vowel is standard.
2.2.1n. For doubts about the distinction, see already Brockelmann (1908–13: 1.41).

2.2.2. Actual use of the terms is based on slightly different senses. Conso-
nants are pronounced with total or partial obstruction of the breath, whereas
the air moves freely in the pronunciation of vowels. When pronouncing, e.g.,
p, the air is blocked totally (“stop”), whereas the pronunciation of pö (= f ) en-
tails only partial obstruction; such a sound is a “spirant,” i.e., “breathing,” or a
“fricative,” i.e., “made by the friction (of breath).” Both stops and spirants are
consonants. The air flow from the lungs does not encounter any obstacle dur-
ing the pronunciation of a; it is, accordingly, a vowel.
2.2.3. It is difficult to justify the division between consonants and vowels
from a physical-acoustical point of view only. Again, the core of each group is

63
02-Blau Page 64 Thursday, May 6, 2010 8:48 AM

2.2.4. ∑ Consonants/Vowels; Duration 64

clear, yet the boundaries are blurred. As a matter of fact, w and y may justly be
called both semi-consonants and semi-vowels, and indeed, they pass easily
into the vowels u and i, respectively. These are not sufficient grounds for re-
nouncing the accepted division of consonants and vowels.
2.2.3n. Little that is certain can be said as to the vocalic function of spirants in Hebrew. Cf.
Rendsburg’s attempt (1999: 29–30). Sometimes bgdkpt following vowelless r change to a
corresponding fricative; in these cases, r, a liquid consonant, influences the following stop
as a vowel would (§3.3.2.1.1, p. 78). Such sporadic cases reflect the fuzziness of the
vowel-consonant boundary. For particulars, see §3.3.2.1.4, p. 79.
2.2.4. In Semitic languages, at any rate, especially in verbs and verbal
nouns and adjectives, consonants and vowels are functionally different: the
radical consonants, so to say, convey the main meaning; the vowels (together
with affixes) only modify them (§§1.5.8–1.5.11, p. 14). This decisive func-
tional difference is even reflected in the alphabets of most Semitic tongues. If
we disregard vowel letters (which do not occur in all methods of spelling),
most Semitic alphabets write consonants only; the vowels have to be supplied
by the reader from the context.

2.3. Duration
2.3.1. Sounds may also be divided according to their duration: some
sounds are momentary and others continuant. The momentary sounds, all of
them consonants, are called stops or occlusives, because their pronunciation
entails total stopping (occlusion) of breath. The obstruction in the air stream
being released, the breath is expelled as if exploding; therefore these sounds
are sometimes called plosives. It goes without saying that such an “explosion”
can only last for a moment: ª, b, g, d, k, p, t, †, q.
2.3.2. The continuants may be subdivided into spirants (fricatives), sono-
rants, and vowels.
2.3.3. Spirants or fricatives are uttered with perceptible expulsion of
breath, while the parts of the vocal tract are near together, but not wholly
closed. The breath is still able to pass between them with a grating sound: b2 ,
gö, d2 , k, pö, t, h, ˙, º, s, s, ß, z. The last four spirants are called sibilants, being
sounded with a hiss or a hush.
2.3.4. Sonorants are uttered while the parts of the vocal tract are farther
away from each other. The breath, accordingly, moves with greater ease: l, m,
n, r, and the semi-consonants (or semi-vowels) w, y.
2.3.5. Vowels are pronounced while breath is moving freely.
2.3.6. The full vowels include a (–' ), œ (–, ), e (–e ), i (–i ), o (//–o ), O (–; ), u (W/–u ).
2.3.6n. The vowels given here are those of the Tiberian vocalization system, in which
there are no quantitative distinctions, i.e., phonetic long and short vowels are not distin-
guished.
00-Blau.book Page 65 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

65 Place of Articulation ∑ 2.4.10.

2.3.7. The ultra-short vowels are ´ (–] ), å (–“), œ* (–”), O) (–’).

2.4. Place of Articulation

2.4.1. The consonants can be divided according to the place of articula-

tion, i.e., the part of the vocal tract where the breath is (totally or partly)
blocked.
2.4.2. For the glottals the breath is blocked at the glottis, i.e., between the
vocal cords in the larynx: ª, h. Therefore, they are also called laryngeals.
2.4.2n. Note well that ª, when not used as a vowel letter, is an ordinary consonant, a glottal
stop, for which the air is totally blocked in the glottis, between the vocal cords.
2.4.3. For the pharyngeals the breath is obstructed in the pharynx, (behind
the root of the tongue and above the larynx): º, ˙.
2.4.4. For the uvulars the sound is articulated in the fleshy extension of the
soft palate hanging above the throat, which is called the uvula (‘little grape’).
Hebrew has only one uvular: q.
2.4.5. For the velars the sound is articulated at the soft palate (the velum,
the back part of the palate): k, g, k, gö.
2.4.6. For the palatals the sound is articulated at the hard palate (i.e., the
front part of the palate). Hebrew has only one palatal: y, besides the palatal
sibilant sin, for which see below.
2.4.7. For the dentals and alveolars the sound articulated with the tongue-
tip against the teeth (dentals) or the gums (alveolars, the alveolus being the
bony socket at the root of a tooth). For the purposes of this study the distinc-
tion between dentals and alveolars is not important. The dentals and alveolars
include d, q, t, t, †, and the sibilants z, s, s, ß, and the sonorants l, r, n. The so-
norant l (and r) is also called lateral, because during its pronunciation the air-
stream passes by the sides of the tongue.
2.4.7n. The sound s is spelled with both samekh (s) and ¶in (c). It is possible that q and t
were inter-dentals.
2.4.8. For the labio-dentals the sound is pronounced between the upper
teeth and the lower lip: b2 , pö.
2.4.8n. In this paragraph and the following we present the accepted pronounciation; the
labio-dentals could have originally been bilabials.
2.4.9. For the bilabials the sound is pronounced between the two lips: b, p,
m, w.
2.4.10. Since the air is not blocked when vowels are pronounced, no place
of articulation, in the true sense of the term, exists for them. Vowels may be
classified according to the place of the tongue during their pronunciation.
Vowels pronounced as the tongue approaches the palate (i, u) are called high
02-Blau Page 66 Thursday, May 6, 2010 8:51 AM

2.4.11. ∑ Full Vowels 66

vowels, the tongue being in high position during their pronunciation. The
vowel a, being pronounced with the tongue in low position, is a low vowel.
Vowels pronounced with the highest point of the tongue in the front of the
mouth (i, to a lesser degree e) are called front vowels, whereas u and to a
lesser degree o are dubbed back vowels, because the tongue reaches its peak
in the back of the mouth. Ordinary back vowels, at any rate those used in He-
brew, are pronounced with rounded lips (they are called rounded vowels),
whereas the front vowels are called spread vowels, being pronounced with
spread lips, or unrounded vowels.
2.4.11. It is customary to draw a chart of vowels according to the position
of the tongue in the form of a trapezoid (the trapezoid of vowels). Here the
trapezoid of biblical vowels is reconstructed according to the Tiberian vocal-
ization. This vocalization differs from the Sephardi pronunciation usually
taught at universities in that qamaß (whether qamaß gadol or qamaß qa†an) is
pronounced O, i.e., as a back vowel somewhat lower than o. This pronuncia-
tion is supported both by internal reconstruction (§1.13, p. 46), qamaß being
always O (§3.5.3.6, p. 109), and by the usage of the so-called Ashkenazi Jews.
2.4.11n. On the difference between qamaß gadol and qamaß qa†an, see §3.5.10.7, p. 138.
The official Hebrew language of the State of Israel reflects Sephardi pronunciation in its
vowel inventory; in that system qamaß gadol and qamaß qa†an are pronounced a and o, re-
spectively. Ashkenazi pronunciation is assumed to have used O for all qamaß; now all are
pronounced o.

2.4.12. This is the trapezoid of the full vowels of Biblical Hebrew.

i u

e o

œ O

2.4.13. The reconstructed full vowels of Biblical Hebrew according to the

Tiberian pronunciation are a (–' ), œ (–, ), e (–e ), i (–i ), o (//–o ), O (–; ), u (W/–u ). The a
(pata˙ –' ) is a front, low, spread vowel. The œ (segol –, ) is a front, half-low,
spread vowel. The e (ßere –e ) is a front, half-high, spread vowel. The i (˙iriq –I)
is a front, high, spread vowel. The o (˙olam –o ) is a back, half-high, rounded
vowel. (In the Sephardic tradition this is the pronunciation of qamaß qa†an
as well.) The O (qamaß –; ) is a back, half-low, rounded vowel. The u (qibbuß,
shuruq –u / W) is a back, high, rounded vowel.
02-Blau Page 67 Thursday, May 6, 2010 8:52 AM

67 Vowels; Voiced Sounds ∑ 2.6.1.

2.4.13n. With the exception of pata˙ and qamaß, these vowels when historically long tend
to be followed by a vowel letter in biblical spelling. The rounding of qamaß is uncertain; it
is possible that it was a spread vowel.
2.4.14. The distinction between a short high back vowel (short u, written
qibbuß) and a long high back vowel (long u, written shuruq) is alien to Bibli-
cal Hebrew. The choice between the two spellings in the Bible depends on the
consonants provided by the text. If the letter waw was used, it was marked
with a dot in it, i.e., the preceding consonant was followed by shuruq. Other-
wise, qibbuß was used. The spelling of the consonantal text was hallowed and
could not be adjusted as spelling systems changed. In fact, in older biblical
texts the two vowels alternate: the same word is vocalized in one place with
shuruq and in another with qibbuß, depending on whether the waw is present.
Compare the ordinary spelling μL:KU (e.g., Gen 43:34) and μL:Wk(AyKI) ‘(because)
they all’ Jer 31:34. As a rule, however, there was a tendency to use W when the
vowel is historically long. Similar is the use of ˙olam (/ in contrast to –o ).
2.4.15. The ultra-short vowels are ´ (–] ), å (–),“ œ* (–),
” O) (–).
’ The ´ (mobile
swa –] ) is an ultra-short, central, neutral vowel. The other ultra-short vowels, å
(˙a†af pata˙ –), “ œ* (˙a†af segol –),” O) (˙a†af qamaß –),
’ are, as a rule, restricted
to the neighborhood of laryngeals and pharyngeals. They serve, in the main,
as allophones of the mobile swa, and, like it, cannot be stressed. The swa itself
often denotes the lack of a vowel (zero, quiescent swa). This double function
of the swa arose because in the same word the zero articulation often alter-
nates with the pronunciation of an ultra-short vowel.
2.4.15n. The central neutral pronunciation of swa was not that of the Masoretes, who pro-
nounced it, as a rule, as a very short a‚ as expressly stated by them. It is only in this light that
the alternation of swa with ˙a†af pata˙ becomes intelligible. For details see §3.5.6.4.2n,
p. 116.

2.5. Resonance Chamber

2.5.1. Sounds may be divided according to the resonance chamber that re-
inforces the sounds. The main resonance cavity is the mouth, and the passage
to the nasal cavity is generally closed; sounds that resonate only in the mouth
are oral. The sounds m, n are pronounced while the nasal passage is open, so
that they resonate in both mouth and nose; therefore they are called nasals.

2.6. Voiced and Unvoiced

2.6.1. Finally, the sounds may be divided into voiced and unvoiced
sounds. During the pronunciation of voiced sounds the vocal cords vibrate.
(If you put your fingers to your throat, you will feel vibration, and if you put
00-Blau.book Page 68 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

2.7. ∑ Emphatics 68

your fingers in your ears you will hear humming or buzzing.) Voiced sounds
have higher sonority, especially the vowels, which are all voiced.

2.7. Emphatics

2.7.1. The class of emphatics is characteristic not only of Hebrew but of

nearly all the Semitic languages. Ashkenazi (European) Jews have lost the
faculty to pronounce these sounds (†, ß, q) and so pronounce them either as the
non-emphatic counterpart (t, k) or as an affricate (ts for ß). Arabic-speaking
Jews pronounce them in accord with their Arabic environment. Thus the spe-
cial Jewish tradition of emphatic pronunciation must be considered lost.
2.7.2. In living Semitic dialects two types of emphatic pronunciation are
attested. In Ethiopia an emphatic is glottalized (i.e., pronounced with glottalic
pressure), whereas in Classical Arabic and many Arabic dialects an emphatic
is velarized (i.e., the body of the tongue touches the velum). The velarized
pronunciation is used by Arabic-speaking Jews.
2.7.3. Such a pronunciation is not likely for Biblical Hebrew, at least in the
time of the Masoretes, because if the emphatics had been velarized, so would
the following vowel have been; thus pata˙ a would have passed to a qamaß O.
(This is an argumentum ex silentio and as such is open to objection.) It stands
to reason that originally emphatics were pronounced by way of the contrac-
tion of the larynx (and the lower pharynx). It was from this pronunciation that,
on the one hand, glottalization arose, and, on the other, velarization.
2.7.3n. For the extent of the ts pronunciation of ß, see Steiner (1982). It has been claimed
that x, z, s were originally affricated, i.e., they were pronounced †ß, dz, ts. Whether or not z
and s were originally affricated is of no consequence for Biblical Hebrew. As for x, how-
ever, the issue is of no mean importance. We accept Steiner’s cautious and prudential pro-
posal that a Proto-Semitic affricated sibilant is a possible hypothesis (1982: 89–91). For
new material discovered since the publication of Steiner’s book, see Tropper (2000: 102).
If Steiner’s proposal can be validated, the pronunciation ts would be regarded as a reten-
tion, since a glottalic (emphatic) pronunciation would have prevented the loss of affrica-
tion, contrary to what happened to z and s. Otherwise, the Ashkenazi pronunciation of ß
must be considered an innovation, triggered by its glottalic (emphatic) pronunciation.

2.7.4. For the suggestion that glottalization and velarization both arose from
laryngeal and lower pharyngeal constriction, see Garbell (1954: 234–36).

2.8. Summary of the Consonants

2.8.1. The basic features of the consonants are shown in the chart on p. 69:
2.8.1n. The sounds gö, q, and even t have disappeared from the accepted pronunciation and
yet have been preserved in various Jewish communities. The dental-alveolar, unvoiced
00-Blau.book Page 69 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

69 Consonants ∑ 2.8.1.

ª a aleph laryngeal (glottal), stop, unvoiced

b B bet bilabial, stop, voiced
b2 b b2 et labio-dental, fricative, voiced
g G gimel velar, stop, voiced
gö g göimel velar, fricative, voiced
d D dalet dental-alveolar, stop, voiced
d2 d d2 alet dental-alveolar, fricative, voiced
h h he laryngeal (glottal), fricative, unvoiced(?)
w w waw bilabial, semi-consonant, voiced
z z zayin dental-alveolar, fricative (sibilant), voiced
˙ j ˙et pharyngeal, fricative, unvoiced
† f †et dental-alveolar, stop (emphatic), unvoiced
y y yod palatal, semi-consonant, voiced
k K kaf velar, stop, unvoiced
k k kaf velar, fricative, unvoiced
l l lamed dental-alveolar, liquid, voiced, lateral
m m mem bilabial, liquid, nasal, voiced
n n nun dental-alveolar, liquid, nasal, voiced
s s samekh dental-alveolar, fricative (sibilant), unvoiced
º [ ºayin pharyngeal, fricative, voiced
p P pe bilabial, stop, unvoiced
pö p pöe labio-dental, fricative, unvoiced
ß x ßade dental-alveolar, emphatic, fricative (sibilant), unvoiced
q q qof uvular, emphatic, stop, (as a rule) unvoiced
r r resh dental-alveolar, liquid, voiced
s v shin palatal, fricative (sibilant), unvoiced
¶ c sin lateral, unvoiced fricative, today pronounced as s
t T taw dental-alveolar, stop, unvoiced
t t taw dental-alveolar, fricative, unvoiced

spirant was originally used only for samekh, but it is the contemporary pronunciation of ¶
in all Jewish communities. The replacement of ¶ by s is attested as early as the Bible, es-
pecially in the later books (Blau 1970c: 24–25, 114ff.), and in Rabbinic Hebrew it has be-
come the rule. Samaritans pronounce ¶ as s. The original lateral pronunciation of ¶ has
disappeared from Hebrew; see Steiner (1977, 1991).
00-Blau.book Page 70 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

2.9. ∑ Stress; Diphthongs 70

2.9. Stress and Syllabification

2.9.1. Stress and syllabification are closely related in Hebrew, as in many

languages. There are two ways of of emphasizing syllables: (1) (expiratory)
stress, which emphasizes the stressed syllable by contracting the muscles of
the rib cage and thereby pushing more air out of the lungs, and (2) pitch, the
musical accent, which emphasizes the accented syllable by contracting the
muscles of the larynx, thereby increasing the rate of vibration of the vocal
cords. Pitch is found to some extent in every language, but only in a minority
of languages (e.g., Chinese) are words differentiated by it (i.e., in them pitch
has phonemic function).
2.9.2. In Biblical Hebrew pitch had no phonemic function, and expiratory
stress prevailed (see §3.5.12, pp. 143ff.). 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.
2.9.3. It is not easy to define the syllable. In Biblical Hebrew a syllable al-
ways begins with a consonant and is followed either by a vowel (open syl-
lable) or by a vowel and consonant (closed syllable). Only at the end of a word
can a vowel be followed by two consonants. Consider T:Îr]m"&Îa: ‘you (masc.
sing.) said’: a: open syllable, r]m"& closed syllable, T: open syllable; T}r]m"&Îa: ‘you
(fem. sing.) said’: a: open syllable, T}r]m"& doubly closed syllable (i.e., closed by
two consonants). The culmination of every syllable is the sound with the high-
est sonority, which in Hebrew is always a vowel. Accordingly, the number of
syllables in a given word is identical to the number of its vowels. Even ultra-
short vowels, with low sonority, have to be counted as separate syllables.
2.9.3n. Various linguists have gone so far as to deny the existence of the syllable. In He-
brew even aleph at the beginning of the syllable has to be accounted a consonant; the only
case of a syllable not beginning with a consonant in Tiberian vocalization is W ‘and’ in cer-
tain environments; this u, however, is nothing more than a variant of w]. A different ap-
proach to Hebrew syllabification counts a consonant plus an ultra-short vowel as being
attached to the following full syllable.
2.9.4. If two continuous vowels occur in one syllable, they are called
diphthongs. Prima facie, this contravenes our statement that in Hebrew the
number of syllables is identical to that of the vowels. Functionally only one of
the two vowels is a real vowel: in Hebrew the diphthongs consist of a full
vowel, which is the peak of the syllable, followed by a semi-vowel (or semi-
consonant), w or y, which functions as a consonant and, being less sonorant
than the full vowel, marks the boundary of the syllable, as an ordinary conso-
nant would.
2.9.5. It is legitimate indeed to speak of diphthongs because they are apt to
be monophthongized, i.e., to become one (long) vowel. Thus ht:y]B"&h" ‘home-
00-Blau.book Page 71 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

71 Monophthongization ∑ 2.9.5.

ward’ corresponds to ytIyBE ‘my house’; the poetic pausal form ht:&w]M:&h" ‘death’
to ytI/m ‘my death’. The ay and aw are called descending diphthongs, since the
more sonorous vowel (the peak) precedes the less sonorous element (and the
air stream descends to it). These are the only important diphthongs in Biblical
Hebrew. Ascending diphthongs like wa, ya, in which the more sonorous ele-
ment follows the less sonorous one, are not noteworthy, because, with few ex-
ceptions, they behave as ordinary open syllables.
00-Blau.book Page 72 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3. Phonology

3.1. Introduction

3.1.1. The topic of physical qualities or features of sounds, the topic in

chapter 2, stands on the border between linguistics and acoustic science. Only
certain features of sounds are important for linguistics; many particulars of
pure phonetics are of no relevance. How concerned is linguistics with accu-
rate phonetic transcription? Is a transcription necessarily better (for linguis-
tics!) if it is more complete, even exhaustive? Or is the linguistic interest in
phonetic accuracy limited?
3.1.2. Let us attempt, for instance, to transcribe the word rK:KI ‘district;
loaf’. In a broad transcription we would use the same sort of k in both syl-
lables: kik-kar. A narrower (more accurate) transcription, in contrast, might
note that the first k, being followed by a front vowel, assimilates to that vowel
and becomes more fronted than the kk preceding a. Is it worthwhile to note
such phonetic differences, although they are totally dependent on their envi-
ronment and, therefore, do not differentiate meanings?
3.1.3. The difference between, e.g., b and p is of crucial importance for
anyone interested in language. In Hebrew, as in many languages, b and p may
appear in the same phonetic environment, e.g., hn;B: ‘he built’ and hn;P: ‘he
turned’. Thus b and p are the shortest elements which differentiate meanings,
i.e., they serve as phonemes. The subfield of linguistics that deals with pho-
nemes (rather than with the phonetic-physical qualities of sounds) is called
phonology. Neither the linguist nor the naïve reader is interested in phonetic
differences that do not differentiate meanings. In fact, a good alphabet is one
that notates only phonemes, with a one-to-one correspondence between sound
and letter. The marking of the subtle difference between k preceding i and k
preceding a, for instance, would not help a reader; on the contrary, it would
only confuse the reader.
3.1.3n. Among the founders of phonology, N. S. Trubetzkoy, who lived in the first half of
the twentieth century, deserves special mention. See Trubetzkoy (1968, 1969).
3.1.4. Alternant phonemic forms, i.e., various manifestations of the same
phoneme, are called allophones. Even in cases in which allophones are con-
spicuous and in certain environments have developed into phonemes, the or-
dinary reader will not be misled by a failure to mark the difference. The fact
that allophones are predictable, because they appear in defined environments,

72
00-Blau.book Page 73 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

73 Allophones; Polyphony ∑ 3.2.2.1.

enables the reader to identify them readily. Biblical Hebrew is a case in point.
In unvocalized biblical texts there is no graphic difference between bgdkpt
letters pronounced as stops or as spirants. Nonetheless a reader familiar with
the language can easily distinguish them, despite the great phonetic differ-
ence. Because each realization generally appears in a well-defined phonetic
environment (spirants occur after vowels, otherwise stops occur), the ordi-
nary reader readily differentiates them. This is true even though in certain en-
vironments these allophones have become veritable phonemes (see below,
§3.3.2.2, p. 79). Moreover, even polyphonic letters (like ç marking both s and
¶ [s], see §3.2.2) are easily differentiated.

3.2. Hebrew and the Proto-Semitic Consonants

3.2.1. Hebrew Script

3.2.1.1. The twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet mark consonants;
even y, w, h, a do so when they are not used as vowel letters (i.e., to mark vow-
els). Before the introduction of vowel letters, Hebrew script was entirely con-
sonantal, notating consonants only. Despite clear difficulties that must have
existed in reading such a writing system, it is congenial to Hebrew (and Se-
mitic) language structure, in which, to a great extent, consonants bear the
main meaning of the word and vowels only modify it.
3.2.1.2. All the letters of the Hebrew alphabet mark separate phonemes.
Being a phonemic writing system, it suits the reader’s aim well, even with the
qualification that vowel phonemes are not marked in unvocalized script.
(Note that vowel marking is not entirely phonemic; see §3.5.6.6, p. 118.)

3.2.2. An Example of Polyphony: ‡in

3.2.2.1. According to Jewish tradition, the pronunciation of ¶in is identical
to s, and, therefore it is not a separate phoneme. This tradition does not fit the
linguistic fact that Biblical Hebrew spelling uses ¶in and samekh in accord
with distinct sets of correspondences in other Semitic languages. This pattern
reflects the fact that the two sounds (and letters) derive from separate Proto-
Semitic phonemes. Hebrew samekh corresponds to s in other Semitic lan-
guages, as in ‘to cover’ Heb hS:KI, Ugar, Aram ksy, Arab ksw; ‘to break, tear
apart (prey), divide’ Heb sr'P:, corresponding to forms with s in Akkadian,
Aramaic, Gºez, and Arabic. The Hebrew correspondences for ¶ are distinct:
‘grey hair’ Heb hb:yc´, Akk sib(um); ‘witness, elder’, Aram bc… ‘old’, Ugar sbt,
Gºez sibat, Arab sayb; ‘left’ Heb lamOc‘, Akk sumel, Ugar smal, Aram lmç,
Arab simal ‘left’, samªal, samal ‘north wind’; ‘ten’ Heb rc≤[<&, Akk esr, Ugar
ºsr, Aram rcæ[“, Gºez ºasru, Arab ºasr.
00-Blau.book Page 74 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.2.2.2. ∑ Polyphony 74

3.2.2.1n. The Samaritans pronounce ¶in as shin, so that according to the Samaritans as well
it does not constitute a separate phoneme, being identical to s. In later Jewish tradition, ¶
tends to be superseded by s.
Since Old Aramaic lmç alternates with later lms, the s has to be interpreted as ¶.
In Gºez ºasru, the suffix -u is a special Gºez feature (see §1.10.2.6n, p. 32).
3.2.2.2. These sound correspondences establish the existence of two differ-
ent Proto-Semitic sounds. Since Heb ¶ appears (almost) exclusively in words
in which a consonant different from samekh has to be posited, the biblical tra-
dition of spelling s has to be considered reliable (Blau 1977e = Topics, 50–
103; for occasional deviations, see Blau 1970c: 114–17). The absence of a
special letter to mark this consonant preserved in ancient Biblical Hebrew
(before it coincided with samekh) is to be explained by the assumption that the
alphabet was not invented by the ancient Jews. Otherwise, why did the Jews
use ç as a polyphonic sign, i.e., a sign standing for two different sounds, s
and ¶? By no means can it be argued that in ancient Biblical Hebrew there was
a sound that was first pronounced as s, later drifting sporadically to s: why did
it become s of all things in some cases, yet remained s in the others? Such an
assumption would totally contravene the postulated regularity of sound shifts
(§1.9.8, p. 27). Moreover, how could it have happened that it became s in
exactly those cases in which the sound correspondences attest to a separate
phoneme?

3.2.3. The Origins of Polyphonic Sin

3.2.3.1. In the language of the people who invented the alphabet, ¶ and s
had merged, presumably as s; such a merger is attested in many Semitic lan-
guages (see §3.2.2.1, p. 73). This people did not need or have a letter marking
¶. Two explanations for the polyphonic use of v are possible.
3.2.3.2. In the first scenario, when the ancient Hebrews took over this al-
phabet, they lacked a letter for ¶, which they still possessed. They did not in-
vent a new letter to add to the newly acquired alphabet, but rather used s to
mark it as well. This polyphonous use of the s might have been caused by the
phonetic similarity of ¶ and s: the Hebrews chose a letter that represented a
rather similar sound.
3.2.3.3. The second scenario develops from a well-attested fact in the his-
tory of Semitic alphabet-borrowing. Again and again one finds that the adopt-
ers of another alphabet do not mark sounds that do not exist in the original
alphabet with letters reflecting a similar pronunciation. Rather they imitate
the original alphabet.
3.2.3.4. At the time the Canaanite alphabet was first used, Old Aramaic
still preserved the interdentals. The Canaanite languages had lost them. Ac-
cordingly, for example, Old Aramaic still had t (= later Aram s2), whereas in
Canaanite it had merged with s. Thus the Canaanites pronounced ‘ox’ sor,
while the speakers of Old Aramaic still said tor. Since the Old Aramaic

spread is 6 points long

00-Blau.book Page 75 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

75 Polyphony ∑ 3.2.4.2.

speakers did not invent any new letters, one might have expected that they
would polyphonously use a letter that marked a phonetically similar sound, for
instance samekh: rs*. (In the Tell Fekherye Aramaic inscription, s corre-
sponds to Proto-Semitic s2.) In fact, they used ç, presumably not because the
sounds t and s are similar, but under the influence of the original Canaanite al-
phabet, which employed in these cases ç, and spelled the word for ‘ox’ rç!
Since Canaanite and Aramaic are similar, the Arameans grew used to reading
Canaanite rç and pronouncing it, in accordance with their own language, tor.
Thus, for marking the sound absent from the Canaanite alphabet, they used the
letter that in the Canaanite alphabet historically corresponded to that absent
letter (without, of course, having any inkling of the historical development).
3.2.3.5. This process can be seen most clearly in adoption by the Arabs of
the (Aramaic-) Nabatean alphabet (see Blau 1977b: 10–13 = Middle Arabic,
13–18). Nabatean Aramaic had lost many consonantal phonemes preserved in
Arabic. Thus, for instance, Proto-Semitic q0 (= Heb ß2) in Aramaic (including
Nabatean Aramaic) had coincided with † (†2). Accordingly, Proto-Semitic
q0aby was spelled ybf. The Arabs pronounced it in accord with their own lan-
guage, q0aby. Nevertheless, they used † for marking q0, though the sounds in-
volved are totally different.
3.2.3.6. The same may be true regarding acceptance of the alphabet by the
Hebrews. Since the original users of the alphabet used ç to spell words in
which Proto-Semitic ¶ occurred (which they pronounced s), the Hebrews
might have taken over the ç for marking (also) ¶. If this proves true, nothing
can be inferred from the pronunciation of ¶ from the fact that it is marked by
ç in the Hebrew alphabet. It would simply reflect the fact that in the original
language s and ¶ had coincided, without suggesting that in Hebrew they were
phonetically similar.

3.2.4. Other Cases of Polyphony

3.2.4.1. The use of ç to mark both s and ¶ shows clearly that the Hebrew
alphabet allows for polyphony (Blau 1982a). Were other letters used polyph-
onously? It stands to reason that j and [ were polyphonous as well: j repre-
sented both ˙ and x, [ both º and w until the third century b.c.e.
3.2.4.2. The double pronunciation of these letters was still in use at the
time of the earliest parts of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Bible
(the Pentateuch is from the third century b.c.e.). Thus names containing ˙/ º
are transliterated according to the following system: original ˙ and º (i.e., j/[)
are not transliterated at all or vowels are used for them, original x (i.e., ˙2) is
marked by c and original w (i.e., º2) by g. Thus bb:jO, derived from ˙1bb, is
transliterated by obab, while nouns beginning with yjIa“, from the root ºxw, are
always shown with aci. Nouns from the root º1zz are transcribed with initial
vowels, yet Gaza (the initial wyn is attested by the Arabic name wazza) by
00-Blau.book Page 76 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.2.5. ∑ Polyphony; Consonants 76

Gaza. This last example is especially powerful, since it reflects the difference
in cases that otherwise would be, prima facie, identical. There are some devi-
ations from the pattern, yet in the main the principle seems clear. Neverthe-
less, the pattern is not uniform throughout the Old Greek translation, since the
work was done over several centuries. Thus the transcriptions in the Septua-
gint Ezra and Nehemiah reveal that transcription by zero prevails in them,
without distinguishing between ˙ and x, º and w. The polyphonous distinctions
made at the time of the Pentateuch translation had disappeared by the time of
the translation of Ezra and Nehemiah.
3.2.5. Hebrew and Proto-Semitic Consonants
3.2.5.1. The Hebrew alphabet has 22 letters (c and v are marked by the
same letter) but originally marked at least 25 consonantal phonemes. Proto-
Semitic had, in addition to these 25, four other consonantal phonemes. We
have no indication that they still existed in Hebrew at the time the Hebrews
took over the alphabet. These are 2z (= q §§1.9.1–1.9.11, pp. 25–28), 2v (= t,
§§1.10.2.1ff., pp. 30ff.), 2x and 3x (= q0 and Î, §§1.10.3.8–1.10.3.19, pp. 38–
40).
3.2.5.2. These are the 29 consonantal phonemes of Proto-Semitic. The
consonants that disappeared from Hebrew before the destruction of the First
Temple are in parentheses; sounds that still existed at that time but were not
represented by separate letters of the alphabet are in brackets.
ª b g d (q) h w z ˙ [x] † y k l m n s º [w] p ß (Î q0) q r s [¶] t (t)

3.3. The Consonants of Hebrew

3.3.1. Classification of the Consonants

3.3.1.1. The consonants of Hebrew can be classified, as we have seen, in
various ways. In this section we briefly comment on some groups, and in the
succeeding sections we discuss in detail three groups that present various dif-
ficulties, the bgdkpt letters, the laryngeals and pharyngeals (including aleph
and he), and the semi-consonants.
3.3.1.2. The emphatic stops are †et (dental-alveolar) and qof (uvular). For
the emphatic category, see §2.7, p. 68. The t of hitpaººel is assimilated to a pre-
ceding x to become †: qD;f"x}ni ‘shall we justify ourselves?’ (with pausal qamaß,
Gen 44:16). See §1.19.3, p. 57.
3.3.1.3. The sibilant fricatives include a dental-alveolar group (samekh,
zayin, and ßade) and the palatal shin. ‡in, originally a lateral fricative, fell into
the dental-alveolar group after its original pronunciation was lost and it came
to be pronounced as samekh. All the sibilants metathesize with the t of the
hitpaººel; see §1.19.12, p. 59.
00-Blau.book Page 77 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

77 Consonants ∑ 3.3.1.9.

3.3.1.4. The dental-alveolar sibilant fricatives are samekh (unvoiced),

zayin (voiced), and ßadhe (emphatic). For the suggestion that z, s, x were
originally affricated, i.e., that they were pronounced dz, ts, †ß, rather than as
simple sibilants, see §2.7.3, p. 68. For the original contrast of samekh and sin,
see §3.2.2, p. 73. For the etymological contrast of z1 and z2, see §1.9, p. 25.
Three Proto-Semitic sounds have coincided in Heb x; see §§1.10.3.8–
1.10.3.18, pp. 38–40. For its metathesis preceding the t of the hitpaººel and
the assimilation of the non-emphatic t to the emphatic ß, see §3.3.1.3 and
§3.3.1.2. For its emphatic character, see §2.7, p. 68.
3.3.1.5. The consonantal text does not distinguish between s and ¶, i.e., the
two sounds had merged in the language from which the alphabet was devel-
oped, which we have argued was not Hebrew. The sign ç is polyphonic
(§3.2.2, p. 73). The differentiation between them (v versus c) stems from the
Masoretes only, yet it is well founded. Much evidence, both internal and com-
parative, suggests that ¶ was originally a lateral fricative (§2.8, p. 68), a sound
preserved in Modern South Arabian dialects. The alternation of the roots
qj3x/qjc ‘to laugh’ attests to the affinity between c and lateral 3x (§1.10.3.8,
p. 38).
3.3.1.6. The palatal sibilant is shin (unvoiced). For the etymological
background of the Hebrew consonant, see §1.10.2, p. 30.
3.3.1.7. The liquids are lamed (dental-alveolar lateral) and resh (dental-
alveolar). For the properties of resh, see §§3.3.3.1.1–3.3.3.1.2, pp. 81–82. For
the exceptional behavior of l in the prefix-tense, imperative, and construct in-
finitive of jq"l: ‘he took’, see §4.3.8.3.7, p. 243. For the possible assimilation of
the l of the alleged interrogative particle *hal, see §3.3.5.5.5, p. 95; §3.5.11.5n,
p. 140.
3.3.1.8. The nasals are mem (bilabial) and nun (dental-alveolar). The latter
in Hebrew, as in other Semitic languages, exhibits a certain weakness.
3.3.1.9. The nasal n immediately preceding a consonant is totally assimi-
lated to it: *yinpol shifts to lPOyi yippol. There are two major groups of excep-
tions (and some sporadic exceptions as well). (1) With few exceptions n is not
assimilated to a following laryngeal-pharyngeal: πa"n]yi ‘he will commit adul-
tery’; gh"n]y‚i ‘he will drive’; lj"n]yi ‘he will take possession’; μ["n]yi ‘it is pleasant’.
This is an ancient phenomenon, reflected in the consonantal skeleton of the
Bible, and is due to the difficulty of doubling laryngeals and pharyngeals. Cf.
§4.3.8.3.1, p. 241. The exceptions to this pattern include tj"ye ‘he will go down’,
occurring alongside tj"n]y;i ≈WjmI ‘from outside’; fWjmI ‘from a thread’. (2) In
verbs III-n, through the analogy of forms preserving the n because it does not
immediately precede a consonant, the n has been reinstated: yTIn]k"&v,… T:n]k"&v… ‘I,
you settled down’, through analogy to ˆk"v,… hn;k}v,… Wnk}v… ‘he, she, they settled
down’, ˆkE/v, μynik}/v ‘settling down (ms, mp)’, ˆKOv‘y,i WnK}v‘yi ‘he, they will settle
down’, etc. For the exceptional behavior of ˆtn ‘to give’, see §4.3.8.3.4, p. 242.
00-Blau.book Page 78 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.3.1.10. ∑ BGDKPT 78

3.3.1.10. For the tendency to preserve n in pausal forms, see §4.3.8.3.2,

p. 241; for its preservation in the qal construct infinitive in forms like lPOn]lI ‘to
fall’, see §4.3.4.2.2, p. 213.

3.3.2. The BGDKPT Consonants

3.3.2.1. Stop-Spirant Contrast

3.3.2.1.1. The six oral stop consonants, tpkdgb, each have two pronuncia-
tions, as a stop and as a spirant (fricative). They generally preserve their origi-
nal pronunciation as stops (bgdkpt, marked by dages TPKDGB); after vowels,
they change to spirants (b2 göqkpöt). The spirant pronunciation is optionally
marked by an overbar, called raphe, tÉpÉkÉdÉgÉb,É but more typically by the absence
of dages, tpkdgb. The consonants are pronounced as stops in word-initial po-
sition and after a consonant (i.e., after a quiescent swa), and as spirants in other
cases. The process of spirantization is basically one of assimilation: vowels are
continuants (§2.3.5, p. 64) and assimilate immediately following stops to be-
come continuants as well. Insofar as stop and spirant alternate, they can be con-
sidered two allophones of a single archiphoneme, but there is some evidence
that they were on their way to becoming separate phonemes.
3.3.2.1.1n. For the feminine morpheme -at becoming -a in final position, see §3.5.7.2.1,
p. 121.
The diphthongs aw and ay tend to be followed by the stops bgdkpt, since the final w and
y function as consonants (and are, indeed, marked by quiescent swa, except at the end of a
word preceding a word opening with bgdkpt, where swa is, as a rule, not written): yTIw]l"&v… ‘I
was quiet’ Job 3:26. After the Tetragrammaton, pronounced yn;dOa“, with final -ay, a follow-
ing bgdkpt is invariably a stop. Some exceptions are due to analogy: ht:y]B" ‘homeward’
was influenced by the absolute form tyiB"& (see Blau 1992: 10–11 = Studies, 92–93); pausal
ykIy]a:&Wlj“T" ‘your (fs) illnesses’ Ps 103:3 reflects the fact that the pronominal suffix always
contains spirant k. There are true exceptions as well: Whtø& ÉÎwq"‘line of confusion’ Isa 34:11.

3.3.2.1.2. The stop-spirant variation can extend outside a single word,

since the Masoretic notation recognizes sandhi (external close juncture),
where two (Masoretic) words (i.e., stress units) are joined together. If the first
word ends in a vowel and the second opens with one of the letters tpkdgb, this
letter is, as a rule, pronounced as spirant. The two words effectively form one
stress unit in which the tpkdgb letter is preceded by a vowel: Whtø& É ht:y]h: ‘it was
confusion’ Gen 1:2. A connective cantillation mark indicates this joining pro-
cess. This joining is always the case when two words are hyphenated, i.e.,
linked by maqqaf; here the words form a single stress unit in which the first
word is proclitic: hk:mO&k:ÉAymI ‘who is like you?’ Exod 15:11 (first occurrence).
3.3.2.1.3. An expected spirantization may not be carried through because
of dissimilation: if the second word begins with b or k followed by another
similar (or identical) spirant, the initial sound of the word remains a stop:
00-Blau.book Page 79 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

79 BGDKPT ∑ 3.3.2.2.3.

Ha:/bÉB} yhIy]w' ‘and it happened when she came’ Judg 1:14; hk:mO&K: ymI‘who is like
you?’ Exod 15:11 (second occurrence).
3.3.2.1.4. Sometimes bgdkpt following vowelless r change to fricatives be-
cause r, as a continuant and one with “weak” pronunciation, influences the
following stop as a vowel. (This reminds us how vague the differences be-
tween consonants and vowels can become.) Consider: db"Ér]m" ‘coverlet’; fybIÉr]væ
‘scepter’; ˆb:Ér]D; ‘goad’; ˆb:Ér]q‘: offering’ only in Ezek 40:43, otherwise ˆB:r]q.: The
form ydiÉr]Y;mI ‘that I should go down’ Ps 30:4 contains a fricative d as usual with
construct infinitives governing pronominal suffixes (e.g., /db}[î:l} ‘to serve
him’); surprisingly, the qamaß is marked by meteg (and, therefore, pro-
nounced by the Sephardim as a). The meteg, indicating an open syllable, is
used here, it seems, because of the vocalic character of the r, which caused the
preceding syllable to be open.
3.3.2.1.4n. On the “weak” character of r and its inclusion among the laryngeals and pha-
ryngeals, see §3.3.3.1.1, pp. 81–82. For meteg, see §3.5.11.9, p. 142. For the problem of
the date of the spirantization of bgdkpt, see below.

3.3.2.2. The History of the Process

3.3.2.2.1. Biblical vocalization reflects a stage of the language’s history in
which spirantization was no longer always productive in word-medial and
word-final positions: a swa replacing a vowel, when preceded by a short vowel,
was, as a rule, not pronounced, yet a following bgdkpt remained spirant. (This
is the so-called swa medium, as in ykEÉl}m;" see §3.5.6.3.6, p. 114.) The failure to
shift to a stop pronunciation indicates that the automatic alternation of stop and
spirant bgdkpt no longer operated: bgdkpt had become a spirant because of the
preceding vowel, but when that vowel disappeared, the spirant pronunciation
was maintained (see Blau 1989–90: 108–13 = Studies, 283–88).
3.3.2.2.2. The disappearance of this alternation is indicated by other
features as well. In some cases, the 2fs suffix-tense of verbs III-laryngeals-
pharyngeals contrasts with the infinitive: T}j"q&l" : ‘you took’ (with stop T}), tj"ql"& :
‘to take’ (with spirant t). This reflects a phonemic opposition of stop and spi-
rant for t, both occurring after a vowel. In I-laryngeals-pharyngeals with a
bgdkpt second radical, there is a marked tendency to vocalize the first radical
with quiescent swa, rather than with a ˙a†af vowel; thus the bgdkpt radical is
realized as a stop, e.g., lOBøj}T" ‘you take in pledge’. Were the stop-spirant alter-
nation automatic (i.e., if the two pronunciations had remained allophones of
the same archiphoneme), there would be no reason for the speaker (and the
Masoretes) to prefer the stop pronunciation. This preference is comprehen-
sible only on the assumption that the automatic alternation of occlusive and
spirant bgdkpt has been restricted.
3.3.2.2.3. A further piece of evidence is provided by the simplification of
geminates: there is a strong tendency to reduce double consonants followed
00-Blau.book Page 80 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.3.2.2.4. ∑ BGDKPT 80

by mobile swa to simple consonants followed by quiescent swa, e.g., y[Es}m"

‘journeys (cstr)’ Num 33:1; here masºe replaces the expected *mass´ºe. This
simplification is almost totally absent from bgdkpt, which, again almost with-
out exception, are marked by dages, as hd;D]v¨ ‘was plundered’ Jer 4:20; W[G}yi
‘they will touch’. (See Bergsträsser 1.141–42.)
3.3.2.2.3n. In the Jer 4:20 case, the dages has been preserved when it precedes the same
consonant, although this environment is, as a rule, conducive to the omission of the dages.
3.3.2.2.4. Why are some geminates simplified and others left geminates?
The main reason for the simplification of geminates followed by an ultra-short
vowel (the swa) is the difficulty of pronouncing a double consonant with the
help of only an ultra-short vowel. Now, this difficulty would have been even
greater with bgdkpt, which, as stops, are shorter than continuants and there-
fore more likely to require a full vowel when being geminated. Why then do
they always preserve the dages? This is a difficult issue. The only way out of
the dilemma is to suppose that, in at least some of the cases in which the dages
continues to mark bgdkpt, it denotes their pronunciation as simple stops, al-
though they follow vowels. Accordingly, hd;D]v¨ may denote not only sudd´qa
but also sudqa; W[G}yi not only yigg´ºu but also yigºu.
3.3.2.2.4n. For the marking of simple stops with dages in Syriac, see Blau 1989–90: 108 =
Studies, 283 n. 15.
3.3.2.2.5. The features just outlined indicate that at a certain stage in the
history of Hebrew the stops bgdkpt after vowels did not automatically change
to spirants in word-medial and word-final position. In contrast, both external
and internal evidence indicate that in word-initial position the automatic al-
ternation of stop and spirant continued. The internal evidence is the consistent
use of spirants in sandhi after a word ending in a vowel. External evidence is
furnished by the use of this feature in the living Aramaic of Tiberias at the be-
ginning of the tenth century c.e., as attested by Rav Saadya Gaon. Moreover,
even outside word-initial position spirantization after vowels is often carefully
preserved. A case in point is vd;ÉQ}mI ‘sanctuary’ Exod 15:17, with spirant q after
mobile swa, in contrast to the usual vD;q}mI with occlusive d after quiescent swa.
Accordingly, the bgdkpt spirants are allophones on their way to becoming pho-
nemes in word-medial and word-final position; here, as in other features, the
biblical vocalization reflects a transitional stage in the history of Hebrew.
3.3.2.2.5n. For Saadya Gaon’s two anecdotes dealing with spirantization in word-initial
position after a preceding word terminating in a vowel, see his Commentary to the Sefer
Y´ßira (§4.3; edition: Kafa˙ 1972: 78; French translation: Lambert 1891: 102).
3.3.2.2.6. Paul Kahle believed that the Masoretes had tampered with the
traditional Jewish pronunciation of Hebrew in fairly drastic ways. (See
§3.3.3.4, p. 86, for his views on laryngeals and pharyngeals.) Kahle proposed
an ingenious theory of Masoretic activity, most fully presented in The Cairo
Geniza (1959). He claimed there that the Masoretes did not reproduce tradi-

spread is 12 points long

00-Blau.book Page 81 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

81 BGDKPT ∑ 3.3.3.1.1.

tional Jewish pronunciation; rather, after the fashion of Classical Arabic

grammarians, they remodeled it under Syriac and Arabic influence. They
were, he alleged, seeking to give the Holy Book the most eloquent literary
form possible.
3.3.2.2.7. His notion of the Masoretes introducing deliberate changes is
implausible. In particular, he believed, based on the Septuagint translitera-
tions (1959: 179–84), that the fricative pronunciation of bgdkpt was histori-
cally accurate, but that the double pronunciation was a Masoretic creation.
(See Kutscher 1965: 24–34, reviewing Garbini 1960, a book dominated by
Kahle’s theories.) Kahle’s theory does not explain how the Masoretes were
able to use spirants in cases in which the preceding vowel had already disap-
peared (the so-called swa medium, as in ykEÉl}m", t/bÉn]z'). In particular, note that in
Syriac, the Masoretes’ supposed prototype, the stop pronunciation often su-
persedes the spirant one. The contrast of lPOn]lI ‘to fall’ and lpøÉn]BI ‘when he
falls’ can only be explained as reflecting internal Hebrew development.
3.3.2.2.8. Moreover, Kahle’s use of Septuagint transcriptions is falla-
cious. He claimed that the Greek forms demonstrate that the pronunciation
was always spirant, since the Septuagint usually transliterates both stop and
spirant k, p, t by c, f, and q respectively. This view, however, does not take
into account the facts of Greek: among Greek unvoiced stops there are two se-
ries, viz., unaspirated stops (like plain p, t, k) and aspirated stops (p h, t h, k h);
the aspirated stops in later Greek became fricatives. It stands to reason that
Hebrew p, t, k were aspirated. To Greek ears, Hebrew aspirated stops were
closer to their aspirated stops than to their non-aspirated stops; accordingly
they transcribed both Hebrew stops and spirants with Greek spirants. This in-
terpretation is borne out by the Greek method of transliterating Aramaic
words. It would be absurd to claim that Aramaic also had only the spirant pro-
nunciation, especially since according to Kahle it was (Syriac) Aramaic that
induced the Masoretes to introduce the double pronunciation of bgdkpt.
3.3.2.2.8n. Syriac p, t, k were also aspirated. Note that Syriac speakers had to introduce a
special letter to reproduce Greek pi. The contrast in aspiration between Greek and North-
west Semitic is quite early, as indicated by the Greek transcription of the first letter of the
alphabet by alfa, rather than by *alpa. It is impossible to know whether the f represents
a spirant or a(n aspirated) stop. Cf. Harris 1939: 66.

3.3.2.2.9. In Modern Israeli Hebrew only the spirant pronunciation of b, p,

and k exists. Ashkenazi pronuncation distinguishes these three spirants and
one more, spirant t, pronouncing it as s, rather than as t.

3.3.3. Laryngeals and Pharyngeals

3.3.3.1. Non-Gemination
3.3.3.1.1. The laryngeals and pharyngeals function as an important class
of phonemes: ª, h, ˙, º; some features of this class are shared with r. The most
00-Blau.book Page 82 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.3.3.1.2. ∑ Laryngeals/Pharyngeals 82

significant feature is that the laryngeals and pharyngeals are not doubled.
This lack of gemination is a rather late phenomenon. It first affected r and ª,
later º and h, and finally ˙.

3.3.3.1.1n. There are some isolated cases of double r (i.e., of r with dages), e.g., .ËRev…
tR'k:Aalø ‘your navel was not cut’ Ezek 16:4.

3.3.3.1.2. The “weak” pronunciation of r is reflected not only by its failure

to double but also by the fact that in the Dead Sea Scrolls it is omitted far more
often than any other non-laryngeal-pharyngeal root consonant, though in most
cases it is inserted above the line (Qimron 1986: 26–27).
3.3.3.1.3. The loss-of-gemination chronology is suggested by the behavior
of the vowels preceding the consonants in situations where doubling is ordi-
narily found. Such vowels exhibit a set of tendencies: qibbuß exhibits a
marked tendency to shift to ˙olam; to a lesser degree, pata˙ changes to
qamaß; and least often, ˙iriq shifts to ßere. (The traditional term for this set of
changes is compensatory lengthening, as if a “long” vowel made up for the
loss of the consonantal doubling.)
3.3.3.1.4. To understand the chronology we must anticipate the treatment
of the Hebrew vowels (see §3.5.4.2, p. 110). Hebrew in biblical times distin-
guished between long and short vowels (so that, e.g., qamaß was the long
counterpart to pata˙). In the Tiberian vocalization of Hebrew, the primary
form under consideration here, there is no distinction between long and short
vowels on the phonemic level, i.e., the phonemic quantitative oppositions be-
tween vowels had disappeared; any vowel could occur in open syllables. If the
vowels before a laryngeal-pharyngeal that was originally geminated behave
as if length were part of the language, the loss of gemination is older than if
the vowels show no such behavior. Since two different sets of changes (loss of
largyngeal-pharngeal gemination and rearrangement of the vowel system)
were going on over the same (relatively) long period, we have to distinguish a
number of different stages. (Here, as elsewhere in this volume, we are chiefly
concerned with relative chronology.)
3.3.3.1.5. The loss of the phonemic opposition of long and short vowels is
a separate matter from the actual pronunciation (the phonetics) of the vow-
els during Tiberian times (the late first millennium c.e.). Phonetically, differ-
ences between vowels continued to exist, and any stressed or open syllable
contained a phonetically long vowel. At this period the phonemic quantitative
oppositions between vowels had disappeared (cf. §3.5.4.2, p. 110), and any
vowel could occur in an open syllable. Even pata˙ in, e.g., μjEr'y] ‘he will have
compassion’ was pronounced long. This is shown by medieval Arabic tran-
scriptions; the behavior of both the cantillation marks and Babylonian pata˙
also suggests this conclusion, although these features may depend on the
openness of the syllable, rather than the length of its vowel.

spread is 3 points long

00-Blau.book Page 83 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

83 Laryngeals/Pharyngeals ∑ 3.3.3.2.1.

3.3.3.1.5n. For further discussion, see Bendavid (1958) and Yeivin (1985: 283–332). Nei-
ther scholar properly differentiates between phonetic and phonemic vowel length.
3.3.3.1.6. Let us return to the chronology of the disappearance of
pharyngeal-laryngeal gemination. In the earliest stages of the process, be-
fore r and somewhat less regularly before ª, pata˙, ˙iriq, and qibbuß change to
qamaß, ßere, and ˙olam, respectively. E.g., varOh: ‘the head’ < *harros; ba:h:
‘the father’ < *haªªab2 ; ËreBE ‘he blessed’ < birrek; raEBE ‘he explained’; Ër;bOm}
‘blessed’; la:gom} ‘defiled’. This change exhibits the original lengthening of
these vowels in response to the loss of gemination; the syllable structure of the
language at this stage did not permit short vowels in open (even unstressed)
syllables. In other words, at the time of the disappearance of the doubling of r
and ª, no originally short vowels were allowed in open syllables.
3.3.3.1.6n. There are cases of pata˙, as well as ˙iriq and even qibbuß, before an originally
doubled aleph, e.g., raEB" ‘explaining’ Deut 27:8.
3.3.3.1.7. In the next stage of the process, º and h lost their ability to gem-
inate. The date for º is judged to be intermediate, since the effects on neigh-
boring vowels are less consistent than those seen with r and ª: ˙iriq preceding
º that has lost gemination tends to remain, whereas pata˙ alternates with
qamaß. Pata˙ and ˙iriq preceding h that has lost gemination, as a rule, do not
change. In the final stage, when ˙ lost the ability to geminate, the originally
short vowels (pata˙, ˙iriq, and qibbuß) were generally preserved, because, it
seems, ˙et preserved that ability until a time when the quantitative differences
between vowels had disappeared (see §3.5.4.2, p. 110) and even originally
short vowels could stand in open (unstressed) syllables.
3.3.3.1.7n. The shift of ˙iriq to ßere before ˙ occurs (1) always in the nif ºal prefix-tense
and related forms of verbs I-˙ (qlEj:ye ‘it will be divided’); in these cases it is grammatically
conditioned; (2) often in verbs I-n-II-˙ (tj"ye ‘he will descend’); and (3) generally after ˆmI
‘from’ (vd,jOm& E ‘from the month’). The shift occurs only rarely within morphemes (rj"aE ‘he
was late’ Gen 34:19).
In connection with the example ËreBE and others with postvocalic bgdkpt letters: we do
not know whether or not the shift of stop to spirant preceded or followed the loss of
laryngeal-pharyngeal gemination. Since we are concerned here with the loss of gemina-
tion, the transcription contents itself with the explanation of this feature only.

3.3.3.2. Furtive pata˙

3.3.3.2.1. In Tiberian vocalization e, i, o, u preceding h, ˙, and º in word-
final position develop the glide a; as a glide this pata˙ furtivum is unstressed.
It is usually written under the laryngeal-pharyngeal: H'lø &a” ‘God’, j'Wv& m:
‘anointed’, ['re& ‘friend’, though its proper place is between the laryngeal-
pharyngeal and the preceding consonant.
3.3.3.2.1n. The term pata˙ furtivum ‘stolen pata˙’ may be a mistranslation of pata˙
g´nub2 a, which may have meant ‘the pata˙ of the stolen (i.e., inserted letter)’, as if a" were
introduced before the laryngeal or pharyngeal: Ha"løa”*, ja"Wvm:*, [a"re*.
00-Blau.book Page 84 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.3.3.3. ∑ Laryngeals/Pharyngeals 84

3.3.3.3. Influence on Neighboring Vowels

3.3.3.3.1. Final laryngeals and pharyngeals (and sometimes r) may in-
fluence the preceding vowel and change it to a or æ. This feature is espe-
cially striking in verbs III-laryngeals-pharyngeals, in which the qal prefix-
tense and imperative almost always exhibit a preceding the laryngeal-pharyn-
geal: jl"v‘yi < *yislo˙. (In verbs III-aleph, the aleph in final position has been
elided; thus a stood in an open syllable and the pata˙ shifted to qamaß: ax:m}yi
< *yimßaª.) Moreover, these verbs tend to substitute a for historically short e,
yet, as a rule, preserve historically long e (followed by pata˙ furtivum) in
pause: [r'G;yi ‘it will be withdrawn’, pausal ['reG;yi.
3.3.3.3.1n. In the finite tenses of III-largyngeal-pharngeal verbs, ßere (and ˙olam) preced-
ing the third radical has to be accounted historically short, as demonstrated by parallel
pata˙; note the three-way contrast ˆTEyi ‘he will give’ versus rmOv‘yi ‘he will preserve’ versus
bK"v‘yi ‘he will lie’. In pause these vowels have to be considered long by pausal lengthening,
as demonstrated by the parallel pausal form bK:v‘yi, with qamaß. Thus ßere (with a follow-
ing pata˙ furtivum) is preserved in verbs III-laryngeals-pharyngeals mainly in pause. Cf.
§4.3.7.3.4n, p. 239.

3.3.3.3.2. Laryngeals and pharyngeals may also influence a following full

vowel, as attested by the prevalence of a after the laryngeals and pharyngeals
in the prefix-tense and imperative of verbs II-laryngeals-pharyngeals: r["b}yi ‘it
will burn’.
3.3.3.3.3. An originally short i may appear as æ under the influence of a
following or preceding laryngeal-pharyngeal: dr'j”y, ‘he will be terrified’
< *yi˙rad; /xp}j< ‘his delight’ < *˙ipößo. Aleph shows a special predilection for
æ, as reflected by the preformative of the 1cs prefix-tense: bzo[”a< ‘I shall leave’
in contrast to bzo[“T"/bzo[“y' ‘you/he will leave’, and by verbs I-ª: πsOa”T< ‘you will
collect’ in contrast to bzo[“T".
3.3.3.3.3n. The shift of i to segol can also be seen when the spirants kÉ and gÉ would occur
after i: yDig}n, ‘in front of me’, yDik}n, ‘my offspring’.

3.3.3.3.4. The influence of laryngeals and pharyngeals (but not of r) on a

following mobile swa is strong. In Tiberian vocalization this ultra-short
vowel is invariably replaced by a ˙a†af vowel, as a rule reflecting the vowel
reduced, i.e., ˙a†af pata˙ for original a (e.g., μT<r]m"a“ ‘you [mp] said’; cf. rm"a:
‘he said’); ˙a†af segol for original i (e.g., ylEa” ‘to’, the poetic form of la<; cf.
Arabic ªila; note also μk<ylEa“, reflecting the extended use of ˙a†af pata˙; see
below) and ˙a†af qamaß for original u/o (e.g., ylIj’ ‘illness’, /yl}j: ‘his illness’,
plural μyyil:j’).
3.3.3.3.4n. No ˙a†af vowels are used in the other vocalization systems, and we do not treat
here the different behavior of these sounds in other vocalization systems. The use of a full
vowel, instead of the expected ˙a†af, occurs in the Tiberian vocalization after initial aleph:
WpaE ‘bake! (mp)’ Exod 16:23, instead of the expected Wpa”*; μylIh:aø ‘tents’, instead of the ex-
00-Blau.book Page 85 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

85 Laryngeals/Pharyngeals ∑ 3.3.3.3.8.

pected μylIh:a’* (cf. μylIh:a’B: ‘in the tents’). The form μylIh:aø may also be interpreted as re-
flecting a full vowel between two laryngeals-pharyngeals, as attested also in forms like
ytI/‡dy[Ih" ‘I testified’; ytI/‡ry[Ih" ‘I roused’.
Not all instances of ˙a†af pata˙ reflect a (see above): Arabic ˙imar suggests that in He-
brew rmOj“ ‘donkey’ the ˙a†af pata˙ reflects i. There are cases where the ultra-short vowel
varies: from aybIhE ‘he brought’ we get, on the one hand, ynia"&ybIh” ‘he brought me’, with ˙a†af
segol, and, on the other, ynit:&aOybIh“ (in pause) ‘you brought me’ with ˙a†af pata˙. This
should not be surprising, since mobile swa, according to the Tiberian tradition, was pro-
nounced a, rather than ´, so that ˙a†af pata˙ is phonetically identical to mobile swa. See
§3.5.6.1.1n, p. 112, and §3.5.6.4.2n, p. 116.

3.3.3.3.5. A vowelless laryngeal or pharyngeal preceding a consonant may

be preserved (especially vowelless ˙), but in the Tiberian vocalization it more
often develops an auxiliary ˙a†af vowel having the quality of the preceding
vowel: cf. ryDia}y' ‘he will make glorious’ and ˆyzia“y' ‘he will listen’; /Bj}r; ‘its
breadth’; /l[’P: ‘his work’. Since the short vowel preceding the laryngeal or
pharyngeal is preserved in an open syllable, this phenomenon has to be very
late, stemming from a period in which short vowels were allowed to stand in
an open syllable. If such a ˙a†af is followed by a (mobile) swa, the ˙a†af shifts
to the corresponding short vowel, Wdm}[}y'* > Wdm}[“y'* > Wdm}["y', thus avoiding the
sequence of two ultra-short vowels, which seems to be merely an ortho-
graphic device (§3.5.3.4, p. 109).
3.3.3.3.5n. In the forms WGh}y,//Bj}r;, etc., the swa is also conditioned by the following stop
(g, b); cf. §3.3.2.2.2, p. 79.

3.3.3.3.6. There is a tendency to replace the swa by a ˙a†af vowel when the
stress is shifted: bvøj}y' ‘he will think’ in contrast to ˆWbv‘j"y' ‘they will think’
< ˆWbv‘j“y'*.
3.3.3.3.7. In exceptional cases the vowel preceding the laryngeal-pharyn-
geal is lengthened and the laryngeal-pharyngeal is followed by ˙a†af pata˙ (as
the most common ˙a†af vowel): T:r]b"&[“hE ‘you transferred’ Josh 7:7, in contrast
to the regular T:r]b"&[”h<; /l[“PO ‘his work’ Isa 1:31, in contrast to the usual /l[’P:.
3.3.3.3.8. Since the laryngeals and pharyngeals are weakly pronounced,
the vowel following them is apt to assimilate the vowel preceding them. This
is regularly the case with the swa mobile of the short morphemes w´ ‘and’, b´
‘in’, l´ ‘to’, k´ ‘as’ when they precede laryngeals or pharyngeals. The swa is
regularly assimilated to the ˙a†af following the laryngeal or pharyngeal:
t/ynia’w; ‘and ships’ < *w´ªøniyyot; tm<a”B< ‘truly’ < *b´ªæ"mæt; wyd;b:[“l" ‘to their
servants’ < *l´ºab2 aqaw; tr,c& ≤[“K" ‘like ten’ < *k´ºå¶œræt.

3.3.3.3.8n. For a similar feature after the definite article, see §4.2.5.6, p. 181. The behav-
ior of the interrogative particle hå reflects the same phenomenon.
The form t/ynia’w; is pronounced according to standard Israeli pronunciation woªøniyyot,
and in the supposed Tiberian pronunciation wOªO*niyyot; however, according to Sephardic
tradition it is pronounced waªoniyyot.
00-Blau.book Page 86 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.3.3.4. ∑ Laryngeals; Pharyngeals; aleph 86

3.3.3.4. A Historical Question

3.3.3.4.1. The complexity of laryngeal and pharyngeal behavior cannot be
doubted. Kahle proposed accounting for this behavior in the framework of his
rather ingenious theory of Masoretic activity (cf. §3.3.2.2.6, p. 80). In his
opinion, the laryngeals and pharyngeals had disappeared from traditional
Jewish pronunciation and were restored by the Masoretes (Kahle 1959: 164–
71). Traces of the restoration are reflected in the use of ˙a†afs, etc.
3.3.3.4.2. It seems that if they had restored the laryngeals and pharyngeals,
they would have done so in a more uniform and comprehensible way. The
diversity of their marking, in our view, reflects their endeavor to reproduce the
pronunciation they heard and used.
3.3.3.4.3. This is not to say that the laryngeals and pharyngeals were main-
tained uniformly across the entire Jewish world. In cities influenced by Greek
these sounds disappeared, as Kutscher convincingly demonstrated. Where the
impact of Greek was less pronounced, the sounds were preserved, as shown
by, e.g., Arabic place names borrowed from Hebrew. (See Kutscher 1976: 67–
96; 1965: 41–50.)
3.3.3.4.4. Of the individual sounds in this class, the pharyngeals present
relatively few complications. As noted, ˙eth (the unvoiced pharyngeal frica-
tive) in Hebrew is the result of a merger of two Proto-Semitic sounds; for the
distinction between 1j and 2j, see §1.10.2.4, p. 32. For the possible preserva-
tion of this distinction as late as the third century b.c.e., see §3.2.4, p. 75. ºAyin
(the voiced pharyngeal fricative) also represents a merger; for the possible
preservation of the distinction between 1[ and 2 [, as late as the third century
b.c.e., see again §3.2.4, p. 75. The two laryngeals, aleph and he, require de-
tailed discussion on their own.

3.3.4. Aleph (Glottal Stop)

3.3.4.1. In the Writing System
3.3.4.1.1. Aleph serves as a vowel letter in final position and sometimes
also in medial position, as a rule in roots in which it was once pronounced:
ax:m: ‘he found’ < *maßaªa; t:ax:&m:‘you found’ < *maßaªta; varO‘head’ < *raªs;
μyv¥ar; ‘heads’ < *r´ªasim < *raªasim. In all these cases, by dint of conserva-
tive spelling, the a continued to be written even after it was no longer pro-
nounced; it was therefore regarded as a mark for the preceding vowel.
3.3.4.1.2. Despite this change in status, only in a few cases does a non-
organic aleph (an aleph not part of the root) appear: gaD;‚ ‘fish’ (instead of the
usual gD;) Neh 13:16. The word raW;x" ‘neck’, always spelled with aleph
(μk<yreaw]x" ‘your necks’), has to be interpreted as deriving from an etymon con-
taining consonantal ª, perhaps *ßawªar.
00-Blau.book Page 87 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

87 aleph ∑ 3.3.4.2.3.

3.3.4.2. Elision
3.3.4.2.1. Very early, perhaps even in Proto-Semitic, ª was elided by dis-
similation at the end of a syllable that began with ª and the vowel of the syl-
lable was lengthened. In other words, ªaª shifted to ªa. In Hebrew, if the
resulting ªa was stressed, it became ªo, by the so-called Canaanite shift a3 > o
(§3.5.9.2, p. 136): ‘I shall say’ *ªaªmur > *ªa3mur > *ªomir, which in context
developed to rm"aO. The other forms in the prefix-tense paradigm, which did not
have initial aleph and in which, therefore, the aleph closing the syllable
should have been preserved, were influenced by the analogy of 1cs forms:
rm"aTO, rm"ayo. This prevalence of the 1cs form by analogy is found only in a few
verbs (called weak I-ª; §4.3.8.2, p. 240). Most verbs I-ª verbs (the strong I-ª
verbs) act like other I-laryngeals-pharyngeals verbs); the 1cs form was ana-
logically influenced by the other persons and the ª was restored in the 1cs:
πsOa”a< ‘I shall collect’ (the arrows indicate the direction of analogy):

ªomar *ªosepö
• ¶
*tœªœ"mar tœªœ"sopö

3.3.4.2.1n. In the derivation of rm"aO: for the stress position, see §3.5.12.2.18, p. 153; for the
dissimilation of u to i, see §§1.19.8–1.19.9, p. 58; for the i vowel in the dissimilated form,
note pausal rmEaTO as well as rm<a&Yow'. The development of the form with a in the second syl-
lable must be explained by the influence of r (§3.3.3.3.1, p. 84), the rareness of yaf ºil (see
§4.3.5.2.3.2, p. 222), and perhaps through Philippi’s law (§§3.5.8.5–3.5.8.10, pp. 133–
135).
In the forms rm"aTO, rm"ayo the aleph is only a vowel letter. In contrast, in rm"aO there is one
aleph only instead of the expected rm"aaO*. In terms of spelling, this may be because aleph is
avoided as a vowel letter after another aleph or because the aleph had already been lost
from the form before biblical orthography crystallized.
3.3.4.2.2. Later on, syllable-closing glottal stop was elided in other cases
as well. It is difficult to state the conditions for this change, since forms re-
flecting the elision of the glottal stop interchange with those that have pre-
served it, and scholars are at variance. No account can explain all the forms
with sound shifts alone; analogy must also have played a role. The various ex-
planations differ as to which forms are due to sound shift proper and which to
analogy.
3.3.4.2.3. The most likely explanation seems to us that the elision of the
glottal stop took place during the prevalence of a general penultimate stress
system and took place in stressed syllables. This explains why aleph is pre-
served in lk:a“m" ‘food’, ≈m:a“m" ‘force’, and πsOa”T< ‘you will collect’, which all
had a glottal stop in an unstressed syllable, viz., *maªkálu, *maªmáß(ß)u,
*taªsúpu, the stress being on the penult. In contrast, in forms such as *ráªsu
00-Blau.book Page 88 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.3.4.2.4. ∑ aleph 88

‘head’, *maßáªta ‘you found’, where the glottal stop follows a stressed vowel,
the aleph is elided: varO, t:ax:&m:. (These developments are distinct from final
aleph: *maßaªa > *maßaª > ax:m: ‘he found’.)
3.3.4.2.3n. On penultimate stress, see §3.5.12.2.2, p. 144. For further details on the expla-
nation given here, see Blau 1975: esp. 67–68 (= Studies, 54–65, esp. 59–60); this paper is
summarized briefly in Blau 1979d = Topics, 120–25.
In considering the forms varO and t:ax:&m:, note the different development of the a preced-
ing the aleph in these two words: t:ax:&m: reflects only the shift aª > a, whereas in varO this
a has shifted to o (according to the Canaanite shift, §3.5.9.2, p. 136). This means that the
Canaanite shift was still operating at this period, because only this can explain the o of
varO. The form t:ax:&m: maßa3ta, rather than *maßota, seems to be due to the paradigmatic
pressure of third-person forms that did not have the ª in syllable-final position and there-
fore preserved it: *maßaªat, *maßaªu. The elision of the ª in μt<ax:m}, where the vowel pre-
ceding the aleph was not stressed, is due to the influence of t:ax:&m:, etc.

3.3.4.2.4. After mobile swa, aleph alternates with forms in which both swa
and aleph, in pronunciation at least, are omitted: μymI/aT} : μymI/T ‘twins’;
μyaIx}mO ‘finding (mp)’: μyaÉfIjO ‘sinning (mp)’ 1 Sam 14:33, pronounced ˙o†im. It
is likely that forms with aleph were considered more refined and those with-
out it more vulgar. This is hinted at by forms like μyaIx}m}ni ‘found (mp)’ along-
side forms like μyaIx:m}ni. It seems that in vulgar speech μyaIx:m}ni, through the
analogy to verbs III-y, became *nimßim. The hypercorrect effort to use more
“refined” forms led, by analogy to μyaIf}jO and to μyaIx}m}ni. Thus ˙o†im : ˙o†´ªim
= nimßim : x, where the hypercorrect x is μyaIx}m}ni. (See Blau 1970c: 30.)
3.3.4.2.5. More limited is the elision of the glottal stop at the beginning of
a syllable after a consonant (i.e., after a quiescent swa): lamOc‘ < *¶imªal
‘left’; la[Em:v‘yi ‘Ishmael’ < *Yismaºªel.
3.3.4.2.5n. Bergsträsser 1.93, par. 15g, end, considers the elision of this aleph to be very
early, arguing that lamOc‘ reflects the Canaanite shift a3 > o, on the assumption that the ety-
mon of lamOc‘ is*¶imªal. It is more likely to have derived from *¶imªal.

3.3.4.3. Associated Vowel Shifts

3.3.4.3.1. A late and marginal feature is the shift of æªæ" (segol-aleph-˙a†af
segol) to e (ßere), of aªå (a“Î') to a (pata˙), and of Oªå (a“Î;) to O (qamaß). Be-
cause the shifts æªæ" > e and aªå > a occurred only after the consonantal text
had already become fixed, the a is used in writing, although it is not pro-
nounced. It is sometimes omitted altogether.
3.3.4.3.2. Moreover, the late date of the shift of aªå to pata˙ is also indi-
cated by the occurrence of this pata˙ in an open syllable; in the biblical period
a in this position would have shifted to qamaß. That is, if quantitative differ-
ences existed, a would have been lengthened due to the elision of the aleph
and the following ˙a†af, and the vowel would have shifted to qamaß. Ex-
amples: rmOaÉlE ‘while saying’ < *læªæ"mor; WnyhE&løaÉlE ‘to our God’ < *lœªœ"lohenu;
ynidOaÉl" ‘to my lord’ < laªåqoni; ht<aÉTE ‘she comes’ Mic 4:8; atEYew' ‘and he came’
00-Blau.book Page 89 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

89 aleph; he ∑ 3.3.5.1.2.

Deut 33:21; μyriWsh: ‘the imprisoned ones’ Eccl 4:14 < μyriWsa“h;: μyMIr'h: ‘the
Arameans’ 2 Chr 22:5 < μyMIr'a“h:. In the last three cases the aleph is not
written.
3.3.4.3.2n. The form tyv¥a™ re may belong with the cases of rmOaÉlE and WnyhE&løaÉlE if it is derived
from rœªœ"sit < *raªsit. The tendency to replace a by æ is characteristic of both aleph and
s (cf. §3.3.3.3.3, p. 84).

3.3.4.4. Non-Radical Aleph

3.3.4.4.1. Between full vowels a non-radical glottal stop sometimes oc-
curs. This seems to represent a combination of dissimilation and glide. Thus
in t/aBOri ‘ten thousands’ (Dan 11:12; Ezra 2:69) the aleph may represent a
glide between the original two -os and also dissimilation of the w that origi-
nally served as a glide between the two -os (*ribbowot). Similarly, twon] ‘pas-
tures (cstr)’ is generally spelled with an aleph, t/an], reflecting the same
combination of glide and dissimilation. μyib:x} ‘gazelles’ may also be spelled
μyiaÉb:x}; the quiescent aleph reflects a pronunciation *ß´b2 aªim (cf. t/ab:x} ‘she-
gazelles’); the glottal stop may be seen as a glide (aªi < ayi) or as the result of
a dissimilation of yi > ªi, or both.
3.3.4.4.1n. The opposite process, the assimilation of iªa to iya, can be seen in the personal
name Eli(y)atha: the form ht:Y;l& Ia” is found in 1 Chr 25:27, while the etymologically correct
form, ht:a:&ylIa”, is given in 1 Chr 25:4.

3.3.5. He (Laryngeal Fricative)

3.3.5.1. In the Writing System

3.3.5.1.1. Within a word, he always marks a consonant. At the end of a
word, he tends to be a vowel letter; the comparatively few cases of consonan-
tal h in this position are marked by a dot in the h, usually called mappiq
(§3.5.11.8, p. 142). (The absence of the dot is marked, in the best manuscripts,
by a raphe). Consonantal h in word-final position occurs in forms from III-h
roots (e.g., Hb"G; ‘he was high’; H'/bG; ‘high’), as well as in the 3fs pronominal
suffix HÎ; (e.g., Hl: ‘to her’).
3.3.5.1.2. Word-internal non-consonantal he does occur a few times, in
two-part names spelled as one word, e.g., rWxhÉd;P} Num 7:54, 59, from hd;P*}
rWx; laEhÉc…[“ 2 Sam 2:18, from laE hc:[“*. The he originally occurred at the end
of the first word. The unease prompted by the quite exceptional occurrence of
h as a vowel letter within a word is reflected by the variant spelling laEh}d;P}
Num 34:28, which exhibits both non-organic consonantal h and exceptional
syllable structure with qamaß in an unstressed and now closed syllable. The
reading laEh}d'P} has thus been adapted to the syllable structure of Biblical He-
brew (Blau 1970c: 31–32; Yeivin 1968: 50, 83).
00-Blau.book Page 90 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.3.5.1.3. ∑ he 90

3.3.5.1.3. It is necessary to distinguish between the small class of III-h

roots, in which the final radical is consonantal he, and the large class of III-y
roots, in which final he serves as a vowel letter.
3.3.5.1.4. In the 3fs pronominal suffix hN;Î, the h is not consonantal (e.g.,
hN;n,y& aE ‘she is not’); the original consonantal h here has been assimilated to the
n (-œnha > -œnna). In h:ybI&a: ‘her father’ it is the qamaß and not the (consonan-
tal) h that is word final.
3.3.5.1.5. As a (final) vowel letter he marks segol (e.g., hd,c… ‘field’; hn,b}yi
‘he will build’), ßere (e.g., hdec‘‘the field of’; hneB} ‘build!’), and qamaß, which
is especially frequent to mark the feminine ending of nouns (hK:l}m" ‘queen’)
and of the suffix-tense (hd;m}[: ‘she stood’), as well as in III-y verbs (e.g.,
hn;B:‘he built’), in the directional h (e.g., ht:y]B"&h" ‘homeward’) and in cohorta-
tive hÎ; (as hm:Wq& n; ‘let us rise’), further hT:a" ‘you (2ms)’.
3.3.5.1.6. The spelling conventions are not entirely consistent. The con-
struct of the dual and the masculine plural is spelled with y (e.g., yney[E ‘the eyes
of’; yneB} ‘the sons of’); the ßere yod is homophonous with the ßere he of hneB}.
The final a of the 2ms suffix-tense, 2ms pronominal suffix, and 2fp and 3fp
prefix-tense is, as a rule, spelled defectively, though it may be marked by final
h : (contrast T:T"&n;/ hT:t"&n; ‘you gave’; Úl}/hk:l} ‘to you’; ˆ…yy, &h}TI/hn;yy, &h}TI‘they fp will
be’). The 3fs pronominal suffix is always spelled defectively, hÎ, no doubt in
order to preclude two consecutive hs: h:yr,&yv¥ ‘her songs’, never hh:yr,yv¥*).
3.3.5.1.7. Much more restricted is the use of h for marking final ˙olam,
e.g., hyoh: ‘to be’ (less frequently /yh:). Although the 3ms pronominal suffix -o is
usually spelled with waw (e.g., /nB} ‘his son’), the archaic spelling with h (re-
flecting the h contained in ancient *-ahu, from which -o developed) is attested
as well, e.g., hrOy[I ‘his wild donkey’ Gen 49:11.
3.3.5.1.7n. In forms like T:T"&n;/hT:t"&n; ‘you gave’; Úl}/hk:l} ‘to you’, the use of the vowel letter
(sometimes called a “plene spelling”) is common in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Qimron 1986:
23–24).

3.3.5.2. History of Use in the Writing System

3.3.5.2.1. It is not clear how to account for the use of h as a vowel letter.
In past generations, when the Semitic languages were studied from the van-
tage point of Arabic, it was customary to posit for Hebrew a development
similar to that of the pausal form of the feminine ending in Classical Ara-
bic. In this language the feminine ending -at in nouns (with case ending) in
pause shifts to -ah (as al-malikatu ‘the queen [nominative]’, in pause al-
malikah; in pausal forms the case distinctions disappeared). In most modern
dialects (which tend to rely on pausal forms in their development), the final -h
was dropped, yielding malika, etc. (This is usually pronounced with -a as
“compensation” for the dropping of the h.) According to the same model, Heb
malkat ‘queen’ in pause should become *malkah and finally, with elision of
the h, hÉK:l}m" (the h marked with raphe to indicate its status as a vowel letter).

spread is 12 points long

00-Blau.book Page 91 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

91 he as Vowel Letter ∑ 3.3.5.2.4.

The orthography, it was claimed, continued spelling hK:l}m" with h, although it

was no longer pronounced; the h can be seen as a conservative feature, a his-
torical spelling. Thus the h became the mark of final qamaß, and this spelling
was also applied to III-y verbs: hn;B:. From the latter, h as final vowel letter
spread over the whole paradigm: hn,b}yi, hneB}, hyoh:.

3.3.5.2.1n. This model of the development of the vowel-letter use of he can be seen in
Bergsträsser 1.45–46. The treatment of the vocalization of the Arabic vernaculars is some-
what simplified here.

3.3.5.2.2. This attempt to make the feminine ending the starting point of
the use of h as vowel letter has several weak points. (1) The feminine ending
cannot be the starting point of the development. In the Moabite inscription of
King Meshaº, h is already used for marking -a in III-y verbs (hnb ‘he built’),
although the feminine ending of nouns is still -t (tmbh ‘the high place’). Thus
the use of hÎ as a vowel letter marking -a in III-y verbs is earlier than the eli-
sion of the feminine -t ending. (2) Hebrew has no traces of pausal h. In Clas-
sical Arabic, the so-called pausal ha is used to “prevent” the loss of certain
final vowels (in this case, the a of the feminine ending), since in that language
the pausal forms reflect a historically later layer of the language, in which
final short vowels in general and case endings in particular have largely dis-
appeared. In Hebrew, to be sure, pausal elision of final vowels is attested
(§3.5.13.5, p. 155), but this feature belongs to an archaic layer of Hebrew. It is
preserved mainly in some common prepositions, like Ël: ‘to you (ms)’ in pause
in contrast to Úl} in context; further, ËM:[I, ËT:aI, Ët:/a, ËB:. It was because of the
frequency of these prepositions that they were not influenced by analogy and
preserved this archaic feature. See further Steiner 1979: 158ff. and §3.5.13.5,
p. 155; §§4.2.3.3.2–4.2.3.3.3, p. 170. Later on, however, the language used
pausal forms that reflect a more ancient stage than the context forms. At any
rate, in Biblical Hebrew there are no traces whatsoever of the use of pausal h
in order to preserve a final short vowel in pause. These two arguments make
the possibility that the use of h as a vowel letter arose in Hebrew from the
feminine ending seem remote.
3.3.5.2.3. Nevertheless, the Moabite argument, for all its merits, is not
decisive. It is possible that the -t of the Moabite feminine ending -at might
have been preserved in nouns yet dropped in the 3fs suffix-tense (which is not
attested!), as is the case in Phoenician (where similarly the feminine nominal
ending is preserved, but not the 3fs verbal ending); thus the use of h as a
vowel letter might have spread from this verbal form. In fact, it is even pos-
sible to claim that the Moabite use of final h as a vowel letter was borrowed
from another language (e.g., from Hebrew; so Cross and Freedman 1952: 6).
Further on Moabite, see also Blau 1979c = Topics, 344–58.
3.3.5.2.4. A different origin may be indicated. The discovery of Ugaritic
has called attention to other possible sources. Ugaritic epic poetry is written
00-Blau.book Page 92 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.3.5.3. ∑ Elision of he 92

with an (almost) pure consonantal spelling. However, ‘what’ is spelled mh,

and the directional suffix (e.g., arßh ‘toward the ground’) is spelled with a h as
well. It seems likely that these Ugaritic words terminated in consonantal h. It
can be postulated that in Hebrew as well they reflected consonantal h, and
that, even after they had disappeared in pronunciation in Hebrew, conserva-
tive spelling retained them. They were, therefore, understood as marking final
-a, and thus the use of h to mark final qamaß spread, promoted by forms like
hÉy;mIr]yi ‘Jeremiah’; hÉl: ‘to her’, discussed below.
3.3.5.2.4n. The enigmatic Ugaritic form hrç[ occurs only in prose texts and only as part
of the numbers ‘11–19’ to denote the tens, parallel to BHeb hrec‘[<; nothing can be said
with certainty about this form. If the h was once consonantal, it could have influenced the
use of h as a final vowel letter.

3.3.5.3. Elision
3.3.5.3.1. In certain positions h is elided; since in some cases the results
of the sound shifts have been obliterated by the operation of analogy, the sit-
uation is complex (see Blau 1976: 24–25). It makes sense that the h tended to
be preserved in slow (lento) speech, whereas it was more often elided in
quick (allegro) pronunciation, as it occurs in proper nouns, and especially in
exclamations.
3.3.5.3.2. The h is optionally elided in names that begin with the short
form of the Tetragrammaton: *yahu > *yaw > /y (e.g., ˆt:n;/y, alongside
ˆt:n;/hy]). A similar elision is found in names ending with the short form of the
Tetragrammaton: Why; > *yah > hÉy (e.g., hy;mIr]yi, alongside Why;‡mIr]yi).
3.3.5.3.2n. As a matter of fact, *yahunatan should have yielded *y´hunatan, rather than
ˆt:n;/hy]; the o instead of the expected u is due to a blend with the contracted form /y.
3.3.5.3.3. The h is elided in internal open juncture, i.e., when two mor-
phemes form a single unit. The first morpheme terminated in a(n originally)
short (including ultra-short) vowel, and the h opened the second morpheme.
3.3.5.3.3.1. Case 1. he is elided in the prefix-tense and participle of hif ºil
and hof ºal: *yahaksil > lyv¥k}y' ‘he will cause to stumble’; *mahaksil > lyv¥k}m"
‘causing to stumble’; *yuhaºmad > dm"[’y; ‘he will be presented’.
3.3.5.3.3.2. Case 2. he generally elides in the definite article ha- after the
prepositions b´, k´, l´ ‘in, as, to’, e.g., μyim"&V…B" ‘in the heaven’; retention of he
is rare, e.g., μyim"&V…h"B}. Note that this elision is not found after the conjunction w]
‘and’.
3.3.5.3.3.3. Case 3. Rarely is he elided from the ha- of the hif ºil infinitive
after the same prepositions, e.g., ayfIj“l" ‘to cause to sin’ Eccl 5:5 < *l´ha˙å†i.
3.3.5.3.3.3n. The original form of *l´ha˙å†i was *laha˙å†iª; the last syllable is irrelevant
here.
3.3.5.3.3.4. Case 4. he regularly elides in the directional h: hx:r]a& " ‘toward
the ground’. (The he that is written is simply a vowel letter.)

spread is 12 points long

00-Blau.book Page 93 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

93 Elision of he; Assimilation ∑ 3.3.5.4.1.

3.3.5.3.3.4n. Ugaritic spelling demonstrates the originally consonantal character of this

morpheme. This h was attached to the noun in the accusative, i.e., the immediate constitu-
ents of, e.g., hx:r]a"& were *ªarßa + h; thus h stood at the meeting-point of two morphemes
and was therefore elided.

3.3.5.3.3.5. Case 5. he elides from the third-person pronominal suffixes in

which it occurred between two vowels, the first of which was (originally)
short: /ryv¥ ‘his song’ < *siraw < *sirahu.
3.3.5.3.3.5n. Note that when he was preceded by a long vowel in a third-person pronomi-
nal suffix, it was preserved: h:ybI&a: ‘her father’; WhybI&a: ‘his father’. The last form exists
alongside the more “advanced” form wybIa:, in which the h was elided, both because of alle-
gro pronunciation and since, in the wake of forms like wyr;yv¥ ‘his songs’, the w was felt to
be the mark of the 3ms pronominal suffix. In the form WhaE&r]m" ‘his sight’ < *marªayihu, the
retention of the he is noteworthy: the elision of h after short vowels must have taken place
later than the monophthongization of ayi; otherwise, the h would have been elided.

3.3.5.3.4. There are a number of exceptions to these patterns, resulting

from various forms of analogy. Exception 1: A form like μr;m:v‘ ‘he kept them’,
instead of the expected *s´marem < *s´maraym < *s´marahim, reflects the a-
ending preceding pronominal suffixes characteristic of the suffix-tense; cf.
ynir'&m:v‘/Hr;m:v‘/Wnr;&m:v‘ ‘he kept me/ her/ us’. Exception 2: The monographic prep-
ositions also show analogies. The form μh<B: ‘in them’ (used alongside μB:, the
form expected according to the regular sound shift), was created by adding the
pronominal suffix μh<Î to the base ba (by analogy to, e.g., μk<B: ‘in you [2mp]’,
exhibiting the base ba and the pronominal suffix μk<Î). Exception 3: The pre-
dominant form of the 3fs pronominal suffix after originally short vowels is HÎ;,
with consonantal -h, e.g., Hl: ‘to her’ < *laha. The expected form reflecting the
regular elision of consonantal h after a short vowel is quite rare (e.g., as hÉl: =
la Num 32:42). Because the form la had no sign of the 3fs suffix, such a sign
was added, viz. consonantal h (as it occurs in, e.g., h:ybI&a: ‘her father’, where
the h is also followed by -a).
3.3.5.3.5. The he may also be elided from third-person pronominal suffixes
when the suffix is preceded by the diphthong -ay, e.g., *sirayhu > *sirayu >
*sirayw > *siraww > wyr;yv¥ siraw ‘his songs’.
3.3.5.3.5n. This elision must predate the monophthongization of ay; had the diphthong
shifted to e, the h would have been preceded by a long vowel and therefore would have
been preserved. The preservation of the h in h:yr,&yv¥, μh<yreyv¥ ‘her, their songs’ is due to
analogy with h:ya<&r]m", μh<yaEr]m" ‘her, their sight’ (§3.3.5.3.3.5n). It may also reflect lento
(slow) speech.

3.3.5.4. Assimilation
3.3.5.4.1. In addition to these elisions, he can be assimilated to a previ-
ous consonant at a morpheme boundary. When a third-person pronominal
suffix is preceded by a consonant, the h is assimilated to this consonant. This
00-Blau.book Page 94 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.3.5.4.2. ∑ Assimilation of he; I-h Verbs 94

is the case when the h is preceded by the so-called nun energicum, which oc-
curs with the prefix-tense and imperative, e.g., WNr,&m}v‘yi ‘he will watch him’ <
*yism´rænhu. The assimilation is also found with some particles, e.g., hN;n,y& aE
‘she is not’ < *ªenænha. It is also found after -at, the suffix of the 3fs suffix-
tense used before pronominal suffixes (as WTb"&n;G} ‘she stole it’), alongside lento
forms with retention of the h, as in Wht}b"&hEa“ ‘she loved him’ 1 Sam 18:28.
3.3.5.4.2. Some forms show the effects of analogy, like μt"b:&n;G} ‘she stole
them’ Gen 31:32, where we would expect geminated t and i (or its deriva-
tive) in the last syllable. The original *ganab2 athéma should have yielded
*ganb2 athém (with the omission of the short a in an open syllable at a distance
of two syllables from the stress) > *ganb2 attém. This form would differ too
greatly from, e.g., WTb"&n;G} ‘she stole it’ and so was remodeled according to it;
the form was also influenced by forms like μb:&n;G} ‘he stole them’. Another re-
modeled form of the 3fs suffix-tense is Ët<b"&hEa“ ‘she loved you (2fs)’ Ruth
4:15, instead of the expected *ªahebatki > *ªaheb2 atk > *ªaheb2 æ3tæk.
3.3.5.4.3. he can also assimilate to a following consonant. When two
stress units were joined together (i.e., in originally external close juncture)
and the first lost its stress, becoming proclitic, the juncture became an internal
open one and so the h terminating the first stress unit may be assimilated to the
initial consonant of the second. This is the case with hyphenated hm": Wyh}YiAhÉm"
‘what will they be’ Gen 37:20, i.e., mayyihyu. The Ugaritic spelling, which is
purely consonantal, demonstrates the consonantal character of the elided he.

3.3.5.5. I-h Verbs

3.3.5.5.1. The verb hlk ‘to go’ and other I-h verbs deserve special attention.
Let us begin with the qal imperative of hlk ‘to go’, from which h was elided:
ËlE. This form is identical to the qal imperative of I-w verbs, e.g., bv´ ‘sit!’ Var-
ious other forms of that class also appear without the initial w, e.g., qal prefix-
tense bv´ye, qal construct infinitive tb<v& ≤; cf. also the hif ºil prefix-tense byv¥/y
‘he will place’. By analogy to these forms, hlk developed qal prefix-tense ËlEye,
qal construct infinitive tk<l<,& and hif ºil prefix-tense ËylI/y ‘he will lead’, all
forms with h elided. The h of the original imperative *hlik < *hilik was elided
because it stood in a phonetically vulnerable position. The imperative was
originally disyllabic (*hilik, see §4.3.5.2.4.1, p. 224). It was reorganized by
analogy to the prefix-tense *yahlik ( just as, e.g., the imperative *kutub ‘write!’
was reorganized according to bTOk}yi to become btOK}).
3.3.5.5.1n. The basic role of the qal imperative *hlik is suggested by the contrast of the
Moabite imperative ˚l and prefix-tense ˚lhaw (Blau 1979c: 145–46 = Topics, 346–47; cf.
Blau 1973b = Studies, 87–88).
3.3.5.5.2. In other verbs, like ËpOh“ ‘turn!’, the h was restored. This reflects in
part analogy with the prefix-tense: ËpOh“y'; in part the restoration took place be-
cause a qal imperative with u as the characteristic vowel exhibiting elision of
00-Blau.book Page 95 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

95 I-h Verbs ∑ 3.3.5.5.6.

the first radical, i.e., *pok, was quite isolated. In hlk, because of its frequency,
the analogy to the prefix-tense did not operate.
3.3.5.5.3. Until the discovery of Ugaritic, it was customary (following Prae-
torius 1882) to start the explanation of the emergence of these forms with the
hif ºil: *hahlik, Praetorius claimed, shifted by dissimilation to *halik, which
became, through the Canaanite shift a# > o, *holik (with later spirantization,
ËylI/h). Thus the I-h class coincided with I-w verbs (like byv¥/h) and showed
some analogical developments modeled on them. This theory had the virtue of
nicely explaining why it is the hif ºil that is completely conjugated as I-w.
3.3.5.5.4. The discovery of Ugaritic proved the theory wrong. Ugaritic
has qal imperative lk, qal prefix-tense tlk, but the causative theme is saf ºel
shlk, with preservation of the h. Thus, because in the qal imperative and prefix-
tense both Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic have elided the h, the explanation of
the shift hlk > ylk has to start with these forms, and the loss of the h in the He-
brew causative theme has to be considered a secondary feature. Heb *hahlik
dropped its (second) h by dissimilation and thus fitted the qal paradigm of lk,
tlk; in Ugaritic, on the contrary, shlk remained outside the analogy of I-w.
3.3.5.5.4n. Is it possible to explain the Ugaritic forms without reference to analogy? Gor-
don (1965: 86, 390) suggested the existence of two biradical roots denoting ‘to go’, viz.
hk, reflected in Aram Ëh:y] (and, one might add, in Gºez hoka ‘he moved’), and lk, which
were combined to form the triradical hlk. This proposal is ingenious, but, pending further
material, it seems more prudent to posit (synchronically at least) two triradical indepen-
dent roots, hlk and hwk.

3.3.5.5.5. In Ugaritic, surprisingly enough, hlm ‘to strike’ has the qal
prefix-tense ylm, whereas in the imperative the h is preserved. Tropper (2000:
160) attributes this elision of the h to the influence of the following l, and
claims that other continuants (r, m) cause the elision of the h as well. How-
ever, the factual basis of this claim is rather frail, and Tropper’s theory does
not explain the preservation of the h of hlm in the imperative in contrast to its
elision in the prefix-tense. There is a factor not mentioned by him that may be
relevant. If the interrogative particle h“ followed by dages originated from
*hal, reflecting the assimilation of l to the following consonant after h (see
§3.5.11.5n, p. 140), this may demonstrate the problematic nature of the se-
quence h-l, which caused the elision of one of the two consonants. Cf. also
§4.2.5.1, pp. 179–180, on the remote possibility that the gemination following
the definite article reflects the assimilation of an original l.
3.3.5.5.6. Despite the attractiveness of the analogy explanation for Hebrew,
another one remains possible. We cannot completely exclude the possibility
that ËlE, etc., derive from an original biradical root, which was later augmented
by the initial augment h to triradical hlk. The hif ºil ËylI/h would have been
formed on the analogy of I-w (I-y) verbs: bv´ : byv¥/h = ËlE : x; x = ËylI/h.
3.3.5.5.6n. If this development is correct, the similarity to Aram Ëh:y] and Gºez hoka must
be considered accidental.
00-Blau.book Page 96 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.4. ∑ w/y 96

3.4. The Semi-Consonants

3.4.1. Introduction
3.4.1.1. The semi-consonants as a group and individually present some
complexities. Together they are characteristic of the diphthongs and inciden-
tally triphthongs (§§3.4.2–3.4.5) and important groups of weak verbs (§3.4.7).
The two semi-consonants present individual problems, especially waw
(§3.4.8); yod is somewhat less troublesome (§3.4.9).

3.4.2. Diphthongs in aw, ay

3.4.2.1. The diphthongs aw and ay are associated with some important
developments.
3.4.2.2. Originally aw, ay diphthongs were preserved in closed final syl-
lables bearing the main stress. Later they developed an unstressed anaptyc-
tic vowel between w/y and the following consonant, a neutral segol after w
and an i after y: *mawt ‘death’ shifted to tw,m:&, *bayt ‘house’ to tyiB"&. Appar-
ently the retention of these diphthongs and the later splitting into two syllables
(at least phonetically) was a Judean feature. In the North, e.g., in Samaria, ay
and aw were monophthongized: in the Samaria ostraca ‘wine’ is spelled ˆy, to
be read yen, contrary to Judean (biblical) ˆyiy'‡. In a penult syllable that has been
opened by an anaptyctic vowel, pata˙, rather than qamaß, is regular, e.g., r["n' &
‘youth’; r["v& æ ‘door’. By assimilation, a following w changes pata˙ to the
Tiberian qamaß. Thus tw,m: & contains qamaß. (This assimilation, however, is
sporadic; it did not affect, e.g., wx" ‘order!’, where paradigmatic leveling may
have obstructed it; wq" ‘line’.)
3.4.2.2n. For details of the Judea-Samaria contrast, see Garr (1985: 35ff.)
3.4.2.3. Analogy has greatly interfered with these sound shifts. The opin-
ions of scholars differ tremendously, and, as a result, we are uncertain as to
which words reflect regular shifts and which exhibit analogy.
3.4.2.4. The syllables that take an anaptyctic vowel are only closed syn-
chronically. Historically the nouns terminated in case vowels (and case vowels
still existed in Hebrew at the time of the elision of w/y, as demonstrated by the
behavior of hd,c… ‘field’; see below, §3.4.4.2, p. 98; §3.4.5.2, p. 99), and so the
diphthongs occurred in open syllables: *baytu, *mawtu (and also, see below,
*gayªu ‘valley’, *sawªu ‘vanity’). Accordingly, one has to posit for this period
the preservation of the diphthongs in stressed open syllables. After the elision
of the case vowels, the other aw, ay diphthtongs were monophthongized in
open stressed syllables (e.g., *niglayªti > ytIylEg& }ni ‘I appeared’; see below,
§3.4.5.5, p. 100). By that time, however, *mawt and *bayt already had closed
syllables in which the diphthtongs were preserved.
00-Blau.book Page 97 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

97 Diphthongs; Triphthongs ∑ 3.4.4.1.

3.4.2.5. The Northern monophthongization may also be reflected in Amos’

prophecy (spoken to a Northern audience!): ≈QhE " aB: . . . ≈yiq"& bWlK} ‘a basket of
summer fruit . . . the end has come’ Amos 8:2. This would contain an even
more forceful play on words if vocalized according to Northern pronuncia-
tion: ≈QhE " aB: . . . ≈yq*E bWlK} (cf. Blau 1970c: 34, par. 9:1).
3.4.2.5n. As suggested by the different behavior of diphthongs in the South and the North,
the extent of monophthongization varied in the Northwest Semitic languages. In Ugaritic
(late second millennium b.c.e.) monophthongization is general, and in Meshaº, too, it pre-
vails (Garr 1985: 37–38). On the other hand, ['ç´/h is still transliterated into cuneiform
Akkadian a-us-si-ª in 728 b.c.e., and even the Septuagint, alongside the usual Wshe with
a simple vowel, has Aush Num 13:8. With this background of dialectal variation, one is
not surprised to find exceptions in Biblical Hebrew, also caused by paradigmatic leveling;
see immediately below.

3.4.2.6. Unstressed aw, ay diphthongs are only preserved when preceding

another w, y: hWex" ‘order!’, μyYij" ‘life’. Elsewhere, i.e., in unstressed closed syl-
lables (including those with secondary stress) and in stressed and unstressed
open syllables, original aw, ay diphthongs have been monophthongized to o,
e, e.g., t/m ‘the death of (cstr)’; tyBE ‘the house of (cstr)’; /t/m ‘his death’;
/tyBE ‘his house’; Wnyde&y; ‘our hands’ < *yadaynu. (This alternation of diphthongs
and monophthongs in the same paradigm was conducive to irregular preserva-
tion of w/y, on the one hand [as in /lwi[" ‘his injustice’], and abnormal monoph-
thongization, on the other [as in r/v ‘ox’].)
3.4.3. Other Diphthongs in w/y
3.4.3.1. The semi-consonants w, y are preserved not only in word-initial
position (where w shifts to y), but also in syllable-initial position. Thus it is
better to derive μWqy; ‘he will rise’, etc., from a biradical root, rather than from
*yaqwumu, since in that form the w would probably have been preserved.
3.4.3.2. The diphthong uw shifted to u, e.g., *huwrad ‘he was brought
down’ to dr'Wh, and iy to i, e.g., *yiyqaß ‘he will awake’ to ≈q–y" yi.
3.4.3.3. By regular sound shifts, we expect iw, uy to change to u, i, respec-
tively, and such results are indeed reflected in a few forms (cf. §1.16.2, p. 51):
*yiwkal to lk"Wy ‘he will be able’; μc≤y Yiw& ' ‘and he was put’ from *wayyúy¶œm.
As a rule, however, since these forms deviated from the general pattern,
forms created by analogy using i, u prevailed, e.g., vr'yyi ‘he will inherit’ from
*yiwras; t["d'W& m ‘made known (fs)’ Isa 12:5, from *muydaºat; μcæWYw'.
3.4.3.3n. The k´tib2 t[dym may reflect the original *midaºat. This etymon applies, of
course, only if the first radical of [dy is indeed originally y. See §4.3.8.4.4, p. 245.

3.4.4. Triphthongs
3.4.4.1. Triphthongs, in which y, w appear between vowels, were preserved
when the first element is an originally long vowel, e.g., μyiWdP} ‘ransomed
00-Blau.book Page 98 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.4.4.2. ∑ Triphthongs 98

[mp]’; bye/a ‘enemy’. In some cases the third element of the triphthong (such
as the final short case vowel) was lost but the structure remained, e.g., yW;D'
< *dawwayu ‘faint’; wyt:s} < sitawu ‘winter’.
3.4.4.2. Triphthongs are not preserved if they begin with an originally
short vowel, although according to Biblical Hebrew syllable structure, later
they should have been lengthened. For example, consider the final stressed
closed syllable of nouns, e.g., *¶adayu > hd,c… ‘field’: just as *ma†ar length-
ened its final vowel, becoming rf:m: ‘rain’, so one would have expected *¶aday
to develop to *¶aday. Thus we can say that w, y were elided before short vow-
els were lengthened (i.e., *¶adayu became hd,c… before the lengthening of the
second a occurred).
3.4.4.3. Triphthongs are elided if the first element is an originally short
vowel, whether the second vowel is short or long. If the second vowel is long,
only the long vowel remains (-a/iyvö > -vö ), e.g., *ga#liyim ‘exiled ones’ > μylI/& G;
*¶adayot ‘fields’ > t/dc…; *kilayim ‘vessels’ > μylIKE; Rabbinic Heb *pirayot
‘fruit (fp)’ > t/rPE. A triphthong in which the third element was a (vy, vw pre-
ceding a, i.e., aya, awa, iya, iwa, uya, uwa) shifted in every position to qamaß:
*galaya ‘he went into exile’ > hl:G;; *raßiya ‘he was pleased’ > hx:r;; *bayatim
‘houses’ > μyTIB:; *ºiyarim ‘towns’ > μyri[:; *samaniya(t) ‘eight (ms)’ > hn;/mv‘;
*galiya(t) ‘exiled(fs)’ > hl:/G.
3.4.4.3n. The forms μylI/& G and t/dc… need not be re-derived from the singulars hl</G and
hd,c….
The dages of μyTIB: is quite exceptional, and tradition is at variance on its interpretation;
see Blau 1989–90: 109–10 = Studies, 284–85 n. 19.

3.4.4.4. The elision and qamaß shift is sometimes prevented by analogy.

Thus μyv¥y;T} ‘goats’ < *tiyasim, singular vyiT"&, reflects the influence of both the
singular with preserved y and the analogy to regular segolate nouns (e.g., r["n' &
‘youth’, p abs μyri[:n]). In the case of μyriw;v‘ ‘oxen’, it was the latter impact only
that preserved the w, since the singular r/v itself irregularly did not preserve
the w, presumably owing to paradigmatic leveling, e.g., to analogy with yri/v
‘my ox’, etc., and/or to Northern influence. Nouns like tyiz' & ‘olive’, with conso-
nantal y in the singular, yet with (long) ßere in the plural, μytIyze (instead of the
expected *zatim < *ziyatim) reflect the influence of construct forms like tyze
and suffixed forms like Út}yze ‘your olive’.
3.4.4.4n. t/rPE, attested in mishnaic texts only, is spelled with y, i.e., t/ryPE, reflecting invari-
able ßere, even in construct, in accordance with the general trend, prevailing already in Bib-
lical Hebrew, of shifting from short ßere (and ˙olam) to corresponding long vowels (see
§3.5.7.6.11, pp. 131–132). In contrast, the construct of μylIKE is ylEK}, exhibiting the original
short, changeable ßere. The regular sound shift reflected in μylIKE and t/rPE is of quite limited
occurrence. As a rule the y, w was analogically restored, e.g., μyyib:x} ‘gazelles’ from ybIx}, and
the analogy of forms with y preserved was extended even to the construct: μyZi[I yyed;G} ‘kids of
the goats’. This extension is not found in the case of hw;c‘q " ‘jug’, p abs twoc…q} Exod 37:16,
p cstr t/cq} Num 4:7.
00-Blau.book Page 99 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

99 Triphthongs/Diphthongs ∑ 3.4.5.4.

3.4.4.5. A prominent set of exceptions to the qamaß shift is apparently fur-

nished by some prepositions. la< ‘to’, l[" ‘on’, being unstressed functional
words, were truncated from *ªiláya, *ºaláya. (The a ending is the adverbial
accusative ending; see §3.5.7.2.6, p. 122). There are fuller poetical forms of
the prepositions, ylEa”, ylE[“. Nevertheless, according to the shift aya > a, one
would have expected *ªœ"la, *ºåla (as in Arabic ªila/ ºala) and, instead of
& E, WnylE[& : ‘to us, on us’, for instance, *ªœ"lana, *ºålana. In ylEa”, ylE[“, the final
WnylEa
-a was elided before monophthongization, as happened to case endings in
construct in general (see below and §3.5.7.1.5, p. 120), and prepositions be-
have as nouns in construct (5.1.1, p. 283). As to WnylEa & E, WnylE[& : , etc., I would sug-
gest that we begin with the 1cs forms, *ªilaya-ya, *ºalaya-ya, which by
haplology shifted to *ªilayya/*ºalayya (as attested in Arabic) and then, be-
cause of the elision of final short vowels, became yl"aE, yl"[: (cf. Sarauw 1908:
40–41). From these forms the other forms with pronominal suffixes were re-
derived in Hebrew (and Arabic). In Hebrew the forms preceding nouns, ªilay,
*ºalay, first developed to (poetical) ylEa”, ylE[“, and later became, by elision of
the final diphthong in unstressed function words, la<, l[".
3.4.4.5n. For the similar, yet even more complicated case of d[" ‘even to’, poetic yde[“, see
§5.1.4, pp. 284–285.

3.4.5. Word-Final -aw, -ay

3.4.5.1. Consider the class of words that originally ended with a short
vowel plus semi-consonant followed by a case vowel. These show up in two
different forms in Biblical Hebrew; the construct and absolute form of nouns
are spelled differently. These differences arise from the fact that the case-
vowels were lost first from construct forms and only later from absolute
forms (§3.5.7.1.5, p. 120).
3.4.5.2. A word-final triphthong composed of an originally short vowel
and yu, yi, wu, wi changes to segol (spelled hÎ,), e.g., *saman! iyu/i > hn,/mv‘
‘eight (fs)’; *yagliyu > *yigliyu > hl<g}yi ‘he will be exiled’; *gal! iyu/i > hl</G
‘exiled’; *¶adayu/i ‘field’ > hd,c…; *mar! iyu/i ‘teacher’ > hr,/m. (The nouns here
are the absolute forms. For construct forms, see immediately below.)
3.4.5.3. Careful attention to the developments again reveals their histori-
cal ordering. Forms like *sámaniyu witness that the shift -ayu/-iyu > hÎ, & was
later than the Canaanite shift -a3 > o. The a of *saman! iyu bore the stress when
it shifted to o, since only stressed a was affected by this change. It was only
later that y was elided, when the stress had shifted to the vowel right before it,
as proven by the fact that hÎ,,& the product of this elision, is stressed.
3.4.5.4. There are some exceptions to this segol shift. One would expect
that aÉy]G' ‘valley’, aÉw]v… ‘vanity’, both with quiescent aleph, i.e., with final -ay,
-aw (= gay, saw) would have shifted to -π, -o (i.e., *gπ, *so) as well. The diph-
thongs were preserved, apparently because, before the elision of the aleph,
00-Blau.book Page 100 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.4.5.5. ∑ Diphthongs 100

they stood in closed syllables. Later, when the aleph had been elided, the diph-
thongs came to stand in open syllables; but at that time the monophthongiza-
tion no longer operated. Similar was the behavior of words like wq" ‘line’, wx"
‘order!’, yj" ‘alive’, originally terminating in -ww and -yy respectively (*qaww,
*ßaww, *˙ayy), which, standing in closed syllables, preserved the diphthongs.
Again later, when ww, yy in word-final position were simplified, the diph-
thongs came to stand in open syllables; again, the monophthongization was no
longer at work. In the construct forms, which bear only secondary stress, one
would expect monophthongization. This is indeed the case in ayGe ‘the valley
of’; yD' ‘sufficiency’ < *dayy, cstr yDe. Sometimes, however, due to the impact
of the absolute, the diphthong is preserved: cstr wq" ‘the line of’.
3.4.5.5. Words ending in -ayu, i.e., ending with a final case vowel or verb
inflection, show up in Hebrew with final segol. Related forms that lost the case
vowel earlier or had no final verb inflection follow a different path: ay, aw in
open syllables in every position, even when bearing the main stress, changed
to ßere, ˙olam. In word-final position, the ßere is generally spelled hÎe alongside
yÎe in the plural construct: cf. the homophones hneB} ‘build!’ and yneB} ‘the sons
of’; *¶aday ‘the field of (cstr)’ > hdec‘. Also, in open syllables bearing penul-
timate stress, ytIylE&g}ni ‘I appeared’ < *nigláyti; Wnyney& [E ‘our eyes’ < *ºaynáynu;
further unstressed d[E/m ‘appointed time’ < *mawºid. In word-final position,
not only -ay but also -iy shifted to ßere, e.g., *mariy ‘the teacher of (cstr)’ >
hre/m; *g(i)liy ‘go into exile!’ > hlEG}; *r(a)ßay ‘be satisfied!’ > hxEr]. Why do we
find construct forms here and corresponding absolute forms in the previous
paragraph (§3.4.5.2, p. 99)? Because the case endings were lost earlier from
the construct than from the absolute (cf. §3.5.7.1.5, p. 120); at the time when
monophthongization operated, the construct had already dropped the case
endings.
3.4.5.5n. As noted, in the forms ytIylEg& }ni and Wnyney& [E, ay has shifted to e. When preceding
qamaß, e by assimilation changes to segol (see §3.5.10.4, p. 137): hn;ya<&r]TIw' ‘and they (fp)
have seen’; Úyn,&y[E ‘your eyes’ (cf. μk<yney[E); h:yl<[& : ‘on her’ (cf. μh<ylE&[“ ‘on them’).
The imperative forms cited above require comment. It has been claimed that secondary
stress was a feature not only of the construct (this, indeed, caused the early elision of the
final case endings), but also of the imperative, which was weakly stressed because of a
preceding vocative (see, e.g., Brockelmann 1908–13: 1.81, par. 42ffb; Bergsträsser 2.24).
This theory, however, is not convincing, since, e.g., Arabic (ª)uqtul < *qutul did not arise
from weak stress, but must be attributed to the analogy of the prefix-tense.
3.4.5.6. The preservation of the diphthong in yd'c,… the poetic form of hd,c,…
is exceptional. Originally, it seems, the y was preserved in pausal yd;c… (i.e., pre-
Tiberian ¶aday) only because it followed a long vowel, which has been length-
ened by pausal lengthening (see §3.5.13.2, p. 154). Initially, therefore, the
pausal form was yd;c,… the contextual one hd,c.… Because of the excessive differ-
ence between these two forms, they were not felt to belong to the same para-
00-Blau.book Page 101 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

101 Diphthongs ∑ 3.4.5.8.

digm. In ordinary style hd,c… was used in pause as well, whereas in poetic
diction from pausal yd;c… with qamaß a new contextual form, yd'c… with pata˙,
was derived. (This reflects the inclination of the diphthong ay to pata˙, rather
than to qamaß; the frontal consonant y gives preference to frontal pata˙ to the
exclusion of the back vowel qamaß.) For details, see Blau 1997: 186–87.
3.4.5.7. It may be possible to explain in the same way the preservation of
the y in yt"m: ‘when?’ (in pause yt:m:, with pausal lengthening) from *matáya
(with the final adverbial accusative ending -a). In Arabic, mata (spelled ¥åtåm),
has to be derived from *mataya as well, since *matay would not have
changed. The Hebrew pausal form was yt:m:, with preservation of the y follow-
ing long a, lengthened owing to its pausal position. The contextual form was
*mata, reflecting the shift aya > a. Again, the difference between pausal and
contextual forms was extreme. Since yt"m: was frequent in pausal position and
in exclamation, it was pausal yt:m: that prevailed and the new contextual form
yt"m: was derived from it.
3.4.5.7n. On the adverbial accusative, see §4.4.4.1, p. 266; the assumption of a final vowel
that was elided is necessary (pace von Soden 1995: 203, par. 113k, who derives Akk mati
from *matay, rather than from *mataya), because at one point penultimate stress prevailed
in Biblical Hebrew, and only the supposition of such a vowel accounts for the current
stress on the ultima of yt"m:. This, however, neither requires nor excludes the idea that the
-aya, rather than -ay, ending is Proto-Semitic and not a later development.
Nothing certain can be stated of the form yz'a“ ‘then’, the use of which is restricted to
Psalm 124. One has not only to account for the preservation of the diphthong; one must
also—and this is more difficult—explain the initial ªa". As a rule, pretonic a is lengthened,
whereas pretonic i is sometimes lengthened, sometimes reduced (see §§3.5.7.6.1–3.5.7.6.2,
p. 129). Since in this case the first vowel is reduced, one would have expected that it was
i; however, ªi shifts in this position to ªœ" (a”; see above, §3.3.3.3.3, p. 84). Therefore, I am
inclined to consider yz'a“ to be a loan word from a neighboring dialect (cf., mutatis mutan-
dis, Wagner 1966: 21–22), reflecting a syllable structure different from that obtaining in
Biblical Hebrew.
3.4.5.8. The group of sound changes just introduced (final -ayu(i), -iyu(i) >
hÎ,; -ay, -iy > hÎe / yÎe) was first presented, in a different formulation, by Jacob
Barth and much discussed by later scholars. Barth demonstrated that hÎ,/hÎe
arose not only from -ay(u) but also from -iy(u), as clearly reflected by *sa-
maniyu/i > hn,/mv‘ ‘eight (fs)’. The problem is how to account for the lower-
ing of final -iyu, -iyi to e and even more for the shift of final -iy to Ϛ, rather
than to i. For various attempts to provide an explananation for these changes,
see the literature cited below. With due reservations, I would like to propose
the following: since the inflection of nouns and verbs terminating in -ay and
-iy to a great degree neutralized their differences when preceding long vowels
or a, words ending in -iyu/i and -iy were transferred to the category of those
terminating in -ayu/i and -ay, respectively. Thus, e.g., because of the formal
identity of t/py; ‘beautiful ones (fp)’ < *yapiyot and t/dc… ‘fields’ < *¶adayot,
00-Blau.book Page 102 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.4.6. ∑ w/y 102

the expected s abs *yapöi < *yapiyu, by analogy to hd,c…, became hp<y;. Simi-
larly, the expected s cstr *y´pöi < *y´piy (< *yapiyu) changed to hpEy] by anal-
ogy to hdec‘ (t/dc…: hd,c…, hdec‘ = t/py;: x; x = hp<y;, hpEy]). The form hn,/mc‘ ‘eight
(fs)’ < *samaniyu itself should have been *s´moni instead, yet because hn;/mc‘
‘eight (ms)’ < *samaniyatu and μyni/mc‘ ‘eighty’ < *samaniyim terminated in
the same endings as words ending in original -ayatu and -ayim (e.g., ha:r]ni
‘seen (fs)’ < *nirªayatu/i and μyc¥[“n' ‘made (mp)’ < *naºa¶ayim), it was trans-
ferred to the category of nouns terminating in hÎ, like ha<r]ni, hc≤[“n'. In propor-
tional terms, ha:r]ni, μyc¥[“n': ha<r]ni, hc≤[“n' = hn;/mc‘, μyni/mc‘: x; x = hn,/mc‘.
3.4.5.8n. See Barth 1889–91: xxx–xxxi, 200 n. 1; Brockelmann 1908–13: 1.144; Bauer-
Leander 1922: 201–5; Bergsträsser 1.100–101, par. 17k; and especially Birkeland 1940:
41–46.
Discussion of the expectation that -iyu/-iyi and -iy would have originally lowered to i is
hampered by a lack of evidence. No certain residues of this original shift have been pre-
served. It is certainly tempting to regard the construct yPI from hP< ‘mouth’ as its reflection,
yet in the monosyllabic nouns hP< and hc≤ ‘sheep’ different structures with changing vow-
els alternate, so that it is difficult to reconstruct the etymon of either. See Nöldeke 1910:
170–78.

3.4.6. Word-Final -Cw, -Cy

3.4.6.1. One final development rounds out this complex set: w, y in final
post-consonantal position shifted, after the dropping of the case endings, to u,
i: *tuhw(u) became WhTO& ‘formlessness’; *gady became ydiG, & (pausal form; the
contextual form, with stress-shift, is ydiG}).

3.4.7. Semi-Consonants and Weak Verbs

3.4.7.1. The semi-consonants are important in the study of the weak verbs.
Since the developments of w and y are, to a great extent, parallel, we shall in
the following treat w and y together. Due to the shift of initial w to y, the
classes of I-w and I-y verbs have partially blended; this is discussed further be-
low (§4.3.8.4.4, p. 245). In addition, III-w verbs have almost entirely shifted to
the III-y class, a feature attested in other Semitic languages and thus part of a
general drift. Since in these verbs w and y developed in the same direction,
many identical forms arose, from which, by proportional analogy, the III-y
verbs encroached on III-w verbs. Contrariwise, II-w verbs spread at the ex-
pense of II-y verbs. Since the prefix-tense forms of qal II-y are identical to
those of hif ºil II-w/y, the qal tended to be superseded by the hif ºil, and some-
times the residue of the qal was absorbed by II-w (see §4.3.8.7.2.8, p. 255).
3.4.7.1n. For the whole complex of problems related to biradical and triradical verbs, see
§4.3.1, pp. 187ff.
3.4.7.2. The development of II-w/y verbs from three radicals is complex,
and it is an arduous task to set up sound changes in order to account for the
00-Blau.book Page 103 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

103 w/y ∑ 3.4.8.4.

process. Consider the nif ºal prefix-tense. In regular verbs Wrm}V…yi ‘they will be
preserved’ derives from *yassamiru < *yansamiru, and so in II-w/y prefix-
tense Wg/S& yi ‘they will retreat’ should reflect original *yassawigu, exhibiting the
shift awi > o. If this shift was at work, one would expect the qal suffix-tense of
pattern paºil to show this o. However, *mawit does not become *mot but tmE
‘he died’.
3.4.7.3. Such irregularities of development lead us to propose that this
class of verbs is a blend of (a) original biradical roots with a short vowel be-
tween the two radicals, (b) original biradical roots with a long vowel between
them, and (c) triradical roots with w, y as second radical. Since sound shifts af-
fecting w/y gave rise to forms that were identical to forms derived from birad-
ical roots, by proportional analogy original biradical roots become II-w/y
roots (with consonantal w, y) and vice versa. Thus it is not feasible to separate
the results of the elision of w, y from original II-w/y verbs from forms reflect-
ing original biradical roots. As a matter of fact, it is impossible to state
whether a certain verb, let us say ≈Wr ‘to run’, is to be derived from a triradical
root rwß or from biradical rvöß (i.e., with a long medial vowel) or even rvß
(with a short medial vowel).

3.4.8. The Semi-Consonant w

3.4.8.1. The standard pronunciation of waw is bilabial, rather than labio-
dental. The changes that affect waw result from this feature, i.e., from its char-
acter as a semi-consonant.
3.4.8.2. In Northwest Semitic, initial w had shifted to y. The few Biblical
Hebrew words that exhibit initial w (ww; ‘hook’, rz;w; ‘guilty(?)’, dl:w; ‘offspring’)
have to be regarded as having come into Hebrew after this shift had ceased to
operate.
3.4.8.3. The most important exception to this shift is w´ ‘and’. The preser-
vation of the initial w in the conjunction may be attributed to the fact that, dur-
ing the operation of this sound shift, it joined the preceding word enclitically,
and thus phonetically it did not stand in word-initial but rather in word-medial
position, where it was not affected by this change (as if hl:y]l"w& ; μ/y ‘day and
night’ were pronounced yomwaláyla).
3.4.8.3n. Gordon, comparing Egyptian ¡w, argues that Heb w´ was originally preceded by
another syllable, and the shift w > y in word-initial position took place before this syllable
was dropped (1965: 32 n. 3). This proposal, however, for all its ingenuity, is more than
doubtful, since the initial w is attested in most Semitic tongues and the loss of an alleged
preceding syllable in all of them would be too much of a coincidence.

3.4.8.4. Since the shift of initial w to y is attested in all the known North-
west Semitic languages (see §1.6.4, p. 17), it stands to reason that it is a fea-
ture of the common Northwest Semitic period. In fact, this shift is the only
00-Blau.book Page 104 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.4.8.5. ∑ w 104

feature that can, with reasonable certainty, be regarded as a shared innovation

of Northwest Semitic in the context of West Semitic.
3.4.8.5. In considering this characteristic feature of Northwest Semitic, it is
important to keep in mind the arguments made earlier about language rela-
tions (§§1.6–1.7, pp. 16ff.). It is likely that there was no period in which the
speakers of the languages we call Northwest Semitic lived together. It may well
be that the speakers of these languages split off from the West Semitic stock in
waves, emigrating into the Fertile Crescent, here coming into contact with
other languages; through various processes of linguistic contact and parallel
development, the Northwest Semitic language type known to us emerged. Ac-
cordingly, the shift w > y in word-initial position does not necessarily attest to
the existence of a common Northwest Semitic language at the time of its op-
eration; it may well have emerged in one or some of these languages, from
which it spread to the others, finally to become their characteristic feature.
Thus we are free to posit that Northwest Semitic arose at the end, rather than at
the beginning, of the development. Such is our inclination.
3.4.8.5n. Other features suggested as shared innovations of the subgroup are not character-
istic of all the Northwest Semitic languages. Let us review those mentioned by Bergsträsser
(1.163, par. 30b). (1) The shift of Heb vyu/i in word-final position to segol and of vy to ßere
are special Hebrew features. This is shown by the preservation of the y in Ugaritic III-y
verbs; and even the correspondence between Hebrew and Aramaic is partial. (2) Ugaritic
attests to case vowels in the construct (Huehnergard 1981), and Akkadian has no case vow-
els in the construct; thus the absence of the case vowels in the construct cannot be consid-
ered a common Northwest Semitic feature. (3) Philippi’s Law is a special late Hebrew shift
(§3.5.8.8, p. 134); the substitution of a for i in closed stressed syllables that is found in Ara-
maic and even in Gºez is a parallel feature, rather than a part of a common heritage.
3.4.8.6. As a result of the initial w > y shift, I-w verbs combine forms with
initial y (< w) and forms with medial w in the same paradigm. There was some
leveling as a result of this mixture (see §4.3.8.4.4, p. 245); even proportional
analogy was at work, because of many identical forms, transferring original
I-y verbs to I-w and vice versa.
3.4.8.7. The only generally recognized instance of a shift from I-y to I-w
is [dy ‘to know’, with some I-w forms (e.g., ['ydi/h ‘to inform’). This verb is
classed as I-y because it has a y even in languages that have preserved initial
w. There are, however, some indications of a form with original w in some Se-
mitic tongues, so that one must not exclude the possibility of the existence of
a doublet wdº, ydº (Nöldeke 1910: 202–3).
3.4.8.8. The contrary process is more common; vry ‘to inherit’, e.g., is an
original I-w verb, as seen by the qal imperative vre and construct infinitive
tv≤r,& (and attested by other Semitic languages), yet its qal prefix-tense follows
the pattern of original I-y verbs: vr'yyi.
3.4.8.9. As a vowel letter, w marks both medial and final u/o. This usage
stems from the shift of consonantal w to u, o ; the w continued being written
02-Blau Page 105 Thursday, May 6, 2010 8:53 AM

105 Vowels ∑ 3.5.1.3.

even after it had ceased being pronounced: *huwrad ‘he was brought down’
was still spelled drwh even after it was pronounced dr'Wh; *hawrid ‘he brought
down’ continued to be spelled with w, even after it was already pronounced
dyri/h.
3.4.9. The Semi-Consonant y
3.4.9.1. The palatal semi-consonant presents fewer complexities than its
bilabial counterpart. yod is used as a vowel letter in both medial and final po-
sitions, to mark (historical) i, e, Ϛ. This usage arose from consonantal y that
had shifted to i, e, œö, e.g., *baytiy(a) > *bayti ‘my house’, becoming ytIyBE, but
still spelled with y; *siyr ‘song’, becoming ryv¥; *tirªayna ‘they (fp) will see’,
becoming hn;ya<&r]T.I

3.5. The Vowels of Hebrew

3.5.1. Introduction: Vowel Systems
3.5.1.1. According to the Tiberian vocalization, there are seven vowel
signs that mark full vowels: pata˙ a, qamaß O, ßere e, segol æ, ˙iriq i, ˙olam
o, suruq/qibbuß u. In the genuine Tiberian pronunciation, qamaß, indepen-
dently of the structure of the syllable in which it occurs, is invariably pro-
nounced O. According to the Sephardic tradition, however, its pronunciation
depends on the syllable structure; as a rule it is pronounced a (called qamaß
gadol), but in closed unstressed syllables, it is pronounced o (called qamaß
qa†an/˙a†uf ). It is the Sephardic pronunciation that has preserved the original
distinction between long a and short u > o; in the Babylonian vocalization,
only a has shifted to O, whereas u has remained unchanged. According to the
Tiberian pronunciation, however, these two vowels have coalesced; for de-
tails, see below, §§3.5.3.6–3.5.3.7, p. 109.
3.5.1.2. In addition, swa and three signs for ultra-short vowels (a" ˙a†af
pata˙; œ" ˙a†af segol; O" ˙a†af qamaß) are used. swa (Î]) either denotes that the
consonant under which it stands is vowelless (quiescent swa) or indicates a
“neutral” vowel, usually pronounced as a very short œ" (= ´; mobile swa). Ac-
cording to the Masoretes themselves, this was, as a rule, pronounced as a very
short a", in principle not different from ˙a†af pata˙.
3.5.1.3. The mobile swa has, according to the Masoretes, various pronun-
ciations. When preceding a laryngeal-pharyngeal, it is pronounced in accor-
dance with the vowel of the laryngeal-pharyngeal. Thus h[:q}b:W ‘and it will
hatch’ Isa 34:15 is pronounced, according to the Tiberian tradition, ub2 OqO " ºO;
μ[EQ}b"T} ‘it will tear them’ Hos 13:8, is pronounced, according to the Tiberian
tradition, ta"b2 aqqe "ºem. When preceding y, it is pronounced ı," e.g., yniWy‡M}d't} ‘you
will liken me’ Isa 40:25, is pronounced, according to the Tiberian tradition,
ta"qammıyuni" .
00-Blau.book Page 106 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.5.1.4. ∑ Tiberian Vocalization 106

3.5.1.4. One has to keep this variation in mind to understand certain fea-
tures of the Tiberian biblical vocalization. Thus variant readings like
hN;l<k& }aTO, hN;l<k& “aTO ‘you will eat it’ reflect, according to the Tiberian vocaliza-
tion, the same pronunciation, toka"lœnnO. Moreover, this pronunciation of the
mobile swa explains the rather frequent use of ˙a†af pata˙ between identical
consonants in many manuscripts, as in Úyr,&ra“ ø ‘those who curse you’ Num
24:9, where many other manuscripts read Úyr,&r]aø. Such variants have to be un-
derstood as graphic rather than phonetic, since both forms were pronounced
ªorårœ3ka; the pronunciation ªor´rœ3ka is Sephardic and not Tiberian. The
same applies to a ˙a†af qamaß preceding a laryngeal-pharyngeal followed by
a qamaß, e.g., h[:m’v‘a<w; ‘and I heard’ Dan 8:13, spelled in other manuscripts
h[:m}v‘a<w;; both, according to the Tiberian tradition, have to be pronounced
wOªœsmO"ºO. In Sephardic pronunciation the first is pronounced waªœsmo"ºa,
the second waªœsmœ"ºa.
3.5.1.4n. The actual Sephardic pronunciation of Úyr,&ra“ ø is ªorœrœ3ka, i.e., the Sephardim
pronounce the swa as œ. This feature must reflect later lengthening of the original ultra-
short ´. In the Yemenite tradition the ultra-short and full actualizations of the swa alternate
(Morag 1963: 154–78), thus reflecting the beginning of the process which, in Sephardi
pronunciation, led to the general pronunciation of the swa as a full vowel. Similarly, the
actual Sephardic pronunciation of h[:m’v‘a<w; waªœsmoºa.

3.5.2. Tiberian Vocalization

3.5.2.1. Tiberian vocalization does not reflect the various sources of the
vowels it represents. It is crucial to distinguish between the Tiberian vowels
and information available about these sources from the use of vowel letters,
other Jewish traditions, and comparative study. One has to bear in mind that
the Tiberian vowels only mark quality but not quantity.
3.5.2.1n. For details on the spelling of vowel letters, see Andersen and Forbes 1986 and,
working from their data, Blau 1995 = Topics, 21–25.
3.5.2.2. In the case of a vowels, Tiberian vocalization did not distinguish
between qamaß gadol, which arose from a long vowel (either originally long
vowels, e.g., qam = μq: ‘he arose’) or from original short a, which had second-
arily shifted to long a (*dag > dagö = gD;‚ ‘fish’), and qamaß qa†an, which de-
veloped from short u (*kull- > AlK:).
3.5.2.3. Similarly, in the area of i vowels, the vocalization did not differen-
tiate between defectively written ˙iriq, i.e., not followed by y, and fully written
˙iriq, i.e., followed by y. The Masoretes always marked i, whether originally
short or long, with a ˙iriq, not interfering with the Holy Text, in which the i
vowel was either followed by a non-pronounced yod or not. Since it was origi-
nally long i that, as a rule, was followed by a y, which had initially been pro-
nounced as a consonant (as *yiyra ‘he fears’ > ar;yyi), originally long i in word-
00-Blau.book Page 107 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

107 Tiberian Vocalization ∑ 3.5.2.5.

medial position tends to be marked by yÎi; originally short i tends to be marked

by Îi (e.g., r/mz]mI ‘psalm’). (In word-final position, the use of vowel letters is
mandatory, except in the cases of certain word classes.) Distinguishing the
background of the various i-vowels was not the aim of the Masoretes. Rather,
they preserved the text of Holy Scriptures meticulously, and the choice be-
tween fully and defectively written ˙iriq was dictated by the transmitted text.
Thus we find that sometimes (in a minority of cases to be sure) long i was
spelled defectively (e.g. μyi/G ‘nations’).
3.5.2.3n. Although it is true that long i is spelled defectively in the biblical text, the con-
verse is quite rare. Originally short i is, in reliable manuscripts at least, almost never
spelled with y; one of the very few exceptions is wyTIymIh“w' ‘and I slew him’ 1 Sam 17:35;
note also the inferior reading version yP"y[Ic‘ ‘my thoughts’ Job 20:2, in contrast with the
established reading yP"[Ic‘.
In vocalized Israeli spelling, originally long i is always spelled with a following y, since
in fact the spelling of vocalized Hebrew texts is based on biblical orthography, with regu-
larizations.

3.5.2.4. The e vowels are also in part dependent on the system of matres
lectionis. A word-medial ßere that arose by monophthongization of ay tends
to be spelled fully with a following vowel letter y, which was originally con-
sonantal. Thus yney[E ‘the eyes of’ < *ºaynay- is almost always spelled plene,
e.g., Isa 2:11; the defective spelling yne[E is rare, e.g., Isa 3:8. The defective
spelling of μk<lEa“ ‘to them’, on the other hand, is quite frequent. In word-final
position ßere is spelled with a following vowel letter h, e.g., hneB} ‘build!’,
alongside yÎe in the plural construct: yneB} ‘sons of’. In contrast, ßere that devel-
oped from originally short i is almost invariably spelled defectively; an excep-
tion is Wnyne‡yqzE ] ‘our elders’ Josh 9:11. Similarly, word-medial segol that arose
by monophthongization is, as a rule, followed by the vowel letter y; in word-
final position such a segol is followed by the vowel letter h: hn;yy,h}TI ‘they (fp)
will be’, hy,h}yi ‘he will be’. In word-final position full spelling is mandatory. In
word-medial position rare cases of defective spelling do occur: hn;l<d& ]TIw' ‘and
they (fp) drew water’ Exod 2:16. Segol that arose from short i or a is spelled
defectively.
3.5.2.5. The Masoretes on principle did not distinguish the u vowels on the
basis of etymology either. The modern use of qibbuß to denote short u, and of
suruq to mark long u is of comparatively late date. Originally, qibbuß and su-
ruq were used without distinction to denote both kinds of u. When the Ma-
soretes encountered a word in which no vowel letter w followed an u, they, by
necessity, vocalized Îu (what was later called qibbuß), since they regarded it as
improper to add a w to the sacred biblical text. In case the text had such a w, they
inserted a point into the w (W; what was later called suruq), because the sanctity
of the biblical text compelled them to preserve the w. It is, again, only in ac-
cepted vocalized Israeli spelling that originally short u is always spelled with
00-Blau.book Page 108 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.5.2.6. ∑ Tiberian Vocalization; Sephardic Pronounciation 108

qibbuß, originally long u with suruq. A similar tendency is, to be sure, re-
flected in the Bible. This is, however, only a by-product of the fact that the use
of vowel letters in general and of w as mater lectionis in particular, emerged
from their consonantal use, which is associated with long vowels. Neverthe-
less, exceptions are by no means rare, especially cases of the defective spelling
of originally long u, e.g., Úl<bUG} ‘your territory’ (in pause) Exod 13:7. Some-
times even originally short u is spelled fully, e.g., μL:Wk ‘all of them’ Jer 31:34.
3.5.2.6. The situation of the o vowels is simple. ˙olam that arose by
monophthongization of aw tends to be spelled fully with a following w (/),
which was originally consonantal, e.g., d[E/m ‘appointed time’ < *mawºid; but
note d[EmO[B}] ‘at the time of’ Deut 31:10. In contrast, o that arose from
(stressed) a and that, accordingly, was not followed by a consonantal w, is less
often spelled with /.
3.5.2.7. Originally short vowels occur chiefly in unstressed closed syl-
lables (e.g., j'TEp}m" ‘key’; μyGij" ‘feasts’; because of the dages forte, this word is
divided into syllables ˙ag-gim), including formerly closed syllables ending in
a laryngeal-pharyngeal, which have been opened (e.g., hl:[“m" ‘step’ < maºlO).
In addition, pata˙, not qamaß, is used in (1) every closed syllable, even if it is
stressed, in the contextual finite forms of the verb (as rm"v… ‘he kept’), (2) in
construct nouns, e.g., dy' ‘hand of’, (3) in the stressed final syllable of the ab-
solute forms of nouns that originally ended in a double consonant, e.g., ˆG'
‘garden’ < *gann, (4) in the stressed open penult syllables of words that origi-
nally ended in two consonants (as lj"n' & ‘torrent’ < *na˙l). In this last position,
however, segol prevails generally (Ël<m<& ‘king’ < *malk); pata˙ is used before
laryngeals-pharyngeals.
3.5.2.8. In Tiberian vocalization ˙iriq, ßere, segol, ˙olam, and qibbuß/suruq
mark i, e, œ, o, and u, respectively, whether originally short or long. This us-
age does not cause any difficulty in pronunciation, since the (originally) short
and long variants do not differ in quantity.

3.5.3. Sephardic Pronunciation

3.5.3.1. In the accepted Sephardic pronunciation, (originally) short and
long qamaß are pronounced differently. The short vowel, originating in u, as o,
and the long vowel, deriving from (original or secondary) a, as a. The follow-
ing description, with the help of which qamaß gadol and qamaß qa†an can be
distinguished, has its practical merits, the more so since it reflects a linguistic
reality.
3.5.3.2. Qamaß qa†an/˙a†uf, originally a short vowel, occurs (i.e., is pro-
nounced according to Sephardic pronunciation o) in the following cases.
3.5.3.3. In closed unstressed syllables (like short vowels in general), e.g.,
tm"k}j:, ‘the wisdom of’, pronounced ˙okmat; yniNej& : ‘be gracious unto me!’ (be-
cause of the dages forte this word has to be divided into syllables: ˙on-ne#-ni),
00-Blau.book Page 109 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

109 qamaß ∑ 3.5.3.7.

Tiberian Vocalization; Sephardic Pronounciation

pronounced ˙onne#ni; μq:Y;w& ' he rose’, pronounced wayya#qom. Since a word pre-
ceding a maqqaf is totally unstressed, a qamaß occurring in a closed syllable
in a hyphenated word stands in a closed unstressed syllable and is therefore a
qamaß qa†an, e.g., rc…B:AlK: ‘all flesh’ Gen 6:12, pronounced kol-ba¶ar.
3.5.3.3n. If the qamaß in a hyphenated word bears a secondary accent, marked by meteg, it
is pronounced a: dyix"&AdXâ:h" ‘he who has taken venison’ Gen 27:33, pronounce haßßa#q-
ßáyiq. The a originated in a, not in u!
3.5.3.4. In formerly closed syllables, originally terminating in a vowel-
less laryngeal-pharyngeal, thus closing the syllable, which have now been
opened, since the laryngeal-pharyngeal is now pronounced with a ˙a†af qa-
maß: e.g., /l[’P: ‘his doing’, originally /l[}P:* (parallel to, e.g., /vd]q : ‘his sanc-
tity’), to be pronounced poºo"lo. Such a ˙a†af qamaß shifts to qamaß qa†an if it
is followed by swa. It seems that this is a mere orthographic device to avoid
writing a ˙a†af vowel preceding a swa: μk<l}[:P: ‘your (mp) doing’, pronounced
poºolkœm (§3.3.3.3.5, p. 85).
3.5.3.4n. poºo"lo is the accepted pronunciation in the teaching of Hebrew at universities, as
well as in modern Israeli Hebrew speech. In genuine traditional Sephardic pronunciation,
however, the form is pronounced paºo"lo. Again, poºolkœm is the accepted pronunciation,
but in genuine Sephardic pronunciation, the form is pronounced paºolkœm.

3.5.3.5. In some nouns with original u in the first syllable. Specifically,

the first qamaß in the plurals μyv¥r;v… ‘roots’ and μyv¥d;q : ‘sanctities’ is qamaß
qa†an/˙a†uf as well.
3.5.3.5n. This is again the accepted pronunciation in the teaching of Hebrew at univer-
sities, as well as in modern Israeli Hebrew speech. In genuine traditional Sephardic pro-
nunciation, however, these forms are pronounced sarasim, qadasim. This is all the more
surprising since μyv¥d;q ’h" ‘the sanctuaries’, spelled with ˙a†af qamaß, is pronounced by the
Sephardim haqqodasim.

3.5.3.6. It has to be stressed again that the distinction between two kinds
of qamaß, qa†an and gadol, does not reflect the Tiberian vocalization, in
which every qamaß marks O. As we have seen, it does not exactly correspond
to the Sephardic pronunciation either, although the accepted reading of the
Bible in university teaching (and the pronunciation of Modern Hebrew) is
based on the Sephardic tradition.
3.5.3.7. The Sephardim are the only Jewish community possessing a living
tradition of differentiating between qamaß gadol and qa†an. Among the Ash-
kenazim, who depend on the Tiberian vocalization, and the Yemenites, who ul-
timately rely on the Babylonian vocalization, every qamaß is pronounced as O.
Though the description provided of when to use “short” qamaß has its merits,
it has no connection with the Tiberian vocalization. The Tiberian vocalization
marks only qualitative differences and not quantitative ones (with the excep-
tion of the ultra-short vowels, viz., the mobile swa and the ˙a†af-vowels).
02-Blau Page 110 Thursday, May 6, 2010 8:55 AM

3.5.4. ∑ Tiberian Vowels 110

3.5.3.7n. The neutralization of quantitative differences is of very late origin; it is perhaps

the last comprehensive sound shift that affected Tiberian Hebrew. For this, see below,
§3.5.4.2.

3.5.4. Tiberian Vowels Once Again

3.5.4.1. Let us consider the Tiberian-Sephardic issue further. The Tiberian
vocalization is a rather exact one, in some cases marking sub-phonemic vari-
ations, like the spirantization of bgdkpt in certain positions or the alternation
of qamaß (qa†an) and qibbuß in closed unstressed syllables. Is it conceivable
that the Tiberian Masoretes would have used the same sign for long qamaß
(qamaß gadol) and short qamaß (qamaß qa†an), had they wanted to mark
quantitative differences?
3.5.4.2. The only possible explanation for their usage of qamaß is that they
did not attempt to mark quantitative differences (with the above-mentioned
exceptions), because they had ceased being phonemic. I do not claim that in
the Tiberian tradition no length differences occurred, but rather that length
differences were automatic consequences of stress and syllable structure.
3.5.4.3. It stands to reason that vowels in stressed or open syllables were
automatically pronounced long. Since this process was automatic, the Ma-
soretes considered it to be superfluous to mark quantity by special signs. With
this in mind, we can understand why the Masoretes did not attempt to schema-
tize the difference between suruq and qibbuß or between ˙iriq with y as a
vowel letter and without it. Their usage of the differences depended entirely on
the consonantal skeleton they received, rather than on the (original) quantity
of the vowel. There is, to be sure, a certain connection between the Tiberian
vocalization and length (as reflected in earlier layers of Hebrew), but it is not
a connection that the Masoretes worked with directly or sought to maintain.
3.5.4.3n. The effects of stress and syllable structure can be seen in various medieval trans-
literations of biblical texts in Arabic script; see Hoerning 1889; Khan 1990.
3.5.4.4. Since the quality of a vowel may depend on its quantity, a Tibe-
rian vowel may historically reflect a vowel of a certain length. A case in point
is pata˙. Historical analysis and comparative Semitics demonstrate that, in
the decisive majority of occurrences, it continues a historically short vowel.
Nevertheless, even with pata˙ there are exceptions. As mentioned above
(§3.3.4.3.2, p. 88), the pata˙ of ynidOal" ‘to my lord’ < laªa"doni has to be consid-
ered a (phonetically) long vowel, since it arose by the elision of the aleph.
Further, the pata˙ of [B"x}a< ‘finger’ must also, it seems, be considered an origi-
nally long vowel; it arose from the expected [B:x}a<*, with qamaß, by assimila-
tion to the º.
3.5.4.5. As a rule, however, pata˙ is a short vowel and may be used for
gauging the (historical, not the Tiberian) length of other vowels. Thus in
the finite verb, pata˙ occurs in closed syllables, even if it is stressed: rm"v… ‘he
02-Blau Page 111 Thursday, May 6, 2010 8:55 AM

111 Vowel Length; Proto-Semitic Vowels ∑ 3.5.5.2.

kept’; bK"r]yi ‘he will ride’. Accordingly, we shall regard as similarly short the
ßere and ˙olam of the parallel patterns ≈pEj: ‘he wanted’, lkOy; ‘he could’, and ˆTEyi
‘he will give’, rmOv‘yi ‘he will keep’. In addition, note piººel forms with pata˙,
ßere, and segol: rCæBI ‘he bore tidings’, lBEqI ‘he received’, rB<Di ‘he spoke’; all
these forms, as suggested by the pata˙ of rCæBI, have to be regarded as having
(in context) a short vowel in their final syllables. Similarly, in the light of tyiB"&
‘house’; r["n' & ‘youth’ (cf. also Ël<m<& ‘king’), it makes sense that ßere and ˙olam
of similar nouns are short as well, e.g., rp<sE& ‘book’; vd,qO& ‘sanctity’.
3.5.4.6. This view on vowel length is corroborated by an unexpected
source, the Greek transcriptions of names. In the case of a, these transcrip-
tions have no way of distinguishing long and short a, since Greek has only one
corresponding vowel, the alpha. But in the case of e and o, Greek has a double
set of vowels: eta and epsilon, omega and omikron (h, e, w, o), respectively.
The transliterations of the Septuagint and especially of Origen confirm that in
these verbal and nominal patterns the vowels were short.
3.5.4.7. Thus we can clearly state a fact that we have alluded to often:
whenever vowel length is mentioned in this book, it refers not to the period of
Tiberian vocalization but to the preceding layers of the language and is his-
torically reconstructed. According to reconstruction, for instance, qamaß qa-
†an is indeed short, continuing Proto-Semitic u; it generally replaced earlier
u, except when preceding a doubled consonant, i.e., one with dages forte (or
˙azaq). Qamaß gadol, in contrast, was originally long, continuing either
Proto-Semitic long a or, in most cases, Proto-Semitic short a, which had been
lengthened. Even here exceptions occur.
3.5.4.8. There are cases (to be sure, very few) in which qamaß gadol, i.e.,
qamaß stemming from a, not from u, originates in a short a that remained
short through all the stages of the development of Tiberian Hebrew. This was
the case when qamaß arose from pata˙ (i.e., from original a) through assimi-
lation to a following labial, e.g., ˆw,a:& ‘wickedness’; tw,m:& ‘death’ (cf. the parallel
pata˙ in tyiB"&; r["n'&); μy; ‘sea’, even in construct, and even when the construct is
hyphenated: jl"M<&h" μy; ‘the Dead Sea’ Gen 14:3; jl:M<&h"Aμy; Num 34:3.

3.5.5. Vowels: The Semitic Background

3.5.5.1. From a diachronic point of view, it is likely that in Proto-Semitic
(as in Classical Arabic) the phonemic system of vowels consisted of three
vowel pairs, three short, a : i : u, and three long, a : i : u.
3.5.5.2. In the structure of the Proto-Semitic short vowels one can detect, it
seems, an older binary system in which a was opposed to i/u, with i and u
acting as mere variants. Traces of this ancient binary structure are reflected in
Biblical Hebrew as well. In the qal suffix-tense (see §4.3.5.2.2.1, p. 220) of
verbs denoting action, the second radical is followed by a (e.g., rm"v… ‘he pre-
served’; ˆt"n; ‘he gave’), whereas in stative verbs it is vocalized with ßere,
00-Blau.book Page 112 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.5.6. ∑ Vocalic Phonemes 112

˙olam (< i, u, e.g., ≈pEj: ‘he wanted’; lkOy; ‘he was able’). In contrast, in the qal
prefix-tense, it is a that is characteristic of stative verbs (e.g., ˆvæyyi ‘he will
sleep’; lk"Wy ‘he will be able’), whereas ßere, ˙olam (< i, u) are typical of action
verbs (e.g., ˆTEyi ‘he will give’; rmOv‘yi ‘he will preserve’). This state of things, to
be sure, is rather blurred, since a tends to prevail in the suffix-tense and o (< u)
in the prefix-tense, yet its traces are clear enough to suggest an ancient binary
opposition a: i/u.

3.5.6. Vowels: The Hebrew Phonemes

3.5.6.1. The Basic System
3.5.6.1.1. The vowel inventory of Biblical Hebrew has increased consider-
ably compared to that of Proto-Semitic. Whereas Proto-Semitic had, it seems,
the vowels a, i, u, a, i, u only, the inventory of full vowels in Biblical Hebrew,
according to the Tiberian tradition, consisted of a (pata˙), O (qamaß), œ (se-
gol), e (ßere), i (˙iriq), o (˙olam), u (qibbuß/suruq), and all of them may be
phonetically long or short. Further, the ultra-short vowels ´ (mobile swa), a"
(ha†af pata˙), œ" (˙a†af segol), O" (ha†af qamaß) occur.
3.5.6.1.1n. As noted above, ´ reflects the Sephardic pronunciation of mobile swa. Accord-
ing to Tiberian tradition it is, in the main, pronounced a", thus identical to ˙a†af pata˙. See
§3.3.3.3.4n, pp. 84–85; §3.5.6.4.2n, p. 116.
3.5.6.1.2. Though it was relatively easy to establish the phonemic structure
of the Hebrew consonants, it is very intricate indeed to set up the phonemic
structure of the Tiberian vowel system. We must not, as shown above
(§3.5.2, pp. 106ff.), rely on the presence or absence of vowel letters added and
omitted, i.e., distinguish between ˙iriq, segol, ßere, ˙olam, and suruq/qibbuß
with and without a following vowel letter.
3.5.6.1.3. It seems clear that pata˙, qamaß, ˙iriq, ßere, ˙olam, qibbuß/
suruq (a, O, i, e, o, u) are different phonemes. Note these sets of oppositions:
(1) μvæa: μvøa: aWh μv…a: ‘it is a trespass offering, he has certainly trespassed’
Lev 5:19, μv´a: ‘guilty’ (ªOsOm vs. ªOsom vs. ªOsam vs. ªOsem); (2) vaE ‘fire’,
vyaI ‘man’ (ªes vs. ªis); (3) l[" ‘on’, l[O ‘yoke’, lW[ ‘suckling’, (t/)l[: ‘giving
suck (fp)’ (ºal vs. ºol vs. ºul vs. ºOl); (4) ry[I ‘town’, r[E ‘awake’, rW[* ‘awake!’
[for the last, cf. hr;W[& in the same sense], r/[ ‘skin’, r[: ‘a Moabite town’ (ºir vs.
ºer vs. ºur vs. ºor vs. ºOr); (5) μaI ‘when’, μaE ‘mother’ (ªim vs. ªem); (6) z[O
‘strength’, z["‘strong’, z[E ‘she-goat’ (ºoz vs. ºaz vs. ºez); (7) ra"v‘ni ‘he remained’,
ra:v‘ni ‘remaining’ (nisªar vs. nisªOr); (8) t/br]j: ‘the ruins of (cstr)’, t/br]j" ‘the
swords of (cstr)’ (˙Orb2 ot vs. ˙arb2 ot).
3.5.6.2. The Problem of segol
3.5.6.2.1. The case of segol (œ) is intricate. Among the ancient vocaliza-
tions of Hebrew, it occurs only in the Tiberian vowel system.
00-Blau.book Page 113 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

113 Vocalic segol; swa ∑ 3.5.6.3.1.

Phonemes

3.5.6.2.2. It certainly has separate phonemic value in final stressed posi-

tion. Note these sets: (1) h[<rO ‘shepherd’, y[IrO ‘my shepherd’, h[:rO ‘shepherd-
ess’ (roºœ vs. roºi vs. roºO); (2) hn,q}mI ‘cattle’, hneq}mI ‘cattle of (cstr)’ (miqnœ
vs. miqne); (3) hn,q : ‘stalk’, hn;q : ‘he acquired’, hnoq/: /nq: ‘to acquire’ (qOnœ vs.
qOnO vs. qOno).
3.5.6.2.3. In other positions too, segol seems to be phonemic. Note this set,
with an oppposition to pata˙: (4) ha<r]a< ‘I shall see’, ha<r]a"* ‘I shall show’; cf.
: a<r]a" ‘I shall show you’ (ªœrªœ vs. ªarªœ). But not all evidence points to pho-
nemic standing. In the following set, to be sure, there is an opposition to
˙iriq/ßere: (5) ˆp<Y,w' ‘and he turned (it; hif ºil)’, ˆp<Yiw' ‘and he turned (qal)’, ˆp<aEw;,
ˆp<TEw', ˆp<New' ‘and I, you, we turned’ (wayyœpöœn vs. wayyipöœn vs. waªepöœn,
wattepöœn, etc.). Nevertheless, the segol in these cases may be considered an
allophone, whether of i (in case 4, ha<r]a<; cf. ha<r]TI, ha<r]yi ‘you, he will see’) or
of a (in case 5, ˆp<Y,w', which parallels hn,p}y'* ‘he will turn’, for which cf. hq<v‘y' ‘he
will water’). In other words, the use of segol in these cases may reflect the
cancellation of the opposition a : i.
3.5.6.2.4. If this interpretation of segol as (partly) allophonic is correct, the
only convincing phonemic use of non-final segol is its occurrence with inter-
rogative h in oppposition to qamaß with the definite article: (6) rWma:h< ‘is it
said?’ Mic 2:7, rWma:h:* ‘that which is said’; cf. ˆ/ra:h: ‘the chest’ (hœªOmur vs.
hOªOmur). Yet, even rWma:h< may be regarded as an allophone of rWma:h"* (cf.
hT: a"h: ‘are you?’).
3.5.6.2.5. There are further data to be considered. Two other noteworthy
sets are (7) la< ‘to’, (a/Nq")AlaE ‘(a jealous) God’ Josh 24:19, (an;A)la" ‘(please,)
not!’ Gen 13:8 (ªœl vs. ªel vs. ªal); (8) ˆk<l: ‘to you (fp)’, ˆkEl: ‘therefore’ (lOkœn
vs. lOken). Regarding (7), since segol is opposed to both ßere (< ˙iriq) and
pata˙, it cannot strictly be considered an allophone of either. Little signifi-
cance can be attached to the pairs (9) lb<j<& ‘cord’, lb<jE& ‘pang’; (10) br,[<&
‘evening’, br,[E& ‘mixture, woof’; since in this position segol and ßere may in-
terchange. Note simply (11) rd,ne/& rd,n, & ‘vow’.

3.5.6.3. The Problem of swa

3.5.6.3.1. The status of swa is an intricate matter, since it marks two differ-
ent phonetic entities: the mobile or vocal swa, denoting an ultra-short vowel,
and quiescent or silent swa, which marks the absence of any vowel. The Ma-
soretes did not and indeed could not neatly distinguish these two kinds of swa
by using different marks, since mobile and quiescent swa frequently inter-
changed, depending (among other factors) on the speech tempo and the vary-
ing conditions of stress. Since the pronunciation of the Bible text as regards
the alternation of an ultra-short vowel and zero largely depended on the reader,
and even the same reader would have varied in articulation in accordance
with changing circumstances, the presentation of an archetype of the biblical
00-Blau.book Page 114 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.5.6.3.2. ∑ Vocalic
swa Phonemes 114

text differentiating the two kinds of swa was not feasible. Therefore, the
Masoretes did the only thing possible: they marked both kinds of swa with the
same sign.
3.5.6.3.2. There are conspicuous cases of the occurrence of an ultra-short
vowel (= mobile swa) where originally no vowel existed (= zero, quiescent
swa). Thus vD;q}m I‘sanctuary’ has a vowelless q: miqdas. (Pay attention to the
stop d, occurring after a vowelless consonant.) Nevertheless, we find the
form of vd;ÉQ}mI miq´qas in Exod 15:17. Similarly we have, instead of regular
*haßpino, the form /nypIÉX}h" ‘to hide him’, pronounced haß´pöino in Exod 2:3;
instead of the expected *mamgurot, we have t/rguÉM}m" ‘granaries’, pronounced
mam´göurot, in Joel 1:17.
3.5.6.3.2n. We do not deal here with the widespread phenomenon of a vowelless laryngeal-
pharyngeal preceding a consonant, developing an auxiliary vowel marked by ˙a†af (see
above, §3.3.3.3.5, p. 85). In this case it is not a quiescent and a mobile swa that alternate,
but a quiescent swa and a ˙a†af. Note, however, that the variant reading (ylIA) qj"x“yi ‘he will
laugh (at me)’ Gen 21:6 for the standard (ylIA)qj"x}yi reflects a genuine change of quiescent
to mobile swa, since the ˙a†af is only used as an indicator for mobile swa. Another curios-
ity is Úb}f:q : ‘your destruction’ Hos 13:14 instead of the expected *qo†b´ka > Úb}f’q*: . Here
the ˙a†af qamaß, preceding a (formerly mobile) swa, automatically changed to qamaß
(qa†an). Thus in one word the originally quiescent swa (f}*) of the regular form *qo†b´ka
ÚB}f}q*: changed to mobile swa (†´ > †O" > †O) and the originally mobile swa (B}*) to quiescent
swa (here, swa medium; see below, §3.5.6.3.6).

3.5.6.3.3. In forms like miq´qas and haß´pöino, the dages in the letters bear-
ing the swa does not indicate gemination; rather, it means that the swa is mo-
bile (which entailed the spirant pronunciation of the following bgdkpt). This
feature is quite rare when the letter following the swa is not a bgdkpt letter,
e.g., th"Q}yi ‘the obedience(?) of’, pronounced yiq´hat Gen 49:10.
3.5.6.3.4. It is surprising to find words in which the letter vocalized with
swa and dages is b, which, because of the dages, has to be pronounced as plo-
sive, although it is preceded by a vowel. (Spirantization at a certain point
ceased to be productive in word-medial position; §3.3.2.2.5, p. 80.) There is
no reason to double the b. In the cases to be cited, the fact that it is preceded by
qibbuß, rather than by qamaß qa†an, may be interpreted as indicating doubling;
this, however, is unlikely: /lB’sU ‘his burden’ Isa 10:27, with ˙a†af qamaß in-
stead of mobile swa, pronounce subO"lo, instead of the expected *sub2 ´lo; cf.
/kÉB}SUmI ‘from its thicket’ Jer 4:7, pronounce missub´ko.
3.5.6.3.5. The reverse phenomenon, the occurrence of a quiescent swa
instead of a mobile one, is common. Indeed it is not only single words but
whole word classes that reflect this feature, dependent, it seems, on the speed
of recitation, the conditions of stress, and the consonantal environment.
3.5.6.3.6. Perhaps the most conspicuous category of words reflecting the
shift of mobile swa to the quiescent one includes words with the so-called swa
medium, a special sort of quiescent swa, which arose by the reduction of an
00-Blau.book Page 115 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

115 Vocalic
swa Medium ∑ 3.5.6.3.8.
Phonemes

original full vowel (and was, therefore, originally a mobile swa) and is pre-
ceded by a short vowel. Through the influence of the reduced vowel, a follow-
ing bgdkpt letter became spirantized and remained so even after the reduced
vowel has been omitted. At the time of the loss of the vowel, the stop-spirant
alternation of the bgdkpt letters was no longer automatic, so that the bgdkpt
letters did not automatically change back to stops after the vowel had disap-
peared. The vowel preceding this swa is short (for a possible explanation of
this phenomenon, see below).
3.5.6.3.6n. Phonetically only two kinds of swa exist, either mobile or quiescent; there ex-
ists no phonetic entity intermediate between an ultra-short vowel and zero. Nevertheless,
Solomon Hanau, the ingenious Hebrew grammarian from the first half of the eighteenth
century who introduced the term swa medium into scholarship, considered it a phonetic re-
ality. Following Bergsträsser 2.176 we use the term to refer to a (synchronically) quiescent
swa, preceded, like other quiescent swa, by a short vowel, yet apparently capable of bring-
ing about the spirantization of a following bgdkpt letter, as if it were a mobile swa. It is in-
deed convenient to use this term to describe a quite complex synchronic situation.
In the various ancient sources other vowels appear instead of swa medium, reflecting the
earlier stage when it was still a mobile swa. Such evidence is found in the Samaritan tra-
dition, the Septuagint, the Hexapla, and the Dead Sea Scrolls; see Blau 1971a: 26–33 =
Topics, 210–17; Ben-Óayyim 2000: 55 and n. 71. In the Tiberian tradition, too, there are
remnants of what we call swa medium being pronounced as mobile swa, marked by meteg,
as in hk:r;b}hâ " (the pata˙ being marked by meteg) ‘blessing?’ Gen 27:38, or marked by a
˙a†af, as in a variant reading of the same passage, hk:r;b“h" and in bhæz“W ‘and the gold of ’
Gen 2:12. The historical development of the swa medium was originally described by Ed-
uard Sievers; cf. Bergsträsser 1.120–21.
3.5.6.3.7. This swa medium is found in plural construct qa†l nouns. Thus
ykEÉl}m" ‘the kings of’ arose from *malake (cf. μykIl:m} ‘kings’). The form is pro-
nounced malke, with a spirantized k, because at the time the spirantization
was active the k was preceded by a mobile swa. Some qal infinitives con-
struct also show swa medium, e.g., after b´, k´, as in lpøÉn]BI ‘when it fell’, lpøÉn]KI
‘as one falls’, pronounce binpöol, kinpöol, derived from lpøÉn], pronounced n´pöol.
3.5.6.3.7n. The qal infinitives construct present a complex picture, since after l´ followed
by bgdkpt the form has a quiescent swa. Such forms as rBOv‘lI ‘in order to break’ are due to
morphological reshuffling on analogy to the prefix-tense (rBOv‘yi ‘he will break’) rather than
to a genuine sound shift. The late date of this feature is indicated by forms like lPOn]lI ‘that
I fall’ Ps 118:13; the n immediately preceding another consonant was not assimilated to it
because at the time of the action of this shift the n was still followed by a mobile swa. (Al-
ternatively, one could suggest that this shift was still active, but that at the time of the vo-
calization of the biblical text its letters had already become hallowed and therefore the n of
lpnl could not be omitted. Cf. Ginsberg 1929–30: 129–31.)
3.5.6.3.8. The replacement of mobile swa by quiescent swa is also reflected
in the strong tendency (cf. above, §3.3.2.2.3, pp. 79–80) to pronounce double
consonants followed by mobile swa as simple consonants followed by quies-
cent swa, e.g., y[Es}m" ‘journeys of’ = masºe Num 33:1, instead of the expected
*mass´ºe. Moreover, the addition of prosthetic aleph to words beginning with
00-Blau.book Page 116 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.5.6.4. ∑ Vocalic
swa Phonemes 116

a mobile swa intimates that the mobile swa had become quiescent; the diffi-
culty of pronouncing a consonant cluster at the beginning of words then led to
the addition of the prosthetic aleph. Cf. ['/rz] ‘arm’ (with mobile swa) and
['/rz]a< (with prosthetic aleph). Similarly, l/mT} : l/mt}a< ‘yesterday’.

3.5.6.4. Pronunciation of swa

3.5.6.4.1. The following five rules of swa (first proposed by Elijah Levita
(Ba˙ur), 1468–1549) may assist the student in differentiating mobile and qui-
escent swa.
(1) Swa is mobile in word-initial position, e.g., ˆm:z] ‘time’,
(2) and quiescent in word-final position, e.g., Ël"m: ‘he reigned’; T}a" ‘you’
[fs]).
(3) The first of two consecutive swas is quiescent, the second mobile, e.g.,
h[:m}v‘a<w] ‘and I shall hear’, pronounced w´ªœsm´ºa.
(4) After a geminate consonant, swa is mobile, e.g., WvQ}B"‘ask (mp)!’, pro-
nounced baqq´su.
(5) Swa followed by a bgdkpt stop, marked by dages (TPKDGB), is quies-
cent, e.g., [B"r]a" ‘four’.
3.5.6.4.2. The problem with the fifth rule is that, as discussed in the previ-
ous sections (§§3.5.6.3.5–3.5.6.3.7, pp. 114–115), a swa preceding a spirant
bgdkpt letter can be either mobile, (e.g., ht:y]hâ: ‘she was’, pronounced hay´ta),
or quiescent (e.g., ykEl}m" ‘the kings of’, pronounced malke). The main overall
problem in distinguishing these two kinds of swa is connected with the use of
meteg, a small perpendicular stroke under the consonant to the left of the
vowel, e.g., μd;a:hâ: ‘(the) man’. Meteg may mark the counter-tone occurring in
the last open syllable of the word (excluding the pretonic syllable). Accord-
ingly, a syllable marked by this “light” meteg is open and when followed by a
swa, the swa has to be considered mobile. Therefore, basically, swa after a
vowel with meteg is mobile, e.g., ht:y]hâ:, pronounced hay´ta, and swa after a
vowel without it is quiescent, e.g., hc…b}KI ‘ewe lamb’, pronounced kib2 ¶a.
Nevertheless, since the use of meteg in various Bible manuscripts is rather in-
consistent, its presence or absence is not always a reliable guide. Therefore, it
is not easy for the student to distinguish between hm:k}j: ‘wisdom’ with quies-
cent swa (in Sephardic pronunciation, with qamaß qa†an: ˙okma) and hm:k}jâ :
‘she was wise’ with mobile swa (and an optional light meteg with the first
qamaß; in the Sephardic pronunciation, with qamaß gadol; ˙ak´ma).
3.5.6.4.2n. The mobile swa, according to Modern (Sephardic) Hebrew and as it is taught at
the universities, is a neutral (ultra-)short vowel (´). It seems likely that this is its original
pronunciation, and in this book we have transcribed it accordingly. According to the Tibe-
rian Masoretes its basic pronunciation is å, identical to ˙a†af pata˙; see §2.4.15n, p. 67.
Nevertheless, preceding y it was pronounced î, and preceding laryngeals-pharyngeals as
the counterpart of the vowel of the laryngeal-pharyngeal.
00-Blau.book Page 117 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

117 swa ∑ 3.5.6.5.3.

Vocalic Phonemes

3.5.6.4.3. The biblical text reflects frequent alternations between quiescent

and mobile swa. However, when the differentiation between these two
kinds of swa was felt necessary for proper understanding, allowing readers to
distinguish two words that differ only in exhibiting either mobile or quiescent
swa, they were carefully separated, in solemn slow recitation at least: e.g.,
War]yYiêw' ‘and they feared’ Exod 14:31, pronounced wayyir´ªu (according to the
Tiberian tradition, wayyiru"ªu) versus War]Yiw' ‘and they saw’ Gen 6:2, pro-
nounced wayyirªu; Wnv‘yiê ‘they will sleep’ Prov 4:16, pronounced yis´nu versus
Wnv‘yi ‘they will do again’ Job 29:22, pronounce yisnu. Accordingly, it appears
that, with regard to the occurrence of mobile and quiescent swa, the Tiberian
tradition reflects a stage of transition: though the opposition of mobile versus
quiscent swa is dwindling, clear vestiges of it have been preserved.

3.5.6.5. The Problem of swa Again

3.5.6.5.1. Since, according to the Tiberian tradition, mobile swa, as a rule,
coincided with ˙a†af pata˙, these two vocalization marks have to be regarded
as identical from both the phonetic and phonemic point of view. (This is the
case even though mobile swa has allophones preceding y and laryngeals-
pharyngeals.)
3.5.6.5.2. It also seems clear that ˙a†af segol should not be accorded sepa-
rate phonemic status but should be considered an allomorph of ˙a†af pata˙.
This is indicated by quite frequent alternations of these two ˙a†afs, as ynia"&ybIh”
‘he brought me’ versus ynit& "aøybIh“ ‘you brought me’; ylEa” ‘to’, the poetic counter-
part of la<, in contrast to μh<ylEa“ ‘to them’; μ/da” ‘Edom’, from which ymIdOa“
‘Edomite’ is derived; cf. also hc…[“n' ‘he was made’ versus ht:c‘[<n, ‘she was
made’, etc.
3.5.6.5.2n. Cf. also rWsaE ‘bond’, which has the plural μyriWsa“, instead of the expected
μyriWsa”*. In general, in the Tiberian vocalization the tendency to substitute ˙a†af pata˙ for
˙a†af segol prevails; see Bergsträsser 1.156, par. 28ld. Therefore, little significance at-
taches to the occurrence of ha†af pata˙ versus ˙a†af segol in the masculine plural impera-
tives Wn[“ ‘answer!’ 1 Sam 12:3 versus Wn[” ‘sing!’ Num 21:17, Ps 147:7. Synchronically, at
least, “answer” and “sing” were, in all likelihood, felt to be closely related, and it is more
than doubtful that the different qualities of the ˙a†af served to differentiate the two mean-
ings and that (Wn)[”/(Wn)[“ reflect more than mere allomorphs. This is even clearer in the
prefix-tense form, where hn,[“y' denotes both ‘he will answer’ (e.g., Gen 41:16) and ‘he will
sing’ (Jer 25:30, rather than hn,[”y,*). To my knowledge, the only case of an opposition be-
tween ha†af pata˙ and ˙a†af segol is the verb ylI[“ ‘ascend! (fs) Num 21:17 and the noun
ylI[”B" ‘(with the) pestle’ Prov 27:22; however, an opposition of verb and noun is not exact,
since the forms occur in different environments.
3.5.6.5.3. It is clear that ˙a†af qamaß stands in phonemic opposition to
˙a†af pata˙/mobile swa (which, according to Tiberian tradition, were pro-
nounced identically): ynia’ ‘ships’ : ynia“ ‘I’; ymIDÜ ‘peacefulness’ : ymID] ‘peacefulness
of’ and ymID]* ‘resemble!’ (fs) from hmd, cf. hmED] (ms); ylIj’ ‘sickness’, mp μyil:j’ :
00-Blau.book Page 118 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.5.6.6. ∑ Vowel Phonemes; Vocalization Systems 118

ylIj“ ‘ornament’, mp μyaIl:j“ < μyyil:j“*; t/br;j’ ‘ruins’ : t/br;j“ ‘swords’; yni[’ ‘pov-
erty’ : yni[“*, construct of yni[: ‘poor’ and ‘answer!’ (fs) from hn[, cf. hne[“ ms;
yaIrÜ ‘sight’ : yaIr] ‘mirror’.
3.5.6.6. The Transitional Character of Tiberian Hebrew
3.5.6.6.1. The phonemic function of the Tiberian vowel marks is some-
what blurred. Most vowel marks, to be sure, represent phonemes (including
even segol, at least in final position). Some, however, refer to allophones:
thus, ˙a†af segol and ˙a†af pata˙ make up a single phoneme. (Moreover, ac-
cording to the Tiberian tradition, ˙a†af pata˙ is phonetically identical to mo-
bile swa.)
3.5.6.6.2. In some cases the Tiberian tradition reflects a period of transi-
tion: thus, swa marks two phonetic entities, zero and an ultra-short vowel,
which quite often alternate, indicating the partial neutralization of their oppo-
sition. In other cases, however, especially where this neutralization is apt to
cause confusion, chiefly in solemn ceremonial reading, the difference between
them has been carefully maintained.
3.5.6.6.2n. The difference between ˙a†af pata˙ and mobile swa lies in the fact that the
˙a†af pata˙ is monovalent, always pronounced a", in contrast to the multivalency of swa,
which may denote either a" (and even other ultra-short vowels when followed by a laryn-
geal-pharyngeal or y) or zero.
3.5.6.6.3. The transitional character of Tiberian Hebrew can also be seen in
the alternation of stops/spirants. Originally mere allophones, they tend out-
side word-initial position to become separate phonemes, although in many in-
stances they preserve their character as allophones. See above, §§3.3.2.2.1–
3.3.2.2.4, pp. 79–80.
3.5.6.7. Other Vocalization Systems
3.5.6.7.1. Different vowel structures are reflected in the other vocalization
systems. In the Babylonian vocalization qamaß qualitatively differs from
pata˙: the former, it seems, as in the Tiberian tradition, represents O, the latter
a. Nevertheless, the distribution of the vowels is different: no segol exists, and
Babylonian pata˙ corresponds to both Tiberian pata˙ and segol. Proto-Semitic
u in closed unstressed syllable, which in the Tiberian vocalization tends to shift
to qamaß (qa†an: O), has remained u, so that Babylonian qamaß corresponds to
Tiberian qamaß gadol only. In both the Babylonian and Palestinian vocaliza-
tions (as in the Tiberian one) the vowel signs, in general, mark qualitative,
rather than quantitative, differences (Yeivin 1985: 44). In both, ˙a†af vowels
are wanting and often only the most important vocalization signs are marked.
3.5.6.7.1n. On Babylonian qamaß, see Blau and Hopkins 1985: 439 n. 19 = Middle Ara-
bic, 217 n. 19.
Regarding the development of u in unstressed closed syllables, in the Tiberian tradition,
u tends to be preserved when preceding a double consonant: μL:KU ‘all of them’.
00-Blau.book Page 119 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

119 Vowel Phonemes; Vocalization Systems ∑ 3.5.7.1.4.

3.5.6.7.2. One branch of the Palestinian vocalization system corresponds

to the Sephardi tradition: qamaß does not qualitatively differ from pata˙, and
the vowels corresponding to Tiberian ßere and segol are not distinguished.
The (mobile) swa is pronounced œ.
3.5.6.7.2n. In the earliest stage of the Palestinian vocalization only one sign existed corre-
sponding to both Tiberian qamaß and pata˙. See Yahalom 1997: 13. The œ pronunciation
of swa would have developed from neutral ´; cf. §3.5.1.4n, p. 106.

3.5.7. The History of the Vowels

3.5.7.1. Short Vowels in Closed Syllables

3.5.7.1.1. We can begin reconstructing the development of various vowel
classes in Hebrew by studying short vowels in closed syllables. We will ar-
gue chiefly from the behavior of the nouns (construct versus absolute) and
treat finite verbs (e.g., rm"v… ‘he kept’) as having had a similar development.
3.5.7.1.2. In construct nouns, originally short vowels occur in closed
stressed syllables (e.g., dy' ‘the hand of’), whereas in absolute nouns these
syllables reflect historically long vowels (dy;). (The contrast can also be seen in
absolute hd,c… versus construct hdec‘ ‘the field of’; see §3.4.5.5, p. 100.)
3.5.7.1.3. There is one important group of exceptions: nouns (chiefly
monosyllabic) derived from geminate roots have short vowels even in the
absolute (e.g., πa" ‘nose, wrath’). The occurrence of pata˙ in πa" in a closed
stressed syllable, in contradistinction to non-geminate nouns with qamaß (dy;),
may point the way to a proper understanding of the pata˙ in construct nouns
and, incidentally, in finite verb forms (e.g., rm"v… ‘he kept’).
3.5.7.1.4. The noun πa" exhibits double p (originally *ªappu < *ªanpu); only
in word-final position is the double consonant simplified. Thus the vowel of
the noun was always in a closed syllable, even before the loss of case endings.
Accordingly, its exceptional behavior, distinct from that of other absolute
nouns, must, in all probability, be attributed to that fact. Other monosyllabic
nouns would have, at an earlier stage, had an open syllable preceding the case
ending (*yadu). In *yadu, as compensation for the dropping of the final vowel,
the preceding vowel was lengthened: dy; originally *yad. This lengthening oc-
curred only in originally open syllables, and since the a in *ªappu was in a
closed syllable, it remained short even after the dropping of the final short
vowel.
3.5.7.1.4n. As a matter of fact, this development is only evident in the opposition of (origi-
nally short) pata˙ versus (originally long) qamaß. The qualitative differences between
originally short and long ßere and ˙olam have been neutralized, and these vowel signs may
represent both originally short and long vowels. It is only with the help of the opposition
pata˙ versus qamaß that the historical length of ßere and ˙olam can be reconstructed: the
ßere and ˙olam of, e.g., the suffix-tense forms ≈pEj: ‘he wanted’, lkOy; ‘he was able’ have to
00-Blau.book Page 120 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.5.7.1.5. ∑ Vowel Phonemes; Vocalization Systems 120

be considered short in the light of the pata˙ of rm"v…; the ßere of the noun ≈[E ‘tree’ has to be
regarded as long in the absolute since it corresponds to dy;, yet short in the construct in the
light of dy'.
3.5.7.1.5. Thus it seems reasonable to posit that in construct (and the finite
verb) the final short vowels were dropped at an earlier period than they
were from absolute forms. At this earlier period, no law of compensation yet
operated. When it started operating, the final vowels in the construct forms
already stood in closed syllables and were, accordingly, not lengthened. The
case endings were dropped first from the construct because the main stress on
a construct + absolute phrase is borne by the absolute noun. As for the reason
for the earlier loss of final short vowels from the verb, one can only guess. On
the face of it, the simplest proposal seems to be that the final short vowels in
the verb were redundant and, accordingly, more prone to drop. In the suffix-
tense 3ms form the final -a was superfluous. In the prefix-tense, the opposition
between the indicative *yasmúru and the jussive *yásmur was sufficiently in-
dicated by the difference in stress (see §3.5.12.2.14, p. 150, and Blau 1983 =
Studies, 72–76).
3.5.7.1.5n. In referring to greater stress on absolute over construct forms, I am referring to
the language as it would have been spoken; in fact this is not the case according to the bib-
lical cantillation marks, which reflect the solemn ceremonial reading of the Bible.
3.5.7.1.6. Many other proposals have been made to explain the differences
between the development of short vowels in verbs and nouns. Bergsträsser
(1.116) argued that the stress pattern of verbs was different from that of
nouns: the final vowel in nouns, at this period, was stressed, while in verbs it
was allegedly unstressed. Nevertheless, he did not take pausal stress in verbs
sufficiently into account and was therefore forced to posit that the stress sys-
tem in verbs differed only partially (1.162), hardly a convincing argument.
B. Stade (1879: 77) (and others) claimed that the different behavior of nouns
and verbs reflects the tendency of the language to differentiate word classes.
Such an argument could be put forward even today, and only taxonomic pho-
netics could possibly claim that various parts of speech have to behave in the
same way. This does not mean, however, that we think that there is a justifica-
tion for positing that sound shifts operate in different manner in various parts
of speech.
3.5.7.1.7. A number of scholars have claimed that the long vowels in (con-
textual) absolute nouns are due to an analogy with those in pausal forms
(Brockelmann 1908–13: 1.106; Bauer-Leander 1922: 187; Birkeland 1940:
20; Aartun 1981). This analogy allegedly has not affected verbs, since verbs,
as a rule, tend to stand in sentence-initial position and therefore occur less in
pause. Geminate nouns like *ªappu were not affected by pausal lengthening
since this lengthening allegedly operated only in open syllables. It was only
later, by analogy with the other nouns, that long vowels penetrated into the
00-Blau.book Page 121 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

121 Vowel Phonemes; Vocalization Systems ∑ 3.5.7.2.1.

pausal forms of nouns of the type *ªappu. (According to this thesis, original
pausal *ªapp ã}a"* contained pata˙, since pausal lengthening allegedly oc-
curred in open syllables only. This became πa: in pause by analogy to forms
with the contrast of contextual pata˙, e.g., rm"v…, and pausal qamaß, e.g., rm:v….)
3.5.7.1.8. The analogy thesis, however, is not only rather intricate but it
leaves certain data unexplained. Why do verbal forms governing pronominal
suffixes behave like nouns, exhibiting qamaß rather than pata˙, in their final
closed syllable (e.g., Ha:r;B} ‘he created her’; Ht:anec‘ ‘you hated her’)? I doubt
that verbal forms with and without pronominal suffixes differ much from
nouns in their sentence position, but this thesis would even suggest that verbal
forms governing pronominal suffixes stood in pause more often than those
without pronominal suffixes.
3.5.7.1.9. Further, the analogy thesis does not explain the distribution of
geminate nouns with pausal lengthening: those with original a (πa") exhibit
pausal qamaß (pausal πa:), yet those with original i (like tB" ‘daughter’ < *bitt
< *bint) exhibit pata˙ in pause as well (pausal tB"). Thus the correct explana-
tion seems to be the one outlined earlier: the occurrence of qamaß in absolute
nouns versus pata˙ in construct and finite verbal forms is due to the fact that
in the absolute the qamaß is the result of compensatory lengthening (for the
omission of the final case vowel), a process that occurred in open syllables
only; construct and final verbal forms had already lost their final short vowels
earlier, so that at the time of the compensatory lengthening the pata˙ already
occurred in closed syllable. Geminate nouns, like πa", tB" preserved the pata˙
in contextual forms, because it stood, even before the omission of the case
endings, in a closed syllable (*ªappu, *battu).
3.5.7.1.9n. For the bat < *bitt development, see Blau 1981a: 6–8 = Topics, 41–43.

3.5.7.2. Lengthening of Final a

3.5.7.2.1. The lengthening of historical short a took place in originally
closed and now open final syllables that were opened by the elision of the fi-
nal consonant. The original feminine suffix -at, which became -a both in the
suffix-tense 3fs form (*samárat > pausal hr;m:&v… [cf. hl:p:&n; ‘she fell’], contex-
tual hr;m}v…) and in absolute nouns (*ªasmatu ‘guiltiness’ > hm:v‘a"). At least in
part, this vowel lengthening was due to compensation for the omission of the
following consonant. According to Tiberian tradition, in which no quantita-
tive differences were preserved, the traces of this lengthened a are reflected in
the use of qamaß (gadol), which, almost invariably, continues a long a of the
pre-Tiberian period.
3.5.7.2.1n. On the feminine-singular ending -t: curiously, this ending underwent similar
treatment in many Semitic languages at different times, in parallel yet not identical devel-
opment. This is, indeed, an interesting case of parallel development, which repeated itself
again and again. See Blau 1980 = Topics, 126–37.
00-Blau.book Page 122 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.5.7.2.2. ∑ -a ending
Ending 122

3.5.7.2.2. Similarly, such a qamaß (gadol) occurs in final open (stressed or

unstressed) syllables, like hT:a" ‘you (ms)’, Úd]y; ‘your (ms) hand’, T:r]m"&v… ‘you
(ms) preserved’. In these cases, it seems, the vowels were originally anceps,
i.e., sometimes long, sometimes short. They were maintained as long vowels
because preserving the paradigmatic distinctions (see §1.18.1, p. 55) required
not omitting the final a, and the a could only have been preserved in this po-
sition when long.
3.5.7.2.3. The compensatory lengthening of a can also be seen in the
qamaß (gadol) in hx:r]a& " ‘to the land’ (where the qamaß is not stressed), origi-
nally *ªárßah; the h of direction, as demonstrated by Ugaritic, was originally
of consonantal character (see §3.3.5.2.4, pp. 91–92). The h of direction was
attached to a noun in the accusative, i.e., to a noun terminating in short a, the
immediate constituents being *ªarßa + h. The originally short a was length-
ened in this case too, partly at least, due to compensation for the omission of
the h in pronunciation.
3.5.7.2.3n. A fuller explanation of the preservation of final a by lengthening it in T:r]m"v…,
etc., would involve other factors. E.g., Biblical Hebrew reflects a tendency to preserve a
where it omits i and u (3.5.7.6.1n, p. 129; Steiner 1979: 168–69 and n. 27). Thus a combi-
nation of factors (the anceps character of final vowels, the greater stability of a, and para-
digmatic pressure) led to the preservation of the final a. Not all final a-vowels were
preserved! The final a of the suffix-tense 3ms was elided (*samara > rm"v…) because no par-
adigmatic pressure existed.

3.5.7.2.4. The final a in the prefix-tense (where it originally marked voli-

tion) was maintained in the Hebrew cohortative (see §4.3.2.2.6, p. 192), be-
cause the paradigmatic pressure of the cohortative-jussive mood was pro-
nounced, e.g., hr;m}v‘a< ‘let me preserve’.
3.5.7.2.5. The final a of the accusative case, which, after the omission of
final i and u, occurred in the opposition -a (= accusative, including adverbial)
: W (representing nominative-genitive). In this opposition the paradigmatic
pressure was less manifest. On the one hand, the former genitive was super-
fluous, since it was sufficiently indicated by the preceding construct or prepo-
sition, and, on the other hand, the accusative, i.e., the direct object, was clearly
enough differentiated from the subject not only by word order (since it usually
followed the subject), but also by Ata<, the optional marker of determinate di-
rect objects.
3.5.7.2.6. In adverbials, on the other hand, we find a tendency to preserve
the -a ending, both when followed by -m, as in μm:/y ‘by day’, μn;m}a: ‘verily’,
and (more rarely) without m, as in hl:y]l" & ‘at night’ (preserving the original par-
oxytone stress), hn;m}a: ‘verily’. As a rule, however, final -a is elided in adver-
bials as well, such as μ/y μ/y ‘every day’, ˆmEa: ‘verily’.
3.5.7.2.6n. The final stress in hn;m}a: ‘verily’ may suggest that the form developed from the
adverbial ending -ami; cf. El-Amarna riqami, μq:yre ‘vainly’; the same applies to μm:/y, μn;m}a:.
00-Blau.book Page 123 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

123 Pretonic Lengthening ∑ 3.5.7.4.3.

3.5.7.3. Vowels in Open Penultimate Syllables

3.5.7.3.1. In open stressed penultimate syllables, original short vowels
were not lengthened. This is indicated by the fact that *samára ‘she pre-
served’, *yadáka ‘your (ms) hand’ shifted to hr;m}v…, Úd]y;, respectively. The re-
duction of the penultimate a to mobile swa was only possible because it was
short. For details, see below (§3.5.12.2.9, p. 148).
3.5.7.3.1n. Nothing relevant here can be inferred from segolate nouns like r["n' & ‘youth’,
tyiB"& ‘house’, because the final syllable did not count phonemically; see §3.5.12.2.9n,
p. 148; §4.4.6.4, p. 274.
3.5.7.3.2. In open unstressed penultimate syllables, original short vow-
els were lengthened, in both absolute nouns and verbs, the so-called pretonic
lengthening: rb:D; ‘thing’; bn;[E ‘grapes’ (the ßere, parallel to the qamaß of rb:D;,
rather than to a pata˙, has to be counted as long); rm"v…. In the last case, the
long pretonic qamaß is especially conspicuous, since the stressed syllable
contains an (originally) short pata˙.

3.5.7.4. The Problem of Pretonic Lengthening

3.5.7.4.1. This process of pretonic lengthening is one of the hallmarks of
Biblical Hebrew. Usually, in languages that tend to reduce short vowels in
open unstressed syllables, the syllable preceding the stress is reduced. This is
the case in Aramaic, the language that influenced Hebrew more then any
other language (Aramaic bt"K} ‘he wrote’ corresponds to Hebrew bt"K:). The
fact that, in contrast to Aramaic, where such syllables are reduced, pretonic
open syllables were preserved (regardless of length) in Hebrew demonstrates
the fallacy of the thesis that genuine Biblical Hebrew grammar is to be recon-
structed by freeing it from Aramaic influence (Beyer 1969).
3.5.7.4.2. It is true that Aramaic influence was, indeed, comprehensive.
Nevertheless, one must not lose sight of two important facts. First, even if He-
brew was, in its late form, decisively influenced by Aramaic, it was still a liv-
ing language that continued to be spoken in parts of Palestine until ca. 200 c.e.
(see §1.4.6, p. 10). Second, because of the sanctity of the biblical text the Ma-
soretes did everything they could to preserve the pronunciation of the text as
it was transmitted to them. Their success, even if only partial, is clearly dem-
onstrated by the preservation of the pretonic syllable.
3.5.7.4.2n. Pretonic lengthening is a feature of nouns in the absolute. In the construct, be-
cause of its relatively weak stress, pretonic syllables were reduced: absolute rb:D; ‘thing’
but construct rb"D] (§3.5.7.6.10, p. 131). As a matter of fact, it is the construct form that re-
flects the syllable structure usual in other Semitic tongues (as in Aramaic and Arabic dia-
lects) with reduced pretonic open syllables; cf. below, §3.5.7.6.10, p. 131.
3.5.7.4.3. How did pretonic lengthening come about? We think that it is
a reaction to Aramaic. To examine the issue more broadly: stressed syllables
00-Blau.book Page 124 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.5.7.4.4. ∑ Pretonic Lengthening and Gemination 124

are pronounced by consuming a greater amount of breath, so that the preced-

ing syllable, with a reduced quantity of air at its disposal, is often pronounced
less intelligibly; in other words, it is blurred and reduced. The preservation of
the pretonic vowel in open syllables in Hebrew follows from the stress sys-
tem, through which the amount of air alotted to pretonic syllables enabled
them to be pronounced clearly. How did it happen that they were also length-
ened, thus giving rise even to forms like rm"v…, in which the stressed syllable
contains an originally short vowel (pata˙) and the unstressed penult contains
an originally long vowel (qamaß)?
3.5.7.4.3n. There exist languages—Classical Arabic is one of them—in which, because of
weakly centralizing stress, open unstressed syllables are preserved in every position. In
Hebrew it was only in pretonic position that such a syllable was not reduced.
3.5.7.4.4. Many attempts have been made to solve the riddle of pretonic
lengthening. (See Blau 1978b: 93–97 = Topics, 106–110.)
3.5.7.4.5. Some scholars (e.g., Grimme 1896: 3, 34) have gone so far as to
claim that pretonic qamaß and ßere are not long and reflect only a qualitative,
rather than quantitative, change of the original pata˙ and ˙iriq. This claim is
not acceptable: Septuagint transcriptions prove that such vowels were indeed
lengthened. The Septuagint transcribes pretonic ßere in the proper nouns wc…[E,
rd;q E with eta, which in these transcriptions denotes long e: Hsau, Khdar. (For
details, see Blau 1968b: 30–34 = Topics, pp. 267–71 and below.)
3.5.7.4.6. There is also internal evidence that supports the existence of pre-
tonic lengthening. Pretonic gemination, i.e., the doubling of the consonant
following a pretonic short vowel (e.g., rySIa" ‘prisoner’), parallels pretonic
vowel lengthening (e.g., rysIa: ‘prisoner’). In terms of rhythm, a short vowel +
double consonant (as [ª]ass[ir]) corresponds to a long vowel + simple conso-
nant (as [ª]as[ir]). Both the doubling of the consonant and the lengthening of
the vowel are devices for the preservation of the pretonic syllable. Accord-
ingly, it stands to reason that the simple consonant is preceded by a pretonic
long vowel.
3.5.7.4.6n. Brockelmann attempted to infer the length of pretonic vowels from Nestorian
Syriac (Aramaic) and Arabic proper nouns that were borrowed from Hebrew (1908–13:
1.101). This moves in a vicious circle. Brockelmann, see below, attributed pretonic
lengthening in Hebrew to Aramaic influence, which made it impossible for Hebrew
speakers to pronounce a short vowel in an unstressed open syllable and forced them to
lengthen it. If this is accepted, then we must also accept that the Aramaic Nestorians were
also compelled to lengthen pretonic vowels in open syllables if they wanted to preserve
them, even if they happened to be originally short. The same applies to Arabic, which
borrrowed Hebrew proper nouns via Aramaic, rather than directly from Hebrew. Brockel-
mann’s treatment was, despite its implausibility, generally accepted; see, e.g., Bergsträsser
(1.117), Bauer-Leander (1922: 238–39), Birkeland (1940: 9). For details, see Blau 1968b:
30–34 = Topics, 267–71.
00-Blau.book Page 125 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

125 Pretonic Lengthening ∑ 3.5.7.5.5.

3.5.7.5. Explanations for Pretonic Lengthening

3.5.7.5.1. One has to cope with the fact that pretonic short vowels in open
syllables have been lengthened. Generally speaking, there exist two main
trends of explanation of this very strange feature.
3.5.7.5.2. Explanation 1. One trend attributes the lengthening to the influ-
ence of stress. Thus, some scholars are of the opinion that the now-pretonic
syllables once bore the stress and were lengthened because of it (“pretone
lengthening does not exist,” Goetze 1939: 443; see also Poebel 1939a, 1939b).
This theory encounters serious difficulties. As we shall see, Biblical Hebrew
stress does not fit such a reconstruction. Moreover, pretonic lengthening
occurs with wa ‘and’, e.g., hl:y]l"w& ; μ/y ‘day and night’ (as observed by Broc-
kelmann 1940: 370). Can we assume that in such expressions ‘and’ was origi-
nally stressed, rather than the following noun? (However, this possibility can-
not be excluded altogether.)
3.5.7.5.3. More convincing is Sarauw’s assumption (1939: 66) that pre-
tonic lengthening was due to the effect of secondary stress. But even on this
assumption the difficulty remains that in words like rm"v… the main stress was
not strong enough to lengthen the final a, yet the secondary stress did lengthen
the first a. Accordingly, this theory must be rejected as well.
3.5.7.5.3n. On the difficulty posed by forms like rm"v…, see Brockelmann (1940: 348). The
possible counterargument that the first a stands in an open syllable, the second in a closed
one, and the lengthening might have been dependent on the syllable being open, is not
convincing, since (also according to Sarauw 1939: 25–26) forms like *samára ‘she pre-
served’ reflect a short penult vowel (as indicated by the fact that it was reduced when it
lost its stress: hr;m}v…) in an open stressed syllable. Accordingly, following Sarauw’s view,
the a in the first syllable of hr;m}v…, allegedly bearing secondary stress, was lengthened,
while the vowel of the second syllable, though open as well, remained short in spite of the
main stress that affected it.

3.5.7.5.4. A related explanation is that of Cantineau (1932: 132), who re-

garded the lengthening of pretonic vowels as being due to a different phonetic
process, viz., to rhythm. Even if we admit the phonetic possibility of the in-
fluence of the rhythm, we must not lose sight of the fact that it is only attested
as a marginal, optional feature, whereas pretonic lengthening is a major trait
of syllable structure.
3.5.7.5.5. Explanation 2. The second school of thought regarding pretonic
lengthening, the spiritual father of which was Brockelmann, attributes pre-
tonic lengthening to the influence of a foreign tongue (1908–13: 1.101).
Brockelmann compared loan words from Classical Arabic in Maghrebi
(Northwest African) Arabic dialects. In these dialects short vowels in open un-
stressed syllables are reduced, whereas in Classical Arabic they are preserved.
When speakers of these dialects attempt to pronounce such syllables in words
borrowed from the classical language, they lengthen them, because this is the
00-Blau.book Page 126 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.5.7.5.6. ∑ Pretonic Lengthening 126

only way for them to preserve them. Had they pronounced them with a short
vowel, they would have reduced it, since they were not able to pronounce a
short vowel in an open unstressed syllable. Therefore, e.g., Classical Arabic
mudir ‘director’ was pronounced mudir by Maghrebi speakers, classical faraj
‘salvation’, faraj; had they not done so, they would have uttered *m´dir,
*f´raj, respectively, which would be too different from the classical model.
3.5.7.5.5n. Brockelmann was followed, with minor and sometimes even major deviations,
by, e.g., Bergsträsser 1.117; Bauer-Leander 1922: 237; Birkeland 1940: 8–14.

3.5.7.5.6. The same kind of lengthening took place, according to Brockel-

mann, in late Biblical Hebrew, when Aramaic had already become the spoken
tongue, and Hebrew ceased being spoken and was only used in the syna-
gogue. Jewish speakers of Aramaic, who no longer used Hebrew in everyday
speech, had lost, in accordance with Aramaic vowel structure, the ability to
pronounce short vowels in open unstressed syllables. Since the reduction of
these vowels in Hebrew ceremonial recitations and prayers would have en-
tailed a complete change in the structure of Hebrew, the speakers-readers
were forced to lengthen the vowels when reciting in the synagogue, the only
place where, according to this proposition, Hebrew was still read aloud. Such
a lengthening, to be sure, could well occur also in a dead language, when re-
cited for ceremonial purposes.
3.5.7.5.6n. Brockelmann assumed that by the beginning of the Hellenistic period Hebrew
was no longer spoken (1908–13: 1.9). Peculiarly, Bergsträsser (1.117), following Brockel-
mann, also postponed pretonic lengthening to the period when Hebrew had become a dead
language, although he rightly considered Rabbinic Hebrew the natural continuation of
BHeb, rather than a made-up artificial tongue (§§1.13–1.14, pp. 46ff.).
The proper ordering of the relevant rules of Hebrew is not clear. By pretonic lengthen-
ing *dab2 ar ‘thing’ shifted to dab2 ar, which is in the Tiberian tradition dObOr rb:D;. Did the
Tiberian shift a > O occur after or before pretonic lengthening? If the former, the develop-
ment was *dab2 ar > (owing to pretonic lenthening) dab2 ar > dObOr. If, however, a shifted to
Oö before pretonic lengthening (note that in this case the shift occured when quantitative
vowel differences still obtained in the Tiberian tradition), the shifts occurred in the order
*dab2 ar > *dab2 Oör > dOöb2 Oör > dOb2 Or.

3.5.7.5.7. The decisive argument against Brockelmann’s thesis that pre-

tonic lengthening occurred after Hebrew had ceased to be spoken is the fact
that after pretonic lengthening had ceased to operate, newly created open pre-
tonic syllables containing a were reduced, rather than lengthened. This pro-
cess is reflected in forms like hr;m}v… ‘she preserved’; Wrm}v… ‘they preserved’;
Úr]b:D] ‘your thing’, all originally stressed on the penult, *samárat, *samáru,
*dabaráka, as shown by the pausal forms with paroxytone (penultimate)
stress, hr;m:&v…, Wrm:&v…, Úr,&b:D]. These forms reflect in their first syllables pretonic
lengthening, which occurred when they still had paroxytone (penultimate)
stress. When, later on, Hebrew ceased to preserve short vowels in open penul-
00-Blau.book Page 127 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

127 Pretonic Lengthening ∑ 3.5.7.5.11.

timate stressed syllables, stress moved to the next syllable, reducing the pre-
tonic syllables, presumably through the influence of Aramaic, rather than
lengthening them, as was characteristic of the preceding stage. There is no
reason whatsoever for a dead language, only read at ceremonial occasions, to
change its pronunciation in such an extreme way, unless it is imitating a pre-
vailing vernacular. Accordingly, one must posit pretonic lengthening for a pe-
riod when Hebrew was still spoken.
3.5.7.5.8. The view of Bauer (Bauer-Leander 1922: 23, 237) is in principle
quite similar, yet he transfers this lengthening, which occurred owing to the
fact that the pronunciation of short unstressed vowels in open syllables had
become impossible, to a very early period. According to his view, Biblical
Hebrew is a mixed language, in which Canaanite and Hebrew were amalgam-
ated. At the time of the conquest of Palestine, the Canaanites spoke a Semitic
tongue of the ancient type, and the Hebrews, the new invaders, brought with
them a new type of Semitic language, some sort of Aramaic. In this dialect
short vowels in open unstressed syllables were reduced, while in Canaanite,
they were maintained in pretonic position. When the Hebrews wanted to pro-
nounce such Canaanite words, which they took over, they were forced to
lengthen short vowels in open pretonic syllables.
3.5.7.5.9. There are problems with Bauer’s theory. First, it assumes that,
as early as the conquest of Canaan, short unstressed vowels in open syllable
had been reduced, which is quite unlikely (Bauer’s date is 1400 b.c.e.). Sec-
ond, the theory that Hebrew is a mixed language, in which various special
qualities of the blended languages endured, is dubious.
3.5.7.5.10. Birkeland’s theory (1940: 8–14) is rather close to Bauer’s.
Birkeland also regards Biblical Hebrew as an amalgamated language and be-
lieves that pretonic lengthening stems from the time of the conquest of Ca-
naan by the Hebrews. He assumes that it was the sedentary Canaanites who
spoke Semitic dialects of a later type, reducing short vowels in open un-
stressed syllables, whereas the Hebrews, being Bedouin and more conserva-
tive, preserved such vowels. This theory also has flaws. It implies that it was
the Canaanites who were not able to pronounce such vowels and lengthened
them when they attempted to pronounce Hebrew words (cf. Brockelmann’s
comments, quoted in Birkeland 1940: 126–27). This pronunciation was then
taken over by the Hebrews. This rather intricate process is far from convinc-
ing. Moreover, Birkeland’s theory, like Bauer’s, sets a quite unlikely early
date for the reduction of short vowels in open penult syllables.
3.5.7.5.11. The dating of pretonic lengthening presents a set of problems. It
is more than doubtful that it was as early as the second half of the second mil-
lennium b.c.e. or as late as the period when Hebrew ceased to be spoken that
pretonic open syllables were lengthened. All these theories understand the
relevance of Aramaic: it was the syllable structure of that language (or
00-Blau.book Page 128 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.5.7.5.12. ∑ Pretonic Lengthening 128

another Semitic language showing similar development) that had made it im-
possible for Hebrew speakers to pronounce short vowels in open unstressed
syllables.
3.5.7.5.12. It is indeed tempting to allow Aramaic a role in the process, es-
pecially since an even more far-reaching impact of Aramaic syllable structure,
from a period later than pretonic lengthening, is clearly attested in Hebrew.
Let us retain the core of Brockelmann’s ingenious proposal: pretonic length-
ening reflects the reaction of speaker-readers of Hebrew to Aramaic and ex-
hibits their attempt to keep Hebrew syllable structure distinct from that of
Aramaic.
3.5.7.5.13. At the stage when Aramaic syllable structure threatened to
overcome Hebrew, speakers of Hebrew were anxious to preserve (originally
short) vowels in open pretonic syllables and thus maintain a contrast with
Aramaic. Later on, after pretonic lengthening had ceased operating, Ara-
maic influence had become so strong that newly emerging open pretonic syl-
lables containing a were reduced. (Cf. §3.5.7.3.1, p. 123; §3.5.7.5.3n, p. 125;
§3.5.7.5.7, p. 126.) This process is reflected in forms like hr;&m}v… ‘she pre-
served’, W‡rm}v… ‘they preserved’, Ú&r]b:D] ‘your thing’, originally with penultimate
stress, *samárat, *samáru, *dabaráka, as demonstrated by the pausal forms
hr;m:&v…, Wrm:&v…, and Úr,&b:D]. These forms show pretonic lengthening in their first
syllables, and the lengthening occurred when they were still paroxytone.
When, later on, Hebrew ceased preserving short vowels in open stressed pen-
ultimate syllables, stress moved to the next syllable, reducing the pretonic syl-
lables, presumably through the influence of Aramaic, rather than lengthening
them, as it was characteristic of the preceding stage.
3.5.7.5.13n. Alongside this later reduction of a, the vowels u and in part i were reduced in
genuine Hebrew (not influenced by Aramaic) as well; for details, see §3.5.7.6.2.

3.5.7.5.14. Thus we assume two stages of the influence of Aramaic syl-

lable structure. The first was characterized by pretonic lengthening, an at-
tempt to preserve features differentiating Hebrew from Aramaic; this was
followed by the second, in which Aramaic syllable structure prevailed. This
development conforms to our new understanding of the continuation of He-
brew as a living tongue, in the form of Rabbinic Hebrew, until the end of the
second century c.e.
3.5.7.5.15. Can these two stages be dated? I am inclined to claim that pre-
tonic lengthening emerged in the period of the Second Temple, when Hebrew
was still a living tongue, yet had already undergone decisive Aramaic influ-
ence. Jews, who even in the cities of Judah had become more and more bilin-
gual, speaking Hebrew and Aramaic, took over the Aramaic phonetic system
and were, therefore, no longer able to pronounce short vowels in unstressed
open syllables. They sought to speak genuine Hebrew (distinct from Aramaic)
00-Blau.book Page 129 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

129 Pretonic Lengthening ∑ 3.5.7.6.3.

by preserving short vowels in open penultimate pretonic syllables; because

they were unable to pronounce them (due to Aramaic influence), they length-
ened them. This chronology is supported by the Septuagint: there the use of
eta in pretonic syllables shows that in the third century b.c.e. pretonic syl-
lables had already been lengthened. At a later time, while Hebrew was still
spoken, the Jews succumbed to Aramaic syllable structure and reduced open
pretonic syllables, as in Aramaic.
3.5.7.5.15n. See Blau 1968b: 33–34 = Topics, 270–71. As mentioned above (§3.5.7.4.5,
p. 124), the Septuagint transcribes pretonic ßere with eta (for long e) in the names rd;q,E
wc…[E, thus Khdar, Hsau.

3.5.7.6. Pretonic Lengthening and Vowel Processes Related to a

3.5.7.6.1. The pretonic lengthening of open syllables is not found in all
possible instances. It is especially frequent in the case of a, less usual with i,
and quite exceptional with u.
3.5.7.6.1n. In fact, the lengthening of pretonic a is without exception. The form in Num
18:29, /vD]q}mI ‘its hallowed part’, cannot be derived from vD;q}mI ‘sanctuary’, if only be-
cause of its meaning; vD;q}mI never has a sense that would be appropriate. I am inclined to
derive the form from *maqdes/*miqdes. Another appparent exception, hm:yni‡P} ‘within’ is
derived from μyniP: ‘face’ but shows reshaping due to analogy to ymIyniP} ‘inner’ (so, e.g.,
Brockelmann 1908–13: 1.101 n. 1) or influence from its prepositional use (e.g., 2 Chr
29:16, hwhyAtybE hm:yni‡p}lI ‘into the house of God’; cf. Grimme 1896: 40 n. 1). Other sup-
posed examples are actually Aramaic loans.
Jean Cantineau introduced into Arabic dialectology the notion of a “dialect différen-
tiel,” i.e., a dialect in which short a behaves differently from short i/u, exhibiting greater
stability (e.g., Cantineau 1960: 108). Such a dialect is Biblical Hebrew. Cf. §3.5.7.2.3n,
p. 122.
3.5.7.6.2. In Hebrew not only is a more stable than i/u (cf. §3.5.7.2.3n,
p. 122); differences also obtain between the more stable i and the less stable
u. In some cases, pretonic lengthening affects i as it does a, the result being
ßere, which has to be interpreted as lengthened e, as in μyxI[E ‘trees’; hn;v´
‘sleep’. In other cases, however, pretonic i is reduced: hd;r]yo ‘coming down
(fs)’ < *yorida; μyrim}s}m" ‘nails’ < *masmirim.
3.5.7.6.3. Pretonic lengthening has its limits. In pretonic open syllables, a
is lengthened, but a preceding the pretonic a is reduced. Specifically, reduc-
tion of a is found when a would have occurred in the second or fourth syllable
preceding the stress. The form *wa-ßadaqatáhu ‘and his righteousness’ shifts
to /tq:d]xIw,] exhibiting (1) pretonic lengthening of (q)a > (q)a; (2) the reduction
of da, the second syllable preceding the stress, to d(´); and (3) the reduction of
wa, the fourth syllable preceding the stress, to w´.
3.5.7.6.3n. Note that this rule does not affect long syllables (those that are closed or have
long vowels) standing before an unreduced syllable, i.e., either a pretonic syllable or an-
other long syllable.
00-Blau.book Page 130 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.5.7.6.4. ∑ Pretonic Lengthening 130

3.5.7.6.4. Explaining the sequence of developments in §3.5.7.6.3 is not

easy. As a rule it is claimed that since the second syllable preceding the stress,
viz., da, has been reduced, it closes the preceding syllable, which, being
closed, preserves its short vowel: *ßad. If one accepts this interpretation, the
shift of (ß)a(d) to (ß)i(d) has to be regarded as an attenuation (see §3.5.7.6.13,
p. 132). Nevertheless, the traditional explanation, not accepted by modern
grammarians, is somewhat different. The old rule of thumb says, “Duorum
swayim concurrentium primus mutatur in chirek,” i.e., when two (vocal) swas
meet, the first turns into i. This implies that every unstressed open syllable
with a short vowel that precedes the pretonic syllable is reduced: *w´ß´d´-
qato. The consonant cluster ß(´)d(´) would then be opened by the auxiliary
vowel i: /tq:d]xIw].
3.5.7.6.4n. Since attenuation is restricted to closed unstressed syllables, to see it working
here would require that swa medium had become quiescent before attenuation operated.
Advocates of the traditional explanation include Brockelmann (1940: 364 n. 2) and
Bravmann (1977: 7, 17). Bravmann’s theory of “fluctuating” or “hovering” accent cannot
be accepted.

3.5.7.6.5. Although the traditional view of interpreting i as an auxiliary

vowel has often been ridiculed, it seems preferable to the overall reduction ex-
planation. The traditional view eliminates the need to refer to attenuation, al-
though it raises some problems with masculine plural construct segolates. In
any case there are forms that clearly have to be explained this way. Consider
Úb}yiaø ‘your enemy’, which arose from the underlying form Úb}y]aø* (cf. ybIy]aø ‘my
enemy’); Úr]x<yo ‘he who created you’ < *yoß´r´ka# < *yoß´rœ3ka (cf. pausal Úa<&p}rO
‘he who healed you’). These two nouns manifestly passed through a stage in
which they contained two consecutive consonants with mobile swa. In the sec-
ond example, it was π, rather than i, that opened the cluster, perhaps through
the influence of the e of rxEyo.
3.5.7.6.5n. Not all participles with suffixes reflect this history. The form Új“lEvø ‘he who
sends you’ 1 Sam 21:3 reflects a later vowel structure, rebuilt in analogy to the absolute
j'lEvø.

3.5.7.6.6. The shift of two mobile swas to i applies also to forms containing
the so-called swa medium, as in t/kÉv‘lI ‘the halls of’ < *l´s´kot < t/kv…l.} The
masculine plural imperative forms can be explained similarly. Pausal WbtO&K}
‘write! (mp)’ has a historically long ˙olam owing to pausal lengthening. The
original context form was *k´tob2 u, with historically short ˙olam, which by the
shift of the stress (see §3.5.12.2.6, pp. 146–147; §3.5.12.2.8, p. 147) became
*k´t´b2 u, from which Wbt}KI arose. If we posit original *kutubu, it is more com-
plicated to explain its development.
3.5.7.6.7. Another relevant category is forms with a largyngeal/pharyngeal
followed by a ˙a†af (which is identical to mobile swa, even though it emerged
00-Blau.book Page 131 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

131 Two Mobile swas; Pretonic Lengthening ∑ 3.5.7.6.11.

from a quiescent one), before a consonant with mobile swa, as in *yaºz´b2 u >
*yaºåz´b2 u > Wbz]["y' ‘they will leave’. Through the influence of the laryngeal-
pharyngeal, the emerging vowel is a, rather than i. For the special behavior of
construct nouns without pretonic lengthening, see §3.5.7.6.8 below.
3.5.7.6.8. The traditional explanation that when two swas collide, the first
turns into ˙iriq is sometimes difficult to justify. In particular, it is more diffi-
cult to account for such plural construct forms as t/bn]z' ‘the tails of’; t/pn]K"
‘the extremities of’; ykEl}m" ‘the kings of’; yv´d]j: ‘the months of’. According to
the accepted linguistic method, the original vowel has been preserved here;
the traditional explanation would have to posit paradigmatic leveling. Such
leveling seems apt, especially in segolates of the qatl/qutl pattern, in which
the a/u (o) vowels clearly stand out.
3.5.7.6.9. The derivation of the short vowel preceding swa medium from
two consecutive mobile swas is of special importance, since it accounts in a
simple way for the short, rather than long, vowel preceding an originally
mobile swa, which entailed spirantization of a following bgdkpt.
3.5.7.6.9n. This theory is based on the assumption of an early date of the spirantization.
Bergsträsser (1.40, 121, 165), to be sure, postulated a much later date, since, in his view,
spriantizaton is later than the disappearance of ˙2 (phonetically very close to k) and º2
(phonetically very close to gö), which are still attested in the Septuagint. Nevertheless, it is
possible for a phoneme and its allophone to coexist (see §3.2.4.2, pp. 75–76). Accord-
ingly, it stands to reason that spirantization was, indeed, an early feature.
3.5.7.6.10. A major class of exceptions to pretonic lengthening is formed
by nouns in construct (see §3.5.7.4.2n, p. 123), as well as prepositions pre-
ceding nouns. These do not exhibit pretonic lengthening because the stress
falls on the following (governed) noun: *wa-ßadaqat ‘and the righteousness
of’ shifts to *w´ß´d´qat > tq"d]xIw]. Since the main stress is on the following
noun, in construct nouns and in prepositions all the open unstressed syllables,
including the pretonic one, were reduced. This is also the reason that the case
endings in construct were dropped earlier than in the absolute.
3.5.7.6.10n. The status of these exceptions is not uniform: in ceremonial recitation, as re-
flected by the cantillation marks, these nouns serve as full musical units. The pattern we
have described would have been found in ordinary speech.
3.5.7.6.11. As a rule, pretonic lengthening is limited to the actual penulti-
mate syllable. When (over the course of a derivation) the stress moves, an
(originally penultimate) short vowel can be reduced. It happens in rare in-
stances that a new base with a long vowel is extracted from the form contain-
ing a pretonic lengthened vowel, and other forms are then derived from the
new base. Thus from hp:y; ‘beautiful (woman)’, we have ytIp:y; ‘my beautiful
woman’. Usually, also, ßere stemming from originally short i (as in μyniqez] ‘old
ones’) is reduced in open syllables in construct (i.e., far from the stress). The
preservation of such a ßere in the second syllable of ynev´y] ‘sleeping’ (p cstr)
00-Blau.book Page 132 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.5.7.6.12. ∑ Pretonic Gemination; Attenuation 132

indicates that the first ßere behaves as an originally long vowel, which must be
preserved in every position. In other words, a new base with this pretonic long
e (μyniv´y] ‘sleeping ones’) is formed, from which other forms are derived. This
process was furthered by the disappearance of the quantitative phonemic dif-
ferences between vowels in the Tiberian system; short and long ßere were no
longer phonemically distinguished. Thus forms like ynev´y] also reflect the ten-
dency to preserve originally short ßere in the whole paradigm, as if it were
originally long.
3.5.7.6.11n. The long and short vowels are not always treated in this way. The case of
qamaß is quite different. Originally long qamaß, when stressed, shifted to o (the Canaanite
shift; see §3.5.9.2, p. 136). Originally short qamaß, changing with the shift of stress, be-
came much more frequent than unchanging qamaß (since the latter had shifted to o).
Therefore originally unchanging qamaß tends to be reduced like originally short qamaß.
Compare the form with the reduced vowel, ˆn;[:h< b["B} ‘in the darkness of the cloud’ Exod
19:9, in contrast to the form with the preservation of the qamaß, lf" b[:K} ‘as the cloud of
dew’ Isa 18:4. For ˙olam, see §3.5.9.1n, p. 136.
3.5.7.6.12. Pretonic gemination, i.e., the doubling of a consonant follow-
ing the penultimate vowel, is parallel to pretonic lengthening; both processes
enable the preservation of an originally open penultimate syllable with a short
vowel. Unlike pretonic lengthening, pretonic gemination tends to affect the
noun base. A new base emerges, containing the geminated consonant, and is
the source of all the other forms: μyLIm"G} ‘camels’‚ μk<yLEm"G} ‘your camels’; hZ;jUa“
‘possession’, Út}Z;jUa“ ‘your possession’. In a few cases, however, the gemina-
tion only remains when the syllable is penultimate: rS:aI ‘binding obligation’
reflects a geminated s preceding the stress, but Hr;s:a” ‘her binding obligation’
has a simple s.
3.5.7.6.13. Let us turn to the developments of a in other environments. In
unstressed closed syllables, the pata˙ is often preserved. However, sometimes
it appears as i, by the process of so-called attenuation, e.g., *sabºat > Tiberian
h[:b}v¥ ‘seven’. This limited shift is quite late, as hinted by, e.g., the differences
in Greek and Latin transcriptions. Further, in the Babylonian vocalization, a is
better preserved (cf. Tiberian h[:b}v¥, Babylonian säb2 ºa). As a rule, attenuation
does not occur preceding i (e): singular glEz]m"‚ ‘fork’, yet plural t/gl:z]mI; j'TEp}m"
‘key’, but jT"p}mI ‘opening’ (cstr). If the attenuation had created a sequence of
syllables with i (e), the Hebrew tendency to dissimilate such sequences would
have undone the work of attenuation. There is also an inclination to preserve a
before a double consonant: hn;T:m" ‘gift’. Exceptions to attentuation are frequent,
also suggesting that the sound shift has not been completed.

3.5.8. The i and e Class Vowels (˙iriq, ßere, segol)

3.5.8.1. In this and the following paragraph (§3.5.8, §3.5.9), we will dis-
cuss some features of the remaining vowels of Hebrew; we will ignore i and u,
since they remain, as a rule, unchanged.

spread is 6 points long

00-Blau.book Page 133 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

133 Pretonic
Short/Long
Gemination;
i; Philippi’s Law ∑ 3.5.8.7.
Attenuation

3.5.8.2. In unstressed closed syllables i is preserved, e.g., h[:v‘TI ‘nine’. In

open and stressed closed syllables it shifts to e in both nouns and verbs.
3.5.8.3. Only by linguistic analysis is it possible to state whether a ßere
stems from a (pre-Tiberian) short or long vowel. In absolute nouns, as a
rule, e in final stressed syllables has to be accounted long, since it patterns like
a qamaß, e.g., zaqen ‘old’, cf. zaqan ‘beard’; ≈[E ‘wood’, cf. gD; ‘fish’. This is
also true of pausal verbs, e.g., pausal ['mEv… ‘he heard’, cf. pausal rm:v… ‘he pre-
served’; and of irregular verb forms such as arey ; ‘he was afraid’, cf. ax:m: ‘he
found’. In contrast, ßere is short in the construct (≈[E ‘the wood of’; cf. gD' ‘the
fish of’), in the contextual finite verb (≈pEj: ‘he wanted’; cf. rm"v…), and, as a
rule, in 1geminate nouns (ˆv´ ‘tooth’; cf. lG" ‘wave’).
3.5.8.4. This analysis is corroborated by additional evidence. (1) The Sep-
tuagint, when transliterating Hebrew names, uses eta in the final syllable, re-
flecting long e. (See Blau 1968b = Topics, 270.) (In geminates and segolates
the Septuagint uses epsilon for short e.) (2) In forms from III-laryngeal-
pharyngeal roots for which we posit a short vowel (e.g., in contextual finite
verbal forms, jL"v¥ ‘he sent’; cf. rBEv¥ ‘he broke’), the e is assimilated to the fol-
lowing laryngeal-pharyngeal, to become a. In contrast, in the absolute state of
nouns, where the ßere is supposed to be long, it remains, e.g., j'lEvø ‘sending’.
(The same applies to pausal forms, in which pausal lengthening operated; see
§3.5.13, p. 154.)
3.5.8.5. In closed stressed syllables i tends to shift instead to a: *bint > tB"
‘daughter’ (rather than *bet), *gint > tG" ‘wine-press’ (rather than *get). This
process, first described by F. W. Philippi, is known as Philippi’s Law. In a
sense, it seems the opposite of attenuation, but the processes are not analogous.
3.5.8.5n. For the original statement, see Philippi (1878), cf. Blau 1986 = Studies, 12–16).
3.5.8.6. Philippi’s Law is limited in its application. It applies to the final
syllables of construct forms, but not absolute forms (where the ˙iriq shifts to
ßere): cstr ˆq"z], abs ˆqez; ; cstr rx"j“, abs rxEj: ‘court’. Further, it is well attested
in closed syllables with penultimate stress, e.g., hn;r]a"&V…TI ‘they (f) will re-
main’, cf. raEV…TI ‘she will remain’; hn;d]l" &TE ‘they (f) will bear’, cf. dlETE ‘she will
bear’. In two small noun classes, Philippi’s Law applies to absolute forms,
geminate and segolate nouns. These nouns originally terminated in two con-
sonants, and therefore even before the loss of the case endings they contained
a closed syllable:* bittu > tB" ‘daughter’; *ßidqu > *ßadqu > qd,x<& (rather than
qd,xE&*) ‘righteousness’. Through the analogy of nouns like cstr ˆq"z], abs ˆqez; ,
geminate nouns like ˆqe ‘nest’, which should have shifted to a (ˆq' * in the abso-
lute as well, <*qannu < *qinnu, since the a occurred in a closed syllable) were
reformed: ˆqe in the absolute, ˆq' only in the construct.
3.5.8.7. Analogy often interferes with the operation of Philippi’s Law in
closed syllables with penultimate stress. Thus hn;r]BE&cæT} ‘they (f) will wait’ was
exposed to the paradigmatic pressure from forms with ßere, like ˆWrBEcæy]. (This
00-Blau.book Page 134 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.5.8.8. ∑ Philippi’s Law 134

analogy also affected forms with e in the final syllable; cstr bqe [“ ‘the heel of’
is found, rather than the expected *ºåqab2 , due to the influence of forms that
preserve ßere, e.g., abs bqe [:.) The interplay of Philippi’s Law and paradig-
matic pressure leads to such pairs as hn;k}l" &TE ‘they (f) will go’ versus hn;k}lE & ‘go!’
(fp). As a result of analogy, the effect of Philippi’s Law on verbs in the Tibe-
rian tradition has been greatly blurred. Nevertheless, e.g., in the final syllable
of piººel in the pausal form, e prevails (because of pausal lengthening, this
shift could not act), while in the final syllable of the context form, a prevails,
influenced by Philippi’s Law.
3.5.8.7n. In the Babylonian tradition, pata˙ (or, more exactly, pata˙-segol, since segol is
not separately marked) tends to occur in closed syllables even where the Tiberian system
uses ßere. This is due to four interdependent reasons: (1) Attenuation in the Babylonian
system is more restricted than in the Tiberian, so that in closed unstressed syllables a is
more frequent. (2) The action of Philippi’s Law is more comprehensive in the Babylonian
vocalization. (3) The Babylonian tradition tends to use pata˙(-segol) in the final syllable
of verbs (Yeivin 1985: 381). (4) In the Tiberian vocalization, Philippi’s Law shifted i not
only to a but sometimes also to œ, which tends (in stressed syllables) to shift to ßere (see
§3.5.8.10).
On the piººel forms: §4.3.5.4.2, pp. 229–230. See Qimron 1985–86a, 1985–86b.
3.5.8.8. The date of Philippi’s Law and even its extent are controversial.
Philippi (1878) himself regarded it as Proto-Semitic, since it is attested in
Gºez and Aramaic as well, though in limited ways. In contrast, Sarauw (1939:
75–126) and, more recently, Beyer (1984: 140) considered it an extremely
late feature. (Beyer dates it to the eighth century c.e.!) Philippi’s view is too
far-reaching, generally, because of its absence from Akkadian and Arabic.
Moreover, the shift of i (e) to a in closed stressed syllables in Gºez has to be re-
garded, it seems, as a parallel independent phenomenon. This seems to leave
Philippi’s Law proper as a common Northwest Semitic feature (Brockelmann
1908–13: 1.147–48; Bergsträsser 1.149, par. 26h; 163, par. 30b). But even this
formulation is too strong! It seems rather that the shift in Aramaic is also a par-
allel development. In Hebrew Philippi’s Law must be later than pausal length-
ening (Blau 1981a = Topics, 36–49). Forms such as pausal vp"&N;Yiw' ‘he refreshed
himself’ (cf. contextual vpEN;yi) are affected by Philippi’s Law, reflecting a < i,
but not by pausal lengthening, because pausal lengthening preceded the pausal
stress shift to an originally closed ultima (see §3.5.13.4, pp. 154–155). Since
pausal lengthening in all likelihood is a special Hebrew phenomenon, Phi-
lippi’s Law cannot be considered common Northwest Semitic.
3.5.8.8n. Let us review the rule ordering involved once more. We shall argue below for a
general penultimate stress at one stage in the history of Hebrew (see below, §3.5.12.2.2,
pp. 144–145). At that time pausal *wayyinna#pö œs (a short prefix-tense form after the “con-
versive” waw) originally bore the stress on its penult. Therefore, pausal lengthening af-
fected na. Later on, pausal stress shifted to the closed ultima (see below, §3.5.13.4,
00-Blau.book Page 135 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

135 Philippi’s Law ∑ 3.5.8.10.

pp. 154–155), and pausal lengthening had stopped operating. Accordingly, final pö es in
*wayyinnapö és continued to have short e. That vowel was subject to Philippi’s Law, chang-
ing e (< i) to a, giving rise to vp"&N;Yiw'.
3.5.8.9. Another approach to dating Philippi’s Law is to ask when it
ceased operating. The usual view is that this occurred before final case end-
ings were dropped in the absolute. Otherwise, it is contended, the law would
have affected the last syllable not only of construct nouns and verbs (and se-
golate and geminate absolute nouns) but also of absolute nouns in general.
Thus, allegedly, at the time of its operation the i in *zaqinu, for example, was
still in an open syllable and, therefore not affected by it; since the construct
had already dropped its case ending, the i vowel was, therefore, influenced by
Philippi’s Law. Nevertheless, this argument is based on a misconception. We
have argued rather (§3.5.7.1.4, p. 119) that absolute nouns lengthened their fi-
nal, formerly open, syllables as compensation for the dropping of the case
endings. Thus at no time could Philippi’s Law affect ordinary absolute nouns:
as long as they preserved the case-endings, the final i was still in an open syl-
lable (*zaqinu), and after their dropping the vowel was lengthened (zaqen).
Therefore, the claim that Philippi’s Law operated before the dropping of the
final case endings can neither be refuted nor proven.
3.5.8.9n. The ßere in zaqen has to be considered long, since it corresponds to qamaß, e.g.,
in ˆq; z;.

3.5.8.10. In the Tiberian vocalization, Philippi’s Law changes i not only to

a, but also to œ (segol). So far, no convincing explanation for this alternation
has been offered. It seems that œ may occur in this position without further
constraint: rB<Di ‘he spoke’; tm<a” ‘truth’ < *ªamint; lm<r]K" ‘plantation’ <
*karmill; ˆh<yneB} ‘their (f) sons’ < *banayhinna; yNiM<&mI ‘from me’; yNiN,‡hI ‘behold I’.
Frequently, the pattern of segolate qi†l nouns changes to qœ†l, as in lg<r,& ‘foot’
reflecting *rigl > (because of Philippi’s Law) *rœgl > lg<r,&.
3.5.8.10n. In the Babylonian vocalization, the pata˙ represents both a and œ. Apparently,
the extent of this feature in the Tiberian tradition has been reduced by analogy to the quite
frequent cases (see below, §3.5.8.11) of segol that replaced ßere in closed stressed syllable
when these syllables lost the stress. Thus, e.g., ˆv≤≤* ‘tooth’ (Babylonian san) was apt to
shift to ˆv´ because of the opposition between, e.g., ËlEye ‘he will go’ (ßere in a stressed syl-
lable) and Ël<Ye‡w' (segol in an unstressed syllable), since ßere was felt to fit a stressed syllable
more than a segol.
Bergsträsser (1.149, par. 26i) attempts to limit the occurrence of œ to syllables terminat-
ing in (original) geminate consonants; this, however, is contradicted by forms like rB<Di.
In pausal rBEDi, Philippi’s Law did not operate, since the stressed vowel is long owing to
pausal lengthening. Nevertheless, in many cases the pausal vowel was adapted in quality
to the contextual one. Thus the contextual yNiM<&mI ‘from me’ should correspond to pausal
*mimme#ni; the latter was rebuilt as yNiM<&mI, presumably with long segol. The segol may even
penetrate into open syllables: Ezek 23:48 hn;k<&t}M"zi ‘your (fp) lewdness’.
00-Blau.book Page 136 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.5.8.11. ∑ u/o Vowels a# > o

u/o Vowels; 136

The first segol in lg<r,& may be due to assimilation to the anaptyctic segol in the second
syllable, as in the case of qa†l > qa†πl > qπ†πl, such as Ër,D,.
3.5.8.11. When a stressed ßere loses its stress by the retreat of the stress or
by being hyphenated, it shifts to segol: ËlEye ‘he will go’, but Ël<Ye‡w' ‘and he went’;
taE ‘marker of the direct object; with’, but Ata<; ˆBE ‘son’, but AˆB<. In cases of
hyphenation the change is secondary, since the hyphenated form is derived
from the form without hyphen. Cases like Ël<Ye‡w' are different: historically, the
penultimate stress is original, and Ël<Ye‡w' is not derived from ËlEye (§§3.5.12.2.14–
3.5.12.2.15, pp. 150–152). Apparently, the original form had i in its last syl-
lable, which, perhaps also by attraction to ËlEye , became Ël<Ye‡w'.

3.5.9. The u and o Class Vowels (qibbuß, suruq, ˙olam, qamaß)

3.5.9.1. Pretonic u is either reduced (b/jr] ‘open place’ < *ru˙ab) or, even
more often, preserved by doubling the following consonant (μdøa: ‘red’ <
*ªadum, plural μyMIdua“), but only rarely lengthened. When pretonic u is reduced
it may preserve its coloring, being reduced to O* ( ’), rather than to a mere mo-
bile swa: dqOd]q : ‘head’, /dqÜd]q : ‘his head’; rPOxI ‘bird’, μyriP’xI ‘birds’. In a closed
unstressed syllable, u tends to shift to qamaß (qa†an), although it may be pre-
served preceding a double consonant: *qurban > ˆB:r]q : ‘sacrifice’; μL:KU ‘all of
them’.
3.5.9.1n. For the preservation of pretonic u, note the Rabbinic Hebrew forms, l/ky; ‘able’,
p μylI/ky], in good manuscripts μlIWky]. Accordingly, it stands to reason that b/rq; ‘close’, p
μybI/rq} should be derived from *qarub, rather than from qara#b (as if reflecting the Canaan-
ite shift). In this case and others like it, the lengthened vowel has spread through the para-
digm. Since this feature is comparatively rare in pretonic lengthening, I am inclined to
regard it as the replacement of short ˙olam by long one (cf. §3.5.7.6.11, pp. 131–132).

3.5.9.2. In the so-called Canaanite vowel shift, stressed a# shifted to o#.

This shift seems to have characterized the Canaanite dialects. The exact for-
mulation of the shift is disputed. Some scholars have insisted that every a
shifted to o, i.e., that the shift was unconditioned. Those who make this claim
have problems coping with the fact that a survived rather often. Accordingly,
we limit this shift to stressed a and explain apparent exceptions as being due
to paradigmatic pressure: the shift created mixed paradigms, with a and with
o occurring side by side, and the differences were often leveled out (see
§1.14.4, p. 48; §§1.15.3–1.15.4, p. 49). In speaking of this shift, one has to
take into consideration Ben-Óayyim’s important observation that in a single
sentence various degrees of stress existed, depending on the overall sentence
stress and on each word’s “position in the word sequence,” so that the same
word could be pronounced sometimes with o and other times with a (Ben-
Óayyim 2000: 83–86). Accordingly, many words with a, even stressed a, re-
mained. In fact, traces of the original alternation of unstressed a : stressed o
survive, though admittedly in extremely few cases: ylIam:c‘ ‘left (adj)’ : lamOc‘
00-Blau.book Page 137 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

137 a ! > o; Tiberian

u/o Vowels ∑ 3.5.10.4.

‘left’; perhaps also μyv¥n;a“ ‘men’ (if indeed it is the plural of v/na” and the a was
originally long) : v/na” ‘man’.
3.5.9.2n. On the Canaanite shift, see Blau (1970a: 9–14, 19–22 = Studies, 25–30, 35–38).
The problem of forms side-by-side showing and not showing the Canaanite shift can also
be solved by supposing Biblical Hebrew to be a mixed language (cf. Bauer-Leander and
Birkeland), but this is a dubious theory. The absence of the Canaanite shift from Ugaritic is
one of a number of reasons to separate Ugaritic from Canaanite. The words for ‘left’ were
not paradigmatically leveled because they were not strictly part of the same paradigm.

3.5.9.3. The Canaanite shift, because of its dependence on stress, is impor-

tant for the history of the Hebrew stress in a way that no other sound shift is.
Since a shifted to o only when stressed, forms that show the effects of the shift
may reflect an ancient stage of stress. A word like rbE[O ‘passing’, containing o
in a now unstressed syllable, indicates that at the time of the shift this syllable
was stressed, thus enabling the reconstruction of an ancient stress system. For
details, see §3.5.12.2.18, p. 153.

3.5.10. The Tiberian Vowels

3.5.10.1. Thus far we have dealt with the reflection of the Proto-Semitic
vowels in Biblical Hebrew. Now it will be expedient for providing an over-
view to turn the tables and deal with the various Tiberian vowels according to
their Proto-Semitic origin.
3.5.10.2. As a rule, pata˙ stems from a. Only seldom and in the last stage
of the development of Hebrew does it reflect historical long a: ynidOaw' ‘and
my lord’ < ynidOa“w'. Owing to the action of Philippi’s Law (§§3.5.8.5–3.5.8.10,
pp. 133ff.) it appears in stressed closed syllables instead of PS i as well.
3.5.10.3. Segol stems from a and i. It reflects original a in, e.g., μk<d]y, ‘your
hand’ from dy;; gj:h< ‘the feast’, the definite article being basically h"; the first
syllable in Ër,D,& ‘way’, cf. yKIr]D' ‘my way’. Segol quite often represents histori-
cal i influenced by laryngeals-pharyngeals, as well as by spirant g@/k, as yxIp}j<
‘my delight’ from ≈p<jE&, cf. yrip}sI ‘my book’ from rp<sE&; yTIk}l< ‘my going’, cf.
yTIb}v¥ ‘my sitting’; lD'j}y, ‘he will cease’, cf. bK"v‘yi ‘he will lie’; hl:g}h<÷hl:g}hI ‘he
exiled’.
3.5.10.4. Segol may also have arisen from the monophthongization of final
triphthongs; in these cases it is generally written with the vowel letter h follow-
ing: hx<r]yi ‘he will be pleased’ < *yirßayu/*yirßawu; hx</r ‘pleased’ < *roßiyu/
*roßiwu. Word internally, (half-low) segol supplants (half-high) ßere by assim-
ilation to a following (half-low) qamaß: h:yk<&r;D] ‘her ways’, parallel to WnykE&r;D}
‘our ways’.
3.5.10.4n. In the second syllable of the segolate nouns, rp<sE&, ≈p<jE&, and Ër,D,&, the segol opens
the final consonant cluster, *sipö r/*˙ipö ß/*dark.
00-Blau.book Page 138 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.5.10.5. ∑ Tiberian
u/o Vowels
Vowels; dages 138

3.5.10.5. Íere arose from i in closed stressed syllables (≈jE ‘arrow’; cf. yXIjI
‘my arrow’) as well as in open pretonic ones (μyniqez] ‘old people’). It also
emerged by monophthongization from -ay: hxEr] ‘be pleased!’ < *raßay;
μh<yreb}Di ‘their words’ < *dabarayhum; by analogy ßere also emerged from -iy:
hneB} ‘build < *biniy.
3.5.10.6. Óiriq represents i < iy (ryv¥ ‘song’), as well as short i in closed un-
stressed syllables (yXIjI ‘my arrow’). In closed unstressed syllables it may also
correspond to Proto-Semitic a, from which it arose by attenuation (§3.5.7.6.13,
p. 132): h[:b}v¥ ‘seven’ < *sabºat.
3.5.10.7. Two vowels, originally differing in both quantity and quality, coa-
lesced in qamaß O. One is the so-called qamaß gadol, pronounced according to
the Sephardic pronunciation a and corresponding to Proto-Semitic a and a.
This vowel continues a that did not shift to o, either because it was unstressed
or was influenced by analogy (§3.5.9.2, p. 136). This vowel also corresponds to
Proto-Semitic short a in closed stressed syllables of absolute nouns (§3.5.7.1.4,
p. 119) as well as in open stressed and pretonic syllables (§3.5.7.3.2, p. 123).
The other vowel is the much rarer, so-called qamaß qa†an, pronounced accord-
ing to Sephardic tradition o and corresponding to Proto-Semitic u, occurring in
unstressed closed syllables (§3.5.3.2, pp. 108ff.).
3.5.10.8. Óolam has a fourfold origin: (1) from (short) u in closed stressed
syllables; (2) from stressed a through the Canaanite sound shift; (3) from un-
stressed a by analogy; and (4) by monophthongization of the diphthtong aw.
3.5.10.9. Qibbuß and suruq (the same vowel, see §3.5.2.5, p. 107) corre-
spond to (short) u (especially preceding a geminate consonant) and (long) u.

3.5.11. On dages, mappiq, meteg, and maqqaf

3.5.11.1. Dages, a dot in the middle of a letter, has two main uses, the
heavy and the light dages. The heavy dages (dages forte) doubles (or at least
lengthens) the marked consonant; the border between the syllables is in the
double consonant. Thus μYeq I ‘he confirmed’ is syllabified qiy-yem. Since a let-
ter with the heavy dages reflects the same consonant twice, the first time with
zero (i.e., quiescent swa), a double consonant can only occur in an environ-
ment that would enable the use of a quiescent swa, i.e., after a full vowel. (On
pretonic gemination, see §3.5.7.6.12, p. 132; cf. §3.5.7.4.6, p. 124)
3.5.11.1n. In fact, it is difficult to decide whether the consonant with heavy dages is really
pronounced twice (as cases like WNt"&n; ‘we have given’ = nOtan + nu might suggest) or only
lengthened (as one might infer from instances like yTIr'&K: ‘I made a covenant’). It seems more
likely that the latter case, standing for kOrat + ti, reflects lengthening, since genuine dou-
bling of stops is rather exceptional. It stands to reason that in careful recitation genuine
doubling was more frequent than in quick reading. Nevertheless, the assumption that the
heavy dages, in general, only lengthens the consonant seems likely. Bergsträsser (2.122)
called attention to the fact that forms like WrxO&n]yi ‘they will guard’ with the preservation of
00-Blau.book Page 139 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

139 Heavy dages ∑ 3.5.11.5.

u/o Vowels

the vowelless n (in contrast to WrX}yi, reflecting the regular assimilation) are more frequent in
pause. He assumed that these pausal forms did not reflect living speech. See also
§3.5.11.4n. At any rate, WrxO&n]yi was longer than WrX}yi with lengthened x.

3.5.11.2. Pausal forms, in general, fulfilled an important function in the

solemn reading of the Scriptures, and, accordingly, pausal forms tended to be
longer than contextual ones. This feature is reflected not only by the use of
vowelless n but also by (1) pausal lengthening, which caused longer forms to
prevail in pause (§3.5.13.2, p. 154; pausal Wrm:&v… in contrast to W‡rm}v… in con-
text), (2) the use of III-y verbs preserving y in pause (§3.5.12.2.17n, p. 152;
§4.3.8.6.10, p. 252), and (3) the frequency of yq†lun in pause (§4.3.3.2.3,
p. 205). Cf. yniW‡bb:s} μg" yniW‡Bs" ‘they have surrounded me, indeed they have sur-
rounded me’ Ps 118:11, using a longer form in pause.
3.5.11.3. Heavy dages usually does not appear in the last consonant of a
word. The most obvious environment for it would be in geminate roots, and
word-final geminates usually simplify: qall ‘light’ becomes lq". Exceptions to
this limitation include T}a" ªatt ‘you (fs)’, T}t"n; nOtatt ‘you (fs) gave’, perhaps
by paradigmatic pressure from hT:a" ‘you (ms)’, T:t"&n; ‘you (ms) gave’. These
forms may also be interpreted as reflecting simple t with plosive pronuncia-
tion (ªat rather than ªatt; nOtat rather than nOtatt), again by paradigmatic pres-
sure. If this proves true, these forms can be attributed to a late stage in which
the automatic spirantization of bgdkpt outside word-initial position had
ceased operating (§3.3.2.2, pp. 79ff.).
3.5.11.4. Simplification of gemination (and dropping of the heavy dages)
is also found word-internally. A double consonant followed by (ultra-short)
mobile swa is often simplified. This may occur with any consonant except
bgdkpt. It is, however, especially frequent with y (e.g., yhIy]w' ‘and it was’
< *wayy´hi) and m (e.g., μyv¥q]b"m}h" ‘those who demand’ < *hamm´b2 aqq´sim
Exod 4:19). It occurs frequently when the swa is followed by a larngeal-
pharyngeal (e.g., y[Es}m" ‘the travels of’ < *mass´ºe). It occurs almost regularly
if the swa precedes a consonant identical to the formerly doubled sound (cf.
Wll}h" ‘praise! [mp]’).
3.5.11.4n. The bgdkpt letters with heavy dages in this position may be interpreted as reflect-
ing a plosive pronunciation of the simple consonant, rather than a doubled or lengthened
pronunciation. This would mirror a late stage in the history of Hebrew, when the plosive
pronunciation had become possible after vowels as well (§3.3.2.2, pp. 79ff., especially
§3.3.2.2.4, p. 80).
3.5.11.5. Since a swa under a letter with a heavy dages has to be ac-
counted a vocal swa (see [4] sub §3.5.6.4.1, p. 116), this dot is used to mark
that the swa below a simple letter is vocal (often in an exceptional way), e.g.,
WhWn‡ Q}t"n]W ‘and we shall draw him away’ Judg 20:32 (instead of the expected
WhWn‡ q}t"n]W*, the q being vocalized with silent swa); lmOT}aImE ‘from yesterday’
1 Sam 10:11. Recourse to this way of emphasizing the vocal nature of the swa
00-Blau.book Page 140 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.5.11.6. ∑ dages
u/o Vowels 140

is taken particularly when the following consonant is one of the bgdkpt letters,
in order to bring out its (expected or unexpected) spirant pronunciation:
Ëne/b@ X}[I ‘your (fs) sorrow’ Gen 3:16; ybE@ Q}[I ‘the heels of’ Gen 49:17; /nypI@ X}h" ‘to
hide him’ Exod 2:3 (where the regular form is *haßpino). Similarly, it seems,
dages in a letter with a swa after interrogative ha < hå marks that this swa
(which is according to its position a swa medium) is to be pronounced as a mo-
bile swa: tn,tO&K}h" ‘(is it) the coat?’ Gen 37:32; hn;mEV‘h" ‘(is it) fat?’ Num 13:20.
3.5.11.5n. The regular form of the word for ‘yesterday’ is lmOt}a, with a quiescent swa. Prima
facie, it appears that the dages in the t does not denote its plosive pronunciation.
The dages in ybEQ}[I indicates that the swa medium is to be pronounced as a mobile swa
(´). This feature is comparatively frequent, e.g., ybEN][I ‘the grapes of ’ Deut 32:32; μh<tEtOV‘qw" ]
‘and their bows’ Neh 4:7.
In the case of the interrogative hå, when the vowel of the interrogative particle is a, a
meteg may be added to indicate the mobile nature of the swa: hk:r;b}hâ" ‘a blessing?’ Gen
27:38, to be pronounced hab2 årOkO.
This last point raises the question of the form of the interrogative hå. After the inter-
rogative hå > ha, dages may occur before a full vowel (very rarely; bf"yYih" ‘will it be good?’
Lev 10:19) and preceding an aleph it is vocalized with qamaß (μd;a:h: ‘[is it] a human be-
ing?’ Deut 20:19). Do these forms reflect a variant of the interrogative particle, entailing
the gemination of the following consonant (heavy dages )? It has been suggested that the
Hebrew interrogative particle has a twofold origin: hå corresponds to the Arabic interroga-
tive particle ªa, while the form with gemination matches Arabic hal, with the assimilation
of the l. For this attractive, yet somewhat uncertain, proposal, see Yellin 1933; cf.
§3.3.5.5.1, p. 94 on the possibly problematic nature of the sound sequence h-l. If Yellin’s
proposal proves to be true, we could interpret every dages after the interrogative ha, even
with swa, as a heavy dages; see above, however, on the use of meteg to mark mobile swa.

3.5.11.6. The light dages (dages lene), used only in the bgdkpt letters,
marks their plosive pronunciation. The spirant pronunciation is denoted by the
absence of the dages or, more accurately, by a line on top of the letter, called
raphe. (For details, see §3.3.2.1.1, p. 78). The remaining, rare uses of dages
are often interpreted as heavy dages, yet their comparatively frequent occur-
rence in res makes this assumption precarious. A dot is used in a few cases
in pause after a stressed penultimate vowel: WLde&j: ‘they ceased’ Judg 5:7;
this dot may indicate pausal gemination, rhythmically identical with pausal
lengthening. In (non-pausal) hN;a:& ‘please!’; hM:l:& ‘why?’; hL<aE& ‘these’; hM:hE&
‘they (m)’, hN;hE& ‘they (f)/hither’, hM:v& … ‘there, thither’, the dot may mark penul-
timate stress.
3.5.11.6n. Some forms are difficult to account for. Note the exceptional occurrence of segol
for ßere in hNehI ‘behold’ in yn'dOa“AaN; hN,hI ‘behold, please, my lords’ Gen 19:2. Since aN; has
lost its stress by hyphenation, this example does not reflect regular conjunctive dages
(§3.5.11.7). It seems that the n of nO has been geminated by a heavy dages, thus closing the
preceding syllable nen in hinnennO; the syllable closing has led to the shifting of ßere to se-
gol (although ßere is possible in this position).
A number of the words with penultimate stress noted here are curious. The most in-
triguing is hM:l:& ‘why’. When preceding a, h, [, it shifts the stress to the last syllable (los-
00-Blau.book Page 141 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

141 dages ∑ 3.5.11.7.

u/o Vowels

ing the dages!), hm:&l:, perhaps in order to preserve a clearer pronunciation of the following
laryngeal-pharyngeal, since the laryngeals-pharyngeals, greatly weakened in pronuncia-
tion, were apt to become even more blurred when not directly preceded by the stress. This
omission of the dages when the word does not have penultimate stress prima facie fits the
assumption that the dages marks the stress. The fact that the doubling in at least hM:v& … and
hN;hE& ‘they’ (and through the influence of hN;hE& also hM:hE&) and perhaps hL<aE& agrees with the
comparative Semitic evidence (cf., e.g., Arabic tamma, hunna, Aramaic ˆyLE&aI) does not re-
fute the theory that the dages marks the stress, since it may have in these words a double
origin. It is even possible that the marking of stress by dages started in such words.

3.5.11.7. The so-called conjunctive dages is more or less regular. This is a

dot in the first letter of words with initial stress (including monosyllables),
used when they are preceded by a word ending in unstressed qamaß or segol:
ËL: hL<aE&AymI ‘who are these for you’ Gen 33:5; /L hc≤[:&ye ‘it shall be done to him’
Exod 21:31; πx<Q& < Úyl<[& : ‘wrath on you’ 2 Chr 19:2. There are cases with res,
e.g., [R; hm:Wa&m} ‘anything bad’ Jer 39:12. In Babylonian vocalization, in those
few cases in which it is attested, the dot occurs between the words; in the Pal-
estinian vocalization, it is found sometimes in the last letter of the first word.
These positions, in addition to the use of this dot in res, imply that it does not
indicate doubling.
3.5.11.7n. The regular conjunctive dages is preceded by a word that either has penultimate
stress (either originally so or in order to avoid a sequence of two stressed syllables; cf.
§3.5.12.2.15n, p. 152) or, being hyphenated, has no stress. The phrase ËB: hj:m}c‘niw] ‘and let
us rejoice in you’ Song 1:4 is not an exception (pace Bergsträsser, 1.66, par. 10s), since the
first word is set off by a disjunctive accent (pas†a), so that the dages has to be accounted a
light one. (For another supposed exception, Gen 19:2, see §3.5.11.6n, p. 140.) Nonethe-
less, irregular conjunctive dages is not rare, as in hx:W‡rN; Úyr,&j“a" ‘let us run after you’ Song
1:4, where the second word is not stressed on its first syllable; or in the frequent phrase
rmO&aLE hv≤&mOAla< ‘to Moses saying’, where the first word ends in a stressed segol and the sec-
ond does not have initial stress. (The phrase is found in Exod 6:10, 29; 13 times total in Ex-
odus, 25 times in Leviticus, and 31 times in Numbers; the words occur without the con-
junctive dages only in Num 17:27; 32:25.)
Hebrew (or, more accurately, Aramaic) ªate mera˙iq, literally ‘that which comes from a
distance’, is used in the Masorah to describe those cases of conjunctive dages in which the
two stress occurrences of the words involved are remote from each other; d´˙iq, literally
‘condensed’, describes cases where they would have been close, if the first word had not
lost its stress, either by being hyphenated or by the shift of the stress to the preceding syl-
lable (in order to avoid the immediate sequence of two stressed syllables). In older texts of
the Masorah, however, these two terms are used without differentiation.
For instance, in Exod 21:31 /L hc≤[:&ye , one would have expected the stress on the ultima of
hc≤[:&ye. The stress has shifted in line with the tendency, when a word stressed on its ultima
precedes a word stressed on its first syllable, to avoid the immediate sequence of two
stressed syllables (cf. §3.5.12.1.3, p. 143; §3.5.12.2.15n, p. 151); generally, the stress of the
first word moves to the open penultimate syllable. An ultra-short penult does not count,
such as r/b yder]/‡yAμ[I ‘with those who go down into the pit’ Ps 28:1, where r´ does not count
as a syllable. A (mobile) swa under the letter bearing the conjunctive dages opening the
second word similarly does not count; the word nonetheless behaves as if it bore the stress
on its first syllable: yriP}Ahc≤[O ‘that which produces fruit’ Gen 1:12.
00-Blau.book Page 142 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.5.11.8. ∑ mappiq,
u/o Vowels
meteg, maqqaf 142

Bergsträsser (1.65), following Grimme, surmised that the conjunctive dages marks the
shortening of the final vowel of the first word. Nevertheless, as we have seen (§3.5.3.7,
p. 109), the Tiberian vocalization does not mark quantitative differences. So why should it
mark such a difference in this case?
3.5.11.8. The consonantal pronunciation of final h is also marked by a
dot in the letter, the so-called mappiq (§3.3.5.1.1, p. 89). In a few cases inter-
nal aleph is also marked by such a dot, to emphasize its consonantal pronun-
ciation: WÅybIY;w' ‘and they brought’ Gen 43:26. In some marginal manuscripts
this usage is much more frequent.
3.5.11.9. Meteg, a perpendicular stroke under the letter to the left of the
vowel sign, basically serves as a marker that attention needs to be paid. Its
main importance is that it may mark, inter alia, secondary stress on full vow-
els in the last open syllable of a word, excluding the pretonic syllable (here,
the mobile swa counts as a syllable), or the secondary stress before that sec-
ondary stress, as in hm:k}jâ: ‘she was wise’ (in contrast to hm:k}j: ‘wisdom’ with
qamaß qa†an); War]yyiê ‘they will fear’ (in contrast to War]yi ‘they will see’); μd;a:hâ:
‘the man’; μk<tE/î[Wbvâ … ‘your weeks’; t/n/Tj}T"h"mâ E ‘from the lowest’ (in which
the two closed syllables ta˙, hat do not count). Since meteg marks open syl-
lables, and qamaß gadol rather than qamaß qa†an stands in such syllables, it
may be used as an aid for distinguishing these two sorts of qamaß, as reflected
above in the hm:k}jâ: : hm:k}j: pair. Since the use of meteg is not fixed, its absence
is not always a certain indication for qamaß qa†an.
3.5.11.9n. We say “may mark,” rather than “marks,” because the use of the so-called light
meteg varies from manuscript to manuscript, and only in late manuscripts does its usage
become more regular. Even the same scribe is not consistent in its application in different
manuscripts and even in the same manuscript. Accordingly, the meteg can only be used as
an aid, not as a sure indication. We must especially beware lest we infer too much from the
absence of the meteg, e.g., for differentiating qamaß gadol and qamaß qa†an (§3.5.1.1,
p. 105; §3.5.3.1, p. 108; §3.5.3.7, p. 109).
3.5.11.10. Maqqaf, a hyphen connecting words, denotes that the word pre-
ceding it is proclitic and devoid of the main stress. Note that meteg, indicat-
ing the secondary stress, may occur in hyphenated words, since words con-
nected by maqqaf behave as one word. Thus in Wnl: &ArT:p}Yiw' /lArP<s"N]w' ‘and we told
him and he interpreted for us’ Gen 41:12, the absence of stress in the words
preceding the hyphen is indicated by the use of segol and qamaß qa†an in their
last syllables (rather than ßere, ˙olam). Since they consist of closed syllables,
no meteg occurs with them, in contrast to Wnl: &Art"Pâ : ‘he interpreted to us’ Gen
41:13. Under special circumstances, meteg may occur in a closed syllable,
even without any syllable intervening between it and the main stress, to mark
the qamaß as qamaß gadol: dyix"A& dX:âh" ‘he who has hunted game’ Gen 27:33.
00-Blau.book Page 143 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

143 Stress ∑ 3.5.12.1.3.

3.5.12. Stress
3.5.12.1. Introduction
3.5.12.1.1. The stress system is transmitted by the cantillation marks of
biblical vocalization. Their main purpose was not to mark stress, but rather to
guide the recitation and chanting of the holy text in the synagogue. Although
the cantillation marks are essentially a musical system, each mark generally
stands under or above the stressed syllable of a word, since the prominent syl-
lables in chanting are the stressed ones. Thus the stress system can easily be
inferred. (Secondary stress may be marked by the light meteg; see §3.5.11.9.)
Some of the cantillation marks, however, are either prepositive, i.e., are put
over or before the first letter of the word, or postpositive, i.e., on or after the
last letter. In some manuscripts, in order to indicate a word that has penulti-
mate stress even with these marks, they are repeated on the stressed syllable.
This, however, is only common with the most frequent of them, i.e., the post-
positive pas†a.
3.5.12.1.1n. The cantillation marks are also of importance for syntax. Since the recitation
depends on sentence structure, the cantillation marks also act, to a certain degree, as punc-
tuation marks.

3.5.12.1.2. In Biblical Hebrew, ultimate stress prevails, although penulti-

mate stress is also frequently attested. (Penultimate stress is always expressly
marked in this book.) Stress is phonemic, since words with ultimate stress con-
trast to those with penultimate stress W‡nB: ‘they built’: WnB:& ‘in us’/ *‘they under-
stood’; hm:&q : ‘standing (fs)/standing grain’: hm:q& : ‘she stood up’.
3.5.12.1.3. Does Biblical Hebrew allow antepenultimate stress? Such is
allegedly attested in the forms ha:l}h:& ‘out there’, hl:h”aO&h: ‘into the tent’. How-
ever, these would only have antepenultimate stress if the status of a syllable is
accorded to the mobile swa/˙a†af (hO!-l´-ªO/hO-ªó-hœ*-lO). (The stress on the
first qamaß of ha:l}h:& indicates that it originally could not have been followed
by a quiescent swa; otherwise the qamaß would have been shortened to pata˙
in ancient Biblical Hebrew, as was the case with yTIm}q&;" see §1.15.4n, p. 49. The
qamaß has to be considered qamaß gadol according to the accepted Sephardi
pronunciation, because it is stressed.) It is possible to treat a consonant + mo-
bile swa as a syllable, as in the application of the light meteg (see §3.5.11.9).
However, a consonant followed by a mobile swa does not constitute a syllable
with regard to conjunctive dages (§3.5.11.7n, p. 141). If the sequence conso-
nant + mobile swa is not counted as a syllable, the words in question here may
be considered to have penultimate stress (hO!-l´ªO/hO-ªó-hœ*lO). This description
seems preferable, since the shift of stress to a preceding open syllable in order
to avoid the immediate sequence of two stressed syllables also disregards
mobile swa/˙a†af, e.g., r/b yder]/‡yAμ[I ‘with those who go down into the pit’
00-Blau.book Page 144 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.5.12.1.4. ∑ Cantillation Marks; Stress 144

Ps 28:1; br,j:& yne[“fO&m} ‘pierced with a sword’ Isa 14:19. Thus it is more agreeable
to the general stress system to regard these forms as having penultimate, rather
than antepenultimate, stress. Otherwise they would represent a totally abnor-
mal shift to the antepenult in order to avoid the immediate sequence of two
stressed syllables, whereas it is otherwise the penult to which the stress re-
cedes in these cases.
3.5.12.1.4. According to the Tiberian system, twenty-one of the twenty-
four books of the Bible use the so-called prose cantillation marks, whereas
three (Psalms, Proverbs, and Job, except its prosaic framework) apply the po-
etic marks. Every word has one accent (in exceptional cases two). Words
joined by hyphen (maqqaf ) are treated as a single unit; usually they are joined
in pairs, and the first of the two words lacks a cantillation mark. The dominat-
ing or separating marks divide the verse into sections; the servile or connect-
ing marks join a word with the next. Every verse is divided by a strong
disjunctive accent into two halves (in the prosaic book, it is the etna˙), and ev-
ery half may again be subdivided by weaker disjunctive accents into two parts,
and so on. This binary system characterizes the use of the accents more than
anything else.
3.5.12.1.5. Since sometimes one word may be marked by two accents, two
words connected by a hyphen and behaving as one word may also receive two
accents, the first of which refers to the first word.

3.5.12.2. The History of Hebrew Stress

3.5.12.2.1. The stress system of Proto-Hebrew must be reconstructed if
we are to understand the Biblical Hebrew vowel structure. The importance of
such a reconstruction exceeds the bounds of the history of Biblical Hebrew
stress and vowel structure proper and is of the greatest significance for the
comprehension of the foundations of the language’s morphology. The opinions
of scholars on the development of the Proto-Hebrew stress system are divided.
3.5.12.2.1n. For an important overview of various theories of BHeb stress, see Brockel-
mann (1940); see further Blau (1970b: 27–28 = Studies, 41–42 n. 2). Bergsträsser
(1.113ff.) proposed a system in which nouns and verbs were differently stressed; however,
this is contradicted by pausal stress, as admitted by Bergsträsser himself (1.162, par. 29i).
3.5.12.2.2. The core of the stress system we are going to propose is that in
Proto-Hebrew general penultimate stress prevailed. (We shall call this stage
ii, for reasons to be explained later.) This may be demonstrated simply. In Bib-
lical Hebrew ultimate stress prevails. If those words that have ultimate stress in
pause are analyzed, the vast majority of them will be found to be words that
have lost their final short vowels; words with penultimate stress in pause end in
either a long vowel or a consonant and have therefore preserved their primary
structure. Accordingly, if one adds the omitted short final vowels to the words
00-Blau.book Page 145 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

145 Stress ∑ 3.5.12.2.3.

stressed on their ultima in pause, one has a pausal stress system in which the
vast majority of words are paroxytone (i.e., have penultimate stress). Let us
take a group of words with ultimate stress in pause: rm:v… (in context rm"v)… ‘he
watched’; rmOv‘yi ‘he will watch’; rmE/v ‘watching’; vmEj: ‘five (f)’; hV…mIj“ ‘five
(m)’; hm:&q : ‘standing up (f participle); standing grain’; hl:yDib}m" ‘separating (f)’.
These words once had and then lost final short vowels, according to com-
parative Semitic evidence. The historical forms would have been *sama#ra,
*yismo#ru, *some#ru, *hami#ssu, *hamissa#tu, *qama#tu, *mab2 dila#tu. That is, they
would have had penultimate stress. In contrast, words now stressed in pause on
the penult, terminating in a long vowel or a consonant, have not lost a final
vowel; in other words, their penultimate stress (at least in pause) is original:
Wrm:&v… ‘they watched’; hr;m:&v… ‘she watched’ (< *sama#rat); yTIr]m:&v… ‘I watched’;
Wnr]m:&v… ‘we watched’; WrmO&v‘yi ‘they will watch’; Wnj}n;‡a“ ‘we’; ynia:& ‘I’; hT:a:& ‘you
(ms)’; hT:[:& ‘now’; hl:yDi&b}hI (< *hib2 dilat) ‘she separated’; WlyDi&b}hI ‘they sepa-
rated’; hm:q& : (< *qa#mat) ‘she stood’; Wmq:& ‘they stood’; Úd,&y; ‘your hand’. Thus, we
propose that, since words with penultimate stress have preserved the original
place of stress, and those with ultimate stress have lost their final vowel (and
they too would have exhibited penultimate stress, before their loss of final
vowels), penultimate stress was once all-embracing. At this stage, stress could
not have been phonemic, since its place was automatically fixed and thus no
oppositions could develop.
3.5.12.2.2n. This system grows out of a theory first suggested, as far as I know, by Mayer
Lambert (1890). Jean Cantineau, without knowing of Lambert’s work, arrived at the same
conclusions more than forty years later (1931, 1932). Christian P. E. Sarauw (1939: 5–8),
again without knowing of Lambert’s work, reconstructed a system which, though differing
in some important points, was not too different from what we are proposing. His assump-
tion that stress preceded the last consonant of the word led him into difficulties in explain-
ing the stress of the 3fs of the suffix-tense in qal, originally *samarat ‘she preserved’,
which should have had, according to his system, ultimate stress from the beginning.
For the forms rmOv‘yi, rmE/v, and the like, the quantitative difference between pausal and
contextual forms does not find expression in the Tiberian vowel marks. In forms like
*sama#ra, the second syllable reflects pausal lengthening: rm:v….
In Úd,&y; the final qamaß seems to represent an anceps vowel (see §3.5.7.2.2, p. 122).

3.5.12.2.3. This quite straightforward starting point allows us to account

adequately for the stress of most Hebrew words. As we shall see, most of the
exceptions can also be easily explained. Moreover, a plethora of seemingly
chaotic features, which scholars have found difficult to account for, turn out
to be systematic and neatly regulated by this simple assumption of general
penultimate stress. It goes without saying that these features were to some ex-
tent blurred by analogy. Nevertheless, the theory of general penultimate
stress is not only likely, being based on such a clear and simple argument, but
also pivotal for the proper understanding of Biblical Hebrew phonology and
morphology.
00-Blau.book Page 146 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.5.12.2.4. ∑ Stress 146

3.5.12.2.4. The stage of general penultimate stress (what we dubbed stage

ii), was followed by another stage (let us call it stage iii), in which stress be-
came phonemic. (We shall turn later to stage i.) As a matter of fact, at this
stage stress itself did not move: it remained on the syllables which bore it at
stage ii. Nevertheless, the phonetic environment of the syllables changed, as
did the relative place of the stress: at this stage final short vowels dropped.
Accordingly, words in pause terminating in a long vowel or a consonant re-
mained unchanged and their stress remained penult: Wrm:&v…, hr;m:&v…, yTIr]m:&v…,
Wnr]m:&v…, WrmO&v‘yi, Wnj}n;‡a“, ynia:&, hT:a:&, hT:[:&, hl:yDi&b}hI, WlyDi&b}hI, hm:q&,: Wmq:&, Úd,&y;. In words
that dropped a final short vowel, the stress, though not moving, came now to
stand on the ultima. The words *sama#ra, *yismo#ru, *some#ru, *hami#ssu, *ha-
missa#tu, *qama#tu, *mab2 dila#tu (with penultimate stress) now became rm&"v…,
rmO&v‘yi, rmE&/v, vm&Ej:, hV…&mIj“, hm:&q,: hl:y& Dib}m" (with ultimate stress). At this point we
encounter phonemic oppositions of stress, e.g., hm:&q : ‘standing up (f participle);
standing grain’, from original *qamátu, and hm:q&,: ‘she stood (suffix-tense)’,
from basic *qa#mat.
3.5.12.2.4n. In *sama#ra the first syllable reflects pretonic lengthening, the second, pausal
lengthening. Pausal lengthening occurs in the other words of this group as well, and pre-
tonic lengthening occurs in some of them.
3.5.12.2.5. Let us reconsider our starting point, words with penultimate
stress in pause. Many of the forms cited have penultimate stress only in pause
and have ultimate stress in context. Consider these forms: pausal paroxytone:
Wrm:&v…, hr;m:&v…, WrmO&v‘yi, hT:a:&, hT:[:&, Úd,&y;; contextual oxytone: W‡rm}v…, hr;&m}v…, W‡rm}v‘yi,
hT:&a", hT:&[", Ú&d]y;. We began with pausal forms because they are, as a rule,
more archaic in Biblical Hebrew than contextual forms. We cannot argue this
on the basis of the penultimate stress preserved in pause; that would be argu-
ing in a circle, since we seek to prove the originality of pausal penultimate
stress. We can argue it, however, on the basis of the preservation of pausal
vowels lost in context. Again, contrast the contextual forms W‡rm}v…, hr;&m}v…,
W‡rm}v‘yi, Ú&d]y;; and the pausal forms Wrm:&v…, hr;m:&v…, WrmO&v‘yi&, Úd,&y;. It is obvious that the
forms containing the unreduced vowels are more original (and this is also
demonstrated by comparative evidence).
3.5.12.2.5n. Most pausal forms are more archaic; the major group of exceptions is forms
that show pausal stress shift to a final, originally closed syllable. See §3.5.8.8n, pp. 134–
135, and §3.5.13.4, pp. 154–155.
3.5.12.2.6. The evidence of contextual forms leads us to posit another
stage of stress (let us call it stage iv): originally paroxytone words in con-
text with stressed short vowels in open syllables shifted their stress to the
ultima. Thus such forms as *samáru, *samára, *yismóru, yadœ3ka take on the
shape we actually find in Biblical Hebrew: Wrm}v…, hr;m}v…, Wrm}v‘y,i Úd]y.; Why did
this development take place? It is a clear example of analogy. In stage ii most
words terminated in short vowels. Thus in stage iii words with ultimate stress,

spread is 6 points long

00-Blau.book Page 147 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

147 Stress ∑ 3.5.12.2.8.

which arose by the omission of these short vowels, far outnumbered those
with penultimate stress. They propelled the stress shift from the penult to the
ultima. Two word groups are especially important in this respect.
3.5.12.2.6n. In *samáru the first syllable contains long a owing to pretonic lengthening,
the second short a, since, as a contextual form, it was not affected by pausal lengthening.
The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to the other forms cited.

3.5.12.2.7. The first group of stage iv words are those words consisting of
(or terminating in) two closed syllables; these are invariably stressed on the
final syllable. According to the assumption of general penultimate stress, such
words were stressed on their penult during stage ii (and preserved with such
stress during stage iii). These words would include the short prefix-tense
(without the final short vowel) of qal, piººel, puººal, hitpaººel, hif ºil, hof ºal as
well as the imperative of piººel, hitpaººel, hif ºil. This stress pattern, however,
totally disappeared in both context and pause. The forms are now stressed on
the ultima, e.g., rmO&v‘yi ‘he will watch’; rPE&s"y]w' ‘and he told’; vBE&l}Y'w' ‘and he
dressed’; vBE&l}h" ‘get dressed!’ Accordingly, I am inclined to posit a stress shift
from a closed penult to a closed ultima.
3.5.12.2.7n. The short prefix-tense is the form used after the “conversive” waw; see
§4.3.3.3.3, p. 206.

3.5.12.2.8. The second group of stage iv words (obligatory stress shift from
the penult to the ultima) are words with a stressed short and open penult
followed by another open syllable. This is the pattern to be assumed for the
contextual forms *samáru, *samára, *yismóru, *yadáka, which appear in
Biblical Hebrew with ultimate stress: Wrm}v…; hr;m}v…; Wrm}v‘yi; Úd]y;. We have to as-
sume that short, open, stressed penultimate syllables remained short during
stages ii and iii; then, in stage iv, the stress shifted to the ultima and the vowels
were reduced to mobile swa. Only on this assumption can one understand the
behavior of WlyDi&b}hI; hl:yDi&b}hI; WlyDi&b}y', which exhibit long penult vowels even in
context and, therefore, preserve penultimate stress. This behavior contrasts
with that of *samáru; *samára; *yismóru, which appear as > W‡rm}v…; hr;&m}v…;
W‡rm}v‘yi. Similarly, the pausal forms of W‡rm}v…; hr;&m}v…; W‡rm}v‘yi; Ú&d]y;, viz., Wrm:&v…;
hr;m:&v…; WrmO&v‘yi; Úd,&y; contain, owing to pausal lengthening, a long penultimate
syllable and therefore preserve paroxytone stress; however, the contextual
forms had short penultimate vowels and, therefore, their stress shifted to the
ultima.
3.5.12.2.8n. Exceptions to this pattern in stage iv are extremely rare. The form hr;B"&d]mI ‘to
the wilderness of ’ is secondary, based on analogy with the ordinary construct form (with-
out directional h), rB"d]mI ‘the wilderness of ’. For details, see Blau (1992 = Studies, 89–93),
where the historical development of this feature is studied in the context of general penul-
timate stress. Forms like ynir'&m:v‘ ‘he preserved me’; yniT"&r]m"v‘ ‘you preserved me’ perhaps
reflect analogy to tyiB"& ‘house’; ˆyiy'‡ ‘wine’ (cf. perhaps Israeli Hebrew hn,/‡mv‘ ‘eight’, in con-
trast to Biblical Hebrew hn,‡/mv‘, influenced by nouns like vd,qø&). In the case of yniT"&r]m"v‘, one
00-Blau.book Page 148 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.5.12.2.9. ∑ Stress 148

also has to take into consideration the fact that the regular form *s´mart´ni would have
lost the external mark of the 2ms and might have been avoided on these grounds. It is pos-
sible that yniT"&r]m"v‘ emerged first, prompted by the desire to avoid *s´mart´ni, and then, by
analogy, ynir'&m:v‘ was formed. The form WnT:&r]m"v‘, reflecting pausal lengthening, is found in
both context and pause; here the pausal form has superseded the contextual one, as some-
times happens (see below, §3.5.12.2.9n). Here, too, the loss of the external mark of the
2ms in the regular form *s´mart´nu# is relevant. Perhaps one should also take into consid-
eration the anceps character of the final a in T:r]m"&v….
In Úd,&y; the segol is long, owing to pausal lengthening and, therefore, the word remained
paroxytone. Similarly, the segol of the plural context form Úyd,&y; ‘your hands’ is long (this is
also indicated by the vowel letter yod) and stressed, as is ÚybI&a: in contrast to the contextual
form Úd,&y;* > Ú&d]y;.
3.5.12.2.9. Special attention should be paid to the fact that the now pre-
tonic a in *samaru!, *samara#,*ªani ! has not only not been lengthened, contrary
to the rule of pretonic lengthening; it has even been reduced. Let us review
the history of Hebrew in the Second Temple period and after (cf. §§3.5.7.5.14–
3.5.7.5.15, p. 128). First, Hebrew underwent pretonic lengthening; we have
attributed this to strong Aramaic influence at the time of the Second Temple.
Hebrew speakers reacted against this influence by lengthening pretonic syl-
lables, in order not to reduce them in accordance with Aramaic syllable pat-
terning. At a later stage, pretonic syllables in a did undergo reduction, after
the Aramaic influence had become so strong that Hebrew speakers ceased
struggling against it. Words of the type W‡rm}v…, hr;&m}v…, yni‡a“ have to be ascribed to
this later period. This is shown by forms like W‡rm}v… and hr;&m}v… themselves.
During stage iii *samáru, *samára had shifted to *samáru, *samára with
long a in the first syllable by pretonic lengthening. During stage iv, the long a-
vowels were preserved, although the stress moved away, because long vowels
are maintained in every position; however, the now pretonic -ma- was re-
duced in accordance with Aramaic syllable patterning.
3.5.12.2.9n. In stage iv (and elsewhere), it is only open syllables that constantly attract the
stress. Nothing certain can be said about closed syllables (although the two syllable types
are basically of the same weight).
At first glance, one could claim that segolate nouns demonstrate that closed syllables do
not attract the stress (e.g., Ël<m<& rather than *mœlœ3k). However, it appears that the opening
of the cluster (lk of *malk) was an early phonetic fact; the syllable formed by the epen-
thetic vowel, however, did not count phonemically and therefore did not attract the stress;
see §4.4.6.4, p. 274.
Segolates from III-y roots and therefore ending in an open final syllable do attract the
stress, e.g., *la˙y ‘jaw’ > *li˙y > *lí˙iy > *lí˙i > yjI&l}. The pausal forms of these nouns,
however, remained paroxytone, because the penultimate syllable was long owing to
pausal lengthening: yjIl<.& Sometimes these pausal forms superseded the contextual ones
(cf. §3.5.12.2.8n.), e.g., ytIP<& ‘simple-minded’, rather than *p´ti; WhTO& ‘formlessness’, rather
than *t´hu. Forms like hg<h<& ‘moaning’ are secondary, newly built on analogy with Ër,D,&, etc.
(See Bauer-Leander 1922: 579, par. 72qu.)
At this stage, pre-Tiberian Hebrew still distinguished short and long vowels, as demon-
strated, e.g., by the different behavior of long and short a in *samáru > W‡rm}v…. The long a
00-Blau.book Page 149 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

149 Stress ∑ 3.5.12.2.12.

was preserved as such, and the short a was reduced. Thus we can say that the disappear-
ance of the quantitative opposition between vowels, characteristic of the Tiberian vowel
system (see §3.5.2.1, p. 106), is later than stress stage iv (which is itself quite late, reflect-
ing decisive Aramaic influence). Stage iv has to be regarded, in fact, as probably the last
comprehensive sound change to affect Tiberian Hebrew. Its late origin is also reflected by
the different behavior of originally long and short vowels in Tiberian vocalization. Thus
hyphenated ben ‘between’ and tok ‘midst’ preserved ßere and ˙olam, whereas taE ‘object
marker; with’ and lKO ‘all’ became Ata< and AlK:, respectively, thus suggesting that they
were taken over as such from the pre-Tiberian period (which distinguished between long
and short vowels) and had not yet been integrated into the close-knit structure in which
originally long and short e and o behaved in the same manner. (In closed hyphenated syl-
lables, ßere and ˙olam were shortened in medieval solemn recitation of the Bible; yet even
in these cases the quality of ßere, ˙olam is maintained; see Steiner 2001: 220 n. 72.)
Note that this final reduction did not remake Hebrew in the image of Aramaic. One im-
portant difference remained: in Aramaic, short stressed vowels in open syllables were
maintained, even when the last syllable was open, whereas in Hebrew, as a rule, they lost
their stress and were reduced.

3.5.12.2.10. In stage iv the stress shift to the ultima was a veritable sound
shift for the two words groups just discussed (words consisting of or terminat-
ing in two closed syllables and words terminating in an open syllable with
short vowel followed by an open syllable). In other cases, stage iv was a mere
tendency, sometimes occurring, sometimes not.
3.5.12.2.11. An interesting example of the tendency of stress to shift to the
ultima away from a long vowel in an open penult is the contextual form ykI&noa:
‘I’; cf. pausal ykIno‡a:. Comparative evidence shows that the o arose from long a,
and since the Canaanite shift acts on stressed a, we have proof that penulti-
mate stress is original. This is also suggested by the long qamaß in the first
syllable, which is maintained even in the context form, in which stress is dis-
tant: in the original paroxytone form the qamaß was pretonic and accordingly
lengthened. Since in ykInoa: the penultimate vowel was long in both pause and
context, the different behavior of these two forms (penultimate stress in pause,
ultimate stress in context) must be attributed to the analogy of the many pausal
forms with paroxytone stress, in contrast to oxytone contextual froms (cf.
pausal Wrm:&v…; hr;m:&v…; WrmO&v‘yi; Úd,&y;; contextual W‡rm}v…; hr;&m}v…; W‡rm}v‘yi; Ú&d]y;).
3.5.12.2.12. In other cases the tendency to oxytone stress influenced cases
of stress shift from a closed penult to an open ultima. As a rule, closed syl-
lables in this position preserved penultimate stress, as in the contextual forms
of geminate verbs, e.g., WLq"& ‘they were slight’; WLq"&ye ‘they will be swift’; WBs&O
‘turn around (m)’; WBsO&y; ‘they (m) will turn around’; hB:s"&n; ‘she gathered her-
self’; WBs"&n; ‘they gathered themselves’. It can also be seen in forms like Wnr]m"&v…
‘we watched’; hn;r]mO&v‘ ‘keep watch (fp)!’; hn;r]m"&V…TI ‘they (fp) will be watched’.
However, we also find alternations such as pausal hT:a:& ‘you (ms)’, hT:[:& ‘now’,
and contextual hT:&a", hT:&[". The latter, consisting of t[E ‘time’ + directional h,
has two indications of its original penultimate stress. First, directional h is
00-Blau.book Page 150 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.5.12.2.13. ∑ Stress 150

basically unstressed; therefore, the stress could not have been originally on
the ultima. Second, the word shows the effects of Philippi’s Law (the e [i] of
t[E shifts to a), which operates in stressed syllables, and thus the first (penult)
syllable had to be stressed originally.
3.5.12.2.12n. Because Philippi’s Law affects short i (e) only, it could not influence pausal
hT:[:&, since pausal lengthening acted before Philippi’s Law (see §3.5.8.8, p. 134); therefore
one would have expected *ºetta, rather than hT:[:&. Accordingly hT:[:& has to be regarded as a
newly built form, derived from the original contextual form hT:&[", on analogy with forms in
which qamaß in pause corresponds to pata˙ in context (as, e.g., pausal rm:v…, contextual
rm"v…).

3.5.12.2.13. One of the effects of stage iv and related shifts was to give He-
brew a new flexibility. Now there were words with one syllable structure
(closed penult and open ultima) in two different stress patterns (paroxytone and
oxytone). This flexibility was exploited in the grammaticalization of the 1cs
and 2ms suffix-tense verb forms. The paroxytone (unshifted) simple forms
serve to mark the past (yTIr]m"&v… ‘I watched’, T:r]m"&v… ‘you watched’), while the
forms with final stress are used after the “conversive” waw (yTI&r]m"v…w] ‘I will
watch’, T:&r]m"v…w] ‘you will watch’). Again, it is possible to demonstrate that this
contrast is late—later than pretonic lengthening: the qamaß following the first
radical, despite its remoteness from the stress, is preserved, because when the
form was still paroxytone, the vowel was pretonic and accordingly lengthened.
3.5.12.2.13n. Perhaps it was for rhythmic reasons that oxytone stress became characteris-
tic of the suffix-tense preceded by “conversive” waw. For this and other possibilities, see
Blau (1971a: 15–24 = Topics, 199–208). If, indeed, an open long syllable has a stronger
tendency to maintain the stress than a closed long syllable, one would understand why
forms like ytIrO&xEh“w' ‘and I shall cause distress’ remained paroxytone.

3.5.12.2.14. Having just introduced the verb-form system in relation to the

theory of penultimate stress, let us treat the short prefix-tense, which can also
be properly understood only through the history of the stress system. This
form (e.g., yismor, no final vowel) has two fundamental uses: it may denote
the jussive (e.g., av´d]T" ‘may it produce grass’ Gen 1:11) or the past. The past
use has persisted only after the “conversive” waw (e.g., lDeb}Y'w' ‘and he sepa-
rated’ Gen 1:4), except in poetry. At stage ii (general penultimate stress, sub-
sistence of final short vowels), the opposition between the regular prefix-tense
(*yismóru; see §§4.3.2.2.14–4.3.2.2.15, pp. 196ff.) and the short one (*yís-
mor) was redundantly marked, not only by the presence or absence of the -u
ending, but also by the difference in stress position. The regular prefix-tense
was stressed on the syllable preceding -u, as *yismóru, and the short prefix-
tense was stressed *yísmor. This difference of stress was not phonemic; rather,
it was automatic. At stage iii, with the dropping of the final short vowels, the
difference in stress position remained (in most cases) the only mark of the
opposition, and thus stress became phonemic: short prefix-tense *yísmor as
00-Blau.book Page 151 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

151 Stress ∑ 3.5.12.2.15.

opposed to the ordinary prefix-tense rmO&v‘yi. Later, the stress in the short prefix-
tense also shifted to the closed ultima (a shift that had become obligatory when
the paroxytone syllable was closed as well), and both prefix-tense forms con-
verged upon rmO&v‘yi. Nevertheless, the penultimate stress of the prefix-tense
after “conversive” waw has been preserved in many of its occurrences where
the penultimate syllable was open: πs<a:&Yew' ‘and he was gathered’ (alternating
with πsE&a:Yew'); rm<aYo‡w' ‘and he said’; bv…Y;‡w' ‘and he returned’.
3.5.12.2.14n. We said above that in most cases the difference in stress position was the
only feature distinguishing short and regular prefix-tenses. This requires a qualification.
There are forms with a long vowel preceding the last radical, as in hif ºil, and these main-
tained a further distinction between the two prefix-tense forms, even after stress had
shifted to the ultima in the short prefix-tense as well. In these forms the long vowel was
basically preserved only in the regular prefix-tense (lyDib}y'); the thematic vowel was short
in the short prefix-tense (lDeb}y', lDeb}Y'w'). The reason for the different behavior of these forms
is that in Proto-Semitic (and in Pre-Hebrew) no long vowels were tolerated in closed syl-
lables. Accordingly, in the short prefix-tense, which as a rule ended in a closed syllable,
the vowel in this syllable was short: *yabdil (in contrast to *yabdilu in the regular prefix-
tense). This form developed later to *yáb2 del lDeb}y'‡*, to shift in stage iv to lDe&b}y' (as opposed
to lyDi&b}y', in which the long vowel was maintained in an open syllable through stage ii).
Later, from stage iii on, long vowels could occur in closed syllables as well, many of
which emerged with the omission of the final short vowels: *yab2 dilu > lyDi&b}y'. Then, by
analogy, long vowels even appeared in originally closed syllables, as in the imperative μWq
‘rise!’ instead of the expected *qom (cf. the short prefix-tense μqO&y;), by analogy to μWqy;.
Forms like πs<a:&Yew' and bv…Y;‡w' are somewhat puzzling. Why is there a long vowel (qamaß) in
a stressed open syllable in these forms, rather than the expected πs<a"&Yew'*, bv…Y'‡w'*, maintain-
ing, as usual in stage iii, a short vowel in an open stressed syllable? (In stage iv these forms
would have shifted to *wayyeªåsépö, *wayy´sób2 , with reduction of the former stressed syl-
lable.) The qamaß may reflect (1) blending with the original oxytone forms of the regular
prefix-tense (πsE&a:ye, bW‡vy;), where the length is due to pretonic lengthening, and (2) the influ-
ence of parallel pausal forms, in which, by pausal lengthening, stressed vowels were
lengthened. Moreover, forms like *wayyeªåsépö lack the characteristics of the (nif ºal) ver-
bal pattern and were, therefore, exposed to paradigmatic pressure.

3.5.12.2.15. To summarize this application of the theory of penultimate

stress to the short prefix-tense. This form, preceded by the “conversive”
waw, was originally stressed on the penult. There was no “recession” of the
stress in the prefix-tense after “conversive” waw; instead, the original stress
was retained. As a matter of fact, this retention is limited to open syllables:
closed syllables did not retain the stress, because, as a rule, the final syllable
was closed as well, and the shift of stress to the ultima in words terminating in
two closed syllables acted, as noted above, as a veritable sound shift. Thus
such forms as *yísmur, *yábdœl, *y´dábbœr ‘he will tell’, *yitgáddœl ‘he will
magnify himself’ invariably shifted their stress to rmO&v‘yi; lDe&b}y'; rBE&d'y]; lDe&Gt
" }yi. No
paroxytone prefix-tense forms with stressed closed penult remained.
3.5.12.2.15n. One must beware of confusing two different phenomena: (1) the penultimate
stress on open syllables in the prefix-tense following the “conversive” waw and (2) the
00-Blau.book Page 152 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.5.12.2.16. ∑ Stress 152

penultimate stress on open syllables in order to avoid a sequence of two stressed syllables
(see §3.5.11.7n, p. 141). Number 2 reflects the recession of the stress and a change in an
original oxytone pattern, while number 1 reflects the retention of the original paroxytone
stress, the oxytone stress being due to a later development. Therefore, despite the syn-
chronic similarity of these features, they exhibit diachronically opposite processes. More-
over, the avoidance of the immediate sequence of two stressed syllables belongs to parole,
rather than to langue. Strikingly, no traces of the original penultimate stress have been pre-
served in the other use of the short prefix-tense, viz. the jussive, or in the imperative. (The
jussive Ël: μq:y;‡w] ‘and it shall be established for you’ Job 22:28 is no exception; here, the
stress has shifted to the penult in order to avoid the sequel of two stressed syllables, the
underlying form being μqO&y;.) Were the jussive and imperative more influenced by the oxy-
tone ordinary prefix-tense than the forms after “conversive” waw, because the latter re-
ferred to the past? See Blau (1971a: 22–23 = Topics, 206–7).
3.5.12.2.16. The assumption of general penultimate stress allows us to ex-
plain the vocalization of the “conversive” waw preceding the prefix-tense.
Since many forms of the short prefix-tense were disyllabic, their (stressed) pe-
nult coincided with their first syllable (rmOv‘y*i‡ ), in other words, with the syllable
directly following the “conversive” waw. The original vocalization of connec-
tive waw (historically identical to “conversive” waw) was pata˙ (see §5.2.1,
p. 285), which was generally reduced to mobile swa (rm"&v…w)] because of its dis-
tance from the stress. Preceding a stressed syllable it was not only preserved
but even extended by pretonic lengthening to qamaß, under certain circum-
stances: hl:y]lw" & ; μ/y ‘day and night’. The “conversive” waw immediately preced-
ing the prefix-tense, vocalized pata˙ plus doubling, has to be interpreted as an
example of pretonic gemination (see §3.5.7.4.6, p. 124; §3.5.7.6.12, p. 132):
*way-yísmor > rmO&v‘Yiw.'
3.5.12.2.17. Another feature illuminated by the theory of general penult is
the behavior of prefix-tense forms terminating in the 2mp and 3mp suffix -un,
originally (as demonstrated by Arabic) *-una. In stage ii (general penultimate
stress), these forms ended in stressed -u#na; in stage iii (loss of final short vow-
els), the ending changed to stressed -u#n. Later, by pretonic lengthening, the
vowel preceding -u#n was lengthened (§4.3.3.2.3, p. 205). This was the case
not only with a (ˆW‡la:v‘yi ‘they will ask’), but in pause also with i (ˆW‡psEa:ye ‘they
will gather’) and even u (ˆW‡fqøl}yi ‘they will gather up’).
3.5.12.2.17n. For details, see Blau 1975: 70–71 = Studies, 62–63; further, Studies, 71.
This discussion also applies to the 2fs -in ending, which is much less frequent.
As stated above (§3.5.7.6.1, p. 129), pretonic lengthening of u is exceptional. It occurs
preceding -un by analogy of pausal forms with -u ending, in which the stressed(!) u > o
subsisted (WrxO&n]yi ‘they will keep’). As a matter of fact, the suffix -un is especially frequent
in pause, and it stands to reason that it was influenced by pausal forms with -u ending.
Outside pause, pretonic lengthening is attested with a only (ˆW‡la:v‘yi) and a too may be re-
duced even with (smaller) disjunctive accents: ˆW‡ar]yTI ‘you will fear’ Exod 9:30 with zaqef
qa†an, no doubt in the wake of the parallel W‡ar]yyi. I have not found cases of the preservation
of pretonic u or even i outside pause.
00-Blau.book Page 153 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

153 Stress ∑ 3.5.12.2.19.

3.5.12.2.18. With stage iv we have reconstructed stress as it is reflected in

the biblical text. We have not yet dealt with the first stage of stress, which pre-
ceded the stage of general penultimate stress. Whereas the theory of general
penultimate stress is firmly based on the attested biblical stress system in
pause, the reconstruction of stage i is somewhat vague. It is based, in its en-
tirety, on the assumption (which, to be sure, is quite well founded; see §3.5.9.2,
p. 136) that only stressed a shifted to o. Stress stages ii, iii, iv, with which we
have dealt, do not explain how the second syllable of ˆ/vl: ‘tongue’ and r/fyqI
‘smoke’ and the first syllable of rmE/v were stressed, as they must have been,
since the words have o, which arose from stressed a#. Accordingly, we have to
assume that, in the Pre-Hebrew of stage i, words containing long vowels were
stressed on the long vowel nearest to the ultima. On such an assumption ˆ/vl:,
r/fyqI, and rmE/v were stressed originally on a (*lasa#nu, *qita#ru, *sa#miru) and,
therefore, that vowel shifted it to o. No other unequivocal details can be ascer-
tained as to this first stage of stress.
3.5.12.2.18n. Two models for stage i have been suggested; for further discussion and ref-
erences, see Blau (1979d: 49–51 = Topics, 120–22; 1975: 62–66 = Studies, 54–58). The
usual one is the stress system accepted in the reading of Standard Literary Arabic (based
on the prevailing stress pattern of the Syrian-Lebanese dialect group). In this model,
words lacking long syllables (i.e., syllables containing long vowels or closed syllables)
are stressed either (1) on the antepenult or (2) (according to another model) on the syllable
preceding it or (3) (according to still another pattern) on the first syllable (*waßadáqatu/
*waßádaqatu/*wáßadaqatu). This hypothesis, however, is deficient for Pre-Hebrew. It was
propounded at a time when Arabic was thought to reflect Proto-Semitic in some way. It
has been demonstrated that this system in Eastern Arabic dialects is late, later than that of
the Maghrebine (Western) Arabic dialects (Mayer Lambert 1897; Blau 1972b = Middle
Arabic, 297–305). Therefore, it is tempting to posit a stress pattern more akin to that pre-
vailing in Maghrebine (Western) Arabic dialects. In these dialects, a word with no long
syllables is stressed on the ultima. This corresponds to the penult in Standard Literary
Arabic (as also in Pre-Hebrew, in which, at this stage, final short vowels were preserved;
the additional final syllable adds one in counting): *waßadaqátu. The assumption of this
(quasi-)Maghrebine stress system has an additional advantage: it explains better the tran-
sition to general penultimate stress in stage ii. According to the Maghrebine stress model,
even in stage i the stress was often paroxytone, not only when the penult was long (as it is
also according to the quasi-Lebanese stress model), but also in words lacking long syl-
lables; it was only in words containing long syllables preceding the penult that the stress
was not paroxytone. From a stress system containing so many paroxytone words, it was
only a small step to general penultimate stress.
3.5.12.2.19. Accordingly, we posit the following stages for the develop-
ment of the BHeb stress system. Stage i: In words containing long vowels, the
long vowel nearest the ultima was stressed. Stage ii: General penultimate
stress. Stage iii: The stress did not move; final short vowels were omitted; al-
ternations of oxytone and paroxytone words developed, and thus stress be-
came phonemic. Stage iv: A tendency to oxytone stress prevailed; in two
cases it developed to a veritable sound shift: the stress invariably moved from
00-Blau.book Page 154 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

3.5.13. ∑ Pause 154

an open short penult vowel to an open ultima, as well as from a closed penult
to a closed ultima. Pretonic lengthening ceased, and newly emerging pretonic
open syllables containing a short vowel were reduced.

3.5.13. Pausal Forms

3.5.13.1. Words in pausal position are those that precede a break in read-
ing; they are marked by strong disjunctive cantillation marks, either at the end
of the verse, indicated by the cantillation mark sof pasuq (lit., ‘the end of the
verse’), or in the middle of the verse, in the main marked by the cantillation
mark etna˙. In the preceding sections, we have discussed these forms, and, as
we have seen, they are different from contextual forms. They often maintain a
more archaic stress pattern and preserve syllables dropped in context.
3.5.13.2. That pausal forms reflect a linguistic stage more archaic than the
contextual ones is easily demonstrated. The paroxytone pausal forms Wrm:&v…
‘they watched’; hr;m:&v… ‘she watched’; WrmO&v‘yi ‘they will watch’ correspond to
the oxytone contextual forms W‡rm}v…; hr;&m}v…; W‡rm}v‘yi. As we have said before:
from a diachronic point of view, we cannot speak of a retreat of the stress in
pause. On the contrary, the original stress structure was preserved in pause
and tended to change in contextual forms. Nevertheless, changes occur in
pause as well. As can be seen in the forms cited, the stressed syllable of the
pausal form is lengthened (§3.5.11.2, p. 139). As a matter of fact, it was this
lengthening that preserved the original syllable structure; nevertheless, the
lengthening itself is a change. Therefore, as a rule, we regard stressed syl-
lables in pause as long, even when the vowel of the corresponding contextual
form has to be considered short. Consider the pausal tyiB:& ‘house’; μ["P:& ‘beat,
time’, where the qamaß indicates that the first syllable is (historically) long, in
contrast to contextual tyiB"&; μ["P"&, which contain (historically) short pata˙ in the
first syllable. Thus the first vowels of rp<sE& ‘book’; vd,qO& ‘sanctity’, when stand-
ing in pause, have to be regarded as long, yet in the same forms used contex-
tually the vowel must be taken as short.
3.5.13.2n. The quantitative difference obtained in the pre-Tiberian period; it does not,
however, apply to the Tiberian vocalization, which, as stated (§3.5.2.1, p. 106), does not
mark quantitative differences.
3.5.13.3. Pausal and contextual forms sometimes differ in the quality of
vowel, and not only in its quantity. Consider, e.g., pausal Ër,D;& ‘way’, with
(long) qamaß, in contrast to contextual Ër,D,&. This applies to tyiB:&, μ["P:&, in con-
trast to tyiB"&, μ["P"&, as well, since, in the Tiberian vocalization, qamaß and pata˙
differ qualitatively.
3.5.13.4. Archaic stress is sometimes preserved in the contextual form.
In words terminating in originally closed syllables preceded by an open pen-
ultimate syllable, the context form often preserves the archaic stress pattern,
00-Blau.book Page 155 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

155 Pause ∑ 3.5.13.5.

viz. penultimate stress; in pause, owing to what we call pausal stress shift, the
stress shifted to the final syllable, which was already closed in Proto-Semitic.
Thus the pausal form with ultimate stress is later. The stress of contextual
rm<aYo‡w' ‘and he said’ is original, since penultimate stress is primary in words
that have not lost final short vowels, including the short prefix-tense form;
from the beginning they terminated in a consonant. The stress in the pausal
form rm"&aYow' is later. Forms like these lead us to posit a pausal stress shift from
the penult to the closed ultima. The pata˙ in words like rm"&aYow' demonstrates
that this shift is later than pausal lengthening. Had pausal lengthening still
been operating during the action of the pausal stress shift (or after it), it would
have lengthened the pata˙ of the now stressed syllable to qamaß.
3.5.13.4n. Pausal stress shift is mainly attested in the short prefix-tense preceded by “con-
versive” waw. See further Blau 1981a = Topics, 36–49. All the occurrences involved origi-
nally closed syllables. No cases reflecting pausal stress shift exist in which the last syllable
became closed by the omission of final vowels (during stress stage iii); by definition, be-
cause of general penultimate stress, such words, after the omission of the final vowels, had
become oxytone without changing the original place of the stress. The only possible cases
that could have indicated that stress did not shift except to originally closed syllables
would be segolate forms. These words originally terminated in a consonant cluster that
was opened by an anaptyctic vowel (like *sifr > rp<sE& ‘book’), which, however, did not at-
tract stress in pause. One could claim that the stress did not shift to the last syllable in
pause, because at the time of the pausal stress shift this syllable was still open, since the
case endings had not yet been elided. Nevertheless, nothing certain can be inferred from
these forms, since it is likely that the anaptyctic vowel did not count phonemically (see
§3.5.12.2.9n, p. 148). Therefore, it cannot be proven that the pausal stress shift preceded
the omission of final short vowels, although this is quite likely.
We specify that the penultimate syllable in the pausal stress shift is open, because if the
preceding syllable was closed, i.e., if the word ended in (or consisted of) two closed syl-
lables, the stress would have shifted to the last syllable in context as well (see §3.5.12.2.7,
p. 147).
3.5.13.5. In pausal forms in Classical Arabic, final short vowels are elided,
and pausal forms thus represent a later structure than contextual forms. Traces
of a similar omission of final short vowels in pause have been preserved in
Biblical Hebrew as well. These are mostly found in some common preposi-
tions, like pausal Ël: ‘to you (ms)’ in contrast to contextual Úl} in context; cf.
ËM:[I, ËT:aI, Ët:/a, ËB:). These prepositions were so frequent that they resisted
the effects of analogy and preserved this archaic feature (cf. §3.3.5.2.2,
p. 91), although these pausal forms were identical to the 2fs forms of these
prepositions. This stage of the pausal omission of final short vowels preceded
the stage of pausal lengthening and was superseded by it.
00-Blau.book Page 156 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4. Morphology

4.1. Introduction

4.1.1. Morphemes, Free and Bound

4.1.1.1. Morphology deals with the form of “words.” It is, however, not
simple to give a satisfactory definition of what a “word” is in Hebrew; this is
true of many other languages as well. Although it is very easy to identify the
core of a word, it can be intricate indeed to distinguish its limits. It is therefore
more expedient to introduce the notion of a morpheme, i.e., the smallest ele-
ment carrying sense, and define morphology as the part of grammar that deals
with the form of morphemes. We distinguish between free morphemes, to wit,
elements that can stand alone and between which other elements can be in-
serted with relative ease (thus between the two free morphemes hy;h: ‘he was’
and l/dG; ‘great’ other free morphemes can be put, such as vyaI ‘man’ 2 Kgs
5:1 l/dG; vyaI hy;h: ‘he was a great man’), and bound morphemes, which do not
stand alone and which cannot be separated by other elements (thus the bound
morpheme T}- in T}r]m"&v… has to follow the morpheme rm"v… without interruption).
4.1.1.2. One has to distinguish carefully between morphemes and pho-
nemes. If we deal with t in r/T ‘turtle dove’ as opposed to d in r/D ‘genera-
tion’, we are analyzing phonemes. In this case, t has no meaning in itself; it is
only by its opposition to d that r/T and r/D are differentiated; and similarly
with other pairs of words that differ only by the occurrence of t in one word
and d in the other. However, when treating t in T}r]m"v… as opposed, e.g., to
T:r]m"&v…, we do not regard the t as a sound, a phoneme; instead, we are dealing
with the form of the free morpheme rm"v…, which is changed to T}r]m"v… by the ad-
dition of the bound morpheme -t; this bound morpheme -t has a meaning of its
own, viz., it marks the 2fs form (in contradistinction to T:- in T:r]m"&v…, which de-
notes the 2ms form).
4.1.1.3. As we have seen, T}r]m"&v… contains at least two morphemes, i.e., rm"v…
plus T}, in contrast with the 3ms form rm"v…, which, prima facie, consists of one
morpheme only. Nevertheless, it is possible to claim, because of the opposi-
tion to T}r]m"v… and T:r]m"&v…, that rm"v… has to be analyzed as containing the mor-
pheme rm"&v… plus a zero morpheme, marking the 3ms form. Moreover, it
could be claimed that Hebrew (and Semitic) roots, at least verbal ones (in
which the derivation from triradical roots and the use of patterns are espe-
cially obvious [see §1.5.11, p. 14; §4.3.1, pp. 187ff.]), have to be analyzed as
consisting of two discontinuous bound morphemes, the root morpheme and
the pattern morpheme. rm"v…, e.g., consists of the root smr and the pattern

156
00-Blau.book Page 157 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

157 Parts of Speech ∑ 4.1.2.2.

a-a-zero, which marks the 3ms form of the suffix-tense, and T}r]m"v… contains
the root smr and the pattern a-a-t, which marks 2fs form. This notion of dis-
continuous root and pattern morphemes cannot, however, be employed for
primary words such as ynia“ ‘I’, which consist of one morpheme only, reflecting
neither a clear root nor an obvious pattern. In this case, word and morpheme
are identical.

4.1.2. Parts of Speech

4.1.2.1. The standard division of words into parts of speech ultimately goes
back to Aristotle. The accepted division of the parts of speech is: (a) nouns,
divided into substantives, adjectives, numbers (numeralia), and pronouns;
(b) verbs; and (c) particles, divided into adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions,
and interjections. It is not difficult to find flaws in this division, because it is
based on no uniform criteria. Some parts of speech, however, can easily be set
up in BHeb by formal standards: e.g., verbs, which are characterized by tense
structure; or substantives, the plurals of which are marked by -im/-ot and the
possibility of having possessive pronominal suffixes attached. In contrast to
substantives, adjectives, the part of speech closest to substantives, which also
form plurals (and invariably also feminine, which applies only to a part of the
substantives), can be attached to pronominal suffixes only when substantiv-
ized. Moreover, the root structure of adjectives (e.g., qz;j: ‘strong’, l/dG; ‘big’)
is more pronounced than that of substantives, especially primary substantives
(such as hP< ‘mouth’, μD; ‘blood’). Other parts of speech, however, cannot be
defined by their formal properties. They are defined by their syntactic function
(conjunctions connect nouns, verbs, adverbs, and sentences), by their distri-
bution (prepositions invariably precede substantives, pronominal suffixes, or
[as a rule syndetic] sentences), or by their meaning (interjections denote natu-
ral exclamations). Small wonder that the accepted categories are not clearly
defined and are apt to overlap: thus, cardinal numbers in Hebrew (and other
Semitic languages) have substantival qualities, whereas ordinals are clear ad-
jectives. However, subtantives and adjectives are assigned to different catego-
ries, yet cardinals and ordinals are lumped together.
4.1.2.1n. English adjectives do not form plurals, making the distinction between substan-
tives and adjectives quite easy. In Hebrew, too, there is a difference between the plural
formation of substantives and adjectives. In adjectives μy-i always refers to plural mascu-
line, t/- to plural feminine, whereas among substantives exceptions occur. Moreover, only
adjectives may govern adverbs (as daøm} dbEK: ‘very heavy’), and substantives may not
(daøm} tyiB"&* ‘*very house’ does not exist).
4.1.2.2. Contrary to what is fashionable, it does not seem justifiable to
establish the same universal categories of speech for all languages. In each
language, only those parts of speech exist that are morphologically or syntac-
tically marked.
00-Blau.book Page 158 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.1.2.3. ∑ Pronouns 158

4.1.2.3. The basic, Aristotelian division into parts of speech works well in
Hebrew for basic and common structures. However, great difficulties arise be-
cause the boundaries between many parts of speech are blurred, and it is an
arduous task to state for these marginal cases to which parts of speech they be-
long. It is almost impossible to distinguish in every case between substantive
and adjective and participle. Is ˆqez; in ˆqez; μh: r;b}a"w] ‘and Abraham (was) old’ Gen
24:1 an adjective or a substantive (cf. Úyn,‡qez] ‘your ancestors’ Deut 32:7) or a
participle? In this special case, it may even be claimed that the form has to be
parsed as a suffix-tense. And when is yni[: ‘poor’ a substantive (‘a poor person’,
‘the poor’ in a collective sense), and when is it an adjective? In a language (al-
most) without special morphemes to mark adverbs, where are the exact border
lines between adjectives and adverbs derived from them? Perhaps the most
expedient solution is to set up, in addition to the categories mentioned, mixed
categories, such as “adjective-adverb” or “substantive-adjective.”
4.1.2.4. In spite of all these doubts, it will not be feasible, in a general in-
troduction such as this, to deviate from the accepted parts of speech in matters
of general terminology. Accordingly, the following study is based on the ac-
cepted divisions.

4.2. Pronouns
4.2.1. The Basics of Pronouns
4.2.1.1. Pronouns are deictic elements—elements that point to something
or someone with reference to a speech situation. This being the case, they are,
to a great extent, affective and thus related to interjections. Like interjections,
they are in their origin somehow outside simple speech that indicates facts.
Therefore, they are exceptional in their structure as well. Like interjections,
they have not been transferred to triradicalism (cf., e.g., aWh, μhE, hz,). More-
over, they are the only part of speech in which compound words occur. Se-
mitic languages, in general, and Hebrew, in particular, are characterized by a
lack of compound words. The construct construction cannot properly be
called a compound, because of the comparatively great formal and semantic
independence of its parts. Other Hebrew compounds are quite marginal (e.g.,
compounds with negatives, such as l["Y'‡lIB} ‘worthlessness’, presumably com-
posed of ylIB} ‘without’ and l["y'‡* ‘worth’, and perhaps also hm:ylIB} ‘nothing-
ness’, if indeed originally it meant ‘without anything’); in these cases one can
really claim that the exception proves the rule. The sole real exceptions in the
Semitic languages are proper nouns (such as rz,[<&ylIa”, laEn]b}y') and pronouns.
4.2.1.1n. The beginnings of the univerbalization of construct constructions are reflected by
the plural t/mv´ yv´n]a" ‘people of reputation’ 1 Chr 5:24, where the plural marker is added
not only to the construct, as usual (μv´h" yv´n]a" Gen 6:4; cf. also μv´AylIb} yneB}AμG' ‘people with-
out reputation’ Job 30:8, where the noun governed by the construct is itself a compound,

spread is 9 points long

00-Blau.book Page 159 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

159 Independent Personal Pronouns ∑ 4.2.2.2.1.

opening with negation), but also to the governed noun. A further step toward univerbaliza-
tion is exhibited by t/ba: tyBE ‘relatives on the father’s side’ (e.g., 1 Chr 7:7), where the
plural marker (-ot) is added to the end of the (quasi-) compound only, rather than to the
construct (ba: yTEB:*).
4.2.1.2. Various pronominal elements join and separate in ever-changing
variations. Thus, e.g., hz,L:h" consists of three demonstrative elements: h" (with
following doubling) and l: and hz,. One of the reasons for the combination of
these elements is their emotional character. Words with affective load are apt
to lose their affectivity and become worn out, thus necessitating their renewal.
Because of their emotional character and their frequency, pronouns tend to be
shortened (e.g., by the elision of their final vowel), and the combination of
various pronominal elements restores them to normal length.
4.2.1.2n. On the compound character of Semitic pronouns, see Jakob Barth’s classic work
Die Pronominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen (1913). W. Fischer’s excellent Die
demonstrativen Bildungen der neuarabischen Dialekte (1959) is limited, as its name indi-
cates, to demonstratives in the Arabic dialects. Nevertheless, it provides the Hebrew lin-
guist with much help in understanding the mechanism of the constantly changing combina-
tions of pronominal elements.
On the loss of final short vowels, note that Classical Arabic, which as a rule preserves
final short vowels, often elides them from pronominal elements.
4.2.1.3. Historically later than the deictic use of pronouns is their ana-
phoric use (i.e., their use as a cross-referencing element, referring back to
something mentioned before, as ar;B: μyhIløa” μl<x<&B} /ml}x"B} μd;a: h:Ata< μyhIløa” ar;b}Yiw'
/taø ‘and God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him’
Gen 1:27). Only rarely does Biblical Hebrew show the anticipatory anaphoric
(or proleptic) usage, i.e., the reference to something mentioned later, as μh<l:
laEr;c‘yi yneb}lI ‘to the children of Israel’ Josh 1:2. Under the influence of Ara-
maic, this construction became one of the hallmarks of Rabbinic Hebrew.

4.2.2. Independent Personal Pronouns

4.2.2.1. Introduction
4.2.2.1.1. The independent personal pronouns are used primarily in the
original nominative function, i.e., as subject and predicate. Less often, the in-
dependent personal pronouns serve to emphasize a preceding pronominal suf-
fix, ynia:&Aμg' ynikE&r“B: ‘bless me as well!’ Gen 27:34. In other syntactical functions
(i.e., in the original accusative function after verbs and the original genitive
function after nouns and prepositions), pronominal suffixes are used; see
§4.2.3ff., pp. 168ff.

4.2.2.2. First-Person Singular Independent Pronouns

4.2.2.2.1. The first-person singular pronoun has two forms: in pause ynia:&,
ykIno‡a:, and in context yni‡a“, ykI&noa:. The use of two forms for the same function is
00-Blau.book Page 160 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.2.2.2.2. ∑ Independent Personal Pronouns 160

quite remarkable; it is found in other Semitic languages (e.g., Ugaritic, Old

Akkadian). In later Biblical Hebrew, ynia“ spread at the expense of ykInoa:, even-
tually superseding it entirely in Rabbinic Hebrew. We have already demon-
strated that, in accordance with the pausal forms, both these pronouns origi-
nally had penultimate stress and shifted their stress to the ultima only in the
fourth stress period (§3.5.12.2.11, p. 149).
4.2.2.2.2. In Hebrew both ynia“ and ykInoa: terminate in -i, and this applies also
to the 1cs ending of the suffix-tense (yTIr]m"&v…) and to both the genitival and ac-
cusatival pronominal suffixes (ydiy;, ynir'&m:v‘). In the other Semitic languages,
however, this uniformity does not obtain. In Arabic, for instance, ‘I’ is ªana
(spelled with final alif ), ‘I wrote’ katabtu, ‘my hand’ yadi, ‘he saw me’
raªani. When one language exhibits variety in a certain pattern, in contrast
with uniformity in the other language, it appears to imply that the variety is
original and the uniformity is due to analogical leveling (the principle of ar-
chaic heterogeneity, §4.3.3.4.2[a], pp. 208–209). There were two stimuli for
the spread of the final -i. The first were the pronominal suffixes -ni and -i
(originally -iya; see §4.2.3.2.1, p. 168); the second was analogy to the form
ykInoa:, which ultimately arose from *ªanaku (cf. Akkadian, Ugaritic; the final
vowel was, it seems, anceps), becoming by the Canaanite shift *ªanoku, and
then developing by the vowel dissimilation o - u to o - i (see §1.19.9, p. 58)
into ykInoa:. Through the threefold impact of -i, -ni, and ykInoa:, *ªåna) shifted to
ynia“, and *samartu (< samarku, by analogy with T:r]m"&v…, etc.) to yTIr]m"&v….
4.2.2.2.2n. As a rule, o - u tends to shift to i - u (see §1.19.8, p. 58). It was, it seems, be-
cause of the influence of the pronominal suffixes terminating in -i that ykInoa: was preferred
over the expected *ªaniku.
The role of the pronominal suffixes is complex. In other Semitic languages, it was the
impact of the pronominal suffixes alone that generated ªanaki. See Tropper (1993: 292),
pace Blau (1979c: 147 = Topics, 348). Indeed, in Samaritan Hebrew ªanaki, rather than
*ªanoki, is transmitted; this form would have arisen from *ªanaku through the influence of
the pronominal suffixes.
The change in the suffix-form is especially noteworthy, since it took place even though
the difference between the 1cs and original 2fs (yTIr]m"&v…*; traces of this are still preserved;
see below, §4.3.3.4.1n, p. 208) was blurred as a result.
4.2.2.2.3. Thus Hebrew ynia“ did not originally terminate in i. Its original
form was *ªana (with anceps final vowel), as in Arabic, Ethiopic (i.e., Gºez,
where it always terminates in short a), and Aram ª ana. It was to this ªana (with
final long vowel) that the suffix *-ku, also occurring in the suffix-tense (see
§4.3.3.4.1, p. 208), was attached, giving rise to *ªanaku > ykInoa:.
4.2.2.2.3n. The Proto-Semitic form of the pronoun may have been *ªanªa, possibly con-
taining the same ªa that occurs as the prefix of the prefix-tense 1cs. In Arabic, the final
vowel of the form is written long, but it is, as a rule, scanned in poetry as short. In Aramaic
the first vowel has been shortened owing to internal Aramaic development; the final vowel
is long.

spread is 6 points long

00-Blau.book Page 161 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

161 ªatta/ªatt ∑ 4.2.2.3.2.

Independent Personal Pronouns

4.2.2.2.4. Since in Aramaic ªåna prevails, whereas in Canaanite inscrip-

tions ªnk is attested, Bauer and Leander (e.g., 1922: 248–49), in accordance
with Bauer’s theory that Biblical Hebrew is a mixed language, posited that
Biblical Hebrew ykInoa: stems from its Canaanite layer, whereas ynia“ originates in
the Aramaic stratum. This view is groundless. The whole theory of a mixed
language is somewhat dubious (see §3.5.9.2n, p. 137), and, further, both forms
of the 1cs personal pronoun are attested in other Semitic languages as well,
and it stands to reason that they reflect a Proto-Semitic doublet.

4.2.2.3. Second-Person Singular Independent Pronouns

4.2.2.3.1. The second-person singular pronoun shows gender; the pausal
forms are hT:a& :/ hT:a& ", T}a:, and the contextual hT:&a", T}a". The feminine occurs six
times with the k´tib2 yta, i.e., ªatti, and the q´re T}a". In the early books of
Judges and Kings this ªatti has to be interpreted as preserving the early form
*ªanti attested in other Semitic languages. The same form occurring in later
books (Jeremiah and Ezekiel), in all likelihood mirrors Aramaic influence, in
which ytna/yta persisted. The same feature thus has to be analyzed in differ-
ent ways in accordance with the age of the texts in which it occurs. This ex-
ample highlights the difficulties in any historical reconstruction of Biblical
Hebrew. Had we not known the age of these texts, we would not have been
able to differentiate among these occurrences of yta. In the light of our lim-
ited knowledge of Biblical Hebrew, there is no doubt that in many cases we
offer a somewhat simplistic explanation where the development was in fact
much more intricate.
4.2.2.3.1n. See Kutscher (1982: 30–31, par. 41). Since ªanti occurs in stories originating in
the Northern (Israelite) part of Palestine (as opposed to Judah), Kutscher suggested that it
stems from a Northern dialect in which ªanti had persisted. Samaritan Hebrew atti may
also reflect this Northern dialect; it may, however, also exhibit Aramaic influence. Only
Aramaic influence is relevant to the prevalence of yta in the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls
(Kutscher 1982: 109, par. 180).

4.2.2.3.2. The behavior of masculine hT:a", which as a rule preserves its fi-

nal vowel, is different from feminine T}a", which drops it. We have already
called attention to Biblical Hebrew’s being a “differential” dialect, one that
preserves a in positions in which i/u are omitted (see §3.5.7.6.1n, p. 129;
§3.5.7.2.3n, p. 122). The reason for the persistence of the final vowel in one of
the two pronouns hT:a", T}a" is clear: originally, the 2s opposition between mas-
culine : feminine was marked by the opposition of anceps a : i. The dropping
of one of these final vowels would not have altered this opposition phonemi-
cally; either a : zero or zero : i would have sufficed. And there was indeed par-
adigmatic pressure to preserve one of these vowels. As a result, many Semitic
languages, even in their later development, keep one of the final vowels intact,
thus maintaining the opposition and indicating that but for the paradigmatic
00-Blau.book Page 162 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.2.2.3.3. ∑ Independent
ªatta/ªatt Personal Pronouns 162

pressure both vowels would have been elided. In Aramaic and many modern
Arabic dialects it is the feminine ªanti, etc., that survived, whereas the mascu-
line shifted to ªant, etc. It stands to reason that the 2fs suffix of the prefix-tense
and the imperative -i (to which the element -ti is related; as yrim}v‘TI) influenced
the suffix-tense and the pronoun to preserve its -i. In Biblical Hebrew, how-
ever, which was a “differential” language with a strong predilection for pre-
serving a rather than i (and u), it was the a of hT:a" that was maintained. Cf.
§3.5.7.2.3n, p. 122; §3.5.7.6.1n, p. 129.
4.2.2.3.2n. Three times (Num 11:15; Deut 5:27; Ezek 28:14) T}a" as masculine form is at-
tested; further, there are five cases of k´tib2 ta, q´re hT:a". Origen has six times aqqa and
only once aq (Ps 89:39, where the traditional text has hT:a"). In the Dead Sea Scrolls hta
by far prevails, with ta occurring only once (Qimron 1986: 57, par. 321.12). One wonders
whether to attribute this ta to the impact of T}a" used as the masculine form in Aramaic and
Rabbinic Hebrew.
Regarding the preservation of gender in these pronouns, note that in some Arabic dia-
lects, the paradigmatic pressure was not strong enough and the final vowels were alto-
gether dropped, so that the masculine and feminine forms became identical. See the
illuminating analysis of the (parallel) suffix-tense endings in Jastrow (1978: 216-28).
4.2.2.3.3. The original forms of hT:a" and T}a" were *ªanta and *ªanti (with
anceps final vowels). The n is still preserved in the Southwest Semitic lan-
guages. In all likelihood, the ªan is the same pronominal element that occurs in
the first person. Accordingly, one is tempted to analyze *ªana (with final an-
ceps vowel) as original *ªanªa, which became *ªanâ by dissimilation of the sec-
ond glottal stop. If this is correct, one will identify this ªa with the 1cs prefix
of the prefix-tense (rmøv‘a< < *ªasmur). Thus, an in the first person terminated ei-
ther in -ªa of the prefix-tense or in -aku (for which see §4.3.3.4.1, p. 208) of the
suffix-tense, whereas to the second person the endings -ta and -ti, occurring in
both the suffix- and prefix-tense, were suffixed (see §4.3.3.4.1, p. 208).
4.2.2.3.3n. In a sense the n is preserved also in Aramaic (yta, ytna), where, however, it
may reflect later dissimilation, in cyclic form restoring the original form.
As a rule, -ta, -ti marking the 2s of the independent personal pronouns and -ka/-ki
marking the 2s of the pronominal suffix are regarded as alternating pronominal elements,
a phenomenon quite frequent in this part of speech. Kienast has ingeniously proposed that
the masculine pronominal element of the second person was -ka, the feminine one -ti (and
similarly in the plural; see Kienast 2001: 48–49). Since the gender opposition was suffi-
ciently indicated by the vowel difference, the contrast of t : k was leveled out, with t some-
times prevailing and k in other cases.

4.2.2.4. Third-Person Singular Independent Pronouns

4.2.2.4.1. The 3s independent pronouns in Hebrew are aWh and ayhI. In
some Semitic languages these pronouns begin with s (Akkadian, most Epi-
graphic South Arabian dialects except Sabaic), in the others with h. Some
generations ago it was the accepted view (e.g., Brockelmann 1908–13: 1.302–
3) that the original Proto-Semitic forms were *huªa and *siªa. Since the oppo-
00-Blau.book Page 163 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

163 h : s ∑ 4.2.2.4.2.
Independent Personal Pronouns

sition of h : s was redundant, the contrast being sufficiently marked by u : i,

the forms were analogically leveled. In some languages the s-forms prevailed;
in others, including Hebrew, the h-forms. This theory was based on the Mod-
ern South Arabian dialect of Mehri, to a great extent, in which indeed the mas-
culine begins with h, the feminine with s (!). Nevertheless, one should not rely
too much on Mehri, since in this dialect s may shift to h, under conditions not
yet established, so that both genders may well reflect Proto-Semitic s. The sit-
uation becomes even more intricate through the occurrence of another sibilant
alongside s. In Old Akkadian, the personal and demonstrative pronoun as well
as the causative verbal theme begin with ¶ and only the relative pronoun be-
gins with s. To account for this alternation it has been proposed that originally
¶ opened the masculine, s the feminine form, and later the difference between
the genders (which was marked also by different vowels) was leveled out in
opposite directions. A further complication is presented by the ÓaÎrami dia-
lect of Epigraphic South Arabian, where the masculine pronominal suffix
opens with s, the feminine with s. Again there are two different sibilants, but
South Arabian s does not correspond to Old Akkadian ¶.
4.2.2.4.1n. On the contrast, see in general Kienast (2001: 52–57, par. 43) and Diem (1997:
62–64), with additional bibliography. For the Mehri form, one would have expected s !
The causative verbal theme is mentioned here, since it is built with the help of pronominal
elements prefixed to the verb; see §4.3.5.7.3, p. 234. For the Epigraphic South Arabian
sibilants, we follow Beeston (1984); cf. §1.10.2.2n, p. 30. In ÓaÎrami s has fallen together
with t. However, it has to be interpreted as original s, since the alternation s : s is charac-
teristic of the S˙auri Modern South Arabian dialect.

4.2.2.4.2. It is impossible to draw clear limits between s-languages and h-

languages. As a rule, languages using the s-forms for the third-person pro-
noun also do so in the causative. Ugaritic, however, has h in the pronoun, s in
the causative. Besides, some h-languages having the h causative (with the
common variant in ª) also have (original) st-patterns in the (reflexive/recipro-
cal) t-form of the causative (Arabic, Gºez, Sabaic; presumably because of the
phonetic difficulty of forming a t-pattern verb from the h/ª causative; in Ara-
bic and Geºz, the s had shifted to s). Moreover, in the same language group
different dialects may exhibit either h or s; as mentioned, Sabaic has h-forms,
the other Epigraphic South Arabian dialects s-forms. Should one posit Proto-
Semitic dialectal differentiation between s, ¶, s, and h-forms in the third-
person pronouns and s, ¶, h, and aleph forms in the causative, which were in
different ways continued in the individual languages? At any rate, the most
plausible explanation for the alternation of s- and h-forms is to understand
them as different pronominal elements; as noted above (§4.2.2.4.1), such vari-
ation is characteristic of pronouns in general. Thus, most Semitic languages
use the d pronominal element, but, e.g., in Gºez ‘he/she’ is expressed by the
(addition of the) pronominal element -t- (w´ªetu, y´ªeti) and ‘this’ is marked in
00-Blau.book Page 164 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.2.2.4.3. ∑ Independent
huª, hiª; DualPersonal Pronouns 164

Akkadian by the pronominal element ªan. Similarly the 3s personal pronoun

may be indicated by different elements (s, ¶, s, h). Even ª marking the causa-
tive verbal theme need not derive from h but may represent an independent
pronominal element.
4.2.2.4.3. As in Indo-European languages, the third-person pronouns differ
from the other persons in being originally demonstrative in function; this
meaning, like that of the definite article (see §4.2.5, pp. 179–180), was weak-
ened by excessive anaphoric use. The presumably archaic demonstrative us-
age of the third-person pronoun is still well preserved in Biblical Hebrew:
aWhh" μ/qM:h" ‘that place’ Gen 22:14; and without the definite article attached to
the pronoun, aWh hl:y]L"B& " ‘at that night’ Gen 19:33. In the Pentateuch, as a rule,
awhI is written for ayhI as a perpetual q´re. The reason for this is unknown.
4.2.2.4.4. If the final a of ayhI, aWh derives from a consonantal ª, one posits
*huªa/*hiªa as etymon. Diem (1997: 66–69) suggested *hiªat for ‘she’, in ac-
cordance with the feminine ending of the suffix-tense -at (see §4.3.3.4.6,
p. 210).
4.2.2.5. Dual Independent Pronouns
4.2.2.5.1. The dual is generally an archaic feature, tending to disappear
with the progress of culture. This is the case, e.g., in the Indo-European lan-
guages, and also in modern Arabic dialects compared with Classical Arabic.
In the latter, the use of the dual is obligatory not only in substantives but in ad-
jectives, pronouns, and verbs as well. In the former, however, it has become
limited to substantives and its use is more or less optional, often quite similar
to that prevailing in Biblical Hebrew.
4.2.2.5.2. In Biblical Hebrew the dual is limited to certain substantives. It
occurs in numerals (μyin'‡v‘ ‘two’, μyit"&am: ‘two hundred’, μyiP"&l}a" ‘two thousand’),
nouns denoting time (μyim"&/y ‘two days’, μyit"&n;v‘ ‘two years’), nouns consisting
of two parts (μyin‡ 'z]amø ‘balances’), and the double body parts (μyid'&y; ‘hands’,
μyil"g& ]r' ‘feet’, μyip"&n;K} ‘wings’). The last category has justly been dubbed pseudo-
dual, since it is only formally a dual; the forms have the dual ending but do not
function as duals syntactically. Instead, these duals may denote more than
two, as any ordinary plural (e.g., dj:a<l} μyip"&n;K} vv´ ‘each one had six wings’ Isa
6:2). Even nouns consisting of two parts (such as μyin‡ 'z]amø cited above) cannot
be regarded as real duals, since the forms are not opposed to either a singular
or a plural.
4.2.2.5.2n. On the pseudo-dual, see Blanc (1970). Since this term is in vogue, there is no
point in using a term I have used elsewhere, “ex-dual” (Blau 1973a: 199 n. 94), although,
prima facie, pseudo-dual more appropriately describes place names such as μyil" &v…Wry],
which never acted as duals.
4.2.2.5.3. The supersession of the dual by the plural is, it seems, due to the
cooperation of two forces. Modern speakers do not find ‘two’ different in prin-
00-Blau.book Page 165 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

165 Independent Personal ªåná˙nu ∑ 4.2.2.6.1.

Dual;Pronouns

ciple from higher numbers and, accordingly, tend to remove its archaic special
marking. In addition, languages often reflect the general trend of replacing
synthetic constructions—constructions in which bound morphemes are uti-
lized (such as the dual, where number two is marked by a special ending)—by
analytic constructions (characterized by free morphemes, as in the use of num-
ber ‘two’ + the plural).
4.2.2.5.3n. Similarly, for instance, the Proto-Semitic accusative is marked by a special
ending. In Biblical Hebrew, however, this bound morpheme has been replaced before de-
terminate nouns by a separate word (i.e., by a free morpheme), taE.

4.2.2.5.4. In the domain of pronouns the dual is totally absent from He-
brew. It is, however, not really certain that even in Proto-Semitic dual pro-
nouns existed and that therefore their absence in Hebrew reflects a later
development. In Classical Arabic, at any rate, the dual pronouns (antuma/
huma ‘you/they both’) give, prima facie, the impression of being late, being
derived from the plural (antum/hum), rather than from the singular (ªanta/
huwa). This is the case in Ugaritic, too, a language in which even the 1d pro-
nominal suffix (-ny) is attested, a form that is missing in Classical Arabic. Ac-
cordingly, one wonders whether one should not posit a circular development:
in Proto-Semitic the dual was only used with nouns. In some Semitic lan-
guages it was expanded to pronouns, adjectives, and verbs; it was later limited
to certain classes of substantives.
4.2.2.5.4n. The dual forms of the suffix-tense, in both Classical Arabic and Ugaritic, are
also derived from the plural and seem late. It is true that if the singular forms ªanta/huwa
originally terminated in a long a, that would have blocked the derivation of the dual from
them.
It is not certain whether the Proto-Semitic dual was restricted to special classes of
nouns, as it is in Hebrew, or occurred with every substantive. The latter is more likely,
since it fits the archaic tendency towards the special expression of ‘two’. Cf. Fontinoy
(1969).

4.2.2.6. First-Person Plural Independent Pronouns

4.2.2.6.1. The first-person plural forms are two in number, Wnj}n'‡a“, Wnj}n'‡
‘we’. The ancient form, according to comparative Semitic linguistics, is not
the usual Wnj}n'‡a“ (though forms with initial aleph are also attested in other Se-
mitic dialects, such as Phoenician and Biblical Aramaic) but Wnj}n'‡, which oc-
curs only five times in the Bible (and is attested in the Lachish letters as well).
Wnj}n'‡a“ was, it seems, formed from Wnj}n'‡ by analogy with the singular ynia“. The
secondary character of the prosthetic aleph is also demonstrated by internal
analysis, viz., its vocalization with ˙a†af pata˙; were it original, it would have
been vocalized with qamaß owing to pretonic lengthening. Rabbinic Hebrew
went even further with the analogy to ynia“, substituting Wna:& for Wnj}n'‡a“. In the
Bible, this form is attested only once as a k´tib2 in Jer 42:6; the q´re is Wnj}n'‡a“. If
00-Blau.book Page 166 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.2.2.6.2. ∑ Independent
ªattæm, ªatten! Personal
O Pronouns 166

it does not reflect the influence of later copyists, who already in their spoken
language used Wna:&, it can be interpreted as already existing in the spoken lan-
guage at the end of the First Temple era; not being considered to belong to the
standard, Wnj}n'‡a“ was substituted in its stead (Kutscher 1982: 31, par. 42).
4.2.2.6.2. The Akkadian and Gºez correspondences of (ªa)na˙nu have i (or
its development) in the first syllable. Since it is easy to derive a from i preced-
ing ˙ but not vice versa, it stands to reason that the Proto-Semitic form was
*ni˙nu (with anceps final vowel; cf. above, §3.5.7.2.2, p. 122).

4.2.2.7. Second-Person Plural Independent Pronouns

4.2.2.7.1. The second-person masculine plural form is μT<a". The femi-
nine form ˆTEa" is attested in Ezek 34:31 only, and hn;TE&a", with simple nun, oc-
curs four times. In the Babylonian vocalization pata˙-segol prevails in the 2p
(and 3p) forms for both Tiberian ßere and segol. The opening of these forms
(ªatt- < *ant) is identical to the 2s forms.
4.2.2.7.2. Much more complicated is the termination of these pronouns.
Hebrew, as well as the other Semitic languages, reflects a real medley of
forms, both here and in 3p forms (which rhyme with 2p forms), the corre-
sponding pronominal suffixes, and the suffix-tense terminations. This miscel-
lany came into being by the combination of different pronominal elements
and their mutual leveling. The original pattern of the masculine was, it seems,
ªantumu (as preserved in Arabic in sandhi), terminating in the plural ending
-u, prevailing in the third-person plural of the suffix-tense and in the second-
and third-person plural of the prefix-tense and in the imperative (Wrm}v…, Wrm}v‘TI,
Wrm}v‘yi, Wrm}v¥) and presumably also occurring in Proto-Hebrew noun plurals
(μyv¥ar; ‘heads’, in the nominative < *raªasu[ma]). The m of the 2mp as well as
the n of the 2fp are presumably pronominal elements.
4.2.2.7.2n. On the variety of elements involved in the forms, see also Blau 1975: 71–72 =
Studies, 63–64. With Arabic ªantumu, cf. also Gºez ªant´mu; in Gºez both short u and i
shift to ´.

4.2.2.7.3. The basic pattern of the feminine was *antina, terminating in

the feminine plural -a ending. This -a is also preserved in Akkadian attina, as
well as in the Akkadian and Gºez conjugations and in some remnants of the
Hebrew suffix-tense, partly preserved as k´tib2 (see §4.3.3.4.10, p. 212) and
perhaps of the imperative (see §4.3.3.1.2n, p. 203). From this form Hebrew
hn;TE&a" may be directly derived; with omission of the final anceps ending, we ar-
rive at ˆTEa".
4.2.2.7.3n. The -a may also be an original element in the marker of the Hebrew fp noun,
t/-, to be derived from *-at. In Hebrew there is a tendency toward preserving final -a (see
§3.5.7.2.3n, p. 122; §4.2.2.3.2n, p. 162), but it is not surprising that it is elided from pro-
nominal elements (see §4.2.1.2n, p. 159).
00-Blau.book Page 167 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

167 Independent Personal

ªattæm, ªatten! O ∑ 4.2.2.7.5.
Pronouns

We have derived the final -a ultimately from the feminine forms, which ended in the fp
markers -a/-na (and have mentioned marginally the possibility of internal Hebrew devel-
opment). This, however, is not the only derivation possible. In some Semitic languages
(Phoenician, Ugaritic, Spanish Arabic), pronouns of the third person may terminate in
-(a)t. It is possible to posit this ending for Hebrew as well in the third person and to derive
the long form (also) by the word-final shift of -at to -a, as attested in the feminine ending
of nouns and verbs (see §1.5.13, p. 15; §3.5.7.2.1, p. 121; §4.3.3.4.7, p. 210; §4.4.2.4,
p. 264). Since in other Semitic languages this feature is almost entirely limited to the third
person, its occurrence in the second person would have to be explained as the result of
analogy. This, of course, does not add to the likelihood of this kind of development. We
refrain from broaching the question of the use of -a in the function of oblique cases.
4.2.2.7.4. The segol in μT<a" (pata˙ in the Babylonian vocalization) in con-
trast to the ßere in ˆTEa" / hn;TE&a" is strange and can be accounted for only by posit-
ing a chain of analogical formations. On the one hand, long forms terminating
in -a alternated with short forms in which it was elided (as hn;TE&a," ˆTEa)" . On the
other hand, pronouns with doubling of the final consonant (consisting of the fi-
nal -n plus the fp -na ending) occurred alongside forms with a simple n (hN;h,E&
hn;B<&r]qI ‘their [fp] interior’ Gen 41:21). These alternations gave rise to a great
variety of forms, not all of them attested in Biblical Hebrew, though they may
be reconstructed with fairly high certainty, since they occur in parallel forms
and have often left traces. Moreover, since the opposition between the mascu-
line and feminine pronouns (*ªantumu : *ªantina, ªantinna) contained redun-
dant features, being triply marked (u : i, m : n(n), -u : -a), the forms were to a
great extent leveled; the masculine form was significantly adapted to the femi-
nine. These developments complicated the situation considerably.
4.2.2.7.4n. On the analogical formation, see once more Blau 1975: 71–72 = Studies, 63–
64. The Hebrew fp ending –na is attested in the imperative and the prefix-tense (hn;r]mø&v‘,
hn;r]mø&v‘TI); in Classical Arabic it is found in the suffix-tense as well. In Hebrew pay atten-
tion to the alternation of the two fp a markers (in hn;TE&a", without geminated nun) and -na
(contained in hN;hE&).

4.2.2.7.5. In accounting for the vocalizations, it seems expedient to start

with the Babylonian forms, which are simpler, since they invariably contain
a. This a arose first through the operation of Philippi’s Law on i in a closed,
stressed syllable. This occurred first in feminine forms, which originally
ended in -ínnO, as seen in hánnO, corresponding to Tiberian hN;hE& < *hin+na,
terminating in the feminine-plural -na ending. The shift then spread to the
masculine forms, which, according to comparative evidence, originally con-
tained u in open syllable and terminated in -u but were rebuilt in analogy with
the feminine forms and shifted, through the action of Philippi’s Law, to
-ámmO (as *húmu > *hímma > hámmO, parallel to Tiberian hM:hE&). Thus the
gender differentiation was marked by the opposition m : n only. The situation
according to the Tiberian vocalization is much more intricate. In order to un-
derstand it one has to posit, as stated, the existence of a great variety of forms,
00-Blau.book Page 168 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.2.2.8. ∑ Independent
! mO, hen! nO;
hem Personal
Suffixed
Pronouns
Personal Pronouns 168

only some of which are attested: hm:TE&a"*, hM:T<&a"*, hM;TE&a"*, μTEa"*, μT<a", hn;TE&a",
hN;T<&a"*, hN;TE&a"*, hn;T<&a", ˆTEa", ˆT<a"*, and similarly in the 3p.
4.2.2.7.5n. Note that both Tiberian hM:hE& and hN:hE& contain ßere. This ßere can be accounted
for in two ways: (1) either it was preserved by analogy with forms containing ßere in an
open syllable, which therefore were not affected by Philippi’s Law (like hm:TE&a"*), or (2) by
deriving it from *hœªmmO/*hœnnO, reflecting the shift of ˙iriq to segol according to Phi-
lippi’s Law, and later the shift of segol to ßere, because of the tendency to use ßere, rather
than segol, in stressed closed syllables. The second of these would exhibit a circular devel-
opment, restoring the original ßere.
For the unattested hm:TE&a"*, cf. hn;TE&a". For the unattested hM:T<&a"*, cf. Samaritan attimma.
In the Dead Sea Scrolls, too, the long forms prevail. They may continue the long forms at-
tested in Biblical Hebrew, yet they may also be regarded as the result of late internal He-
brew analogy (cf. similar forms in modern Arabic dialects; see Kutscher 1982: 96, par.
157). Cf. also the very interesting 3s pronouns occurring in the Dead Sea Scrolls: hawh,
hayh. The above-mentioned hM:T<&a"* would reflect the shift of ˙iriq/ßere to segol by Phi-
lippi’s Law. With μTEa"*, cf. μhE. For unattested hN;TE&a"*, cf. hN:hE&.

4.2.2.8. Third-Person Plural Independent Pronouns

4.2.2.8.1. The third-person plural forms, masculine and feminine, are
hM:hE&, μhE, hN;;hE&. Their terminations partly correspond to the second-person plu-
ral; see §4.2.2.7, pp. 166–168; on the alternation of h and s in various Semitic
languages, see §4.2.2.4, pp. 162–164.

4.2.3. Suffixed Personal Pronouns

4.2.3.1. Introduction
4.2.3.1.1. The independent personal pronouns in Biblical Hebrew, as noted
above, are used in the original nominative function, i.e., in the main as sub-
jects and predicates. In other functions (in the function of the oblique cases)—
i.e., governed by nouns and prepositions (genitive function) or by verbs
(accusative function)—pronominal suffixes are used. The genitive and accu-
sative suffixes are generally identical, except in 1cs forms.

4.2.3.2. First-Person Singular Suffixes

4.2.3.2.1. The first-person singular suffix is -i after nouns and preposi-
tions, but -ni after verbs: ydiy; ‘my hand’, yBI ‘in me’, in contrast to ynin;‡q: ‘he ac-
quired me’. It is tempting to derive both forms from one stock and assume that
the -n- of -ni arose to avoid hiatus. Just as from the place name /lyv¥ the gen-
tilic noun yni/lyv¥ is derived, the n bridging over the hiatus *silo-i, thus alleg-
edly from *qana-i, ynin;‡q; developed. This attractive explanation is not devoid of
difficulties. As we have seen (§3.5.12.2, pp. 144ff.), one of the most powerful
explanations of Hebrew syllable structure is the hypothesis that, once general
pretonic stress obtained, words stressed on their penultimate lost their final
vowel; those with ultima stress preserved it. Accordingly, paroxytone ynin;‡q: has
00-Blau.book Page 169 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

169 -i, -ka /-ki ∑ 4.2.3.3.1.

Independent Personal Pronouns

not lost any final vowel, the original form of the accusative pronominal suffix
being -ni without an additional final vowel (not *-niya). Nevertheless, oxy-
tone forms like ydi&y; elided the final vowel; comparative evidence suggests that
the original form of the suffix was -iya. Haplology determines the form of yd'y;
‘my hands’: *yaday-iya becomes *yadayya and eventually yd'y;, after omission
of the final short vowel.
4.2.3.2.1n. For the usual hiatus explanation, see Brockelmann (1908–13: 1.51–52; 307).
In Arabic, note that kitabiya -l-jadid ‘my new book’ occurs alongside kitabi -l-jadid;
note the omission of the case vowel preceding -iya/-i.
In Arabic, following a long vowel or a vowelless y, the suffix has the form -ya; after a
long vowel the long vowel displaces the following short i (*yada-iya ‘my hands [nomina-
tive] > yadaya); after a vowelless y the i is omitted owing to haplology (*yaday-iya ‘my
hands [in the oblique case] > yadayya).
The -niya form is tricky. In Hebrew and Ugaritic *-iya and ni are distinct (Tropper
2000: 215–20). In contrast, in Arabic, -niya occurs under the same circumstances in which
-iya is used; it appears that here -niya is due to analogy with -iya.
4.2.3.2.2. Because -iya and -ni likely have different origins, they presum-
ably reflect different pronominal elements. The alternation of such elements
should not surprise us; we have met their interchange in independent pro-
nouns as well (see §4.2.2.2, pp. 159ff.).

4.2.3.3. Second-Person Singular Suffixes

4.2.3.3.1. In Proto-Semitic, the second-person singular suffixes, mascu-
line and feminine, were *-ka/*ki with anceps final vowels. We have dealt in
the preceding chapter (above, §4.2.2.3.2, p. 161) with the tendency toward
preserving at least one of the two vowels in order to maintain the gender op-
position. Again, as in the case of the independent pronoun (see §4.2.2.3.2,
p. 161), the opposition in Biblical Hebrew was preserved by maintaining the a
of ka, whereas in Aramaic and many modern Arabic dialects it was the i of ki
that was kept. As a matter of fact, the preservation of the final a was necessary
for maintaining the gender opposition only after long vowels (and this is in-
deed the situation in Rabbinic Hebrew, where -ka was primarily preserved
only in this position): ÚybI&a: / ËybIa: ‘your (m/f) father’. After short vowels, how-
ever, the opposition was sufficiently indicated by ßere preceding the feminine
suffix -k: Ëdey; ‘your (f) hand’. This ßere arose from the case ending -i by assim-
ilation to the final -ki. From the case endings u, a, i, (*yaduki, *yadaki,
*yadiki), *yadiki prevailed, partly through assimilation, partly by paradig-
matic pressure, because of the tendency to preserve the gender opposition.
Verbal forms were analogically influenced by the nominal ones (like Ërem:v‘).
Accordingly, in this case the preservation of the final a in -ka was redundant.
4.2.3.3.1n. The remnants of -ki attested in Biblical Hebrew run parallel with the remain-
ders of yTIa" treated in the preceding chapter (§4.2.2.3.1, p. 161). Its occurrence as k´tib2 in
00-Blau.book Page 170 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.2.3.3.2. ∑ Independent
-ka /-ki Personal Pronouns 170

an early text of Northern origin (2 Kings 4) may represent an archaic feature or a Northern
(Israelite) form, which has perhaps preserved the Proto-Semitic pronominal suffix,
whereas its attestation in late psalms (such as Ps 103:4 ykIre&F}["m}h" . . . ykIy] Y;‡j" [the first form
occurs in pause] ‘your [f ] life . . . he who crowns you’) reflects Aramaic influence (see
Hurvitz 1972: 116–19). I refrain from broaching the subject whether or not Aramaic
reached late Biblical Hebrew directly or (also) through Northern channels (see Rendsburg
and Rendsburg 1993: 392–96, who, however, tend to exaggerate Northern influence),
since this sort of differentiation is almost impossible.
For details cf. Blau (1982c = Topics, 138–45). The segol in the pausal masculine form
(Úd,&y;) is surprising; one would have expected *yOqO!kO in pause, *yOqákO in context. It
seems far-fetched to derive it from *yadika and to assume that, for the lack of paradig-
matic pressure (since the gender was sufficiently indicated by -*ka), the case vowel was
not assimilated to the final vowel. The more likely explanation seems to be that the singu-
lar Úd,&y; was influenced by the dual/plural Úyd,&y; (through partial assimilation of the ßere to
qamaß) *yOqek! O < yadayka.

4.2.3.3.2. Prepositions, which originally were construct nouns in adverbial

function, terminated in the adverbial accusative case ending -a. In some fre-
quent prepositions, therefore, -a was preserved preceding -k(i): Ël:, ËB:, ËM:[I,
ËT:aI, Ët: /a ‘to, in, with, together with you (f), you (f, as direct object). (These
forms are also identical to the pausal masculine forms; see §4.2.3.3.3 below.)
In the case of nouns with pronominal suffixes, three alternatives ran parallel (as
*yaduki, *yadaki, *yadiki), and the assimilation was strong enough to make
*yadiki prevail, yet not strong enough to change prepositions, e.g., *laki to
nonexistent *liki. Less frequent prepositions, however, were attracted by the
analogy of ordinary nouns (and in some cases, such as bybIs: ‘around’, the
prepositions were still felt as nouns).
4.2.3.3.3. Traces of the archaic elision of the original, final short vowels of
the masculine suffix in pause have been preserved, mainly in some very com-
mon prepositions, such as Ël: ‘to you (ms; pausal)’ in contrast to Úl} in context;
additional pausal forms include ËM:[I, ËT:aI, Ët: /a, ËB:. It was because of the fre-
quency of these prepositions that they were not influenced by analogy but pre-
served this archaic feature. Note, however, that because this pausal masculine
form was identical to the usual feminine form, it abolished the gender distinc-
tion (cf. §3.5.13.5, p. 155). The unusual form hk:t& :aø (Exod 29:35) instead of
Ët:aø is uncertain; one wonders whether it is an ancient form maintaining the fi-
nal qamaß or whether it perhaps represents contamination of Ët:aø with Út}aø.

4.2.3.3.3n. Only rarely does pausal masculine ËA: occur in cases where it is not suffixed to
a preposition; see, e.g., Ëd;m}V…hI ‘that you will be destroyed’ Deut 28:24; Ën;[: ‘he answered
you’ Isa 30:19 (see Jer 23:37 for an example of the same word, Ën;[:, in context).

4.2.3.3.4. Pronominal suffixes added to a noun in the dual/plural are pre-

ceded by *-ay (the former dual ending): Úyd,&y;, Ëyid'&y.; The feminine suffix is -k
after dual/plural as well: *yadayki > *yadayk > (by opening of the final clus-
ter) > Ëyi d'&y;.
00-Blau.book Page 171 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

171 Independent Personal /-ki; -hu ∑ 4.2.3.4.1.

-kaPronouns

4.2.3.3.4n. Because of the frequency of pronominal suffixes after nouns denoting double
body parts (Úyd,&y; ‘your hands’, Úyn,‡y[E ‘your eyes’), the Proto-Semitic dual ending *-ay su-
perseded 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 femi-
nine pronominal suffix was elided (*yadayki > *yaqayk > Ëyid'&y;).
4.2.3.3.5. The striking word structure of Úr]b:D] ‘your (m) speech’ and the
more original stress pattern of pausal Úr,&b:D] has been dealt with above (see
§3.5.7.5.7, p. 126). In Rabbinic Hebrew, the 2ms pronominal suffix has the
form Ë-; after short vowels. Based on this fact and on transliterations of the
form, P. Kahle assumed that Ë-; is the genuine Hebrew form, Ú-] the Masoretic
restoration, in accordance with his theory that the Masoretes changed their
tradition under the influence of Classical Arabic grammar (see §3.3.2.2.6,
p. 80). Actually, even without taking the basic improbability of this theory
into consideration, the structure of Úr]b:D] is not aberrant at all. Its pattern ex-
actly matches the verbal patterns hr;m}v…, Wrm}v…, and as stated (see §3.5.7.5.7,
p. 126), both have to be interpreted as emerging from the fourth stress stage,
according to the special sound shifts obtaining at that period. Moreover,
Kahle was wrong in his claim that Babylonian and Palestinian biblical texts
attest the pronominal suffix Ë-;: in biblical texts proper, these vocalization sys-
tems use the same pattern Úr]b:D] as the Tiberians. It is only in post-biblical
texts vocalized according to these systems that Ë-; occurs, and as a result, in
quotations from the Bible as well, which may be pronounced as in Rabbinic
Hebrew, according to their context. Nor should the Greek and Latin transcrip-
tions be used as proof for the artificiality of the Úr]b:D] pattern. They simply re-
flect the “vulgar,” i.e., the later (Mishnaic), form of the 2ms pronominal suffix.
And, indeed, even the consonantal text of the Bible, although rarely to be sure,
attests Ú- by using final h as a vowel letter (hk:a“Bø ‘when you come to’ Gen
10:19, i.e., ‘in the direction of’); for details, see the masterful study by Ben
Óayyim (1954). In addition, this spelling is frequent in the Dead Sea Scrolls,
thus proving that Ú- precedes the supposed activity of the Masoretes, who al-
legedly were emulating the Arab grammarians.
4.2.3.3.5n. See the final rendering of Kahle’s view (1959: 171–79).
Sievers (1901: 288–91) may be right in one detail. He claims that the rhythm of the
poetic passages of the Bible demands that the 2ms pronominal suffix Ú- be unstressed in
context as well. It is indeed possible that (a part of ) biblical poetry reflects a stress system
preceding the fourth stress period, in which Ú- had become stressed. Though this is pos-
sible, our limited knowledge of biblical poetry does not enable us to state anything with
certainty. At any rate, even if Sievers’s theory proves right, this by no means intimates that
the vocalization of this pronominal suffix is artificial.

4.2.3.4. Third-Person Masculine-Singular Suffixes

4.2.3.4.1. The third-person masculine singular suffix derives from the
same base as the independent personal pronoun aWh. Its original form, -hu, has
00-Blau.book Page 172 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.2.3.4.2. ∑ Independent
-hu /-ha Personal Pronouns 172

been preserved after long vowels, as attested in WhyPI& (alongside wyPI) ‘his
mouth’, WhyTI&r]m"v‘ (alongside wyTIr]m"v‘), WhWn‡r]m"v,‘ Whde&c… ‘his field’, Wha&:r; ‘he saw
him’, WhaE&r]yi ‘he will see it’, and in analogy to III-y verbs such as Whre&m}v‘yi. Since
the 3ms of the suffix-tense originally terminated in a (see §4.3.5.2.2.4,
p. 221), which in pause became lengthened, Wh- was preserved in pause after
long a (e.g., Whr;&m:v‘). But after short a the h was elided and the emerging diph-
thong aw was monophthongized to /-: *samarahu > *samaraw > /rm:v‘. It is
this /- that serves as the usual pronominal suffix of the 3ms after singular
nouns; from the three original forms -uhu (in the nominative), -ihu (in the
genitive), and -ahu (> -aw > o; in the accusative), it was -ahu > -o that had the
upper hand through the analogical influence of verbal forms of the third-
person singular of the suffix-tense such as /rm:v‘ and prepositions that origi-
nally terminated in the adverbial accusative ending -a (/l ‘to him’, /M[I ‘with
him’, etc., which influenced the emergence of /ryv¥ ‘his song’). The archaic
spelling h-o (as hrøy[I ‘his foal’ Gen 49:11), which attests the original consonan-
tal h (-ahu > o), still occurs in the biblical text.
4.2.3.4.1n. See above, §4.2.2.4, pp. 162–164, where the alternation of initial h and s in the
comparable 3s pronominal forms is discussed.
4.2.3.4.2. After the dual/plural -ay ending of plural nouns (cf. §4.2.3.3.4,
p. 170) the h was elided and -aw arose: *sirayhu > *sirayw > wyr;yv¥, pro-
nounced sirOw. If the suffix is directly preceded by a consonant, the h is
progressively assimilated to this consonant; this is the case when the h is
preceded by the so-called nun energeticum (after the prefix-tense, the im-
perative, and some particles, such as WNr,&m}v‘yi < *yism´ræ!nhu; WN;n‡ ,yaE ‘he is not’
< *ªenæ!nhu), or by -at, the 3fs form of the suffix-tense (as WTB"&n;G } ‘she stole it’).
4.2.3.4.2n. After the prefix-tense, -e!hu is used in prose mainly after (historical) short
forms (i.e., the jussive and forms opening with the “conversive” waw), as in Whq &nE iYew ' ‘and
He made him to suck’ Deut 32:13. Otherwise, -œ!nnu prevails, as in WNa<&r;q}yi ‘it will happen
to him’ Gen 42:4. In elevated style, as in Whn]b<&b}søy] ‘He will encompass him’ Deut 32:10, the
lento form -œ!nhu occurs. In these forms, the n, it seems, stems from an ancient energic
form of the indicative; for details, see Lambert (1903: 178-83); Blau 1978d = Studies, 94–
104. For the alternation of h and n suffixes in Ugaritic, see Tropper (2000: 221–23). In po-
etry, -e!hu occurs after all prefix-tense forms, whether historically long or short.
Alongside allegro forms such as WTB"&n;G] ‘she stole it’ Job 21:16, there are also lento
forms such as Wht}b"&hEa“ ‘she loved him’ 1 Sam 18:28.

4.2.3.5. Third-Person Feminine-Singular Suffixes

4.2.3.5.1. The third-person feminine singular suffix has the basic form
*-ha, which, according to the clear evidence of the other Semitic languages, is
the original Proto-Semitic form. This -ha is preserved after long vowels: h: yPI&
‘her mouth’, h: Wr&m}v‘yi ‘they will guard her’, h: ya<&r]m" ‘her sight’, h: a<&r]yi ‘he will see
her’, and also in analogy to III-y verbs such as h: r,&m}v‘yi.
00-Blau.book Page 173 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

173 Independent Personal /-ha; -nu ∑ 4.2.3.6.1.

-huPronouns

4.2.3.5.1n. See above, §4.2.2.4, pp. 162–164, which deals with the alternation of initial h
and s in the 3s pronominal forms in various Semitic languages.
The form h: ya<&r]m" ‘her sight’ < *marªayiha influenced the dual/plural forms *yadayha
‘her hands’/*sirayha ‘her songs’ > h:yd,&y; / h: yr,&yv¥. Without this influence *yadayha/*sirayha
would have developed like *sirayhu > *sirayw > wyr;yv¥ ‘his songs’ (for which, see above,
§4.2.3.4.2, p. 172), viz., *yadaya/*siraya. The restoration of the h was also influenced by
the fact that it was felt to represent the third-person pronominal suffix.
The segol instead of the expected ßere in the form h: r,&m}v‘yi is due to assimilation to the
following qamaß, for which, see above, §3.5.10.3, p. 137. In the suffix-tense, however, it
was the III-y verbs that were influenced by the strong verb. Ha:r; ‘he saw her’ was formed
by analogy to Hr;m:v‘ ‘he kept her’, even though the former has long a before the pronomi-
nal suffix and the latter has original short a preceding the pronominal suffix.
4.2.3.5.2. After short vowels, however, the 3fs suffix has, as a rule, the
form H-;‡, as in Hr;m:v‘, Hl: ‘to her’, Hr;yv¥. If the suffix is directly preceded by a
consonant, the h is progressively assimilated to this consonant, under the same
conditions that apply to the h of the third-person masculine (see §4.2.3.4.2).
The alternation of h: - (and rare H-;) with hN;-;‡ after the prefix-tense parallels that
of the masculine Wh-e‡ with WN-,‡; see above, §4.2.3.4.2; §4.2.3.5.1n.
4.2.3.5.2n. For rare forms terminating in h-; (with h as a vowel letter, as hl: = la Num
32:42), which, it seems, are more original than the usual forms with consonantal h, see
§3.3.5.3.4, p. 93. The a preceding the h arose partly by assimilation to the final a, or, more
accurately, by the prevalence of the a accusative ending owing to this assimilation. But
partly it was original, viz., in prepositions (which terminated in the adverbial accusative
ending -a) and in the 3ms form of the suffix-tense. The reason for the preservation of the
final vowel after long vowels was that the pronominal suffix was not sufficiently indicated
without the final qamaß, because of the elision of the short a after the long vowel. After
short vowels, however, it was adequately marked by -a(h).

4.2.3.6. First-Person Plural Suffixes

4.2.3.6.1. The first-person plural suffix -nu corresponds to the ending of
the 1cp independent pronoun Wnj}n'‡a“. In Aramaic and Gºez, both the pronomi-
nal suffix and the independent personal pronoun terminate in a/a. In Classical
Arabic, however, the independent personal pronoun has final -u but the pro-
nominal suffix has -a. As stated above (see §4.2.2.2.2, p. 160), according to
the principle of archaic heterogeneity, variety is, as a rule, more archaic than
uniformity, which is apt to arise by analogy. So, in contradistinction to He-
brew, -na has to be posited as the original Proto-Semitic form. In Hebrew,
*-na shifted to Wn- by analogy with Wnj}n‡'a“. In Aramaic and Gºez, the pronomi-
nal suffix analogically influenced the independent personal pronoun. This
conforms to our general finding that in the first and second persons the pro-
nominal suffixes differ from the independent personal pronouns.
4.2.3.6.1n. In Akkadian, the independent pronoun terminates in -u, the pronominal suffix
in -i. In the Akkadian of Mari the pronominal suffix terminates in -e, and this may also be
the case in Ugaritic; see Tropper (2000: 224).
00-Blau.book Page 174 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.2.3.7. ∑ Independent
-kumu /-kina Personal Pronouns 174

4.2.3.7. Second-Person Plural Suffixes

4.2.3.7.1. The Proto-Semitic forms of the second-person plural suffixes
are *-kumu/*-kina, *-kinna (cf. the independent personal pronouns *ªantumu/
*ªantina, *ªantinna, §4.2.2.7, pp. 166–168).
4.2.3.7.1n. For the possibility that the original forms were -kumu/-tina, -tinna, see
§4.2.2.3.3n, p. 162; this proposal, however, is based on the assumption of a far-reaching
identity of independent personal pronouns and pronominal suffixes.
-kinna reflects the addition of the feminine plural ending -na to -kin, whereas -kina
reflects the addition of the feminine plural suffix -a (cf. §4.2.2.7.3 and note, p. 166). -kina
survived only in hn;k<&t}M"zi ‘your (fp) licentiousness’ Ezek 23:48-49, where the non-
geminated n reflects its derivation from -kina, rather than from -kinna. Note, however, that
the vocalization of the k with segol is due to contamination with -kinna, whose i, preced-
ing geminated n, shifted (by the action of Philippi’s Law) to segol; or is due to assimila-
tion to qamaß.
4.2.3.7.2. The suffixes developed by leveling and elision of the final vowel
to μk<-& < *-kumu / ˆk<-& < *-kina. Since in the period of the general paroxyton
stress *kúmu/*-kína and *-kínna were stressed on the first syllable, μk<-& /ˆk<-&
retain the stress; therefore, it is customary to dub them heavy pronominal
suffixes.
4.2.3.7.2n. In contrast to the 2p suffixes, the stress on the 2ms suffix (as Ú&r]yv¥) is secondary,
as indicated by the pausal form Úr,&yv¥.
The corresponding 3p pronominal suffixes μh<&-/ ˆh<&- also belong to this category of
heavy pronominal suffixes. Since the stress is more remote from the noun/verb to which
the heavy pronominal suffixes are attached, the noun/verb are more suitable for change
and the noun often assumes the form of the construct, as in μk<r]b"D] ‘your (mp) word’,
ˆh<yreb}Di ‘their (fp) words’, corresponding to the construct forms rb"D] ‘word of ’, yreb}Di ‘words
of’. Remarkable are forms such as μk<r]b"D] / ˆk<r]b"D] with pata˙ preceding the spirant k, in
contrast with qamaß followed by the other pronominal suffixes (Úr]b:D], /rb:D], etc.). To un-
derstand these forms, one must, it seems, start with proto-forms such as *dabarukúmu /
*dabarikínna, in which the pronominal suffixes containing u/i made u/i prevail among the
case endings u/i/a (as *dabarukúmu, *dabarikúmu, *dabarakúmu). Since pretonic u in
open syllables is as a rule reduced and i is also often shortened in this position, μk<r]b"D]
arose with swa medium preceding spirant k. Accordingly, the identity of d´b2 ar (+ kœm)
with the construct rb"D] is accidental. The hypothesis that the 3p pronominal suffixes were
originally independent (as if, e.g., *humû were used not only in nominative but also in ac-
cusative and genitive function) and that it is for this reason that they are preceded by con-
struct forms, seems far-fetched, in spite of the attestation in the Meshaº inscription line 18
μh bjsaw ‘and I dragged them’. The hypothesis is even more unlikely since it forces us to
posit an auxiliary hypothesis in which the pronominal suffixes of the 2p were later at-
tracted by the analogy of the 3p forms, because of their similarity.

4.2.3.8. Third-Person Plural Suffixes

4.2.3.8.1. The Proto-Semitic forms of the third-person plural pronominal
suffixes are *-humu/*-hina, *-hinna. They run parallel to the pronominal suf-

spread is 12 points short

00-Blau.book Page 175 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

175 Independent Personal /-hin(n)a ∑ 4.2.3.8.2.

-humuPronouns

fixes of the second-person plural, with which they form the class of the heavy
pronominal suffixes (see §4.2.3.7.2n). The Proto-Semitic forms shifted by eli-
sion of the final vowel and then leveling of the remaining vowel to μh<-/ˆh<-,
on the one hand, and to μ-/ˆ-, on the other. The forms μh<-/ˆh<- occur, in the
main, after long vowels (μh<ybIa“ ‘their father’, ˆh<yriP} ‘their fruit’, μh<yPI ‘their
mouth’, ˆh<yv´ar; ‘their heads’, μh<ytE/ba“ ‘their fathers’), μ-/ˆ- after (originally)
short ones. The vowel preceding the suffix is qamaß in the suffix-tense and
most nouns. In the suffix-tense, the qamaß occurs because the third-person sin-
gular masculine originally terminated in -a. In nouns -a- prevailed through the
greater stability of -a, the influence of the suffix-tense as well as prepositions,
which basically ended in the adverbial accusative -a (as μt:aø ‘them’); thus
ˆr;m:v‘ ‘he preserved them’, μm:v‘ ‘their name’, μt:/ba“ ‘their fathers’.
4.2.3.8.1n. For the alternation of h and s in Semitic languages, see §4.2.2.4n, pp. 162–164.
Nouns originally terminated in the case endings a/i/u. With the elision of final short
vowels, the case system collapsed and the case vowels in word-medial position became
mere variants.
The form μt:/ba“ ‘their fathers’ stems from < *ªab2 otahum. It alternates with the second-
ary formation μh<ytE/ba“ < *ªab2 otayhum, which was influenced by μh<yaEr]m" < *marªayihim;
cf. above, §3.3.5.3.5n, p. 93.

4.2.3.8.2. This distinction between long and short vowels followed by alter-
native forms of the pronominal suffix often became rather blurred and the vari-
ous forms influenced each other. On the one hand, μh<-/ˆh<- is attested after
(originally) short vowels; thus, alongside μB: ‘in them’, μh<B: occurs. Additional
examples include μh<l: ‘to them’, ˆh<t}a< ‘them (as direct object)’, ˆh<B}l}j< ‘their
fat’, ˆh<B}lI ‘their heart’. On the other hand, μ-/ˆ- are quite frequent after original
long vowels, as μyTIr]m"v.‘ Further examples include the prefix-tense of III-y
verbs such as μaEr]yi ‘he will see them’. Influenced by these forms, strong verbs
with heavy suffixes are shaped similarly, e.g., μrem}v‘y,i so that the sufffixes μ-e/ ˆ-e
have become characteristic of the 3p pronominal suffixes attached to the prefix-
tense. Rarer forms are attested as well, such as masculine hm:hE&y-e (hm:hE&ylEaE ‘their
pillars’), /m-;‡, /my-e‡ (/my;‡r]PI ‘their fruit’, /mytE&/mB: ‘their heights’), feminine hn;-;‡, hn;-,‡
(hn;LK: & U ‘they all’, hn;B<&r]qI ‘their interior’, stemming from -hina with simple n, as
do the following forms as well), hn;h-} ;‡ (hn;h}LK: & U ‘they all’), further hn;h-<& (hn;h<&ytEYowGi ]
‘their bodies’), ˆhE-& (ˆhEt}P: ‘their secret parts’); the etymon -hinna is reflected in
hN;-‡ e (hN;mE&j}y'l} ‘for their having breeding heat’ Gen 30:41).

4.2.3.8.2n. By analogy to the suffix-tense, sometimes prefix-tense forms such as μv…B:l}yi ‘he
will put them on’ occur.
The segol in the feminine suffix hn;-,‡ is due to contamination with forms stemming from
the etymon -hinna, in which i occurring in a stressed closed syllable had shifted to segol
through the action of Philippi’s Law.
00-Blau.book Page 176 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.2.4. ∑ Demonstratives 176

4.2.4. Demonstrative Pronouns

4.2.4.1. Deictic and Anaphoric Functions
4.2.4.1.1. Demonstrative pronouns are still often used in what seems to be
the most archaic function of pronominal elements, to wit, the deictic function
(which perhaps developed from interjections). When they are used anaphor-
ically (i.e., to refer back to something mentioned), they may lose their demon-
strative function.
4.2.4.1.2. As we have seen (see §4.2.2.4.3, p. 164), the third-person per-
sonal pronouns were originally demonstrative pronouns and may still be
used as such. However, their original demonstrative meaning was weakened
and as a result they are sometimes added as subjects to the finite forms of the
verb even when not emphasized. They also may form a uniform paradigm
with the personal pronouns of the first and second person.
4.2.4.1.3. Similarly, the definite article originated in a demonstrative pro-
noun, as is evidenced by the fact that it is still preserved in Biblical Hebrew
with nouns marking time (which often exhibit archaic behavior): μ/Yh" ‘this
day’, i.e., ‘today’; hl:y]L"h
& " ‘this night’, i.e., ‘tonight’. Later, the anaphoric use of
the definite article became obligatory and thus the transition from the demon-
strative pronoun to the definite article had been completed. Thus, after ['yqIr;
‘firmament’ has been mentioned (['yqIr; yhIy] ‘let there be a firmament’ Gen 1:6),
one need not, when mentioning the firmament a second time in verse 7, use a
demonstrative pronoun ‘this firmament’ (hZ,h" ['yqIr:h:*). Instead, the addition of
the definite article in this syntactic environment has become obligatory in
prose and only ['yqIr:h: (and not ['yqIr:) may be employed.

4.2.4.2. Near and Far Demonstratives

4.2.4.2.1. The demonstrative pronouns referring to a near object are hz, and
feminine tazo , rarely /z/hzo (as usual in Rabbinic Hebrew), plural hL<aE&, rarely
laE. When referring to a remote object, the already mentioned third-person
pronouns are used (aWhh" μ/Yh" ‘that day’, hM:hE&h: μymIY;B" ‘in those days’; for the
definite article preceding the pronoun, see §4.2.4.3.3).
4.2.4.2.2. It is noteworthy that the pronoun referring to a near object exhib-
its z (= z2 according to other Semitic languages) in the singular, l in the plural.
Such an exceptional suppletive (metaplastic) paradigm, attested also in
many West Semitic languages, clearly indicates their common origin. Excep-
tional morphological features prove common descent more than anything else
(see §1.5.15, p. 15), since in such a case parallel development is almost incon-
ceivable. Therefore, it stands to reason that it reflects a Proto-Semitic feature
that was lost in Akkadian, where the plural was adapted to the singular.
4.2.4.2.3. We have already mentioned (§4.2.1.2, p. 159) that hz,‡L:h" contains
three pronominal elements ha(n)+lO+zœb. hz,‡L:h" itself has final stress, yet its
00-Blau.book Page 177 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

177 Demonstratives ∑ 4.2.4.3.3.

original stress was on the penult, as indicated by the feminine WzLEh

& ," the shortened
epicene form zL:h," and the theory of general penultimate stress (§3.5.12.2.2,
p. 144).

4.2.4.3. Adjectival Function

4.2.4.3.1. When a demonstrative pronoun occurs in adjectival function,
serving as an attribute to a substantive determined by the definite article, it
follows its head and itself receives the definite article: hZ,h" vyaIh: ‘this man’,
taZoh" hV…aIh: ‘this woman’, hL<aE&h: μyv¥N;h"/ μyv¥n;a“h: ‘these men/women’ (for the
similar construction of aWh(h"), see §4.2.4.2.1).
4.2.4.3.2. For the proper understanding of this redundant feature in Bibli-
cal Hebrew, viz., the addition of the definite article to the demonstrative pro-
noun (as if the demonstrative pronoun itself were not determinate enough),
one has to compare the behavior of ordinary attributive adjectives following
their determinate head, as in l/dG;h" ˆhEKøh" ‘the high priest’. Even in this case the
addition of the definite article to the adjective is remarkable. Since the head of
the whole construction, ˆhEKøh", is determined by the definite article, there is,
strictly speaking, no need to determine the attributive adjective as well; the
definite article was added to the adjective-attribute by analogy to the definite
substantival head. This claim, however, that the definite article added to the
adjective-attribute is redundant, is only correct from a historical point of view.
Once constructions such as l/dG;h" ˆhEKøh" became fixed, they were opposed to
sentences such as l/dG; ˆhEKøh" ‘the priest is big’. Accordingly, synchronically, it
is the definite article of the adjective (l/dG;h") that marks the opposition to
l/dG; ˆhEKøh" whereas the definite article of the substantive, originally the core of
the determination, has become redundant. And, indeed, the definite article of
the substantival head may be omitted (rarely in Biblical Hebrew, more often in
Rabbinic Hebrew), especially when the adjective is stressed, because the head
is considered less important from the point of view of information, as in
yV¥V¥h" μ/y (Gen 1:31), instead of the expected yV¥V¥h" μ/yh"*, ‘the sixth day’.
Originally, however, it was only by syntactic attraction that the adjective re-
ceived the definite article, being attracted by the definite head.
4.2.4.3.3. Even more superfluous is the attachment of the definite article
to the demonstrative pronoun, which is in itself determinate in meaning.
Moreover, in a phrase such as hZ,h" vyaIh: even the definite article attached to
the head vyaI is superfluous (cf. in English ‘this child’, not ‘*this the child’).
One has to posit four stages of development:
(a) In the first stage, no definite article is attached to either the head or the
(attributive) demonstrative pronoun: hz, vyaI. This construction is, in fact, the
rule in Rabbinic Hebrew. As is sometimes the case with late dialects, they
may preserve archaic features that are lacking in early dialects.
00-Blau.book Page 178 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.2.4.4. ∑ Demonstratives 178

4.2.4.3.3(a)n. Obiter dictu, this is one of the proofs that Rabbinic Hebrew does not derive
directly from Biblical Hebrew. Moreover, since in Aramaic the substantive-head is deter-
mined by the definite article, this is one of the proofs that Rabbinic Hebrew is no mere ar-
tificial language that arose from Biblical Hebrew due to the impact of Aramaic.
(b) In the second stage, the definite article is added to the substantival head
only: hz, vyaIh:*. Examples of this construction are quite exceptional in Bibli-
cal Hebrew: hL<aE& μ[:h:AlK: ‘all this people’ 1 Sam 2:23; aWh hl:y]L"B& " ‘that night’
Gen 19:33. The absence of the definite article from the demonstrative pronoun
is the rule in Biblical Hebrew, however, when the pronoun serves as an attrib-
ute to nouns determined by pronominal suffixes (in which case no attraction
occurred, since the definite article was not present): hL<aE& yt"tøaø ‘these signs of
mine’ Exod 10:1.
4.2.4.3.3(b)n. This construction occurs in Semitic languages that are closely related to
Biblical Hebrew, such as Moabite (taz hmbh ‘this high place’) and Phoenician (z rpsh
‘this inscription’).

(c) In the third stage, the definite article is added to both the substantival
head and the demonstrative pronoun (type l/dG;h" ˆhEKøh)" . This is the usual Bib-
lical Hebrew construction.
(d) In the last stage of development, occurring only sporadically in Biblical
Hebrew, the definite article is attached to the adjective only: yV¥V¥h" μ/y.

4.2.4.4. Local, Temporal, Presentative Senses

4.2.4.4.1. The deictic force of hz, is well preserved in the local sense, as alø
hv…deq} hz,b: ht:y]h: ‘there was not there a harlot’ Gen 38:22; hZ,mI rdeg;w] hZ,mI rdeG; ‘a
hedge from here and a hedge from there’ Num 22:24.
4.2.4.4.1(b)n. In Num 22:24, note that hz, is repeated and refers to both the near location
and the more remote one. The reason seems to be that hz, focuses the interest on its first oc-
currence and switches it afterward onto the second, so that both places, one at a time, serve
(so to speak) as the nearer object.

4.2.4.4.2. It may also be used at the beginning of a sentence in temporal

sense in invariable form, without being concordant with the following nomi-
nal predicate: hn;v… μyric‘[< yLIAhz, ‘now it is twenty years for me’ Gen 31:41, i.e.,
‘for twenty years’.
4.2.4.4.2.n. As a rule, Hebrew pronouns as subjects tend to be concordant with the follow-
ing substantive serving as predicate: ytIyriB} tazo ‘this is my treaty’ Gen 17:10.

4.2.4.4.3. hz, may also occur at the beginning of the sentence as a presen-
tative (‘behold’): vyaIh: hv≤m ø hz, ‘behold the man Moses’ Exod 32:1;
l/dG; μY;h" hz, ‘behold, the sea is great’ Ps 104:25.
4.2.4.4.3.n. The usual presentative is hNe hI, itself a demonstrative element. This usage of hz,
reflects the close affinity of demonstrative elements and interjections.
00-Blau.book Page 179 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

179 Demonstratives; Definite Article ∑ 4.2.5.1.

4.2.4.5. Comparative Analysis

4.2.4.5.1. Let us look at some of the demonstrative pronouns in Hebrew
and Arabic:

Hebrew Arabic
ms hz, qa
fs tazo/ /z qi (> qihi)

With respect to gender, the masculine Heb hz, corresponds to Arab qa; the
feminine Heb /z corresponds to Arab qi . But with respect to form, Arab qa
parallels Heb /z (cf. Arab katib corresponding to Heb btE/K ‘writing’, due to
the Canaanite shift), and Arab qi matches Heb hz, (cf. hn,b}yi < *yabniyu ‘he will
build’ in contrast to Arab yabni). Because of such irregular correspondences
of the opposite genders, it appears that in Proto-Semitic there was no gender
distinction between the various demonstrative elements; instead, all of them
alternated freely. It was only in the individual Semitic languages that the de-
monstrative forms were marked for gender, and this is the reason for the dis-
crepancies among them.
4.2.4.5.1n. The correspondence of Arab qi with Heb hz, however, is by no means conclu-
sive, since hz, may represent *zayu, parallel to hx<r]yi < *yirßayu ‘he will be satisfied’ as well.
4.2.4.5.2. For the same reason, as suggested by Barth (1913: 105, par.
43d), the t of tazo has to be considered an originally additional demonstrative
element, rather than being identical to the feminine ending t. As a matter of
fact, tazo consists of three demonstrative elements: q+aleph+t, and it was
only later, because of its final t, which was reinterpreted as a feminine ending,
that the form became the marker of the feminine gender. This interpretation is
corroborated by, e.g., Arab qata yawmin ‘one day’, where qata certainly can-
not be interpreted as feminine, because yawm is masculine.
4.2.4.5.2n. Since aleph as a vowel letter always indicates the earlier existence of conso-
nantal aleph, it appears that tazo reflects an original consonantal aleph ; cf. also the femi-
nine demonstrative pronoun taz in Moabite, az in Phoenician and Old Aramaic (including
Samalian). Cf. Blau (1979c: 148–49 = Topics, 349–50). Barth (1913: 105, par. 43d), how-
ever, does not attribute an original consonantal value to the aleph of tazo. In addition, he
considers the t (i) of taz to be an original feminine demonstrative element, so that it al-
ways served as feminine, but not as the feminine ending.
Apparently, the original meaning of the Arabic phrase qata yawmin was ‘that day’,
which developed afterward to ‘one day’, just as Heb hZ,h" μ/Yh"K} yhIy]w' means ‘one day’ Gen
39:11.

4.2.5. The Definite Article

4.2.5.1. The etymon of the definite article ha, with the doubling of the
following consonant, is not certain. When it was customary to explain the
00-Blau.book Page 180 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.2.5.2. ∑ Definite Article 180

Semitic languages according to Arabic, ha was compared with the Arab defi-
nite article al (the l of which assimilates to a following dental, sibilant, and r)
and interpreted as < *hal. According to this view, the l of *hal was assimilated
to the following consonant, and this is the reason for the doubling of the con-
sonant following the definite article. On the one hand, this interpretation sup-
poses the assimilation of l, which is exceptional in Biblical Hebrew, occurring
mainly in the irregular root jql. On the other hand, the assimilation of the l in
Arabic al- is not less irregular and can be accounted for by the extraordinary
frequency of the definite article; this explanation applies equally to Hebrew
ha(l). And indeed the possibility of the exceptional behavior of the sound se-
quence hl must not be entirely excluded; see §3.3.5.5.5, p. 95.
4.2.5.2. Barth (1913: 133, par. 55b) identified the Hebrew definite article
with the demonstrative element ha, which is frequent in Arabic (e.g., haqa
‘this’). Since rhythmically long vowel + simple consonant are more or less
identical to short vowel + double consonant, ha + double consonant superseded
ha + simple consonant.
4.2.5.2n. In Biblical Hebrew, the demonstrative element has the form ahE, yet in Aramaic
ah: and ahE alternate.

4.2.5.3. In the ancient Arabic dialect of Li˙yan, the definite article, as a

rule, is ha-. But when it precedes laryngeals/pharyngeals, it takes the form
han, which was, it seems, the original form of the article, preserved in this po-
sition for phonetic reasons. Cf. also, e.g., the frequent demonstrative element
hn in Ugaritic. If there existed in Hebrew an article *han, it is easy to recon-
struct its phonetic development.
4.2.5.4. As we have seen, the Hebrew definite article ha- differs from Ara-
bic al-, and indeed the definite article varies throughout the Semitic lan-
guages. It may even be postpositive, as with Aramaic a and Epigraphic South
Arabian -n. Moreover, in Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Gºez the definite article is
lacking altogether. Therefore, prima facie, it seems that the definite article is
a comparatively late feature (but see §4.2.5.5b, below, on generic determina-
tion), which arose in the various Semitic languages independently and in
some did not come into being at all. This is hinted at also by the fact that the
definite article is less frequent in biblical poetry, which on the whole is more
archaic than prose.
4.2.5.4n. Cases of the late disappearance of the definite article are also attested, e.g., in
Eastern Aramaic.
4.2.5.5. The two main functions of the definite article are:
(a) Individual determination, marking a special object out of many, as in
r["N'‡h" ‘the boy’ out of many boys. This use is very often anaphoric, referring,
e.g., to the boy mentioned before, sometimes also to the boy understood from
context. It may also refer to unique objects, such as vm<V≤&h" ‘the sun’.
00-Blau.book Page 181 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

181 Definite Article; Relative Pronoun ∑ 4.2.6.1.1.

(b) Generic determination, referring to a species as such, e.g., bh: Z;h"w] πs<K<&h"
‘silver and gold’. The use of the generic article is to a great degree optional
(cf., e.g., bh: z;w] πs<K<)& and even closely related languages vary in their usage.
Therefore, it is rather surprising that the Semitic languages agree so much in
its application, which, prima facie, suggests the common origin of determina-
tion. This, however, is contradicted by the different forms of the article in the
various Semitic languages.
4.2.5.5(b)n. For instance, the definite article is used much less in English than in German,
though both are Germanic languages.
4.2.5.6. The definite article has a variety of phonetically-conditioned
vocalizations when it precedes laryngeals/pharyngeals, which cannot be
doubled. The usual vocalization with pata˙ becomes qamaß by compensatory
lengthening when the definite article precedes aleph and especially r: ba:h: ‘the
father’, varøh: ‘the head’. The same is usually true when the definite article
precedes ºayin: ˆyi["&h: ‘the fountain’. The pata˙ is, however, as a rule preserved
preceding h and especially ˙. Preceding unstressed ºayin, unstressed h, and
(stressed or unstressed) ˙ followed by qamaß, the definite article is vocalized
with segol. This segol has to be explained as due to assimilation to the qamaß,
both being half-low vowels. Because of the weak pronunciation of laryn-
geals/pharyngeals, vowels preceding and following them were in closer con-
tact than vowels divided by other consonants, and thus the largyngeals/
pharyngeals promoted vowel assimilation. A case such as rh: h: ‘the mountain’
with qamaß has to be interpreted as total assimilation to the following stressed
h, with stress being more conducive to assimilation, whereas μyrih:h< ‘the
mountains’ reflects partial assimilation only, with the influence of the un-
stressed h being more restricted. For particulars, see Blau 1981b: 36–38 =
Studies, 21–23.
4.2.5.6n. The raising of pata˙ to segol in the definite article can be contrasted with ßere
becoming segol preceding qamaß. In the latter case, the ßere is lowered to segol, whereas
in the former case, the pata˙ is raised to segol.

4.2.6. Relative Pronouns

4.2.6.1. Syntactic Features
4.2.6.1.1. Relative clauses in Semitic in general, and in Hebrew in particu-
lar, differ in their structure from Indo-European (e.g., English) relative
clauses. In Semitic languages, the relative pronoun (if it is not altogether lack-
ing) does not belong originally to the relative clause; it is instead part of the
main clause. This syntactic feature can be demonstrated by the case agree-
ment of the relative pronoun with its head in Classical Arabic, e.g., raªaytu -r-
rajulayni -llaqayni kana fi -l-bayti ‘I saw the two men who were in the house’,
00-Blau.book Page 182 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.2.6.1.2. ∑ Relative Pronoun 182

where (a)llaqayni is in the accusative in accordance with its function in the

main clause, and not in the nominative [*allaqani], as demanded by its posi-
tion in the relative clause. In Biblical Hebrew, however, the relative pronoun
seems to have already started to become part of the relative clause, as perhaps
suggested by instances in which the relative pronoun is joined to the relative
clause by maqqaf and the cantillation marks: T:r]x"&y;Ahz, ˆt:y;w]lI ‘the leviathan
whom you have created’ Ps 104:26. In other instances, however, the relative
clause is sometimes still joined to its head with maqqaf: T:l}a:&G; WzAμ[" ‘the
people which you have redeemed’ Exod 15:13. Nevertheless, one should not
overemphasize the importance of the location of the maqqaf, since one of the
main factors regulating the cantillation marks, in general, and the use of
maqqaf, in particular, is the musical rhythm.
4.2.6.1.2. The relative clause itself is quite similar to an independent sen-
tence. Its independent character is reflected by the fact that the retrospective
pronoun (see §4.2.6.1.3 below) may stand in the first or second person, rather
than in the third, if the head of the relative clause is a first- or second-person
pronoun: ÚytI&axE/h rv≤a“ Úyh<&løa” . . . ykInoa: , literally, ‘I am . . . your God who I
have(!) brought you out’ Exod 20:2; hm:y]r;&x}mI ytIaø μT<r]k"m}Arv≤a“ μk<yjIa“ πsE/y ynia“
literally, ‘I am your brother Joseph, whom you have sold me to Egypt’ Gen
45:4 (note that rv≤a“ is joined with maqqaf ).
4.2.6.1.3. The relative clause is, as a rule, connected to its head with a ret-
rospective pronoun, as illustrated in Gen 45:4 (cited in §4.2.6.1.2 above).
Usually, the retrospective pronoun is in the third person, as in rv≤a“ μk<ybEy]aøAlk:l}
μt:/a μymIj:l}ni μT<a," literally, ‘to all your enemies whom you fight them’ Josh
10:25. Usually, the use of the retrospective pronoun is not obligatory except in
genitival function, i.e., when the pronoun depends on a noun or a preposition,
as in wyP:a"B} μyYij" j'WrAtm"v‘ni rv≤a“ lKø ‘every one who has living breath in his nos-
trils’ Gen 7:22; WNM<&mIAlk:a“ yTIl}bIl} ÚytI&yWixI rv≤a“ ≈[Eh: ‘the tree which I forbade you
to eat from it’ Gen 3:11. In accusative or nominative function, the retrospec-
tive pronoun may be lacking, as in rx:y; rv≤a“ μd;a:h: ‘the man whom he created’
Gen 2:8; ['yqIr:l: tj"T"&mI rv≤a“ μyiM"&h" ‘the water under the firmament’ Gen 1:7 (in
which case synchronically rv≤a“ serves to mark the prepositional phrase tj"T"&mI
['yqIr:l: as attributive).
4.2.6.1.4. The quite frequent use of rv≤a“ for introducing substantive clauses
(as in ynib}lI hV…aI jQ"tIAalø rv≤a“ . . . Ú[“yBIv‘a"w] ‘and I adjure you . . . that you do not
take a wife for my son’ Gen 24:3) appears to be secondary.
4.2.6.1.5. The syntactic structure of the relative clauses seems to be Proto-
Semitic, as demonstrated by the similarities of the relative clause in the vari-
ous Semitic languages. However, the shape of the relative pronouns varies in
the different Semitic languages and, therefore, they have to be regarded as in-
novations. This applies especially to rv≤a“.
00-Blau.book Page 183 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

183 Relative Pronoun ∑ 4.2.6.2.2.

4.2.6.2. Origins of the Relative Pronouns

4.2.6.2.1. In Biblical Hebrew, rv≤a“ is the major relative pronoun, though it
is used less frequently in poetry than in prose. The relative v≤, followed by a
geminated consonant—the main relative and subordinating conjunction in
Rabbinic Hebrew—is limited in Biblical Hebrew. v≤ is attested in Deborah’s
Song, in the story of Gideon, and in the Israelite sections of the Book of
Kings. Therefore it seems likely that v≤ reflects the vernacular of Northern Pal-
estine, which was, as a rule, avoided; v≤ was replaced by rv≤a“, because it was
not considered standard by the Judean scribes and redactors. It occurs also in
late Biblical Hebrew, as in Ecclesiastes, where it reflects the beginnings of the
future Rabbinic Hebrew.
4.2.6.2.1n. See Kutscher (1982: 32, par. 45).
4.2.6.2.2. Opinions differ regarding the origin of these two pronouns.
(1) Some claim that v≤ derives from rv≤a“, the connecting link being Phoe-
nician va: by assimilation of the final r, rv≤a“ shifted to va, allegedly followed
by a geminated consonant, to become, finally, v≤. This proposal, however, is
not convincing. It is well known that relative pronouns develop from demon-
strative pronouns (see §4.2.6.2.3, p. 184) and v is a well-known demonstra-
tive element, especially in Akkadian, where it is attested not only in the third-
person personal pronoun but also as a relative pronoun. Therefore, it is un-
likely that it has a secondary character.
(2) Others suggest an inverse process: rv≤a“ stems from v≤. v≤ (followed by a
double consonant) shifted to va with prosthetic aleph (well attested before
sibilants; cf. hr;Wmv‘a" ‘nightwatch’, ['/rz] / ['/rz]a< ‘arm’) followed by a double
consonant, which by dissimilation (cf. qc≤M<&D' / qc≤m<&r]D' ‘Damascus’) developed
to r plus simple consonant, thus giving rise to rv≤a“. It should not be argued
against this view that v≤’s main attestation is in Rabbinic Hebrew. Not only
may late dialects preserve early forms (see §4.2.4.3.3a, p. 177) but, as sug-
gested above, v≤ might have been an early form which did not enter the stan-
dard register and is, therefore, limited in Biblical Hebrew.
(3) The most plausible view, however, is that there is no etymological
connection between these two relative pronouns, since a sound etymological
basis may be established for each of them. v≤, as stated, is a well-known de-
monstrative element. rv≤a“ may be related to Heb yr'v¨a“ ‘my steps’, Aram rt"a“
‘place’, Arab ªatar ‘footsteps’. rv≤a“ originally introduced local clauses denot-
ing ‘where . . .’ (attested in Ugaritic and Akkadian), and the semantic shift
from ‘where’ to relative pronoun, though marginal, is well founded.
4.2.6.2.2n. At first, Ugaritic ªtr was misinterpreted as serving as a relative pronoun; never-
theless, see Tropper (2000: 798 par. 83.221; 905 par. 97.6). See also Akkadian asrum
‘place’, asar ‘place of; where’, used as a preposition and subordinating conjunction.
00-Blau.book Page 184 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.2.6.2.3. ∑ Relative Pronoun 184

For the semantic shift from ‘where’ to relative pronoun, cf. the literature adduced by
Brockelmann (1908–13: 2.566 n. 1); his strictures, however, are not convincing.

4.2.6.2.3. The demonstratives hz, / /z/Wz occur in poetry as relative pro-

nouns: T:l}a:&G: WzAμ[" ÚD]s}j"b} t:yjI&n; ‘by Your mercy You guided the people whom
You have redeemed’ Exod 15:13; μdeM}l"a“ /z ytIdø[Ew ] ytIyriB} Úyn,b: Wrm}v‘yiAμaI ‘if your
sons will keep my covenant and my testimonies that I will teach them’ Ps
132:12; /B T:n]k"&v… hz, ˆ/YxIArh" . . . rkøz] ‘Remember . . . Mount Zion on which You
dwelt’ Ps 74:2. The last example clearly reflects the shift of a demonstrative
pronoun to a relative, a very common feature. It arose by shifting from coor-
dinate clauses, which are more archaic than subordinate ones, to subordina-
tion. We may posit as the starting point two coordinated sentences: . . . rkøz]
/B T:n]k"&v… >hz, ˆ/YxIArh" ‘Remember this Mount Zion. You have dwelt on it’.
When these two sentences fused, the second sentence was felt as a (at first
asyndetic) relative clause. Then, by shifting, the demonstrative pronoun which
stood between both sentences (the so-called apo koinou construction) was felt
as belonging to the following sentence and thus started functioning as a rela-
tive pronoun. The same may apply to Exod 15:13. Its original structure might
have been: T:l}a:&G; >WzAμ[" ÚD]s}j"b} t:yjI&n; ‘With Your mercy You have guided this
nation. You have redeemed (it)’, before it developed along the lines men-
tioned above.
4.2.6.2.3n. The shift from a demonstrative pronoun to a relative pronoun is well attested in
Indo-European languages; cf. English “that.”
In Exod 15:13, the fact that μ[" is formally indefinite also indicates that Wz was origi-
nally a demonstrative pronoun and as such caused μ[" to be definite. This structure was
preserved even after Wz ceased to act as a demonstrative pronoun and became a relative
pronoun.
In Exod 15:13, note that Wz is still joined with a maqqaf to the preceding noun, its former
head.

4.2.6.2.4. Another clear case of the shift of a demonstrative to a relative

pronoun is the main Arabic relative pronoun, allaqi. It has a quite transparent
etymon: it consists of three demonstrative elements. The first al is identical to
the Arabic definite article; the second is la, and the third, qi. Thus allaqi
clearly parallels Biblical Hebrew hz,L:h" ‘this’, which begins with a demonstra-
tive element identical to the Biblical Hebrew definite article. The fact that one
of these two parallel words serves as a demonstrative pronoun and the other as
a relative indicates that relative pronouns often developed by shifting from de-
monstrative pronouns. The addition of the demonstrative pronoun from which
these relative pronouns developed was of course only possible with determi-
nate heads (since demonstrative pronouns have very strong determinate force).
In this regard, allaqi has preserved an archaic feature: it can only be added to
determinate nouns.

page is 12 points short

00-Blau.book Page 185 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

185 Relative Pronoun ∑ 4.2.6.3.4.

4.2.6.2.4n. Note that, as stated in §4.2.6.1.1 above (pp. 181–182), allaqi agrees with the
preceding head, as it did when it still served as a demonstrative pronoun.
In Arabic, the restriction in using asyndetic relative clauses with indeterminate heads
is late; it arose in opposition to the use of allaqi with determinate heads only. Originally,
asyndetic relative clauses occurred after both definite and indefinite heads. Biblical He-
brew has, indeed, preserved asyndetic relative clauses after definite heads, as in h'/la” vFøYiw '
Whc…[: ‘and he forsook God who made him’ Deut 32:15 (h'/la”, to be sure, though formally
indefinite is determinate in the context).

4.2.6.3. Interrogative Pronouns as Relatives

4.2.6.3.1. In many languages, relative pronouns derive from interrogative
pronouns (cf. English who, which, what). The same applies to Biblical He-
brew ymI ‘who?’, hm" ‘what?’. The relative use of these interrogative pronouns
developed from two coordinate sentences, the first of which served as a ques-
tion: μh<lEa“ vG'yi μyrib:D] l["b"&AymI, originally meaning ‘who has problems? He may
approach them’ Exod 24:14, came to denote ‘he who has problems, may ap-
proach them’; the meaning of bvø y; drej:w] arey;AymI ‘who is afraid and frightened?
He may turn back’ Judg 7:3, changed into ‘he who is afraid and frightened,
may turn back’; μk<l: hc≤[”a< μyrim}aø μT<a"Ahm: ‘whatever you say, I will do’ 2 Sam
21:4, arose from ‘what do you say? I will do (it) to you’.
4.2.6.3.2. In the original questions introduced by ymI / hm", the rheme (i.e., the
psychological predicate, the portion of the sentence that contains the main in-
formation) is the interrogative pronoun (the answer to which is the information
demanded). As a rule, however, nominal predicates are not in initial position,
so this construction creates a gap between the grammatical and psychological
structure. This gap is bridged by restructuring the sentence and opposing the
rest of the sentence to ymI / hm" by the use of yrip}SImI WNj<&m}a< ylIAaf:j: rv≤a“ ymI Exod
32:33, originally meant ‘who is he who has sinned against me? I will strike him
from my book’, but shifted to ‘whoever has sinned against me, I will strike him
from my book’. In late Biblical Hebrew (and in Rabbinic Hebrew) v≤ is used for
rv≤a:“ hy,h}Yiv≤ aWh hy;h:V≤Ahm" ‘that which was is what will be’ Eccl 1:9, which de-
veloped from ‘what (is) what was? It (is) what will be’.
4.2.6.3.3. ymI / hm" are not opposed with regard to gender but instead reflect
the opposition person : non-person. This seems to be a very ancient opposi-
tion, though otherwise not preserved. Traces of it are found in the opposition
of the personal pronouns of the first and second persons marked as persons; in
contrast, the third person (the unmarked term of the opposition) is not marked
regarding the distinction between person : non-person.
4.2.6.3.4. The interrogative relative pronouns ymI / hm" are substantival—that
is, they do not refer to a head but are the heads themselves. The sentence AymI
vG'yi μyrib:D] l["b"& is functionally identical to vG'yi μyrib:D] l["b"& aWh rv≤a“ vyaIh: ‘the
man who has problems may approach’; the interrogative heads a relative
00-Blau.book Page 186 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.2.7. ∑ Interrogative Pronoun 186

clause that functions as subject. In /lAar;q}YiAhm" t/ar]lI ‘to see what he calls it’
Gen 2:19, /lAar;q}YiAhm" serves as (substantival) direct object. rv≤a“ itself is basi-
cally adjectival (i.e, it modifies a head like an adjective) and thus usually has
attributive function, referring to the head of the relative clause. Like adjectives
in general, rv≤a“ may be substantivized (and then we speak of substantivized
relative clauses), as in tmEw; . . . /TaI axEM:yi rv≤a“ ‘he with whom it is found . . . will
die’ Gen 44:9.
4.2.7. Interrogative Pronouns
4.2.7.1. For the interrogative pronouns ymI / hm" ‘who?/what?’ (expressing
the opposition of persons to non-persons), see §4.2.6.3, pp. 185–186.
4.2.7.2. In Ugaritic hm terminates in consonantal h, since in Ugaritic h is
not used as a vowel letter. It may well be that Biblical Hebrew hm" has a double
etymon, both ma and mah. Forms like /mK} ‘as’, yni/m&K: ‘like me’, etc., /ml} ‘to’,
/mB} ‘in’ reflect prepositions followed by original ma, which by the Canaanite
shift developed into mo, whereas the etymon mah is suggested by Ugar mh,
Arab mahma ‘whatever’ as well as by the fact that in Biblical Hebrew the
word following ma has its first consonant doubled, presumably by the assim-
ilation of the h to the following consonant. In general, the vowel of hm" paral-
lels that of the definite article, yet the occurrence of hm< is more frequent than
h< in the case of the definite article, and it is not easy to find a reason for it.
4.2.7.2n. It seems rather unlikely that in Hebrew *mah shifted to ma and then to mo. Since
the shift a to o occurred in stressed syllables only, it is difficult to posit stress for the
prepositions /ml}, /mB}, /mK}, since prepositions do not bear main stress. Should one assume
that the shift occurred first in prepositions with pronominal suffixes such as yni/m&K:, and then
spread from there first to /mK} and afterwards to /ml}, /mB}? For the addition of -ma to prepo-
sitions, occurring in Ugaritic and Arabic, cf. Brockelmann (1908–13: 2.578, par. 372b)
and Tropper (2000: 780, par. 82.5).
See above (§3.3.5.4.1, pp. 93–94), where the assimilation of h at a morpheme bound-
ary is discussed. In the case of hm", however, the assimilation of h is regressive, whereas in
all other occurrences it is progressive.
4.2.7.3. As in other Semitic languages, the interrogative pronouns are also
used as indefinite pronouns: yniaE&r]Y'Ahm" rb"d]W ‘and he will show me something’
Num 23:3; perhaps also ymIAWrm}v,¥ if it really means ‘take care, whoever you
are’ 2 Sam 18:12.
4.2.7.4. It is expedient here to mention yaE, the interrogative element that
forms part of, e.g., hpøyaE ‘where’, ËyaE / hk:yaE ‘how’. The same element occurs in
a less bound form hT:a:& hZ,mI yaE ‘from where are you?’ 2 Sam 1:13. The inter-
rogative phrase hZ,mI yaE may also be followed by a governed substantive (which
has the function of an adverbial of limitation, as demonstrated by the lack of
concord between hz, and the substantive): hT: a"& ry[I hZ,mIAyaE (not taZomIAyaE*)
‘from which town are you’ (literally, ‘from where as to town are you?’) 2 Sam
15:2, in contrast to Rabbinic Hebrew hT:a" ry[I /zyaEm.E
00-Blau.book Page 187 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

187 Biradicalism/Triradicalism of Verbs ∑ 4.3.1.3.

4.3. Verbs

4.3.1. Biradicalism and Triradicalism

4.3.1.1. We have already dealt with the general problem of biradicalism and
triradicalism (see §1.5.11, p. 14) and mentioned that, of all word classes, verbs
are the part of speech that was especially exposed to analogy. Accordingly, the
verbal themes are very few (the ordinary verbal themes being only seven, but
these can easily be reduced to five, because two of them are passive forms of
two other patterns) and all of them, synchronically at least, manifestly reflect
triradicalism. This is also indicated by the fact that whenever a verb is derived
from a biradical noun (hd;y; ‘he threw’ from dy; ‘hand’, hn,B:aI ‘I will get a son’
from ˆBE ‘son’), it is, of necessity, transferred to a triradical pattern.
4.3.1.1n. It is not certain that the derivations of these denominal verbs are correct.
4.3.1.2. Nevertheless, diachronically there is little doubt that some of the
verbal roots were originally biradical. Apparently, the prevalence of triradi-
calism is the result of a long and intricate development in which analogy
played a decisive part. At a prehistoric period, preceding Proto-Semitic, bi-
radical and triradical (and even monoradical) roots coexisted. By a long de-
velopment, which we are not able to reconstruct, the triradical roots prevailed,
and thus all the other roots became deviant. Therefore, the monoradical and
biradical roots were adapted to the triradical ones. Eventually the monoradical
and biradical forms diminished, and they completely disappeared in verbs, at
least synchronically. Even in nouns the residues of biradicalism are limited,
but they have not totally disappeared. As a result, it is possible to reconstruct
biradical (and monoradical) roots.
4.3.1.3. A whole series of primal biradical nouns has been preserved;
these nouns, based on their meanings, belong to the most ancient layer of lan-
guage: dy; ‘hand’, gD; ‘fish’, μD; ‘blood’, tl<D,& ‘door’, ˆBE ‘son’, μv´ ‘name’, hn;v…
‘year’, hp:c… ‘lip, language’, tv≤q <& ‘bow’, etc. In his masterly paper on this sub-
ject, which, despite a century since its publication, has remained one of the
most important papers in the realm of Semitics, Nöldeke (1910: 78–109) dem-
onstrated that these nouns are also being forced into the frame of triradical-
ism. Sometimes the feminine t is incorporated into the word: wyt:/tp}c,¥ yt"/tl}D',
t/tv…q}. In other cases, a final or medial y/w is added to the root, as in hy;r]qI
‘town’ (derived from tr,q)<& , gY;D'‚ gW;D'‚ ‘fisherman’ from gD;. The final radical is
doubled or, as above, a final y is added to ≈jE ‘arrow’, also yxIjE& (1 Sam 20:36,
37), and, as a rule, this noun has a geminated final radical /XjI. Nouns having
one radical consonant only may be doubled in their entirety, e.g., the plural
t/YpIyPI ‘edges’ from hP< ‘mouth’, the construct ymEymE from the plurale tantum
μyim"& ‘water’, presumably reflecting the archaic formation of the plural by
doubling.
00-Blau.book Page 188 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.1.4. ∑ Biradicalism of Verbs 188

4.3.1.4. A historical layer of biradicalism is reflected in some weak verbs

(i.e., roots in which synchronically one of the radicals is realized as a long
vowel or is totally assimilated or elided). At least some forms of the II-w/y and
verba mediae geminatae cannot be explained by ordinary sound shifts. There-
fore, it seems that at least some of these forms are of biradical origin and were
later absorbed into the framework of triradicalism (see §4.3.8.7.1.2, p. 252).
However, even if it were possible to derive all the forms of a class of verbs
from three radicals by positing sound shifts (as with verbs III-y, with perhaps
one exception, viz., the short prefix-tense; see §4.3.8.6.7n, p. 251), this would
not warrant that this was the historical development. It is also possible that, at
a certain period, triradical and biradical roots coexisted, and, because of the
impact of some sound shifts, some features of these two groups became iden-
tical. Therefore, finally, the two groups blended, and it may well be that what
appears to us as the result of sound shifts was, in fact, due to the analogy of bi-
radical forms (see Blau 1977c: 27–29 = Topics, 260–62; 1968b: 42–43 = Top-
ics, 279–80). In addition, Nöldeke (1910: 179–206) adduced examples of the
alternation of verbs I-n/w/y/ ª, thus making their derivation from an original
biradical root by a n/w/y/ ª prefix quite plausible (as, e.g., the derivation of
bXEy't}TI ‘you will stand’ and byxIn] ‘prefect’ from the biradical root ßb).
4.3.1.5. Often one gets the impression that some strong roots also had a
biradical origin. This is surely the case with roots that have identical first and
second radicals. It seems that not only verba mediae geminatae with identical
second and third radicals (partly) derive from biradical roots (such as ll"G;,
lGel}Gi ‘to roll’ from the biradical base gl, rKEr]k"m} ‘dancing’ from the biradical
root kr), but also those words with identical first and second radicals (such as
rK:KI ‘loaf’, presumably < *kirkar, reflecting assimilation of the first r, again
from kr), and the same may apply to roots with first and third identical radicals
(such as Ëyrik}T" ‘robe’, again from kr). The basic meaning of the biradical root
kr in all these cases was perhaps ‘to be round’.
4.3.1.6. Similar views concerning originally biradical roots were expressed
with respect to strong roots that do not have identical radicals. As a rule
(though not always), the first two radicals are considered the biradical base
and the third radical is the extension. And, indeed, it is possible to compile a
long and, prima facie, impressive list of roots having related meanings—roots
that differ from each other in the third radical, such as prr ‘to split’, prd ‘to di-
vide’, prz ‘to open(?)’, prk ‘to rub’, prm ‘to tear’, prs ‘to break’, prº ‘to let
loose’, prß ‘to break through’, prq ‘to tear apart’, etc.—all allegedly derived
from the biradical root pr. Yet, even if this supposition should prove true with
regard to some of these roots, it cannot be demonstrated that it was indeed true
in an individual case. How is it possible, for instance, to know if, e.g., prß in-
deed stems from biradical pr? It could have also arisen, e.g., by the blending
of prr and pßß. Moreover, in some cases it is possible to prove that the connec-
00-Blau.book Page 189 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

189 Biradicalism; Tenses ∑ 4.3.2.2.1.

tion of some roots with the others is secondary. At first sight, one might claim
that both pßy ‘to open’ and pßß ‘to break’ derive from the same biradical root
pß. However, it is possible to prove with the help of other Semitic languages
that pßy reflects pß1y, but pßß reflects pß3ß3.
4.3.1.7. Moreover, J. Kurylowicz (1972: 6, par. 1) has justly called atten-
tion to the fact that no suffixes corresponding to the third radicals are attested
in the Semitic languages, and, therefore, the whole theory of the first two rad-
icals being the biradical base is very weakly founded. It is much more reason-
able to posit the two last radicals as the biradical base, because prefixes with
n, etc., are indeed attested. The heyday of the theory that the first two radicals
constitute the biradical base was in the second half of the nineteenth century
when, e.g., F. Mühlau and W. Volck, in their editions of Gesenius’s lexicon to
the Old Testament (beginning with the 8th edition, 1878) have, according to
Bergsträsser’s pun (1918–29: 2. 3) “diese Anschaung . . . durch und damit ad
absurdum geführt” (in a somewhat pedantic English translation, spoiling the
pun, ‘by overdoing the use of this method, they showed its absurdity’). Never-
theless, even today many works are based on this assumption.
4.3.1.8. Interjections and pronouns have not been adapted to the triradical
scheme (see §4.2.1.1, p. 158), nor have the very frequent monoradical prepo-
sitions K} / l} / B} ‘as/to/in’ or the biradical preposition ˆmI ‘from’.
4.3.1.8n. The preposition ˆmI also occurs in doubled forms as, e.g., in yNiM<&mI ‘from me’ <
*minmin-ni. Only the assumption of the pronominal suffix -ni (rather than -i < *-iya) ac-
counts for the penultimate stress.

4.3.2. Tenses
4.3.2.1. Introduction
4.3.2.1.1. Scholars are very much at variance regarding the Hebrew verbal
forms. There are two main schools of thought: (1) the Hebrew verbal system
indicates tense, and (2) it indicates aspect. There are also differences, which
are sometimes quite disparate, among scholars within the two approaches. In
the following, we will first delineate the theory that in our opinion is the most
likely one and will later adumbrate a few of the many other views.

4.3.2.2. Tense Approach

4.3.2.2.1. Our starting point is that Biblical Hebrew marks the same tenses
as do many modern Indo-European languages, including English, viz., past,
present, and future. We do not think that the main function of the verbal forms
is to mark aspects, i.e., the way of looking at the action of the verb, whether it
is looked upon as still continuing (the imperfective aspect) or as just stating
that it was performed (the perfective aspect). It was the alleged use of the
same form to refer to different tenses that induced scholars to discard the
00-Blau.book Page 190 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.2.2.2. ∑ Tenses 190

notion of tenses altogether and replace it with aspects. However, verbal forms
in biblical narrative prose do refer to tenses in a very consistent manner in the
vast majority of cases. The only complicating factor (which, indeed, misled
many scholars) involves a double set of tenses, because of the existence of
the so-called converted tenses, opening with the so-called conversive waw.
Accordingly, past is marked by the suffix-tense or wa+prefix-tense, and
present/future by the prefix-tense or w´+suffix-tense.
4.3.2.2.1n. We use the names “converted” tenses and “conversive waw” because they are
time-honored. The term “conversive waw” may also be used as stating a synchronic fact, al-
though, from the historical point of view, it should have been called “preserving waw,”
since after waw the archaic usage of the tenses has been preserved. It is, however, not expe-
dient to change the terms every time that the theory changes. At any rate, we reject the pre-
tentious name “consecutive waw” because it simply is not true that the action is represented
as a consequence of a preceding action. This view forced scholars to interpret waw at the
beginning of biblical books as a sign of their close connection with the books that precede
them, either now or originally!
The “conversive” waw attached to the prefix-tense has a form that is different from that
of the “conversive” waw preceding the suffix-tense (which is identical to the ordinary con-
nective waw). Nevertheless, according to the transcriptions of Origen and the Samaritan
tradition, there is no difference in the vocalization of the waw. The reason for the excep-
tional form of the “conversive” waw preceding the prefix-tense (viz., w' followed by the
gemination of the next consonant) is, it seems, that many forms of the short prefix-tense
preceded by the “conversive” waw (and it is the short prefix-tense that originally followed
the “conversive” waw; see §4.3.3.3.3, p. 206) were disyllabic. Therefore, at the period of
the general penultimate stress, they were stressed on their first syllable (e.g., *yísmor). Ac-
cordingly, wa, the basic form of the conjunction w, was not reduced, because it preceded the
stress by one syllable only. It could have undergone pretonic lengthening, but the lengthen-
ing was replaced by pretonic doubling (see §3.5.12.2.16, p. 152; §5.2.2, pp. 285–286).

4.3.2.2.2. On the one hand, if the analysis of this double set of verbal forms
shows that the interchange of these doublets is accidental, this would buttress
the theory that the Biblical Hebrew verbal forms primarily mark aspects, be-
cause the theory of tenses would not then be able to explain the facts. On the
other hand, if it is possible to find the conditioning of this interchange of ver-
bal forms, this would be a blow to the theory of aspects, since the rival theory
is able to explain the facts in a satisfactory manner. And indeed it is pos-
sible to give a satisfactory explanation for this alternation of the indicative
forms in classical biblical narrative: the forms with “conversive” waw are
used in a syntactic environment in which it is possible to apply connective
waw. Otherwise, the simple forms occur. Let us, for instance, analyze Gen
1:27: μt:aø ar;B: hb:qnE ]W rk:z; ,/taø ar;B: μyhIløa” μl<x<&B} ,/ml}x"B} μd;a:h:Ata< μyhIløa” ar;b}Yiw'
‘and God created man in His image, in God’s image He created him, male and
female He created them’. In this verse not only do the waw-tense and simple-
tense alternate, but all these forms are derived from the same verb, denoting
exactly the same meaning. However, the alternation is clearly regulated by the
possibility of applying connective waw: the first arb is sentence initial, where

spread is 9 points long

00-Blau.book Page 191 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

191 Tenses ∑ 4.3.2.2.3.

connective waw can stand. Accordingly, the waw-tense is used, and because it
refers to the past it is the waw with the prefix-tense. In the two following
clauses, however, the same lexical verb is preceded by an adverbial expres-
sion (μyhIløa” μl<x<&B)} or by a second object (hb:qnE ]W rk:z); , and no ‘and’ can separate
an adverbial/object from its verb. Therefore, in the last two cases simple-
tenses are used. The situation is similar in a sentence referring to the future:
br,j:& μk<yrej“a" ytIqøyrih“w ' μyi/Gb" hr,z;a” μk<t}a<w] ‘and I will disperse you between the na-
tions, and I will unsheath the sword against you’ Lev 26:33. In the preceding
verses the afflictions of the country were told, and in our verse its inhabitants
are dealt with. Therefore, the object μk<t}a<, being the theme of our verse, has
received initial position. Since no waw can intervene between object and verb,
the verb hr,z;a” is in simple-tense; the following verb, however, is in initial po-
sition, where the addition of ‘and’ is possible, and, therefore, the waw-tense is
employed.
4.3.2.2.2n. The reason for the initial position of the adverbial phrase and second object in
the second and third clauses of Gen 1:27 is quite clear: arb is repeated three times. In the
first clause, being an innovation, it stands in sentence-initial position, as is usual with finite
verbs introducing innovation (i.e., with verbs that serve as both grammatical and psycho-
logical predicates); in the two following clauses the use of arb is a mere stylistic device,
not conveying any new information. Therefore, other words, giving the main information
(i.e., serving as psychological predicates, rhemes), are placed in front of the verb.

4.3.2.2.3. This quite rigid alternation of simple- and waw-tenses to mark

narration in classical prose is the most significant feature of the biblical tense
system. The number of deviations in which waw ‘and’ is followed by the
simple-tense is comparatively small. It stands to reason that such an extreme
application of waw-tenses whenever it is possible to use ‘and’ has to be con-
sidered a literary feature. And, indeed, in the not too extensive inscriptions of
Arad, cases of waw with simple-tenses are twice attested, thus demonstrating
that in the spoken language, whenever the usage of waw ‘and’ was possible,
both waw-tenses and simple-tenses could be used.
4.3.2.2.3n. It has even been claimed (M. Lambert 1893: 55–62) that anomalous cases of the
waw+suffix-tense in the 3ms referring to the past are false vocalizations of infinitives abso-
lute, which were spelled defectively and interpreted as past.
For the Arad examples, see Blau 1982–83: 20 = Studies, 110. One case is undisputed,
viz., Aharoni (1975: 18, Inscription 3, lines 2–3) whynnj ˚wxw . . . ˆt ‘give . . . and Óananyahu
has ordered you’. The writer used ˚wx, connective waw with the suffix-tense rather than the
“conversive” waw with the prefix-tense, regardless of whether the form is interpreted as re-
ferring to the past or is considered an epistolary perfect that describes the situation from the
point of view of the addressee (cf. the literature adduced by Gogel 1998: 267 n. 27). The
other instance is Inscription 16, lines 3–4 ytjlçw ˚tybm ytaxk t[w, which, in my opinion,
cannot designate ‘and now, when I leave your house, I will send’, since, if the writer had not
yet left the addressee’s house, he would have addressed him orally, rather than writing to
him. Therefore, it has to be interpreted ‘. . . when I left your house, I sent’, viz., as connec-
tive waw attached to the suffix-tense.
00-Blau.book Page 192 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.2.2.4. ∑ Tenses; Modes 192

4.3.2.2.4. In order to complete the description of indicative tenses in clas-

sical biblical narrative, it has to be stated that the simple prefix-tense (and,
when the use of ‘and’ is possible, waw + suffix-tense) may not only be used
for marking present/future but also iterative or continuous past, thus reflect-
ing a combination of tense and (the imperfective) aspect, which describes the
situation as still continuing; e.g., Wc[“y' hk:K: . . . hK:hIw] ‘and (every time) he thrust
. . . so were they (always) doing’ 1 Sam 2:14.
4.3.2.2.5. This is therefore the structure of indicative tenses in classical
prose:

Past: suffix-tense / waw + (short) prefix-

tense
Present/Future/Iterative-
Continous Past: prefix-tense / waw + suffix-tense

The relations among these forms are quite complex. Not only may the tenses
be indicated both by simple tenses and waw-tenses according to the structure
of the sentences, but past may be expressed by the suffix-tense or by the waw+
prefix tense (if iteration and continuity are not emphasized), or by the prefix-
tense or by waw + suffix-tense (if iteration and continuity are not emphasized).
Were it not for the fact that the prefix-tense and waw + suffix-tense may be
used to indicate the iterative-continuous past, we would have claimed that
these forms are non-past as opposed to the past (suffix-tense and waw + [short]
prefix-tense).
4.3.2.2.6. However, the verbal system is not only temporal and partly as-
pectual (as we have seen in the case of the iterative-continuous past) but also
modal (see Steiner 1996: 253–61). To the modal system belongs the volitive,
which consists of three heterogeneous elements: the first person is expressed
by the lengthened prefix-tense (the so-called cohortative), the second by the
imperative and the short prefix-tense (functioning as jussive), and the third by
the short prefix-tense. The cohortative terminates in the suffix O < a < a
(hr;m}v‘a<, hr;m}v‘ni ‘let me preserve!’, ‘let us preserve!’). The preservation of this
final a, which was apparently anceps, was due to the paradigmatic pressure to
maintain the opposition volitive : indicative. If this sound shift had acted
blindly, without the interference of other factors, the a would have been elided,
as was the case, e.g., with the 3ms of the suffix-tense (*samara > rm"v…) because
no paradigmatic pressure existed. The modal structure becomes even more in-
tricate because of the optional use of (“conversive”) waw+suffix-tense in
modal sense: Wrm:&v…w] . . . rb:AWrB}x}yiw] . . . vMEjIw] ≈r,a:&h:Al[" μydiqIP} dqEp}y'w] ‘and let him
appoint officers over the land and take the fifth part . . . and they will store
grain . . . and keep (food)’ Gen 41:34–35; WNl"&w] . . . hb:r]q}niw] Úl} ‘come and let us
draw near . . . and let us lodge (/to lodge)’ Judg 19:13. Even more important is
00-Blau.book Page 193 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

193 Modes ∑ 4.3.2.2.7.

the fact that the ordinary prefix-tense (often preceded by the connective waw),
being the unmarked term of the opposition ordinary prefix-tense : lengthened/
short prefix-tense, may be used in a modal sense, frequently paralleling length-
ened/short prefix-tense. Some examples: Ëyil"&aE a/ba: aN;Ahb:h:& ‘come now, let me
come in unto you’ Gen 38:16; HB: ˆylIn;w] taZoh" ysIWby]h"Ary[IAla< hr;WsI&n;w] aN;Ahk:l}
‘come now, let us turn in into this city of the Jebusites and lodge in it’ Judg
19:11; πysI/y hkøw ] μyhIløa” Úl}Ahc≤[“y' hKO ‘may God do so unto you and may He so
add’ 1 Sam 3:17.
4.3.2.2.6n. In addition to its use as a jussive, the short prefix-tense refers to the past when
it occurs after the “conversive” waw. Note that, whereas in the indicative system it is
obligatory to use the suffix-tense after waw to indicate the present/future, in a modal con-
text the suffix-tense and the prefix-tense alternate after waw.
It may well be that the preservation of the final -a on the cohortative was also due to the
fact that the cohortative frequently precedes an; ‘pray’, as in aN; hx:Wr&a: ‘let me run’ 2 Sam
18:19. Since the cohortative coalesced with an;, its final -a occurred in word-medial position
and was maintained. (Cf. Blau 1977c: 30 = Topics, 263, where the possibility is also men-
tioned that forms such as aN; hx:Wr&a: were influenced by the energic prefix-tense *ªarußana,
which was decomposed into two words: ªarußa na.) Moreover, one also has to take into
consideration the greater stability of a (cf. §3.5.7.2.3n, p. 122).
4.3.2.2.7. Accordingly, the extended modal structure, including the un-
marked ordinary prefix-tense, is as follows:
First-person singular/plural: lengthened prefix-tense / (waw+) ordinary prefix-
tense / waw+suffix-tense.
Second-person singular/plural: imperative / (waw+) ordinary prefix-tense /
waw+suffix-tense / short prefix-tense.
Third-person singular/plural: short prefix-tense / (waw+) ordinary prefix-
tense / waw+suffix-tense.
Let us illustrate this full volitive system by the verb lyDib}hI ‘he separated’ in
hif ºil:

1s hl:yDi&b}a" ‘I will separate’ lyDib}a"(w]), yTI&l}D'b}hIw]

2s lDeb}h" ‘separate!’ hl:yDi&b}h"a, lDeb}T"(w]), T:&l}D'b}hIw], lyDib}T"(w]);
ylIyDi&b}h" ylIyDi&b}T"(w]), T}l}D'b}hIw]
3s lDeb}y' ‘may he separate!’ lyDib}y', lyDib}y'(w]), lyDib}hIw]; lyDib}T"(w]),
lDeb}T" hl:yDi&b}hIw]
1p hl:yDi&b}n' ‘we will separate’ lyDib}n'(w]), WnL}D'&b}hIw]
2p WlyDi&b}h" ‘separate’ WlyDi&b}t"(w]), μT<l}D'b}hIw]; hn;l}De&b}T"(w]), ˆT<l}D'b}hIw]
hn;l}De&b}h"
3p WlyDi&b}y' ‘may they separate’ WlyDi&b}y'(w]), WlyDi&b}hIw], hn;l}De&b}T"(w])
hn;l}De&b}T"
a. The lengthened form of the imperative.
00-Blau.book Page 194 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.2.2.8. ∑ Tenses 194

Even in this paradigm, which was specially chosen from the verbal theme
hif ºil in order to emphasize the formal differences of the forms, some forms
are identical to the ordinary prefix-tense. Moreover, in other verbal themes the
formal differences between the ordinary prefix-tense and the short prefix-
tense (i.e., the jussive; and, in some cases, also between prefix-tense and the
cohortative) have been neutralized, so that, synchronically, we move mostly
in a vicious circle.
4.3.2.2.7n. In the 1s and 2ms forms of waw +suffix-tense, the ultimate stress on the suffix-
tense demonstrates that it is preceded by the “conversive” waw. Cf. §4.3.2.2.16n, p. 198.
The use of the short prefix-tense (the jussive) in the second person when it is not ne-
gated is not very common; it occurs, e.g.: laEr;c‘yi yneb}lI dyGet"w] bqø[“y' tybEl} rm"atø hKø (pay atten-
tion to the plene spelling of dyGet"w]!) ‘so shall you say to the house of Jacob and tell the
children of Israel’ Exod 19:3; ljE/T μymIy; t["b}v¥ . . . T:&d]r'y;w] ‘and you are to go down . . . tarry
seven days’ 1 Sam 10:8.

4.3.2.2.8. Whereas during the period of classical prose the use of the waw-
tenses was, it seems, a living feature, it fell into desuetude after the destruc-
tion of the First Temple. In Rabbinic Hebrew it does not exist at all. Therefore,
in the late books of the Bible simple-tenses after connective waw become
more frequent. Since the short prefix-tense is the basic form after “conver-
sive” waw and since it forms a paradigm with the lengthened prefix-tense for
expressing the volitive mood, in later books “conversive” waw with the
lengthened prefix-tense, in analogy to the “conversive” waw with the short
prefix-tense, became more frequent. In other words, because lDeb}T", lDeb}y' occur
in one paradigm with hl:yDi&b}a", by the analogy of lDeb}T"w', lDeb}Y'w', the first-person
forms hl:yDi&b}a"w,; hl:yDi&b}N'w' became more and more widespread.
4.3.2.2.8n. On the use of the waw-tenses in classical prose, see the qualifications ex-
pressed in §4.3.2.2.3n, p. 191, based on the Arad inscriptions.
Although the “conversive” waw with the lengthened prefix-tense became more wide-
spread in late Biblical Hebrew, it occurs in early passages as well, At the same time,
Chronicles does not use it, and even changes ht:r&ik}a"w; ‘and I will destroy’ (2 Sam 7:9) to
tyrik}a"w; (1 Chr 17:8).

4.3.2.2.9. An additional feature with which we have not yet dealt is the use
of the suffix-tense of stative verbs as present tense, as a sort of conjugated
adjective: yTIn]q "&z; an;AhNehI ‘behold, I am old (= ˆqEz;)’ Gen 27:2; Úyc≤‡[“m" Wld]G;Ahm"
Úyt<‡ bøv‘j}m" Wqm}[: daøm} . . . ‘how great (= μylI/dG] ) are Your deeds, . . . very deep
(= t/QmU[“) are Your thoughts’ Ps 92:6.
4.3.2.2.10. Scholars are at variance not only regarding the analysis of the
tense structure in Biblical Hebrew but also regarding its historical roots.
Some particulars, however, are quite clear in our opinion. First, the participle
does not fully take part in the tense structure. Sentences with a participle as
the predicate have to be regarded as basically nominal clauses, without special
time indication and, as a rule, refer to the present. This analysis is substanti-
00-Blau.book Page 195 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

195 Tenses ∑ 4.3.2.2.13.

ated by the fact that participial predicates are negated with ˆyaE as are nominal
predicates, whereas the prefix- and suffix-tenses are negated with alø . Second,
the short prefix-tense not only has a jussive sense but may mark the past as
well. This is clearly reflected in the preservation of the short prefix-tense in
the sense of the past after the so-called “conversive” waw. As already stated,
the waw is not historically “conversive”; rather, it preserves the ancient usage
of past reference. When this usage started disappearing, it vanished first when
standing alone, i.e., in open syntagmas; it was, however, preserved in closed
syntagmas, viz., mainly when coming after waw (which, at that time was a
mere connective waw, being only later reinterpreted as “conversive” [which it
really is synchronically]).
4.3.2.2.10n. In Arabic, too, verbal forms following ‘and’ were felt to be closed syntagmas
in which archaic constructions were preserved. So the archaic usage of the negation of the
suffix-tense with la was maintained after wa ‘and’.
In Arabic the past usage of the short prefix-tense was preserved in closed syntagmas,
as is the case after the negative lam (which was also felt as “converting” the prefix-tense)
and in conditional clauses. In Akkadian, however, the parallel iprus serves as the normal
marker of past.
4.3.2.2.11. How has it happened that the same form marks both jussive and
past? According to Bergsträsser (1918–29: 2.10), the short prefix-tense is the
most ancient verbal form, formed at a time when it was only opposed to nomi-
nal clauses. Since nominal clauses, as a rule, denoted simple statements and
referred to the present without modal signification; the opposed term, i.e., the
short prefix-tense, served both as jussive and as marker of the past.
4.3.2.2.11n. For other suggestions, see the literature adduced by von Soden (1995: 128,
par. 79a*) and Kienast (2001: 196, par. 178.3).
4.3.2.2.12. Indeed, in archaic poetry the short prefix-tense is sometimes
still used as referring to the past, even when not following wa: μyMI[" tløbUG] bXEy'
‘He established the borders of nations’ Deut 32:8; μyim"&v…AˆmI μ[Er]y' ‘He thun-
dered from heaven’ 2 Sam 22:14 (compare Ps 18:14, reflecting a later recen-
sion, which already has μ[Er]Y'w' in accordance with later usage).
4.3.2.2.13. Another certain point of departure is, in our opinion, the above-
mentioned use of the suffix-tense of stative verbs in the sense of the present
tense, as a sort of conjugated adjective. In Akkadian no tense parallel to the
suffix-tense exists. Nevertheless, a rather similar half-verbal form is well at-
tested, the so-called stative, which, having the form paris/parus, as do most
stative verbs in Biblical Hebrew, corresponds to Biblical Hebrew stative verbs
in both form and meaning. Accordingly, we will consider the stative suffix-
tense as a Proto-Semitic heritage, whereas the ordinary suffix-tense derived
from action verbs (which did not exist in Akkadian, although it is attested in
most West Semitic languages), is a West Semitic innovation, which presum-
ably emerged when the short prefix-tense started losing its past reference and
00-Blau.book Page 196 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.2.2.14. ∑ Prefix-Tense 196

remained alive in modal usage only. It was then that the suffix-tense derived
from action verbs came into being, to mark the past instead of the short prefix-
tense. However, it is also possible that originally the short prefix-tense de-
noted the ordinary past, whereas the suffix-tense of action verbs denoted the
present perfect.
4.3.2.2.14. On the other hand, the problem of the ordinary prefix-tense is
very intricate. As to its form, internal reconstruction of Biblical Hebrew at-
tests to a final short vowel. Thus, e.g., the ordinary prefix-tense of the hif ºil
verbal theme of II-w/y verbs such as μyqIy; ‘he will raise’ has a long vowel, in
contrast to the jussive μqEy; with an originally short one. This distribution is
convincingly explained by the assumption that in Proto-Semitic and Proto-
Hebrew no long vowels could stand in closed syllables. Accordingly, forms of
the *yaqim type (without final vowel) were shortened, becoming *yaqim, and
later μqe y;. In the ordinary prefix-tense, however, the long vowel was preserved
because it stood in an (originally) open syllable, viz., *yaqimu. And, in fact, in
Classical Arabic the (ordinary) prefix-tense terminates in final -u, as in yak-
tubu; it stands to reason that this was the case in Proto-Hebrew as well. How-
ever, great difficulties arise because of the existence of another prefix-tense,
used as indicative, in both Akkadian and Gºez: in Akkadian it is iparras (the
initial i arose from ya because of an internal Akkadian development; the last
syllable may have other vowels); in Gºez it is y´nagg´r (where it opposes a
jussive/subjunctive which is formed as an ordinary prefix-tense y´ng´r). As a
result of the comparison of these two forms, we have to posit a form with
geminated second radical marking present/future indicative. Since this form
is attested in East Semitic (Akkadian) and Southwest Semitic (Gºez [see Kie-
nast 2001: 306–9, par. 259], as well as in Berber dialects), it is difficult to
imagine that it arose by parallel development (although this too has been
claimed). Instead, it appears that it is a Proto-Semitic feature, preserved in
Akkadian and Gºez, two Semitic languages on the opposite ends of the Se-
mitic map. The difficulty is to assess the historical relation of this *yaqa††il to
*yaq†ulu. It has, for instance, been suggested that both forms should be re-
garded as Proto-Semitic (von Soden 1959: 263–65). *yaqa††il perhaps was
durative present-future (in accordance with the doubled second radical, if in
fact it is iconic [onomatopoetic]), whereas *yaq†ulu was momentary (termina-
tive) present-future. If this proves to be true, one will perhaps posit that after
the semantic differences between these two forms referring to present-future
had been neutralized, one of the forms was independently dropped in the vari-
ous languages. As a rule,*yaqa††il disappeared, because of its similarity to the
piººel theme. In Akkadian and Gºez it was yaq†ulu that disappeared; in Akka-
dian yaq†ulu has been preserved in subordinate clauses denoting statements,
i.e., in a closed syntagma. Should this theory prove to be correct, it would im-
ply that yaq†ulu is not a West Semitic innovation but instead belongs to an
00-Blau.book Page 197 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

197 Tenses ∑ 4.3.2.2.16.

older layer of Proto-Semitic and was displaced in Akkadian and Gºez by the
other Proto-Semitic prefix-tense yaqa††vl, so that *yaq†ulu > iprusu was only
maintained in indicative subordinate clauses, viz., in closed syntagma.
4.3.2.2.14n. It has been claimed that remnants of *yaqa††il have been preserved in Biblical
Hebrew, e.g., in forms that were reinterpreted as piººel, or in I-n verbs in which allegedly the
preservation of the n in yaq†ul indicates that they were originally *yaqa††il. However, these
theories, for all their ingenuity, are improbable. See, e.g., Bloch 1963: 41–50.

4.3.2.2.15. Perhaps one could assume that in the earliest stage of Proto-
Semitic, besides the imperative and timeless nominal clauses (as a rule refer-
ring to the present), the short prefix-tense (derived from the imperative)
emerged to serve as the marked term in the opposition short prefix-tense :
nominal clause (see §4.3.2.2.11, p. 195). This opposition was twofold, obtain-
ing in the realm of both tense and mood. In opposition to nominal clauses that
were timeless (and thus related to the [general] present), the short prefix-tense
came to mark the past (the tense opposition), and contrary to nominal clauses
that, as a rule, expressed statements, it served as a jussive (the modal opposi-
tion). Later, the indicative present / future yaq†ulu was derived from the short
prefix-tense yaq†ul (cf. Bergsträsser 1918–29: 2.12). Alongside the punctual
present-future yaq†ulu, the durative present-future yaqa††vl was formed by
iconicity but later disappeared in Biblical Hebrew (and the other West Semitic
languages) because of its similarity to the D verbal theme.
4.3.2.2.15n. For the archaic character of the imperative, cf. its similarity to the construct in-
finitive in many themes in BHeb, thus perhaps hinting that the imperative might originally
date back to a period in which verbs and nouns were not yet differentiated. Kienast (2001:
200, par. 181.1), on the contrary, derives the imperative from the short prefix-tense. The im-
perative was, to be sure, influenced in its form by the prefix-tense; this influence, however,
occurred at a later period, when the imperative and the short prefix-tense coexisted.
Yaq†ulu was semantically opposed to yaq†ul. Before the emergence of yaq†ulu, present
and future senses were expressed by nominal clauses only. In contrast to nominal clauses,
which were basically devoid of temporal and modal reference, yaq†ulu came to denote
present and future by means of a special verbal form.

4.3.2.2.16. The suffix-tense was originally outside the tense system proper,
since it represented conjugated adjectives, as is the case with the Akkadian sta-
tive and also with the suffix-tense of stative verbs in Biblical Hebrew referring
to the present (see §4.3.2.2.9, p. 194). In the West Semitic languages the ordi-
nary suffix-tense was derived from this stative to mark the past of action verbs,
originally, it seems, as a present perfect (see §4.3.2.2.13, p. 195), which is
somewhat close to stative, since it denotes a state in the present resulting from
an action in the past. So, two tenses referred to past, the short prefix-tense
yaq†ul and the suffix-tense. Because of the similarity of yaq†ul to the ordinary
prefix-tense yaq†ulu (especially in languages in which the final short vowels
were dropped), its function as a past tense disappeared, and only residues of it
00-Blau.book Page 198 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.2.2.17. ∑ Tenses 198

survived in Biblical Hebrew, especially after waw. The suffix-tense, in some-

what rare cases, referred to the future, e.g., in wishes, which were described
as if the thing wished for had already been fulfilled. In Biblical Hebrew this
feature is especially frequent in prophecies (the so-called prophetic perfect),
prophesying events as if they had already happened (whereas in Classical Ara-
bic it is restricted to wishes and oaths). This was, it seems, one of the sources
of the use of waw with the suffix-tense in the sense of the prefix-tense (i.e.,
marking present/future, iterative-continuous past, and volition). The other
sources include the use of the suffix-tense of stative verbs denoting the present
and the paradigmatic pressure of the waw with the prefix-tense to establish a
parallel feature in the suffix-tense. Moreover, the opposition past : present was
sometimes blurred by the use of the suffix-tense to mark present perfect (as,
e.g., μylIG]r'm} Wnyyi‡h: alø ‘we have not been/we are not spies’ Gen 42:31).
4.3.2.2.16n. The use of the waw+suffix-tense was later than that of waw+prefix-tense. An
even later feature occurring in the waw+suffix-tense was the final stress of yTI&r]m"v…w], T:&r]m"v…w].
Were the stress original, the qamaß of the first syllable would have been reduced. See
§3.5.12.2.13, p. 150.
4.3.2.2.17. We have not yet dealt with the tense system in poetry. As a
matter of fact, one has the feeling that no system at all exists but, instead, a
conglomerate of forms. The prosaic usage of the simple-tenses and waw-
tenses is well attested; however, especially in later poetry, the use of the suf-
fix-tense referring to present and future and that of the prefix-tense referring to
the past occurred quite frequently and were conducive to the possibility of us-
ing, as a matter of fact, any tense form in every syntactical environment: ['yv¥/h
/vd]q: ymEV‘mI Whne‡[“y' /jyv¥m} yyy ‘The Lord will save (suffix-tense) his anointed, he
will answer (prefix-tense) him from his holy heaven’ Ps 20:7; h[:r;b} T:j}l"&v… ÚyPI&
yTIv‘r'&j”h<w] t:yc¥&[: hL<aE& ypIDø&AˆT<TI ÚM}aIAˆb<B} rBEd't} ÚyjI&a:B} bv´´TE hm:r]mI dymIx}T" Ún]/vl}W
Úyn,‡y[El} hk:r][<a<w] Új“ykI/a Ú/m&k: hy,h}a<At/yh” t:yMI&Di ‘you gave (suffix-tense) your
mouth to evil, and your tongue framed (prefix-tense) deceit, you sat (prefix-
tense) and spoke (prefix-tense) against your brother, you slandered (prefix-
tense) your mother’s son, you have done (suffix-tense) this and I kept silence
(waw+ suffix-tense), you thought (suffix-tense) that I was (prefix-tense) like
you, (yet) I will reprove (prefix-tense) you and set (waw+long prefix-tense)
(what you did) before your eyes’ Ps 50:19–21; q}v‘Y'w' . . . μyrixU [Q"b"y] . . . μjEn]Y'w'
‘and he led (“conversive” waw+prefix-tense) them . . . he split (prefix-tense)
rocks . . . and gave drink (“conversive” waw+short prefix-tense)’ Ps 78:14-15.
This rather extreme alternation of verbal forms, however, does not mean that
the feeling for time and mood distinctions had disappeared; prose usage at-
tests that it did not. It was a literary feature of poetry and especially of late po-
etry. There seems to have been some sort of licentia poetica not to pay
attention to time differences.
00-Blau.book Page 199 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

199 Tenses ∑ 4.3.2.3.2.

4.3.2.2.17n. The use of the suffix-tense to refer to the present and future already occurred
in classical prose in stative verbs and in the prophetic perfect (which is, of course, com-
paratively frequent in prophecies); the suffix-tense was also used to refer to the present
perfect.
Originally the prefix-tense referred to the past in its short form, but because of the far-
reaching formal coincidence of the short and the ordinary forms, this usage was extended
to the prefix-tense in general.

4.3.2.3. Bauer’s Approach

4.3.2.3.1. So far, we have elaborated on one theory, which despite all the
detractors is, in our opinion, the most likely one. Nevertheless, theories to in-
terpret Biblical Hebrew tenses synchronically and historically are almost as
many as there are scholars. One of the central problems of any historical ex-
planation is the relation of the Biblical Hebrew tense system to the Akkadian.
As stated, in addition to the imperative and the stative, Akkadian, in contra-
distinction to most West Semitic languages, has two prefix-tenses: one, iprus,
refers more or less to the past; the other, ipar(r)as, to the present/future (for
the bracketing of the second r, see §4.3.2.3.2 below).
4.3.2.3.1n. As a matter of fact, B. Landsberger (as reported in von Soden 1995: 129–30,
par. 80a) has succeeded in discovering a third prefix-tense, iptaras (formally identical to
the t-verbal theme derived from qal *yaptaras > iptaras), which mainly serves as the
present perfect in a sort of consecutio temporum. The origin of this t-form perfect is not
clear.

4.3.2.3.2. H. Bauer (Bauer-Leander 1922: 268–72, based on Bauer 1910)

historically identified iprus with the prefix-tense in general (not with the short
prefix-tense, as we have done) and iparas with the suffix-tense qal. He consid-
ered the doubling of the second radical in ipar(r)as to be secondary and sur-
mised that this original *iparas was not originally conjugated with prefixes
but with suffixes. In his opinion, West Semitic, having as a rule one suffix-
tense and one prefix-tense, preserved the original Proto-Semitic tense system.
Akkadian *iparas with the prefix i (< ya), instead of the original attachment of
suffixes, was due to a special Akkadian development. The starting point, in
Bauer’s opinion, for this development was the t-verbal theme derived from
qal iptaras, which originally was conjugated by suffixes, like the parallel
West Semitic forms. This iptaras was reinterpreted as representing *yaptaras
> iptaras (reflecting the Akkadian sound shift ya > i). By this reinterpretation
(which occurred first only in this verbal theme), iptaras, which was conceived
of as the 3ms of the prefix-tense, was rebuilt and conjugated as a prefix-tense
(taptaras, niptaras); this form then spread to the other verbal themes as well.
00-Blau.book Page 200 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.2.3.3. ∑ Tenses 200

4.3.2.3.3. Accordingly, in Bauer’s opinion, the formal correspondences

between Biblical Hebrew (as a typical representative of the West Semitic lan-
guages) and Akkadian are as follows:

Akkadian iprus BHeb *yaq†ul(u) (prefix-tense)

Akkadian ipar(r)as BHeb *qa†al(a) (suffix-tense)

4.3.2.3.4. It is, however, only formally that these forms correspond, where-
as their meanings are diametrically opposed: iprus marks past, yaq†ul(u)
(the prefix-tense) present/future; ipar(r)as designates present/future, qatal(a)
(the suffix-tense) past. What is the reason for this contradiction? Bauer also
regarded the prefix-tense as the oldest tense form and, as a matter of fact, he
was the first to emphasize the precedence of the prefix-tense. He regarded the
form as the oldest tense, not only because of its connection with the impera-
tive but also because it is less transparent than the suffix-tense. The suffixes of
the latter are, to a great degree, identical to the pronouns, whereas the prefixes
of the prefix-tense are difficult to explain. There obtained, accordingly, a pe-
riod in which only one verbal form existed alongside the imperative, viz., the
prefix-tense. As the only verbal form, the prefix-tense did not denote any spe-
cial time reference. The suffix-tense (qatal, iparas) came into being later, by
the combination of a participle with pronouns. First, these two verbal forms
were used in free alternation, and it was only after Akkadian had separated
from the other Semitic languages that they were differentiated. Nevertheless,
this differentiation went in opposite directions in Akkadian and the West
Semitic languages. This different development was caused by the different
manners of action (Aktionsart) of the verbs, which are either durative or mo-
mentary (or both) according to their inherent meanings. Many verbs, accord-
ing to their inherent meaning can only indicate either momentary action (as to
arrive, to kill, to fall asleep) or durative action (as to walk, to live, to sleep). In
Bauer’s opinion, durative verbs tended to refer to present/future (I walk, live,
sleep now), whereas for momentary verbs it is more natural to refer to the past
(it is more natural to refer to arrival, killing, falling asleep in the past than to
catch the exact moment in which it happens in the present). In Akkadian, in the
new iparas tense it happened that durative verbs prevailed and, therefore, it
acquired time reference to present/future, limiting iprus to the past. In West
Semitic, however, qatal(a) (the suffix-tense) was influenced by momentary
verbs, acquiring the meaning of past and confining yaq†ul(u) (the prefix-tense)
to present/future.
4.3.2.3.5. In spite of the elegant, straightforward, and logical structure of
Bauer’s theory, it cannot be accepted, especially for the following two reasons:
(a) We know today that in both Akkadian iparras and Gºez yOqattOl the
doubling of the second radical is an essential part of the forms. This, of course,
00-Blau.book Page 201 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

201 Aspect ∑ 4.3.2.4.1.

prevents the identification of iparras with West Semitic qatal(a).

(b) As stated above (§4.3.2.2.16, p. 197), the Akkadian stative, in both
form and meaning, is identical to the suffix-tense of Biblical Hebrew (and of
West Semitic in general), which was derived from the stative verb. Any theory
of the Semitic tenses has to take this feature into consideration.
4.3.2.3.5n. In contrast to our view, W. Leslau (1953: 164–66) regards the South Ethiopian
forms without gemination as original and the gemination as secondary.

4.3.2.4. Aspectual Approaches

4.3.2.4.1. The two theories—the one accepted by us and Bauer’s—had one
basic approach in common despite the great differences between them: both
regarded the Hebrew and Semitic tenses as referring to time (past, present, fu-
ture). This, however, is not at all the only accepted view. Many scholars as-
sume that the Semitic “tenses” in general and the Biblical Hebrew forms in
particular have no time reference but instead mark aspect. The notion of as-
pect has been worked out in the Slavonic languages, where, however, contrary
to the assumption of its adherents in the realm of the Semitic languages, it is
connected to time reference. According to the prevailing theory of aspect in
Semitic languages, the Semitic speaker either looked at the verb as describing
its action during its happening (the imperfective aspect) or simply stated that
such an action took place (the perfective aspect). With some simplification,
one could claim that the prefix-tense (even when following waw) is imperfec-
tive, the suffix-tense (even when following waw) perfective. Thus, both the
prefix-tense and the waw+prefix-tense describe actions while they are hap-
pening, without referring to the actions as past, present, or future: rdeqøAhM:l:
ËLEh"t}a< ‘why am I going mourning’ Ps 43:2; μyhIløa”h:Ata< Ë/nj“ ËLEh"t}Yiw' ‘and
Enoch walked with God’ Gen 5:22. Similarly, both the suffix-tense and the
waw+suffix-tense only state the fact of the happening of the action, without
any time reference: j'noAËL<h"t}hI μyhIløa”h:Ata< ‘Noah walked with God’ Gen 6:9;
and μk<k}/tB} yTI&k}L"h"t}hIw] ‘and I will walk among you’ Lev 26:12. The person
who is used to verbal forms conveying time reference has the impression that
the very same forms refer to one time in one instance and to another time in
another instance, depending upon the context. Various theories were invented
to explain why the same form marks past in one example and present/future in
another example. However, in the opinion of these scholars, these forms do
not inherently denote any time reference; they mark subjective aspect, in ac-
cordance with the speaker’s viewpoint.
4.3.2.4.1n. See, e.g., S. R. Driver’s famous Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew
(3rd ed., 1892), and C. Brockelmann (1951: 135–54). For a general (and not always accu-
rate) survey, see C. Brockelmann (1956: 37–39). Cf. also D. Cohen (1989) and the litera-
ture adduced there, as well as the literature cited by Kienast (2001: 187).
00-Blau.book Page 202 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.2.4.2. ∑ Aspect 202

4.3.2.4.2. We have general and special objections to this theory. Generally

speaking, this theory assumes that the employment of the verbal forms de-
pends completely on the speaker’s subjective viewpoint of the situation. Ac-
cordingly, we do not possess any objective criteria for verifying the theory,
since, contrary to the Slavonic languages, aspect in Hebrew is not connected
with time reference but is absolutely devoid of it. This is certainly a delicate
assumption, though admittedly not entirely impossible.
4.3.2.4.3. As to special objections, we do not think that one can discard the
use of the “conversive” waw and regard forms with and without waw as iden-
tical. We hope to have demonstrated that, at least in classical narrative prose,
the alternation of simple and waw-forms (suffix-tense/waw+prefix-tense, on
the one hand, and prefix-tense/waw+suffix-tense, on the other) is quite regu-
lar, depending on their syntactic environment. It is the suffix-tense/waw+
prefix-tense, on the one hand, and the prefix-tense/waw+suffix-tense, on the
other, that have the same reference. Moreover, one must not overlook so many
clear cases in which the suffix-tense/waw+prefix-tense refer to the past in op-
position to the present/future reference of the prefix-tense/waw+suffix-tense,
as e.g.: h[ør]P"As/k T:&t"n;w] ÚN,‡K"Al[" Úb}yv¥h“w' Úv& ≤arøAta< h[ør]p" aC…yi μymIy; tv≤ lø&v‘ d/[B}
‡ : rv≤a“ ˆ/varih: fP:v‘MIK" /dy;B} ‘within three days Pharaoh will lift up
WhqE&v‘m" t:yyih
(future, prefix-tense) your head and restore (future, waw+suffix-tense) you
unto your place, and you will deliver (future, waw+suffix-tense) Pharaoh’s
cup into his hand, after the former manner when you were (past, suffix-tense)
his butler’ Gen 40:13; hc≤[“y' rj:m: rmøalE d[E/m yyy μc≤Y;‡w' . . . tWmy; alø w ] . . . yyy hl:p}hIw]
tmEAalø laEr;c‘yiAyneb} hneq}MImIW μyir;&x}mI hneq}mI lKø tm:Y;‡w' tr;j’M:mI hZ,h" rb:D;h"Ata< yyy c["Y‡ 'w' . . .
dj: a< ‘and the Lord will distinguish (future, waw+ suffix-tense) . . . and it will
not die (future, prefix-tense) . . . and the Lord appointed (past, waw+prefix-
tense) a set time, saying: tomorrow He will do (future, prefix-tense). . . . And
the Lord did (past, waw+prefix-tense) this thing the following day and all the
cattle of Egypt died (past, waw+prefix-tense), and of the cattle of the children
of Israel not one died (past, suffix-tense)’ Exod 9:4–6; . . . ˆkE hy;h:Aalø wyn;p:l}
ˆKEAhy,h}yi alø wyr;j“a"w] ‘before it, it was (past, suffix-tense) not so . . . , nor will it be
(future, prefix-tense) so after it’ Exod 10:14. These examples, as well as
many, many others, not only indicate that the suffix-tense/waw+prefix-tense
refer to the past and that the prefix-tense/waw+suffix-tense refer to the future,
but they show again that there is no difference as to time reference between
suffix-tense and the waw+prefix-tense on the one hand, or between the prefix-
tense and waw+suffix-tense on the other. The waw-forms are applied when-
ever the syntactic environment enables the use of the connective waw; other-
wise, the simple verbal forms are employed. This clearly demonstrates that
for the most part Biblical Hebrew verbal forms have distinct time reference,
rather than (exclusive) aspectual function.

spread is 12 points short

00-Blau.book Page 203 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

203 Marking of Persons ∑ 4.3.3.1.2.

4.3.3. The Marking of Persons in the Imperative,

the Prefix-Tense, and the Suffix-Tense
4.3.3.1. Person-Marking on Imperative
4.3.3.1.1. The imperative occurs in the second person only. It has only suf-
fixes and no prefixes. The ms is devoid of any suffix; the mp has the ending -u
(for which, cf. §4.2.2.7.2, p. 166).
4.3.3.1.1n. According to comparative evidence, the ms imperative in Proto-Semitic also
terminated with its last radical. In Biblical Hebrew, however, this feature cannot be recon-
structed by internal evidence. Through the influence of the (ordinary) prefix-tense, the ms
imperative as well as the corresponding short prefix-tense behave as if they had terminated
with a vocalic ending: they are stressed on their last syllable, as if they had omitted a final
vowel (according to the assumption of a general penultimate stress). Thus, we find rmE&V…hI
rather than *hissa⁄mer and lDe&b}y', rather than yáb2 del. Furthermore, they terminate with a
vowel before a pronominal suffix (as ynire&m}v…; ynilE&yDib}Y'w').
4.3.3.1.2. The fs suffix ends with -i; the fp suffix ends with -na. The suffix
-na occurs, as rule, in both the imperative and the prefix-tense, spelled with fi-
nal -h: hn;r]mø&v‘, hn;r]m‡ øv‘TI ; nevertheless, its defective spelling is also attested, as
in ˆ…ax<&m}W ‘and find!’ Ruth 1:9; ˆ…k}lE& yt"nob} (!)hn;b}vø& ‘return, my daughters; go!’
Ruth 1:12; hr;m: ylI ˆ…ar,&q} ymI[’n; ylI (!)hn;ar,&q}TIAla" ‘do not call me Naomi; call me
Marah!’ Ruth 1:20; ˆ…ax<&m}tIAyKI ‘when they will find’ Deut 31:21. It is not out of
the question to vocalize these forms without the final qamaß, i.e.,*umßœ!n,
*lékœn (with anaptyctic œ), *q´rœ!n, timßœ!n. It is, however, only very rarely
that the vocalization attests to the omission of the final -a: ˆ["m"&v‘ ‘hear!’ Gen
4:23.
rmøv‘ yrim}v¥
Wrm}v¥ hn;r]mø&v‘
4.3.3.1.2n. The fs - i is connected, it seems, with the corresponding personal pronouns and
pronominal suffixes *ªanti/*-ki; see §4.2.2.3.3, p. 162; §4.2.3.3.1, p. 169.
Some Semitic languages (see §4.3.3.4.10, p. 212) have final -a for the fp, which is per-
haps preserved in Biblical Hebrew, possibly through Aramaic influence: t/Nn'a“væ μyv¥n;
μyix:&l:j“Al[" hr;/g‡j“w' hr;[ø&w] hf:vø&P} t/jf}Bø hz;g‡ ; r] t/Nn'a“væ (!)Wdr]jI . . . t/jf}Bø (!)hn;z]G‡ 'r]TI . . . (!)hn;m}qø&
‘you careless women, rise . . . you confident women, you will tremble . . . be perturbed,
you careless women; tremble, you confident women; strip and make yourselves bare and
gird up your loins!’ Isa 32:9–11. Scholars are at variance concerning the original distribu-
tion of these two endings and which was earlier. In Biblical Hebrew, as a rule (see
§4.3.3.4.9, p. 211), the 3fp of the suffix-tense has disappeared altogether (as happens occa-
sionally in the prefix-tense and the imperative as well; cf. above, in this note, Wdr]jI) and
has been supplanted by the mp, whereas the ending of the imperative and the prefix-tense
is -na. In Akkadian and Gºez it is the -a ending that is attested (which is perhaps identical
to the ancient nominal fp to which the feminine marker t was later added, giving rise to -at
> BHeb -ot). In Classical Arabic, -na is attested. For Proto-Aramaic one perhaps has to
posit -a for the suffix-tense and -na for the prefix-tense (and possibly the imperative). For
00-Blau.book Page 204 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.3.2. ∑ Marking of Persons 204

diverse views, see, e.g., Brockelmann (1908–13: 1.559; 567; 574); Bergsträsser (1928: 12,
esp. n. 1); Z. Ben-Óayyim (1951: 135–39); J. Huehnergard (1987a: 266–77); T. Muraoka
and B. Porten (1998: 101–7, esp. 103; 105; and nn. 461 [which according to p. xl should be
corrected to read “Kutscher (1970)” for “Kutscher (1971)”], 468, 483, 494). According to
the principle of archaic heterogeneity, one is inclined to posit for Proto-Semitic the suffixes
-a/-na, according to the somewhat dubious distribution reconstructed for Proto-Aramaic.
For the alternation of -a/-na in the domain of the pronouns, see §§4.2.2.7.3–4.2.2.7.4
(pp. 166–167). The ending -a in the prefix-tense (which was secondary according to the
Proto-Semitic distribution of the suffixes -a/-na proposed here) occurs in: hn;ge‡[:TE ‘you will
shut yourselves off’ Ruth 1:13; hn;m"&a:TE ‘they will be carried by a nurse’ Isa 60:4; see Blau
1997: 187.
Concerning the forms with n without the final h, see Bergsträsser 1918–29: 2.19–20.
However, Brockelmann (1908–13: 1.559, par. 260e, note) regards the defective spelling of
-na as genuine and ˆ["m"&v‘ as an incorrect vocalization for the regular ˆ…[}m"&v‘ = hn;[}m"&v‘. Bauer
and Leander (1922: 362) consider the alternation of -na/-n to be authentic, and they may
well be right.
The form ˆa<r]qI ‘call!’ Exod 2:20 reflects, it seems, adjustment of the regular hn;ar,&q} /
ˆar,q} to other forms of the paradigm such as War]qI, yaIr]q.I

4.3.3.2. Person-Marking on the Prefix-Tense

4.3.3.2.1. The prefix-tense possesses both prefixes and suffixes. Its suf-
fixes are identical to those of the imperative; we will deal with the attachment
of final -n to these endings later, after having treated the prefixes:

rmOv‘a<
yrim}v‘TI rmøv‘TI
rmøv‘TI rmøv‘yi
rmøv‘ni
hn;r]mø&v‘TI Wrm}v‘TI
hn;r]mø&v‘TI Wrm}v‘yi

4.3.3.2.1n. The -na suffix of the fp is also identical to the imperative form, and we have
posited it for Proto-Semitic as well (see §4.3.3.1.2n above). In this regard, however, schol-
ars differ in their opinions.
4.3.3.2.2. The aleph of the 1s prefix may be connected with ªa that possibly
occurs in the independent personal pronoun ‘I’ *ªanªa, see §4.2.2.2.3n, p. 160.
The n- of the 1p may be related to the corresponding independent personal
pronoun and pronominal suffix Wnj}n'‡(a“), Wn-. The t- of the second person seems
to be identical to the t of the independent pronouns hT:a", T}a", μT<a", ˆT<a". The t-
of the 3fs is related to the feminine ending -(a)t. The etymon of the y- of the
3ms is opaque. As for the 3fp tq†lna, its original form seems to have been
*yq†lna with y- prefix, as attested in many Semitic languages. In Biblical He-
brew, however, by the analogy of the t-prefix of the 3fs tq†l and the 2fp tq†lna,
tq†lna in the 3fp with t-prefix arose, while archaic yq†lna was still preserved:
hn;m}j"&Yew' ‘their mating occurred’ Gen 30:38; hn;r]V&yæ iw' ‘and they went straight’
00-Blau.book Page 205 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

205 Marking of Persons ∑ 4.3.3.2.4.

1 Sam 6:12. It also occurs in late Biblical Hebrew, hn;d]mø&[“y' ( . . . [!]hn;d]mø&[“T"w)'

‘(and they arose . . . ) they will arise’ Dan 8:22; however, its presence in late
Biblical Hebrew has to be attributed to Aramaic influence, where the y prefix
has been preserved.
4.3.3.2.2n. The result of Aramaic influence on the 3fp form is a mixed (pseudo-correct)
form, with Aramaic prefix (ya-) and BHeb suffix hn;- (in Aramaic the suffix is -an); see
Kutscher (1982: 41).

4.3.3.2.3. Alongside the regular suffixes -i, -u of the prefix-tense, some-

times the 2fs suffix -in is attested (ˆyqIB:d]tI hkøw] ‘and here you will remain close’
Ruth 2:8). More often (about 300 times) the 2mp and 3p suffix is -un, e.g.,
ˆWlD;j}y, ‘they will cease’ Exod 9:29; ˆWla:v‘yi ‘they will ask’ Josh 4:6, especially
frequent in pause. The structure of these forms, clearly differing from
yqIB}d]TI*, WlD]j}y, Wla“v‘yi, can easily be explained by the assumption of general
penultimate stress (see §3.5.12.2.2, p. 144). The endings -un, -in, according
to the evidence of Classical Arabic, have to be derived from -una, -ina, with
final -a. Therefore, it was -i/-u preceding -na that was stressed, and the a of the
preceding syllable, being affected by pretonic lengthening, was maintained as
qamaß. On the other hand, the -n-less forms were one syllable shorter, there-
fore originally stressed on the short a of: *tidbáqi, *ye˙dálu, *yisªálu from
which the stress shifted during the fourth stress stage (see §3.5.12.2.6, p. 146).
Again, the assumption of general penultimate stress proves decisive for the
understanding of Biblical Hebrew word structure. See §3.5.12.2.17n, p. 152.
4.3.3.2.4. As for the origin of the -n ending of in(a), -un(a): according to
the testimony of Classical Arabic, it served as the final termination of those
forms of the ordinary prefix-tense (viz., the indicative) that ended in long
vowels. After the short vowels had disappeared and, as a rule, the penultimate
stress of the jussive had given place to final stress (see §3.5.12.2.14, pp. 150–
151), indicative and jussive coincided in their simple (suffixless) forms. Ac-
cordingly, the feeling for the modal differences became blurred, and the suf-
fixes -un/-u and -ina/-i became mere variants. In some Semitic languages
(such as Aramaic and some Arabic dialects), the -n endings prevailed; in
others, including Biblical Hebrew and most Arabic dialects, the -n-less suf-
fixes had the upper hand (and in later Rabbinic Hebrew, the -n-forms disap-
peared altogether). In Biblical Hebrew, however, the -n-forms still lingered on
as stylistic variants, being considered to reflect a higher register because they
were less frequent. One could also surmise that the use of the -n-forms is due
to Aramaic influence, yet the fact that Chronicles sometimes uses -n-less
forms in contrast to its Vorlage, (e.g., W[d]ye ‘they know’ 2 Chr 6:29, in contrast
to ˆW[d]ye 1 Kgs 8:38) contradicts this assumption, at least to some degree.
4.3.3.2.4n. The -n-forms were preserved in Ancient Aramaic; see R. Degen (1969: 65). If
Akkad iprusu is, in fact, the historical continuation of the ordinary prefix-tense (the
00-Blau.book Page 206 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.3.3. ∑ Marking of Persons 206

indicative; see §4.3.2.2.14, p. 196), its -ni ending would also point to the use of -n in the
(original) indicative. Note Arab -na in contrast to Akkad -ni! However, according to the
evidence from Classical Arabic, no -n(a) was added to the -u/-i suffixes in the jussive (the
short prefix-tense); the (Arabic) subjunctive was similar; see §4.3.3.3.1n below.

4.3.3.3. Three Moods of the Prefix-Tense

4.3.3.3.1. In Classical Arabic, which has preserved final short vowels,
three moods of the prefix-tense have been preserved: the indicative yaq†ulu,
the jussive yaq†ul (remnants of which have also preserved reference to the
past), and the subjunctive yaq†ula. This is primarily the system that has to be
posited for West Semitic in general and Biblical Hebrew in particular (for dia-
chronic changes, see the following).
4.3.3.3.1n. A short summary of the situation in Classical Arabic is convenient: (1) The in-
dicative terminates in -u in forms without a suffix (yaq†ulu, taq†ulu, naq†ulu), and in -na
after long vowels (yaq†uluna, taq†uluna, taq†ulina). The fp forms taq†ulna, yaq†ulna are
identical in all three variants of the prefix-tense. (2) The short prefix-tense, used mainly as
a jussive (and also as a past tense after the negation lam and in conditional clauses), termi-
nates in W in forms without a suffix (yaq†ul, taq†ul, naq†ul ); no -na is added to the forms
terminating in a long vowel (yaq†ulu, taq†ulu, taq†uli). (3) The subjunctive terminates in -
a in forms without a suffix (yaq†ula, taq†ula, naq†ula); no -na is added to the forms termi-
nating in a long vowel (yaq†ulu, taq†ulu, taq†uli). In Biblical Hebrew the archaic volitive
sense of this variant has been preserved; however, it has been restricted to the first person;
for details see §4.3.3.3.4, p. 207.
4.3.3.3.2. Two features in Biblical Hebrew prove that the ordinary prefix-
tense, used as indicative, terminated in a (short) vowel. (1) It exhibits final
stress, thus attesting to a final vowel being dropped (see §3.5.12.2.14, p. 150).
(2) It may contain a historically long vowel in its final (now closed) syllable
(in contradistinction to the short prefix-tense). This indicates that the final syl-
lable was originally open; otherwise it would have shortened (as the short
prefix-tense did) because long vowels were shortened in closed syllables in
Proto-Semitic and Proto-Hebrew. Classical Arabic shows that the vowel
dropped in Biblical Hebrew was -u in forms without additional suffixes.
4.3.3.3.2n. Compare, e.g., lyDib}y' in contrast to lDeb}y' (the former form reflects original *yab-
dilu; the latter form arose from *yabdil ) or μyqIy; ‘he will raise’ (original *yaqimu) in con-
trast with μqyE ; (original *yaqim). See §3.5.12.2.14n, p. 151; §4.3.2.2.14, p. 196.
4.3.3.3.3. The short prefix-tense, used as jussive and as past tense (mainly
after the so-called “conversive” waw) had no final vowel. This is attested by the
partly preserved penultimate stress, which still characterizes many forms after
“conversive” waw (type μq<Y;‡w' ‘and he rose’), and the originally short vowel in
its final (closed) syllable in contrast to the long vowel in the ordinary prefix-
tense (see §4.3.3.3.2 above); type μqEy; ‘let him raise’, bvø y; ‘let him return’).
4.3.3.3.3n. For penultimate stress indicating that no final vowel has been dropped, see
§3.5.12.2.4, p. 146.

spread is 6 points long

00-Blau.book Page 207 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

207 Cohortative ∑ 4.3.3.3.4.

In the jussive form, the stress of the short prefix-tense shifted to the ultima on the basis
of the general trend of shift to final stress (see §3.5.12.2.14, p. 151) and the influence of
the ordinary prefix-tense: bvø y; ‘let him return’ < ya!sub.

4.3.3.3.4. The lengthened prefix-tense terminating in -a is used as cohor-

tative in the first person (hm:Wq&a: / hm:Wq&n; ‘let me/us rise!’), in contradistinction
to Classical Arabic, where the parallel yaq†ula in all persons is used as sub-
junctive (somewhat similar to the modal usage of the French subjonctif ) and
is almost totally limited to subordinate clauses to express non-fact. Because of
this difference of usage and also because Biblical Hebrew reflects long -a
(preserved from Proto-Hebrew), whereas Arabic reflects short -a (perhaps ex-
plained as stemming from an anceps vowel), scholars frequently refrained
from historically connecting the Biblical Hebrew cohortative and the Arabic
subjunctive. It was often claimed that the cohortative corresponds to Arabic
yaq†ulan, an energetic form, which is closer to the meaning of the Biblical He-
brew cohortative at first sight, yet differs from it in form (BHeb -a, Arab -an).
To bridge this difference, BHeb -a was explained as stemming from -an by
the pausal shift -an > a (yaq†ulan > yaq†ula), as attested in Classical Arabic.
However, not only is this pausal phenomenon limited to Arabic and, it seems,
totally absent from Hebrew, but Moran (1960: 1–19, esp. 9 n. 1) has demon-
strated the existence of a form yaq†ula in the El-Amarna letters from Byblos
in a dialect that is very close to Biblical Hebrew. This yaq†ula form corre-
sponds to a quite surprising degree to that of the biblical cohortative (though
it is not restricted to the first person). In addition, the language of El-Amarna
attests the separate occurrence of the energetic, thus excluding the possibility
of deriving the Biblical Hebrew cohortative from the energetic. And, in fact,
the difference in meaning between the Biblical Hebrew cohortative and the
Arabic subjunctive is only apparent. The Biblical Hebrew cohortative (as well
as all of the other volitive forms, including the jussive) is not restricted to di-
rect usage (Úx<&r]a"b} hr;B}[}a< ‘let me pass through your land’ Num 21:22), but
also occurs indirectly, by attraction, as a sort of sequence of moods after a pre-
ceding direct volitive (hr;BE&d'a“w' μyim"&V…h" Wnyzi‡a“h" ‘hark, heaven, and let me speak/
so that I may speak/in order that I speak’ Deut 32:l), which, as demonstrated
by the instance adduced, very easily passes to subjunctive usage (see Blau
1971c: 143–44 = Topics, 165–66). Accordingly, it appears that Arab yaq†ula
is historically related to the Hebrew cohortative. Originally, it seems, this
form in West Semitic had a modal sense and occurred in all persons, as pre-
served in the ancient Canaanite of Byblos. In Biblical Hebrew it was restricted
to the first person by the paradigmatic pressure of the imperative and the
jussive. In Arabic it was relegated from the indirect volitive to subordinate
clauses.
4.3.3.3.4n. Among the scholars who considered the Hebrew cohortative to be historically
connected with Arabic yaq†ula, were Bauer-Leander (1922: 306–7); P. Joüon (1923: 315
00-Blau.book Page 208 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.3.4. ∑ Marking of Persons 208

n. 1); P. Joüon and T. Muraoka (1991: 382 n. 1); Blau 1971c: 142–43 = Topics, 164–65;
1977c: 29–30 = Topics, 262–63.
For arguments that the cohortative corresponds to Arab yaq†ulan, see e.g., Brockel-
mann (1908–13: 1.557; where read an > for a >), Bergsträsser (1918–29: 2.24). Cf. Kienast
(2001: 291, par. 248.1), who over-emphasized Brockelmann’s remark (1908–13: 1.554,
par. 259Baa) concerning an exceptional Qurªanic form which, in Brockelmann’s view, al-
ready reflects the infiltration of pausal yaq†ula into the context (nevertheless, cf. W. Wright
1896–98: 1.62, par. 99, rem. for a different interpretation). Kienast considers yaq†ula to be
a separate energetic form (Energicus III in Kienast’s terminology), and derives the Biblical
Hebrew long prefix-tense from it.
The occurrence of the lengthened imperative (such as hr;m}v…) also suggests that the co-
hortative was not originally restricted to the first person.

4.3.3.4. Person-Marking of the Suffix-Tense

4.3.3.4.1. As stated above (§4.3.2.3.4, p. 200), the affixes of the suffix-
tense are clearer than those of the prefix-tense. Since the West Semitic suffix-
tense corresponds historically to the Akkadian stative, in the following we
will compare their first and second persons to the Akkadian stative as well as
to the personal pronouns (as they have been reconstructed above; see §4.2.2.2–
4.2.2.8, pp. 159–168):

*Personal Akkadian
pronoun stative Gºez Arabic Aramaic Hebrew
1s ªanaku -aku -ku -tu t-e yTI-
2ms ªanta -ata -ka -ta T}- /T:- T:-
2fs ªanti -ati -ki -ti yTI- T}-
1p ni˙nu -anu -na -na an;- Wn-
2mp ªantumu -atunu -k´mu -tum(u) ˆWT- μT<-
2fp ªantin(n)a -atina -k´n -tunna ˆTE- ˆT<-

4.3.3.4.1n. The affixes of the suffix-tense terminate in the endings of the personal pro-
nouns (without the initial ªan-).
The reconstructed final long vowels of the personal pronoun are often shortened, i.e.,
they are anceps.
In Hebrew, the 2ms form is sometimes ht:- in plene spelling, especially in short words,
such as hT:t"&n; ‘you gave’.
In Hebrew, the 2fs form preceding pronominal suffixes is yTI- (yniyTI&r]m"v‘), which is
sometimes spelled defectively (as in ynitI&yMIri ‘you have deceived me’ 1 Sam 19:17). Not in-
frequently the k´tib2 has the ending yt-, the q´re T}-, as in k´tib2 ytdryw, q´re T}d]r'y;w] Ruth 3:3.
4.3.3.4.2. Two questions arise:
(a) k in contrast to t. The majority of the Semitic languages have t in the
first-person singular and the second person, yet Gºez has k, whereas Akkadian

spread is 6 points short

00-Blau.book Page 209 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

209 Person-Marking of the Suffix-Tense ∑ 4.3.3.4.4.

has k in the first-person singular, t in the second person. We tend to think that
Akkadian reflects the original Proto-Semitic situation, because it both reflects
archaic heterogeneity and parallels the personal pronouns, which have exactly
the same distribution: k in the first-person singular, t in the second person. By
paradigmatic analogy, in Gºez k spread over the whole paradigm, whereas in
the other West Semitic languages t prevailed.
(b) a preceding the pronominal suffixes. In our opinion, the solution of
this question is quite similar: in Akkadian the suffixes are preceded by -a-,
which, however, is not attested in the other Semitic languages (but see the im-
mediate sequence!). In this case it is only the personal pronouns that reflect ar-
chaic heterogeneity: in the first-person singular a occurs: *ªanaku (> BHeb
ykInoa:), but not in the first-person plural and the second person. Therefore, we
tend to posit a as the ancestor of the stative/suffix-tense in Proto-Semitic in
the first-person singular only. In Akkadian, this a spread to the second person,
as well as to the first-person plural, whereas in the other Semitic languages,
through the influence of the other persons, it disappeared in the first-person
singular as well. We even think that vestiges of this -a- have been preserved in
Biblical Hebrew in verba mediae geminatae and II-w/y (as ytI/B&s", t:/B&s", Wn/B&s",
μt<&/Bs", ytI/m&yqIh,“ etc.). It has often been claimed that this “separating vowel”
reflects an analogy to the III-w verbs. However, in light of the scarcity and
early disappearance of this verbal class, it does not seem very likely that it
should have exerted such an influence. It is much more plausible that it con-
tinues the -a- of the first-person singular, spreading also to the plural and the
second person. It is quite easy to see why it was in these two verbal classes,
mediae geminatae and II-w/y, that the “separating vowel” was preserved: it
enabled them to conform to the triradical pattern, viz., to double the second
radical in the mediae geminatae (as ytI/B&sIh“, in contrast to yTIb}s"&hE without the
“separating vowel”) and to maintain the long vowel after the first radical in
II-w/y verbs (as ytI/m&yqIh,“ in contrast with yTIm}qh& " E).
4.3.3.4.2n. The pronominal suffixes, to be sure, have k in the second person (see §4.2.3.3.1,
p. 169) and exhibit altogether different forms in the first-person singular; these forms have,
it seems, to be considered different pronominal elements.
For the analogy of the “separating vowel” to the III-w verbs, see, e.g., Brockelmann
(1908–13: 1.636). Even Bergsträsser (1918–29: 2.141), who derived the suffixes of the
suffix-tense from the personal pronouns and therefore restricted the “separating vowel” a
to the first-person singular for Proto-Semitic, regarded the anology to III-w verbs as an ad-
ditional factor (in spite of his qualifications).
4.3.3.4.3. For the preservation of the final vowel in the second-person
singular masculine in contrast to its omission in the parallel feminine, see
§1.18.1, p. 55; §4.2.2.3.2, p. 161.
4.3.3.4.4. In the first-person plural of the personal pronouns, Biblical He-
brew and Akkadian exhibit -nu (Akkadian [a]nu), the other Semitic languages
00-Blau.book Page 210 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.3.4.5. ∑ Person-Marking of the Suffix-Tense 210

-na/-na, corresponding to the pronominal suffixes. Since it is the endings of

the personal pronouns that are attached to the suffix-tense, rather than the pro-
nominal suffixes, we are inclined to posit -nu as original (-na being due to the
influence of the pronominal suffix). Accordingly, it seems that these are the
original endings of the first and second persons of the suffix-tense:

-aku
-ta -ti
-nu
-tumu -tinna

4.3.3.4.4n. The final long vowels are anceps. Cf. in general T. Nöldeke (1904: 15–29).
4.3.3.4.5. The suffix of the third-person masculine singular was -a, as it
has been preserved in Classical Arabic, Gºez, and Ugaritic. In Biblical He-
brew, it has been preserved (as in Aramaic) preceding pronominal suffixes (as
ynir'&m:v‘).
4.3.3.4.5n. It is lacking in the 3ms of the Akkadian stative, however. Therefore, R. Hetzron
(1974: 191) considered the lack of the -a suffix in East Semitic (Akkadian) to be an archaic
feature and to reflect Proto-Semitic. He deemed this -a in West Semitic to be a shared
West Semitic innovation; cf. also Kienast (2001: 203–4, par. 182.6). However, I. J. Gelb
(1961: 146–53) has found remnants of the stative ending -a in the most ancient layer of
Akkadian. And, indeed, Sarauw (1939: 48) has posited for Akkadian the elision of final
unstressed -a and inferred it from the absence of -a, not only in the stative but also in the
construct accusative ending (for which, cf. von Soden 1995: 101, par. 64a; see also p. 99,
par. 63e).
4.3.3.4.6. The suffix of the third-person feminine singular is -at, identi-
cal to the feminine marker in nouns (where it has case endings, whereas in the
verb it lacks endings). Accordingly, it has a nominal rather than a pronominal
ending.
4.3.3.4.6n. The absence of any ending following the verbal suffix -at (as indicated by com-
parative evidence and in contradistnction to the nominal suffix -at followed by case end-
ings) is proven also by internal evidence, viz., the totally different behavior of this verbal
ending when preceding pronominal suffixes. The ms imperative is different, although it
had a W ending as well (see §4.3.3.1.1, p. 203, and note). Yet, as proven by comparative
evidence, the pronominal suffixes are almost entirely attached to the imperative in the
same way as to the ordinary prefix-tense (which terminated in -u) through its influence.
The same applies to the short prefix-tense.
4.3.3.4.7. In many Semitic languages, this -at has shifted, as in Biblical
Hebrew, to -a. The constraints on this remarkable shift in the various Semitic
languages are different, and, accordingly, it has to be acknowledged that this
exceptional sound shift, surprisingly enough, repeated itself with minor dif-
ferences in the different Semitic languages. Even two such closely related lan-
00-Blau.book Page 211 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

211 Person-Marking of the Suffix-Tense ∑ 4.3.3.4.9.

guages as Hebrew and Phoenician exhibit clear differences, and, therefore, the
apocope of -t even in these is not due to one common shift, as common sense
would demand, but to two separate shifts that were parallel in spite of clear
differences. This is the more striking since this type of apocope is quite excep-
tional. Nevertheless, it occurred independently in many Semitic languages, as
demonstrated by its variants in each language.
4.3.3.4.8. In Biblical Hebrew, for instance, the t of -at disappeared both in
the verb and the noun, whereas in Phoenician it disappeared in the verb only
but was preserved in the noun. In this special case, one could posit that in
Phoenician this shift, which affected final -at only, operated when nouns still
had their case endings. Accordingly, it affected verbs, where the ending -at
was from its very beginning final, but it did not affect nouns, where -at was
not in final position, being followed by case endings. In Biblical Hebrew,
however, this shift continued (or started) operating later, when the case end-
ing had already been elided and, therefore, nominal -at also stood in final po-
sition, so that it was also affected by the shift -at > a (O). Nevertheless, things
are even more complicated if one takes into consideration this shift in Clas-
sical Arabic (where it occurs only in pause) and Aramaic. In these two lan-
guages, contrary to expectations, it is the verb, lacking any additional suffix
after -at from the very beginning, that preserved the ending; and the noun,
originally terminating in case endings, that lost it!
4.3.3.4.8n. Yet, the ending was preserved in construct nouns, because it was not in final
position.
It seems that this shift in (Classical) Arabic and Aramaic initially affected -at only and
not -at. Accordingly, verbs and nouns that were originally III-y/w were not influenced.
Since III-w/y verbs are a very powerful verbal class, they influenced ordinary verbs to pre-
serve their -at, whereas III-w/y nouns, which were less influential, were themselves af-
fected by analogy with the other nouns and lost their final t. In BHeb, too, -at did not shift
to -a. For details, see Blau (1980 = Topics, 126–37, and below, §4.3.8.6.4.1, p. 250).

4.3.3.4.9. The third-person plural has the ending -u, the well-known
nominal plural marker, which we already encountered with the imperative
(see §4.3.3.1.1, p. 203) and the prefix-tense. No special form of the third-
person feminine plural exists in Biblical Hebrew. This supersession of the
feminine plural by the corresponding masculine seems to be part of the drift
affecting Semitic languages at different stages of their development. It charac-
terizes urban modern Arabic dialects as well, in which the masculine plural
supplants the feminine in general and not in the suffix-tense only. In Biblical
Aramaic, for instance, the q´re, to be sure, has preserved the feminine plural;
nevertheless, the k´tib2 reflects its general supersession by the masculine (see
Z. Ben-Óayyim 1951: 135–39). The same applies to Rabbinic Hebrew, in
which the feminine plural also disappeared in the pronoun, the imperative,
and the prefix-tense. Traces of this late development are found in Biblical
00-Blau.book Page 212 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.3.4.10. ∑ Marking of Persons; Infinitives 212

Hebrew as well, especially with respect to the independent pronoun, but also
in the prefix-tense and the imperative, as illustrated in the following: yTI[}B"&v‘hI
/l WdyGi‡T"Ahm" ydi/DAta< Wax}m}TI μaI μil:&v…Wry] t/nB} μk<t}a< ‘I adjure you (2mp pro-
noun), O daughters of Jerusalem, if you find (2mp prefix-tense) my beloved,
what you will tell (2mp prefix-tense) him’ Song 5:8; Ël<m<&ybIa“Ata< μyhIløa” aP:r]Yiw'
WdlE&YwE ' wyt:høm}a"w ] /Tv‘aIAta<w] ‘and God healed Abimelech and his wife and his
maidservants and they bore (3mp waw+prefix-tense) children’ Gen 20:17;
t/Nn'a“væ Wdr]jI ‘be perturbed (mp imperative), you careless women’ Isa 32:11.
4.3.3.4.9n. The use of the masculine-plural pronominal suffix for the feminine suffix is
quite characteristic of late language; see, e.g., M. F. Rooker (1990: 78–81), with addi-
tional literature.
4.3.3.4.10. In some rather rare instances, however, the archaic feminine-
plural form of the suffix-tense, viz., -a, occurs: hm:q:& wyn;y[Ew ] ‘and his eyes were
fixed (in a blind stare)’ 1 Sam 4:15; hc…P:&t}ni t/dx:M}h"w] t/YriQ}h" hd:K}l}ni ‘the cities
were conquered and the forts seized’ Jer 48:41. This ending is comparatively
frequent in the k´tib2 , where the q´re already has the masculine (common)
form (see M. Lambert 1891b): alø Wnyne‡y[Ew] hZ,h" μD;h"Ata< Wkp}v/… hkpç alø Wnyde&y ;
(!)War; ‘our hands did not shed this blood and our eyes did not see’ Deut 21:7.
4.3.3.4.10n. The fp ending -a also occurs in Akkadian, Aramaic, and Gºez (see §4.3.3.1.2n,
p. 203); in Classical Arabic, however, the fp has the -na ending, as in the prefix-tense and
in pronouns. Again, this uniformity has to be attributed to later analogical change.
Theoretically, at least, many of the cases of the archaic fp form may be interpreted as
reflecting deviant concord. In late passages, as in Jer 48:42, the possibility of Aramaic in-
fluence, on the face of it restoring the archaic Hebrew form, cannot be ruled out.
4.3.3.4.11. The above forms terminating in -a clearly show why the gen-
eral drift toward the supersession of the feminine plural by the masculine
started in Biblical Hebrew with the suffix-tense: the 3fp had become identical
to the 3fs after the latter lost its final -t. In light of the supersession of the
feminine plural by the corresponding masculine, the use of the masculine plu-
ral for the feminine was more natural than the blurring of number distinction
in the feminine forms.

4.3.4. The Infinitive

4.3.4.1. Two Varieties of Infinitive
4.3.4.1.1. In Biblical Hebrew two variants of the infinitive are attested, the
construct infinitive and the absolute infinitive, so-called because in the qal
verbal theme the construct infinitive rmøv‘ looks as if it were the construct of
the absolute infinitive r/mv…. Moreover, the construct infinitive may be used, in
contradistinction to the absolute infinitive, as construct and also may govern
pronominal suffixes (as in Ël<M<&h" tb<v& ≤K} ‘when the king was sitting’, ÚT}b}v¥B}
‘when you were sitting’).
00-Blau.book Page 213 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

213 Construct Infinitive ∑ 4.3.4.2.2.

4.3.4.2. The Construct Infinitive

4.3.4.2.1. The construct infinitive corresponds more or less to the use of
the infinitive in Indo-European languages, including English: rmøv‘ ‘to pre-
serve’. Even the frequent affixation of l} to the Hebrew infinitive matches the
addition of ‘to’ to the English infinitive. Formally, it is usually identical to the
imperative and could thus perhaps hark back to a very archaic stage of the lan-
guage in which verbs and nouns were not yet formally differentiated. Having
become a nominal form of the verb, the infinitive’s final vowel has to be re-
garded as lengthened (from an originally short vowel), as was the case with
every noun in the absolute. This is demonstrated not only by the compara-
tively frequent plene spelling of the construct infinitive qal even in early
books, such as r/sa”l< ‘to take prisoner’ Judg 15:10, but mainly by the fre-
quent preservation of the vowel following the second radical in III-laryngeal/
pharyngeal verbs (as in j'løv‘ ‘to send’, ['bEV…hI(l}) ‘to take an oath’, instead of
changing it into pata˙, which is usual outside pause in genuine verbal forms,
illustrated by the imperatives jl"v‘, [b"V…hI).
4.3.4.2.1n. It should be remembered that the name infinitive construct is a name only and
not a very adroit one; it does not divest the construct infinitive from being an absolute
form (pace Tropper 2000: 480, par. 73.512). It is (as mentioned above) only because in qal
the “construct” infinitive rmøv‘ has the external form of the construct of the “absolute” in-
finitive r/mv…, and the “construct” infinitive may be used as construct in contradistinction
to the absolute infinitive that the former is dubbed construct, the latter absolute infinitive;
cf. Bergsträsser 1918–29: 2.61, par. 12a*.
The infinitives bk"v‘ ‘to lie’, lp"v‘ ‘to be low’ contain (short) pata˙, rather than the ex-
pected (long) qamaß. It seems that these forms reflect the influence of Rabbinic Hebrew, in
which the (construct) infinitive was restructured by analogy with the prefix-tense.

4.3.4.2.2. The construct infinitive is frequently governed by prepositions,

especially by l (as mentioned above, §4.3.4.2.1). Originally, this l} had a fully
prepositional meaning, as, e.g., ‘in order to’ (e.g., ry[Ih:Ata< taør]lI yyy dr,Ye‡w' ‘and
the Lord came down to see the town’ Gen 11:5); later the l became a part of the
infinitive, as happened also in French and English. This is reflected both by the
form and by the syntactic usage of the preposition. Formally, the l became in-
tegrated into the infinitive. In some forms of the qal infinitive, the l appears
to be in close internal juncture: the swa that begins the infinitive behaves as a
genuine quiescent swa, and subsequent t, p, k, d, g, b letters are vocalized as
stops, e.g., lPøn]lI ‘to fall’, as opposed to simple lpøÉn] and lpønÉ ]BI / lpønÉ ]KI ‘when fall-
ing’. In Rabbinic Hebrew the univerbalization of the infinitive with l is even
more progressed: the l is always attached to the infinitive, even after other
prepositions, and the infinitive is totally remodeled after the prefix-tense (as
in ˆTELImI ‘from giving’, formed after ˆTEyi, in contrast with biblical tTEmI). The
special vocalization of the construct infinitive in Biblical Hebrew after l, cor-
responding to the vocalization of the prefix-tense (rKøz]lI ‘to remember’,
00-Blau.book Page 214 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.4.2.3. ∑ Infinitives 214

matching rKøz]y)i is undoubtedly in the line of Rabbinic Hebrew (and may even
reflect the impact of Rabbinic Hebrew on the Masoretes). At any rate, the qui-
escent swa after l is certainly a late feature, as demonstrated by the very fact
that in lPøn]lI the n is not assimilated to the following consonant, because, when
this assimilation operated, the swa was not yet quiescent. This is without doubt
a genuinely biblical feature, as it is very well attested. Syntactically, it is fre-
quently used without any function of the l, as in ˆGen'l} byfIymE ‘playing well’
1 Sam 16:17. Nevertheless, in this function, forms without l (or any other
preposition) are attested, as in ˆGen' bfImEW Ezek 33:32, in contradistinction to the
usage in Rabbinic Hebrew.
4.3.4.2.2n. Alternatively, we could regard the vocalization of the infinitive lPøn]lI as a late
Mishnaic feature superimposed by the Masoretes on the biblical text, because the biblical
text contained n, which had to be preserved because of the sanctity of the text.

4.3.4.2.3. After other prepositions the usage of the construct infinitive is

similar to that of the gerund: hT<v‘mI hc…[: . . . Ël<M<&h" tb<v& ≤K} ‘while sitting. . . , the
king made a celebration’ Esth 1:2–3. The gerundial use of the infinitive with
l is frequent as well, as t/c[“l" μyhIløa” ar;B:Arv≤a“ ‘which God created in mak-
ing’ Gen 2:3. Since the infinitive has the dual nature of a noun and a verb, it is
characterized by both nominal and verbal government. As a noun, it may (as
mentioned above, §4.3.4.2.1n) stand in the construct state; as a verb, it may
govern an object. Both constructions may occur in the same phrase, as in
dwiD;Ata< lWav… t/ar]kIw] ‘and when Saul saw David’ 1 Sam 17:55. In Exod 17:1,
the noun μ[:h: in μ[:h: tTøv‘lI μyim"& ˆyaEw] ‘and there was no water for the people to
drink’ may be interpreted not only as nomen rectum of the construct (subjec-
tive genitive) but also as its subject. But in Num 35:6, j'xErøh: hM:v& … snul: ‘that the
murderer may flee thereto’, the separation of j'xErøh: from snul: does not allow for
the interpretation of j'xErøh: as nomen rectum but only as subject. This construc-
tion, which is rather rare, reveals the verbal character of the construct infini-
tive, which may possess a subject just like a finite verb.

4.3.4.3. Absolute Infinitive

4.3.4.3.1. The absolute infinitive, as opposed to the construct infinitive,
does not take pronominal suffixes and does not occur in construct. Its govern-
ment is verbal (as is also well attested with the construct infinitive), as in r/kz;
tB:Væh" μ/yAta< ‘remember the sabbath day!’ Exod 20:8. It is comparatively rare
in genuine infinitival constructions, such as b/fAalø t/Br]h" vb"D] lkøa: ‘it is not
good to eat much honey’ Prov 25:27. As a rule, it is used in other constructions.
4.3.4.3.1n. Although the absolute infinitive does not govern pronominal suffixes in Bibli-
cal Hebrew, this feature is not necessarily an indispensible characteristic of the absolute
infinitive as such. In Canaanite, clear cases of the absolute infinitive’s governing pronom-
inal suffixes are attested (see Friedrich 1999: 193, par. 267c).
00-Blau.book Page 215 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

215 Absolute Infinitive ∑ 4.3.4.3.4.

It may even be that the absolute infinitive is a verbal form without case endings, as
hinted at by the hif ºil absolute infinitive form l[Ep}h" (see §4.3.5.7.5n, p. 235).

4.3.4.3.2. Preceding a finite verb to strengthen its action. Very often the
absolute infinitive precedes a finite verb and intensifies its meaning: Ëlø m:h“
WnylE[& : Ëlø m}TI ‘will you indeed rule over us?’ Gen 37:8. Before the discovery of
Ugaritic, the absolute infinitive in this usage was considered to be an inner ob-
ject, as Arab fata˙a fat˙an ‘indeed he opened’, without taking into account
the glaring difference in word order: in Arabic the infinitive follows the finite
verb; in Biblical Hebrew it precedes it. There are also significant morpho-
logical differences between the infinitives in the two languages. However, in
Ugaritic constructions such as wmªu wmªit ‘indeed you were thirsty’ occur,
where the absolute infinitive exhibits the adverbial ending -u (which is also at-
tested with the infinitive in Akkadian), i.e., originally Ëlø m}TI Ëlø m: means ‘in a
royal manner you rule’. Accordingly, this strengthening usage of the absolute
infinitive is essentially identical to its adverbial employment; see §4.3.4.3.3
below. For a transitional stage, see §4.3.4.3.3.
4.3.4.3.2n. Postposed absolute infinitives are attested in Biblical Hebrew as well after par-
ticiples, infinitives, imperatives, and (of course) forms with “conversive” waw where this
feature is regular, and sometimes even with other verbal forms: Ëreb: T:k}r'&BE ‘you have in-
deed blessed (suffix-tense)’ Num 23:11; 24:10.
In Akkadian, the infinitive with the adverbial ending is generally called locative-
adverbial; see von Soden (1995: 107–9, par. 66). In all likelihood, this adverbial ending is
preserved in Biblical Hebrew μaøt}PI ‘suddenly’, μvø l}v¥ ‘the day before yesterday’, with the
o stemming from u. Cf. also, e.g., Arab qablu ‘previously’, baºdu ‘afterward’; the special
status of this -u ending in Arabic is revealed by its preservation after prepositions (e.g.,
min qablu/min baºdu with the same meaning).
It may be claimed that, historically, the absolute infinitive continues an inner object, at
least in cases in which the absolute infinitive follows the finite verb. If so, then the
strengthening use of the absolute infinitive would stem from two sources. And indeed, the
accusatival infinitive in this construction is attested in Akkadian as well, although remark-
ably only with transitive verbs so far.

4.3.4.3.3. Adverbial usage. The adverbial use of the absolute infinitive is

illustrated by, e.g., bfEyhE ˆ/jf: /taø tKøa<w; ‘and I crushed it, by grinding it well’
Deut 9:21. A transitional stage between the strengthening of finite verbs and
the adverbial use is reflected by cases such as hkøb:W ËlEye Ë/lh: ‘indeed he goes
while weeping’ Ps 126:6, which exhibits two absolute infinitives—the first,
derived from the root of the finite verb and strengthening it; the second, con-
nected with the first by ‘and’ and used adverbially. Finally, such absolute in-
finitives may develop into veritable adverbs, as in rhEm" ‘quickly’, hBEr]h" ‘much’.
4.3.4.3.4. Instead of the finite verb.
(a) The absolute infinitive is used especially frequently for a command,
instead of the imperative: tB:Væh" μ/yAta< r/kz; ‘remember the sabbath day!’
Exod 20:8.
00-Blau.book Page 216 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.5. ∑ Absolute Infinitive; Verbal Themes 216

(b) The absolute infinitive is used in poetry instead of a finite verb: j'/fB:
ˆw,a:& dylE/hw] lm:[: /rh: aw]v…ArB<d'w] WhTø&Al[" ‘they trust in vanity and speak lies; they
conceive mischief and bring forth iniquity’ Isa 59:4. It also occurs in prose to
continue a finite verb: μyir;&x}mI ≈r,a<&AlK: l[" /taø ˆ/tn;w] Ëreb}a" wyn;p:l} War]q}Yiw' ‘and they
cried before him, “Bow the knee!” and he made him (ruler) over all the land of
Egypt’ Gen 41:43. This construction is well attested in late style (as inten-
tional imitation?), and amazingly, in this usage the absolute infinitive may
precede a personal pronoun, a feature characteristic of Canaanite: ynia“ j'BEvæw ]
‘and I praised’ Eccl 4:2; aWh Ë/ph“n'w] ‘it was turned to the contrary’ Esth 9:1.
4.3.4.3.4n. As stated above (§4.3.2.2.3n, p. 191), M. Lambert (1893: 55–62) even claimed
that the use of the absolute infinitive was more frequent than is attested in our Bible. It
was sometimes misintepreted by the Masoretes, who vocalized it as the 3ms of the suffix-
tense, thus giving rise to cases of waw+suffix-tense referring to the past, contrary to the
general rule.
For the use of the absolute infinitive to continue a finite verb in Canaanite, see Fried-
rich 1999: 192–93, par. 267b. Many scholars (see Friedrich 1999: 192 n. 4), to be sure, re-
gard this verbal form as a 3ms suffix-tense form in neutral usage, an ingenious proposal.
Nevertheless, it is best to refrain from this kind of far-reaching assumption, if one can un-
derstand this form by a much simpler supposition, viz., by its interpretation as absolute
infinitive.

4.3.5. Verbal Themes

4.3.5.1. Introduction
4.3.5.1.1. There are seven regular verbal themes in Biblical Hebrew: qal;
nif ºal; piººel, puººal, hitpaººel; hif ºil, hof ºal, structured in a rather asymmetri-
cal manner. Only the D themes (i.e., the verbal themes with doubled second
radical, piººel, puººal, and hitpaººel) are complete: active piººel, internal pas-
sive (marked by u(o)) puººal, reflexive-reciprocal t-form hitpaººel. In Ara-
maic, on the other hand, the t-pattern may be derived from qal and the
causative (h)af ºel (= BHeb hif ºil) as well, and the resulting themes are used as
passives instead of the internal passive formation. The system of verbal
themes is even more complete in Classical Arabic: every verbal theme has
both an internal passive and a t-form. Accordingly, the rather incomplete
structure of Biblical Hebrew verbal themes may be described according to the
following diagram:

Active themes qal piººel hif ºil

Internal passive — puººal hof ºal
t-forms — hitpaººel —
n-forms nif ºal
00-Blau.book Page 217 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

217 Absolute Infinitive; Verbal Passive ∑ 4.3.5.1.3.

Qal Themes

However, it appears that this asymmetrical structure stems from a more sym-
metrical one. And, indeed, some traces of such a system may be discovered.

4.3.5.1.1n. The ground-theme, from which the other themes are derived, is called qal; for
the reason, see §4.3.5.2.1.1, p. 219. For the terms used to refer to the other verbal themes,
see §§4.3.5.3–4.3.5.8, pp. 227–237.
For vestiges of the system of verbal themes, see Blau (1957b: 385–88); cf. partly al-
ready I. Bursztyn (1929: 145–46, par. 113).

4.3.5.1.2. Quite clear vestiges of the internal passive of qal have been pre-
served. Originally, the internal passive of qal was in general use, but it tended
to be superseded by reflexive forms, in accordance with the general tendency
in the Semitic languages. Accordingly, the reflexive of the qal, the nif ºal,
superseded the passive of the qal, and the Masoretes vocalized it as nif ºal
whenever they could do so without impairing the sacred consonantal text.
Therefore, in strong verbs, the internal passive of qal is reflected only in the
suffix-tense (where it could not be vocalized as nif ºal because of the absence
of the n), as in πr'fø ‘he was torn’ Gen 37:33, whereas in the prefix-tense it was
vocalized according to the nif ºal (as πreF:yi Exod 22:12, in accordance with the
later linguistic usage, rather than *yu†rapö, the original internal passive form of
the qal). Generally speaking, whenever a verb used in qal has an apparent
puººal passive form in the suffix-tense, without a corresponding active form in
piººel and without a corresponding y´fuººal in the prefix-tense, it has to be con-
sidered the passive of qal. Thus the above-mentioned πr'fø has the active form
πr'f:, rather than piººel *†erepö, and its prefix-tense is πreF:yi (as mentioned),
rather than *y´†orapö. Accordingly, it has to be considered a passive of qal.

4.3.5.1.2n. The qal passive was recognized already by medieval Spanish Jewish grammar-
ians, viz., by Moses Ha-Kohen Gikatilla and Samuel ha-Nagid; see Har-Zahav 1953: 474–
75. For its rediscovery by modern linguists, such as Böttcher, Barth, and Lambert, see
Bergsträsser 1918–29: 2.87, par. 15a.
Cf. §4.3.5.1.1 above for the replacement of the internal passive with reflexive forms in
Aramaic; the same applies to modern Arabic dialects. This development was partly caused
by the blurring of the phonemic status of u (the main outer mark of the internal passive) in
many Semitic languages, making the distinction between active and passive unclear.

4.3.5.1.3. Similarly, if an apparent hof ºal form in the prefix-tense is derived

from a verb having an active qal, but there is no corresponding active form in
the hif ºil and no corresponding hof ºal in the suffix-tense, it has to be analyzed
as an original passive of qal. Therefore vd'Wy ‘it is threshed’ Isa 28:27 is the pas-
sive of qal, since its active form is vD; in qal, and there is no hif ºil correspond-
ing to it, nor is the suffix-tense passive form *hudas attested. If vd'Wy were a
strong verb, it would no doubt have been vocalized according to the nif ºal pat-
tern. Nevertheless, the consonantal text did not enable this vocalization.
00-Blau.book Page 218 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.5.1.4. ∑ Absolute
Qal Passive;
Infinitive;
Qal T-Form
Verbal Themes 218

4.3.5.1.3n. Obiter dictu, the later passive suffix-tense nif ºal form of this verb has already
entered the consonantal text of the Bible: v/dn;w] Isa 2: 10.
4.3.5.1.4. Verbs that have puººal in the suffix-tense and yuf ºal (on the face
of it, derived from hof ºal) in the prefix-tense, corresponding to an active qal,
rather than to piººel or hif ºil, are even more clearly qal passive forms. This is
the case with, e.g., jq"l: ‘he took’, forming the passive suffix-tense jQ:lU (e.g.,
Gen 3:23) and the prefix-tense jQ"yu (e.g., Gen 18:4).
4.3.5.1.4n. Nevertheless, the nif ºal passive, attested already by the consonantal text, is
quite frequent in both the suffix-tense and prefix-tense, as in jq"l}ni 1 Sam 4:22; jq"L:a< 2 Kgs
2:9.
4.3.5.1.5. It appears that the passive of the qal had a special participial for-
mation. The patterns puººal (dL:Wy ‘born’ Judg 13:8; jQ:lU ‘taken’ 2 Kgs 2:10)
and sometimes piººol (d/Lyi ‘born’ Exod 1:22) are attested. Presumably these
are related patterns. The first was originally puººal with a short final vowel,
which by pretonic doubling and by the general lengthening of the last vowel
in absolute nouns became puººal. The second was originally puººal with a long
final vowel, which by pretonic doubling as well as the Canaanite shift a ! to o
and the dissimilation of u preceding o to i shifted to piººol.
4.3.5.1.5n. The ordinary qal passive participle lW[P: does not belong to this category.
It could even be claimed that both forms reflect original puºal with long a (and simple
º ), yet in the first form the Canaanite shift was prevented in order to avoid the vowel se-
quence u-o (cf. the same development, e.g., in ˆB:r]q: ‘sacrifice’, which did not become
*qurbon). I posited original puºal with simple º, rather than puººal, because it appears that
the pretonic gemination of the second radical is secondary, in order to preserve pretonic u
(as it is without doubt the case with the suffix-tense, such as jQ"lU).
4.3.5.1.6. The t-form of the qal has not been preserved in the Tiberian vo-
calization except in the root pqd, e.g., Wdq}P:t}hI ‘they were numbered’ Judg
20:17; dqEP:t}Yiw' Judg 21:9. This pattern is perhaps also reflected in place names
such as laøT:v‘a<, ['/mT}v‘a.<
4.3.5.1.6n. It seems that the linguistic feeling for these forms has been blurred because of
their scarceness. This is perhaps reflected by the use of internal passive forms with the
same sense in places where we would have expected the (formally) active t-form, as, e.g.,
Wdq}P:t}h: Num 1:47.
4.3.5.1.7. As demonstrated by hitpaqad, the t in this verbal theme was a
prefix. Nevertheless, if the place name hqET}l}a< (meaning ‘meeting place’ from
lqy ‘to meet’, as well attested in Classical Arabic) reflects this pattern, then, in
the dialect that gave its name to this place, in contradistinction to Biblical He-
brew proper, the t was an infix, as attested in Moabite, Early Phoenician, Uga-
ritic, Early Aramaic (Tell Fekherye), Classical Arabic, and Akkadian.
4.3.5.1.7n. The t in laøT:v‘a<, ['/mT}v‘a< is not an infix; it reflects metathesis caused by the sib-
ilant first radical, as is the rule in hitpaººel as well; see §4.3.5.6.2, p. 233.
See Kutscher (1982: 58).
00-Blau.book Page 219 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

219 Absolute Infinitive;

VerbalVerbal
Themes; Qal ∑ 4.3.5.2.1.2.
Themes

4.3.5.1.8. Much more dubious are the residues of the t-form of hif ºil: rb:T:TI
‘you will show yourself pure’ 2 Sam 22:27 (the parallel passage, Ps 18:27, re-
flecting later redaction, has hitpaººel rr:B:t}hI; cf. hif ºil rb"h:l} ‘to cleanse’ Jer
4:11); ˆkET:yi (alø yKIr]d'h)“ ‘is (my way not) adjusted?’ Ezek 18:25 (cf. hif ºil:
2 Chr 27:6 [wyk:r;D]] ˆykIhE ‘he adjusted [his ways]’); bX"t"TEw' ‘she took her stand’
Exod 2:4 (cf. hif ºil byXIhI ‘to set up’); and hr,j“t"T} ‘you will contend’ Jer 12:5.
4.3.5.1.9. If the suggested internal reconstruction is indeed correct, then
we have to posit the following original Proto-Hebrew structure of verbal
themes:

Active themes qal piººel hif ºil

Internal passive passive qal puººal hof ºal
t-forms, originally hitpaºel hitpaººel hittaf ºel
reciprocal
originally reflexive nif ºal
(later mainly passive)

4.3.5.1.10. The meanings of the various verbal themes are quite fixed but
not to such a degree as to be predictable. We will return to this topic when
dealing with the diverse verbal themes.

4.3.5.2. Qal
4.3.5.2.1. Introduction
4.3.5.2.1.1. This verbal theme is called qal, i.e., ‘light’. According to the
medieval Arabic grammarians (whose method was adopted by the medieval
Jewish philologists and later influenced Christian research), patterns are, so to
speak, “weighed,” and the more additional letters a pattern has, the “heavier”
it is. In the 3ms of the qal suffix-tense, the verbal theme is characterized by the
absence of additional letters (affixes); therefore it was regarded as ‘light’, qal.
4.3.5.2.1.1n. In Arabic, patterns are called wazn; in Hebrew, they are called misqal, i.e.,
‘weighing’, ‘weight’.
4.3.5.2.1.2. In the wake of the Arabic and Jewish grammarians, the verbal
themes are customarily designated by the root pºl, vocalized according to
the 3ms form of the suffix-tense. Accordingly, qal is often called paºal, paºal
being the most usual pattern of the 3ms form of the suffix-tense.
4.3.5.2.1.2n. In Classical Arabic, f ºl means ‘to act’, as does the cognate pºl in Hebrew. The
grammatical terminology of Arabic fiºl (and in its wake, Heb l["Pø&) ‘verb’ is derived from
this verb.
00-Blau.book Page 220 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.5.2.2. ∑ Absolute
Qal Suffix-Tense
Infinitive; Verbal Themes 220

4.3.5.2.2. Suffix-Tense
4.3.5.2.2.1. In the suffix-tense, verbs indicating action (e.g., rm"v… ‘he kept’,
bt"K: ‘he wrote’) basically have the paºal pattern (originally paºal, with length-
ened a in the pretonic syllable), whereas stative verbs (e.g., ˆqEz; ‘he was old’,
ˆføq: ‘he was small’, rgoy; ‘he was afraid’, lkøy; ‘he could’) have the basic patterns
paºel/paºol (originally paºil/paºul, with lengthened a in the pretonic syllable
and i/u in the final closed stressed syllable shifting to e/o, respectively). These
e/o vowels have to be considered short, because they correspond to pata˙ in
paºal. Since in the suffix-tense the opposition between action verbs and stative
verbs is marked by the contrast of a : i/u (> e/o) after the second radical, they
have to be regarded as the characteristic vowels of the suffix-tense.
4.3.5.2.2.1n. Note the pata˙ that is characteristic of finite verbal forms in the final closed
stressed syllable (whereas nouns contain qamaß in this position). For details, see §3.5.7.1,
pp. 119ff.
The alternation of i/u as markers of the suffix-tense of stative verbs reflects the archaic
Proto-Semitic binary opposition a : i/u. This is the case with this opposition in the prefix-
tense as well, in which also the characteristic vowel follows the second radical. Cf.
§4.3.5.2.3.1.

4.3.5.2.2.2. As a rule, the stative patterns tend to be superseded by the ac-

tive pattern, partly because of the frequency of the latter, and partly (in the
case of i > a) on account of Philippi’s Law. So it was owing to Philippi’s Law
that the first and second persons of the suffix-tense of paºel coincided with
those of paºal (*zaqínti > yTIn]q&z" ;). However, *zaqintœ!m > *z´qintœ!m > μT<&n]qz" ]
was not affected by Philippi’s Law, because the i was in an unstressed syl-
lable, but was attracted by the analogy of the other forms of the pattern which,
because of Philippi’s Law, contained a after the second radical. In principle,
Philippi’s Law influenced only contextual forms of the suffix-tense of paºel
but not pausal forms, since pausal lengthening preceded its action. So the sec-
ond vowel of pausal paºel was already long when Philippi’s Law started oper-
ating and this shift did not affect long vowels. Thus, pausal vbEl: ‘he put on a
garment’ Ps 93:1 corresponds to contextual vb"l:, e.g., Lev 6:3. However, by
mutual leveling, e was retained in the context, and, also through the decisive
effect of the action pattern paºal, sometimes in pause paºal instead of the ex-
pected paºel occurs: la:v… ‘he asked’, e.g., Josh 19:50, alongside Úl}aEv‘ ‘he
asked you’ Gen 32:18; WnWl&aEv‘ ‘they asked us’ Ps 137:3.
4.3.5.2.2.2n. The retention of e through mutual leveling is always the case with ˆqe z;, per-
haps also through the influence of the adjective ˆqe z; used predicatively, which is often hard
to distinguish from the stative suffix-tense, used to signify state, rather than past tense.

4.3.5.2.2.3. Among the stative suffix-tense forms, it is paºol that has be-
come significantly more rare. It occurs only in lkøy; ‘to be able’, rgo y ; ‘to be
afraid’, vqøy ; ‘to lay snares’, ˆføq:, ‘to be small’, lkøv… ‘to be bereaved’.
00-Blau.book Page 221 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

221 Absolute
QalInfinitive;
Suffix- and
Verbal Themes ∑ 4.3.5.2.3.1.
Prefix-Tense

4.3.5.2.2.3n. For outwardly similar forms of II-w/y verbs, see §§4.3.8.7.2.3, pp. 253–254.
4.3.5.2.2.4. Since in the 1s, 1p, and 2ms of the suffix-tense the final vowel
has been preserved (as Wnb}t"&K: / T:b}t&"K): , they are stressed on their penult, in accor-
dance with the general penultimate stress that once prevailed. The final stress
in the 2fs (T}b}t"K: < *katabti), 3ms (bt"K: < *kataba), and the 2p (ˆT<b}t"K} / μT<b}t"K}
*katabtumu/*katabtinna) attests to the elision of the final vowels. The original
stress pattern of the 3fs and the 3p has been preserved in pause: Wbt:&K: / hb:t:&K: ;
the contextual forms have to be intepreted according to stress stage iv (see
§3.5.12.2.6, p. 146). In the 2p, the first radical has a reduced vowel: /μT<r]m"v‘
ˆT<r]m"v,‘ because it is two syllables removed from the stress (prepenultimate).
4.3.5.2.2.4n. Reduction of the prepenultimate vowel occurs preceding pronominal suffixes
as well: ynir'&m:v‘. After the “conversive” waw, however, in the 1s and the 2ms the first radi-
cal has preserved its qamaß: yTI&b}t"k:w], T:&b}t"k:w], because stress shifted to the final syllable
after pretonic lengthening; therefore, the first radical was already followed by long a,
which, accordingly, was not reduced.

4.3.5.2.3. Prefix-Tense

4.3.5.2.3.1. According to the testimony of many Semitic languages, in-

cluding Hebrew, three patterns existed in the prefix-tense as in the suffix-
tense, and each was characterized by a different vowel after the second radi-
cal. As in the suffix-tense (see §4.3.5.2.2.1), here too a is opposed to i/u; how-
ever, in contradistinction to the suffix-tense, a is characteristic of verbs of
state, i/u of verbs of action. As emphasized by J. Barth (1894b: 4–6), origi-
nally there was a correlation between the characteristic vowel (i.e., the vowel
following the second radical) and the prefix vowel: the characteristic vowel a
(typifying stative verbs) entails i in the prefix, whereas the characteristic
vowel i/u (typifying action verbs) entails a in the prefix, i.e., stative yif ºal in
contrast with yaf ºul/yaf ºil of action verbs. In the ordinary strong verbs (i.e., in
verbs consisting of unchangeable radical consonants), this correlation has dis-
appeared and the prefix vowel i prevailed, partly through the influence of the
yif ºal pattern, partly through the attenuation of a, and partly through assimila-
tion to the prefix y (ya > yi). Nevertheless, clear residues of the original oppo-
sition yif ºal : yaf ºul/yaf ºil have survived in Biblical Hebrew in some verbal
classes: in I-laryngeal/pharyngeal verbs (such as *ya˙sub > bvø j}y' ‘he will
think’ in contrast to *yi˙dal > lD'j}y, ‘he will cease’); in geminate verbs (as in
the yaf ºul/yaf ºil forms *yasubb > bsøy; ‘he will turn’; ˆgey ; ‘he will defend’ [his-
torically qal, rather than hif ºil, as demonstrated by the qal suffix-tense ytI/N‡G'
and the absolute infinitive ˆ/nG; ] in contrast to *yi˙am > μj"ye ‘it will be warm’
[but through the prevalence of the bsøy; pattern, μjøy ; is attested as well]); and in
II-w/y verbs (as μWqy; ‘he will rise’/ ryv¥y ; ‘he will sing’, reflecting yaf ºul/yaf ºil
00-Blau.book Page 222 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.5.2.3.2. ∑ Qal
Absolute
Prefix-Tense
Infinitive; Verbal Themes 222

in opposition to yif ºal *yibas, which, by the Canaanite shift a to o [which must
have begun to operate after the yif ºal pattern came into being] shifted to
v/bye ‘he will be ashamed’). It has been claimed that this feature is West Se-
mitic (Bloch 1967: 22–29): it is fully operational in Ugaritic, and vestiges of
it are preserved in the Ancient Canaanite of El-Amarna, in Aramaic (e.g.,
Blau 1969a = Topics, 300), and in ancient Arabic dialects (Bloch 1967: 22–
29). However, it is perhaps more likely that what seems to reflect shared
West Semitic innovation is, in fact, due to parallel development owing to
dissimilation.
4.3.5.2.3.1n. This feature, which correlates the prefix vowel with the vowel of the stem, is
generally called Barth’s Law (Barth 1894b: 4–6, with additional bibliography) or, more
accurately, the Barth-Ginsberg Law, since it was H. L. Ginsberg who recognized the appli-
cation of Barth’s Law in Ugaritic (see also Tropper 2000: 447–52, par. 73.242). For its
presence at El-Amarna, see A. F. Rainey’s penetrating analysis (Rainey 1996: 2.61–75).
However, in Classical Arabic, the prefix vowel a of qal has prevailed by analogy.
As mentioned above (§1.7.15, p. 22), the fundamental difficulty in distinguishing be-
tween shared innovation and parallel development was justly regarded by A. Meillet
(1958b: 36–43) to pertain to the very essence of comparative linguistics. How far-
reaching parallel developments in the Semitic realm may be is demonstrated by the inde-
pendent, but nevertheless quite similar, development of the feminine suffix -at (see Blau
1980 = Topics, 126–37). Accordingly, it is certainly also possible that the correlation be-
tween the characteristic vowel and the prefix vowel arose independently in the various
West Semitic dialects (see Beyer 1984: 108–12, without agreeing with all his examples); cf.
also Tropper (2000: 177, par. 33.222); Kienast (2001: 199, par. 179.7). This development
might have been rather intricate, as one may easily learn from H. Grotzfeld’s attempts
(1964: 28–31) to reconstruct the shift of a > i (and later, in certain positions, the reduction
of a) in the dialect of Damascus, both medially and in affixes. At any rate, in East Semitic
(Akkadian), the prefix vowel a prevails, whereas i occurs in the 3ms as well as in the 3p
(and 3d) as a result of the well-known Akkadian shift ya > i, whereas ni in the 1p may re-
flect the influence of the corresponding independent personal pronoun *ni˙nu (see Blau
1978a: 32 = Topics, 319; pace R. Hetzron [1974: 189–90 and 1976: 94–95], who consid-
ers this heterogeneity of the prefixes in Akkadian to be Proto-Semitic; D. Testen [1994:
426–34], on the other hand, suggested that the prefix vowel in Proto-Semitic had no mor-
phemic character, and a developed after obstruents, i after resonants). At any rate, as
stated, I am inclined to attribute the emergence of the opposition yaf ºul/yaf ºil : yif ºal in
various West Semitic dialects to parallel developments triggered by dissimilation.

4.3.5.2.3.2. The yaf ºil pattern has disappeared from the three prefix-tense
patterns to a large extent. Synchronically, it does not exist at all in strong
verbs and has been preserved in weak verbs only: drey e ‘he will go down’ (with
assimilation of the prefix vowel to the characteristic vowel, instead of the ex-
pected *yareq), ˆTEyi ‘he will give’. Two factors cooperated in ousting yaf ºil:
Philippi’s Law, shifting stressed i in closed syllables to a and transferring it
into the pattern having a as the characteristic vowel; and, even more, yaf ºil
was reinterpreted as hif ºil (which before the lengthening of the characteristic
i also had the form of yaf ºil). We have already mentioned the original qal pre-
fix-tense form ˆgey :; that it was synchronically felt as hif ºil is demonstrated by

spread is long
00-Blau.book Page 223 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

223 Absolute Infinitive;Qal

Verbal Themes ∑ 4.3.5.2.3.4.
Prefix-Tense

forms such as the hif ºil participle μyNigim} that occur in Rabbinic Hebrew. The
originally qal prefix-tense form ˆybIy; ‘he will understand’ (cf. the qal suffix-
tense form hT:n]B"&, as well as the imperative and absolute infinitive forms ˆyBI)
was felt as hif ºil and new hif ºil forms were derived from it: ˆybIhE, ˆybImE, ˆybIh:,
ˆbEh:. A remarkable case is the verb zkr (see Blau 1961: 81–86): in qal (rk"z;,
rKøz]y)i it not only has the ordinary meaning ‘to remember’ but it reflects ves-
tiges of ‘to mention’ as well, which, as a rule, is the meaning of the hif ºil
(ryKIz]hI, ryKIz]y'). It appears that originally the prefix-tense of qal had i as the
characteristic vowel: *yazkir, as indicated by i being the characteristic vowel
of the noun *zikr > rk<ze‡, which is attested in other Semitic dialects as well.
Classical Arabic and Gºez combine in qal both ‘to remember’ and ‘to men-
tion’ (but compare Akkadian, which does not have the meaning ‘to remem-
ber’ at all). It seems quite likely that originally in Biblical Hebrew, too, the qal
of zkr, prefix-tense *yazkir, had two meanings, ‘to remember’ and ‘to men-
tion’. In Biblical Hebrew, however, qal mainly denotes only ‘to remember’,
and the meaning ‘to mention’ is relegated to the hif ºil, with a few vestiges of
this meaning in qal. It seems that original *yazkir was reinterpreted as hif ºil in
the sense of ‘mentioning’ only, presumably because it was understood as
some sort of causative verb (‘to mention’ = ‘to cause to be remembered’),
whereas in the meaning of ‘remembering’ it remained in qal (where it was su-
perseded in the prefix-tense by the more usual yaf ºul pattern: rKøz]y)i .
4.3.5.2.3.2n. In the Tiberian vocalization, there was no difference between short and long
i; the neutralization of the quantitative differences between vowels is, however, a very late
feature.
For zkr qal with the meaning ‘to mention’, see /mv‘BI d/[ rBEd'a“Aaløw] WNr,K}z]a<Aalø ‘I will
not mention Him nor speak any more in His name’ Jer 20:9; hj:yc¥&a: hy;m:&h”a<w] μyhIløa” hr;K}z]a<
yjIWr πFE["t}tIw], which presumably must be translated ‘I mention God and am troubled; I
complain and my spirit is feeble’ Ps 77:4.

4.3.5.2.3.3. The pausal forms ybITø&k}T,I WbTø&k}T,I WbTø&k}y i reflect a more original
syllable patterning (stress stage ii) than the contextual forms ybIT}k}T,I WbT}k}T,I
WbT}k}y,i which reflect stress stage iv. The same applies to the lengthened prefix-
tense, which has hb:Tø&k}a,< hb:Tø&k}ni in pause but hb:T}k}a,< hb:T}k}ni in context. The pen-
ultimate stress in hn;b}Tø&k}TI is regular, since the final vowel has been preserved.
4.3.5.2.3.4. In both the suffix- and the prefix-tense, the characteristic a
vowel is pata˙ in context: bk"v…, bK"v‘yi (in contrast to the pausal forms bk:v…,
bK:v‘yi, in which, by pausal lengthening, the pata˙ shifted to qamaß). Since the
ßere/ ˙olam of ˆTEyi / bTøk}yi correspond to the originally short pata˙ in bK"v‘yi, they
have to be considered short (in the pre-Tiberian period). Similarly, the pata˙
of bk"v… indicates that the corresponding e/o in ˆqEz; / ˆføq:, lkøy; must be interpreted
as reflecting (pre-Tiberian) short vowels, the reason being that final short
vowels were elided in verbs before they were elided in absolute nouns. During
the period of the elision of these vowels in verbs, the lengthening of the vowel
preceding the dropped vowel as compensation for its elision did not occur;
00-Blau.book Page 224 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.5.2.3.5. ∑ Absolute
Qal PrefixInfinitive;
Tense; Imperative
Verbal Themes 224

this process only began to operate at a later period, when the final vowels of
absolute nouns were elided; for particulars, see §3.5.7.1.5, p. 120.
4.3.5.2.3.4n. The last syllable of the imperative (which terminated in the third radical
without a final vowel at the earliest stage) must also be considered originally short. How-
ever, the participles ˆqe z; and l/ky; exhibit pre-Tiberian long e/o; see §4.3.5.2.5.1, p. 225.

4.3.5.2.3.5. Preceding pronominal suffixes, the characteristic a was length-

ened (in the pre-Tiberian period) to a by pretonic lengthening, whereas pretonic
characteristic e/o were reduced (cf. §3.5.7.5.12, p. 128; §3.5.7.6, pp. 129ff.):
yni[E&m:v‘yi in contrast to ynine‡T}yi ‘he will give me’/ynire&m}v‘y.i In the Babylonian vocal-
ization, pretonic o is also preserved (and lengthened); see Yeivin 1985: 469–70,
par. 38.

4.3.5.2.4. The Imperative

4.3.5.2.4.1. The imperative paralleled the prefix-tense in its vocalization
and thus originally also had three patterns: a, i, u, though the i-pattern would
later disappear. It appears that imperative qal was originally disyllabic as in
Akkadian and Ugaritic (see Blau 1977c: 30–31 = Topics, 263–64; Tropper
2000: 425–26, par. 73.121), the same vowel being repeated after the first and
second radicals: paºal, piºil, puºul. This accords well with the fact that in Bib-
lical Hebrew the vowel may occur not only after the second radical (rmøv‘) but,
preceding pronominal suffixes, may also occur after the first (ynire&m}v…). It was
only later that the originally disyllabic imperative of qal was restructured
according to the prefix-tense, thus becoming phonemically monosyllabic.
Similarly, the Classical Arabic imperative q†ul, q†il, q†al (with a word-initial
consonant cluster; when sentence initial, this cluster is pronounced with the
assistance of an auxiliary vowel: ªuqtul, ªiqtil, ªiqtal; when sentence middle,
with the help of the preceding vowel) has also been restructured by analogy
with the prefix-tense.
4.3.5.2.4.1n. Tropper (2000: 425) identifies imperative qal with the short prefix-tense
without the prefix. This is only correct synchronically. Historically, because of its archaic
character, the imperative could not have been derived from the (short) prefix-tense. On the
contrary, it appears that the prefix-tense stems from the imperative. Therefore, it is difficult
to argue that the original qal imperative opened with a consonant cluster, which contra-
venes Semitic phonetic structure. Tropper also considers the vowel after the first radical in
imperative qal to be anaptyctic. In my view, this is a somewhat far-fetched assumption. It
seems more likely that it was only later that the originally disyllabic imperative of qal was
restructured according to the prefix-tense, thus becoming phonemically monosyllabic.

4.3.5.2.4.2. The Biblical Hebrew prefix-tense also influenced the stress of

the imperative, since, assuming a general penultimate stress, it should have
been stressed *kútub. The final stress is due to the impact of the prefix-tense.
00-Blau.book Page 225 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

225 Absolute Infinitive; Qal

Verbal Themes ∑ 4.3.5.2.5.2.
Participles

4.3.5.2.4.2n. The short prefix-tense should have borne penultimate stress as well (*yáktub).
It was influenced by the ordinary prefix-tense (*yaktúbu), and the stress shifted to the final
syllable (*yaktúb). It was this *yaktúb > bTø&k}y i that influenced *kútub to become *kutúb >
btøK}. The same happened also in other verbal themes.

4.3.5.2.5. The Participles

4.3.5.2.5.1. The participle of action verbs in the paºal pattern is poºel, his-
torically *paºil; the participle of the stative patterns is an adjective, as a rule
identical to the 3ms of the suffix-tense: suffix-tense ˆqEz;, rgOy;, participle ˆqEz,: r/gy;.
There is, however, a difference in the length of the last syllable (in the pre-
Tiberian period): in the suffix-tense it is short (as demonstrated by the pata˙ in
the parallel action verb suffix-tense bt"K:); in the participle, it is long, as it is in
every noun in the absolute (see §3.5.7.1.2, p. 119). Therefore, the transcription
of the forms according to the pre-Tiberian system, which differentiates long
and short vowels, is: suffix-tense zaqen, yagor, participle zaqen, yagor. How-
ever, these participles are basically identical to the suffix-tense, which actually
must be considered originally to have been a conjugated adjective; cf. the qal
participles μq: ‘rising’, lq" ‘light’, identical to the suffix-tense in verbs II-w/y
and geminate verbs. However, in strong verbs these stative adjectival parti-
ciples were being superseded by the l[E/P of action verbs ( just as the stative
suffix-tense was being replaced by paºal). In some cases paºel and poºel coex-
ist: j'kEv…/ j'kE/v ‘forgetting’, π[Ez; / π[E/z ‘vexed’ (in all likelihood paºel was the
original form). In other cases poºel alone serves as a veritable participle, paºel
being clearly relegated to nominal function: ˆkE/v ‘inhabiting’ in contrast to
ˆkEv… ‘inhabitant’. Sometimes, however, paºel has totally disappeared: from anec…
‘he hated’, only the participle anecø survived.
4.3.5.2.5.1n. However, cf. cases such as Wxm}a: ‘they were strong’, participle/adjective
≈yMIa"; qz''j: (reflecting the shift of paºel to paºal; even in pause qz;j:, rather than *˙azeq) ‘he
was strong’, participle/adjective qz;j:.
The stative pattern of the participle is identical to the 3ms of the suffix-tense, if one
does not take into consideration the original -a ending of the suffix-tense in contrast to the
case endings of the participle. Moreover, the participle has a (pre-Tiberian) long vowel in
its last syllable in contrast with a short vowel in the suffix-tense.
Note that the participle/adjective r/gy; exhibits plene writing, in contrast to the defec-
tive spelling of the suffix-tense lkøy;. This is only a hint, since full and defective spellings
alternate. And, indeed, the suffix-tense l/ky; is attested three times.
There is a certain tendency to adapt the ßere and the ˙olam in the nouns ˆqEz; and rgOy;, as
also in other cases, to originally long ßere and ˙olam (i.e., those that have arisen by
monophthongization and, in the case of ˙olam, also by the Canaanite shift a! to o). In other
words, there is a tendency to preserve the vowels even when the stress is remote: thus,
contrast the mp construct form ynev´y] with yneq}zi. Such alternations occur even in the same
noun: ≈pEj: ‘delighting’ has both μh<yxEp}j< and yxEpEj“.

4.3.5.2.5.2. The participle has not yet been absorbed into the verbal sys-
tem in Biblical Hebrew, and sentences with a participle as the predicate are
00-Blau.book Page 226 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.5.2.5.3. ∑ Qal
Absolute
Participles;
Infinitive;
Infinitives
Verbal Themes 226

ordinary nominal clauses. As a rule, such nominal clauses are negated (as are
predicate nouns) by ˆyaE rather than by alø , which negates verbs: WNn,‡yaE hs:r]p"W
syrip}m" ‘and it is not dividing the hoof’ Lev 11:4, in contrast to hs:yri&p}hI alø hs:r]p"W
Lev 11:6.
4.3.5.2.5.3. The passive participle of qal has the form paºul (the a being
due to pretonic lengthening, i.e., original *paºul). It apparently reflects a
Proto-Semitic form together with its pendant *paºil. It is formed mainly from
transitive verbs: rra ‘to curse’ rWra:, and is not always restricted to qal: Ër'BE
‘he blessed’ (piººel): ËWrB:. Nevertheless, sometimes it is also derived from in-
transitive verbs with neuter stative meaning and is thus more or less identical
to the active participle.
4.3.5.2.5.3n. The passive participle is not related to the participles puººal /piººol formed
from the passive of the qal; see §4.3.5.1.5 and §4.3.5.1.5n, p. 218. The form p´ºil < *paºil
is the ordinary passive participle of qal in Aramaic. In Hebrew, the form is used as a noun,
in the form of paºil / paººil with pretonic lengthening/gemination, cf. μyriWsa“ Ël<M<&h" yreysIa“
(k´tib2 yrwsa!) ‘the king’s prisoners are imprisoned’ Gen 39:20.
The form *paºil occurs even in Akkadian as a poetic form of the passive participle, see
von Soden (1995: 74, par. 55 i 11 a III ), which has not been taken into consideration by
Kienast (2001: 386, par. 336.1). In Arabic and Gºez, the passive participle of qal reflects
the secondary development of paºul, viz., maf ºul in Arabic and peºul (< *puºul [by vowel
assimilation] < *paºul ) in Gºez.
This stative use of lW[P: / ly[IP: is, it seems, even more archaic than their passive appli-
cation, since it is characteristic of the Akkadian stative, from which the passive usage de-
veloped later in West Semitic. In Rabbinic Hebrew lW[P: has developed into a sort of
present perfect, describing an action that took place in the past but whose results are felt in
the present (as qlE/D rne ordinary present participle ‘a burning lamp’, qWlD; rne ‘a lamp that
has been lit’). This is, however, not yet the case in Biblical Hebrew. For details, see Blau
1952 = Studies, 313–29.

4.3.5.2.6. The Infinitives

4.3.5.2.6.1. As stated (see §4.3.4.2.1, p. 213), the construct infinitive is, as
a rule, formally identical to the imperative, so that it was originally disyllabic
as well, containing the same vowel in both syllables: *qu†ul, *qa†al, *qi†il (see
§4.3.5.2.4.1, p. 224). The prevailing form is *qu†ul > l[øP} (which has to be an-
alyzed as containing long o in the pre-Tiberian period, arising by secondary
lengthening from original short o < u, as is the rule in absolute nouns). l[øP} is
formed even from verbs with characteristic a in the prefix-tense: [m"v‘yi ‘he will
hear’, ['møv‘(lI). It appears that originally the prefix-tense and the construct
infinitive had the same characteristic vowel; with the restriction of the yaf ºil
prefix-tense, the corresponding i-infinitive fell into desuetude as well. In III-
laryngeal/pharyngeal verbs, the o of the prefix-tense and the imperative, be-
ing short, was assimilated to the laryngeal/pharyngeal to become a. In con-
trast, the long o of the infinitive was preserved (jT"p}y', jt"P}: ‘he will open,
open!’ in contrast to j'Tøp}lI; see §4.3.7.3.5, p. 240), thus giving rise to the struc-
00-Blau.book Page 227 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

227 Absolute Infinitive;

Qal Infinitives; Nif ºal ∑ 4.3.5.3.1.
Verbal Themes

ture of a in the prefix-tense and the imperative in contrast to o in the construct

infinitive. This pattern (a in the prefix-tense : o in the construct infinitive)
spread to verbs that had original a in the prefix-tense, such as bK"r]yi ‘he will
ride’ in contrast to the infinitive bKør]lI, rather than *lirkab2 . The vowel a in the
infinitive has only been preserved in bK"v‘lI ‘to lie’ (alongside ÚB}k}v…B}), lp"v‘BI
‘when being low’.
4.3.5.2.6.1n. The i-infinitive was preserved mainly in weak verbs: ttEl: ‘to give’, taxEl: ‘to
go out’, ryv¥l: ‘to sing’. Strong i-infinitive verbs have also been preserved according to
J. Barth (1889: 184), e.g., rc´[}l" ‘to tithe’ Deut 26:12.
It is remarkable that these a-infinitives have pata˙ rather than qamaß, in spite of its re-
construction above as a long vowel! It appears that the pata˙ does not reflect the archaic a-
infinitive but instead exhibits the influence of Rabbinic Hebrew on the Masoretes. In Rab-
binic Hebrew, the trend of development has been reversed and infinitives (following l; as
always in Rabbinic Hebrew) with a as the characteristic vowel spread in the wake of pre-
fix-tenses with a (see Berggrün 1995: 100–107). In Rabbinic Hebrew, the construct infini-
tive was felt to be derived from the prefix-tense and was restructured according to it (as in
jQ"lI ‘to take’, in the wake of the prefix-tense jQ' y,i in contrast to biblical tj"q&l" :).
4.3.5.2.6.2. In Biblical Hebrew, some feminine forms of the construct in-
finitive also occur, as μyiM"&h" tv≤ bø&y] Ad[" ‘until the waters were dried up’ Gen 8:7;
Ht:n;q}zi yrej“a" ‘after becoming old’ Gen 24:36; Ht:aø /tb:h“a"B} ‘because he loved
her’ Gen 29:20; ytIaø ha:r]yil} ‘to fear me’ Deut 4:10; tk<l<&l: μk<yhEløa” yyyAta< hb:h“a"l}
/bAhq:b}d;l}W wyk:r;D]Alk:B} ‘to love the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways, and
to cleave to Him’ Deut 11:22. It appears that at one time these feminine forms
were more widespread, since they have been preserved mainly in the weak
verbs (ttEl: ‘to give’, td,r,&l: ‘to descend’, t/c[“l" ‘to make’), where they were
favored because they gave sufficient “body” to the shortened form of these
verbs.
4.3.5.2.6.3. The absolute infinitive is l/[P: < *paºal. This pattern is well
attested in various Semitic languages, including East Semitic (Akkadian).
4.3.5.2.6.3n. In Arabic, faºali with final -i is attested. It seems that, in Arabic, the infinitive
of many derived themes is derived from faºal, such as ªif ºal / ªinfiºal, which, in all likeli-
hood, arose by dissimilation from *ªaf ºal /*ªinfaºal. In Aramaic, by contrast, the a is pre-
served in derived themes, as in haf ºala.

4.3.5.3. Nif ºal

4.3.5.3.1. As stated above (see §4.3.5.1.10, p. 219), the meanings of the
various verbal themes are quite fixed but not to the extent that they are predict-
able. This applies to nif ºal as well. It is mainly connected with qal and origi-
nally, it seems, indicated the reflexive meaning of the qal (jt"P: ‘he opened’,
jT"p}ni ‘it opened itself’), although sometimes it was also used in a reciprocal
sense (πs"a: ‘he gathered’, Wps}a<n, ‘they assembled’). With the disappearance of
the internal passive of qal (see §4.3.5.1.2, p. 217), nif ºal became the ordinary
00-Blau.book Page 228 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.5.3.2. ∑ Absolute
Nif ºal Infinitive; Verbal Themes 228

passive of the qal, in accordance with the general drift to replace the original
passive by originally reflexive forms (dk"l: ‘he conquered’, dK"l}ni ‘it was con-
quered’). Occasionally, nif ºal relates to the piººel/hif ºil, as in dBEKI ‘he hon-
ored’, dB"k}ni ‘he enjoyed honor, he was honored’; lyXIhI ‘he delivered, rescued’,
lX"ni ‘he delivered himself, he was delivered’. Sometimes its meaning does not
differ from that of the qal, as in hl:j: / hl:j”n, ‘to be sick’, and it may even coexist
with qal in a suppletive paradigm: vG'ni : vG'y i ‘to approach’, lv´/K/lvæK: : lv´K:yi
‘to stumble’. In some cases, the use of nif ºal is original and it is not to be de-
rived from any other verbal theme: μD'r]ni ‘he slept’, ra"v‘ni ‘he remained’.
4.3.5.3.1n. In verbs with suppletive qal / nif ºal forms, it seems that the qal forms were the
original ones. The Masoretes vocalized according to the later nif ºal, except in cases where
the consonantal text did not permit it; nonetheless, some cases of an original suffix-tense
nif ºal exist, such as lvæk}ni (from lvk).
The hif ºil ryaIv‘hI ‘to leave’ is, it seems, secondary.

4.3.5.3.2. The mark of nif ºal is n. In the prefix-tense, the imperative, and,
as a rule, in the infinitive the n, being vowelless and immediately preceding
the first radical, is totally assimilated to it: btEK:yi, etc. The original vowel of the
n was, it seems, a, as preserved not only in I-y verbs (< w; e.g., dl"/n < *nawlad
‘he was born’), II-w/y verbs (as g/sn; ‘he turned away’), and geminated verbs
(such as bs"n; ‘he turned’) but also in Akkadian and the Ancient Canaanite of
El-Amarna. The i of the strong verb is apparently due to attenuation.
4.3.5.3.2n. In Classical Arabic, the vowelless n immediately precedes the first radical in
all forms of the parallel theme ªinqatala. According to the principle of archaic heterogene-
ity, it is tempting to claim that Biblical Hebrew (as well as Akkadian) has preserved the
Proto-Semitic feature of the alternation of n with a following vowel in the suffix-tense and
vowelless n in the prefix-tense, whereas its homogeneous formation in Arabic is due to the
analogical influence of the prefix-tense. It is possible, however, that this alternation of n
followed by a (short) vowel (as attested by the Biblical Hebrew suffix-tense and participle
nif ºal) and vowelless n- (as exhibited by Arab ªinqatala and the prefix-tense and impera-
tive of BHeb nif ºal) reflects a Proto-Semitic doublet; cf. BHeb ˆBE ‘son’, μv´ ‘name’ in con-
trast to Arab ªibn, ªism.

4.3.5.3.3. In the prefix-tense, the second radical has ßere as the characteris-
tic vowel. The pata˙ in hn;b}t"&K:TI is due to Philippi’s Law. As in qal, the pausal
forms have preserved stress patterns older than the contextual forms, and vow-
els that were reduced in the latter during stress stage iv have been maintained:
hb:T:&k}ni, WbT:&k}ni, ybItE&K:hI, WbtE&K:TI, etc. At least synchronically, the participle is built
from the base of the suffix-tense (as are stative forms of the qal): bT"k}ni in the
suffix-tense, bT:k}ni (with qamaß, as usual in absolute nouns) in the participle.
The h of the imperative/infinitive is somewhat surprising (as is the case in the
hitpaººel as well), since one would have expected prosthetic aleph. Is it due to
the impact of the hif ºil?
00-Blau.book Page 229 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

229 Piººel ∑ 4.3.5.4.2.

Absolute Infinitive; Verbal Themes

4.3.5.3.3n. Historically, to be sure, one must consider the suffix-tense to be a conjugated

nominal form in light of Akkadian. Accordingly, the participle is not derived from the
suffix-tense; rather, both reflect the same nominal base.
Note the pata˙, which is characteristic of finite verbal forms in the final closed, stressed
syllable (whereas nouns, including participles [bT:k}ni], contain qamaß in this position). For
details, see §3.5.7.1.2, p. 119.

4.3.5.4. Piººel
4.3.5.4.1. It appears that originally the piººel (i.e., the active form of the D-
theme, the theme with doubled second radical) was partly iconic (onomato-
poetic), since the redoubling of the second radical expresses intensity, both
qualitatively (qal rb"v… ‘he broke’, piººel rBEv¥ ‘he broke entirely’) and espe-
cially quantitatively (dq"r; ‘he skipped about’, dQEri ‘he leaped again and again’;
rb"q: ‘he buried [one person]’, rBEq I ‘he buried [several persons]’; μt:aø rTEb"y]w'
rt:b: alø rPøXIh"Ata<w] . . . ‘and he cut them [piººel, because of the plural object]
. . . , and he did not cut the bird [qal, because of the singular object]’ Gen
15:10). Another source of the piººel is its quite frequent denominative use, as
in rC´[I ‘to give tithe’ derived from rc´[“m" ‘tithe’, or ˆNeqI ‘to make a nest’ de-
rived from the noun ˆqE ‘nest’. A special case of the denominative piººel is the
privative use (marking removal), as in aFEjI ‘to remove af}jE (sin)’, i.e.,‘to ex-
piate’, or vrev´ ‘to remove the vr,vø& (root)’, i.e., ‘to eradicate’. Finally, the piººel
frequently has a factitive use, i.e., causing someone to have a certain quality
(in contrast to the causative notion ‘to cause someone to do something’). This
factitive usage is derived from adjectives, including the participles of stative
verbs, as in vDejI ‘to renew’ derived from vd;j: ‘new’, or dB"aI ‘to make it ex-
tinct (dbEaø)’, i.e., ‘to destroy’. However, in Biblical Hebrew the differences be-
tween the factitive piººel and the causative hif ºil have become blurred, and it
is difficult to differentiate between, e.g., vDeqI / vyDiq}hI ‘to consecrate’, i.e., ‘to
make it v/dq: (holy)’, on the one hand, and fV´PI / fyv¥p}hI ‘to strip someone of a
garment’, the causative of fvæP: ‘to strip off one’s garment’, on the other. Even-
tually, the intensive signification of the piººel may lose its special sense and su-
persede the qal without expressing strengthening (as in jb"z; / jB"zi ‘to sacrifice’).
4.3.5.4.1n. According to the view expressed here, the D-theme is not uniform.
In an important paper, A. Goetze (1942: 1–8) established the factitive meaning of the D-
theme in Akkadian. For differing views, see E. Jenni (1968); S. R. Ryder (1974); F. Leem-
huis (1977), as well as various papers (cf. e.g., J. Joosten 1998: 202–30) and the relevant
paragraphs in the grammars.
The piººel frequently supersedes the qal in Rabbinic Hebrew; see Z. Ben-Óayyim 1958–
62: 112–20.
4.3.5.4.2. The 3ms of the suffix-tense reflects a tendency toward using pa-
ta˙ as the characteristic vowel (after the second radical) in context but ßere in
pause. This alternation hints that the original vowel was i, which became a in
00-Blau.book Page 230 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.5.4.2. ∑ Absolute
Piººel Infinitive; Verbal Themes 230

context through the influence of Philippi’s Law, whereas in pause Philippi’s

Law did not operate because of pausal lengthening. In three verbs the Tiberian
vocalization has final segol in context: rB<Di ‘he spoke’, sB<KI ‘he washed’, rP<KI
‘he propitiated’, reflecting, it seems, a side-effect of Philippi’s Law (see
§3.5.8.10, p. 135). The first syllable of the suffix-tense invariably exhibits i. In
Arabic and Gºez, both the first and the second radical have a. Generally, fol-
lowing these languages, a–a is posited as the basic pattern and the Biblical
Hebrew i (e) after the second radical is explained as being due to the analogi-
cal influence of the prefix-tense; i (e) after the first radical is explained as re-
flecting attenuation. The latter assumption, however, is not without difficul-
ties. The extreme inconsistency of attenuation clearly indicates that it is a very
late feature (see §3.5.7.6.13, p. 132); however, the i in the final syllable is at-
tested as early as El-Amarna (see Blau [1971c: 156 = Topics, 178, par. 3.5]
and Rainey [1996]: 2.310–11), and i in both syllables in Phoenician proper
nouns. It is not impossible to regard the i–i pattern as original and to consider
the faººala pattern to be late, due to the analogy of the active qal pattern. It
seems preferable, however, to posit two basic forms from which the suffix-
tense of the active D-theme must be derived, one with a–a, as preserved in
Arabic and Gºez, and one with i–i, corresponding to the u–u stative (purrus)
in Akkadian (and in the causative theme suprus). If this assumption is valid,
the situation in the active D-theme to a certain degree resembles that of qal,
in which the Biblical Hebrew stative suffix-tense paºel / paºol corresponds to
the Akkadian stative paris/parus. Similarly, in piººel, the suffix-tense l[EPI <
*piººil corresponds to the stative purrus of the Akkadian D-theme, whereas
Arabic/Gºez faººala continues the active pattern a–a.
4.3.5.4.2n. For the pausal forms, see E. Qimron (1985–86a: 80); I. Ben-David (1995: 120–
21).
In the Babylonian vocalization, in accordance with its currency in the suffix-tense in
general, pata˙ / segol prevails even in pause (see Yeivin 1985: 514), presumably by anal-
ogy with the contextual forms.
One should not pay too much attention to μyhIløa” yniV& æn'AyKI hV≤n'm} r/kB}h" μv´Ata< πsE/y ar;q}Yiw'
ylIm:[“AlK:Ata< ‘and Joseph called his first born son Menasseh, because God has made me
forget all my trouble’ Gen 41:51, because Menasseh may have given rise to yniV& æn' with a
after the first radical.
For i in both syllables in Phoenician proper nouns, as in . . . sillhc, see Friedrich
1999: 89, par. 144.
The suffix-tense of the causative theme (in BHeb hif ºil ) also has two basic forms; see
§4.3.5.7.4, pp. 234–235.
For BHeb qittil corresponding to Akkad purrus, cf. BHeb aSEKI < Akkad kussu ‘chair’,
as well as adjectives denoting persons affected by bodily defects, such as rWe[I ‘blind’, cor-
responding to Akkad purrus.
For various views and details of the comparative evidence, see H. Torczyner (1910:
269–311); cf. his improved Hebrew edition: N. H. Tur-Sinai (1954: 256–83); Blau (1971c:
152–58 = Topics, 174–80); S. Izre'el (1978: 74–78); Rainey (1996: 2.12; 309–16 [with ad-
ditional literature]); Huehnergard (1992: 209–29); Tropper (2000: 558–59).
00-Blau.book Page 231 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

231 Piººel ∑ 4.3.5.4.4.

Absolute Infinitive; Verbal Themes

4.3.5.4.3. As is usually the case (see §3.5.12.2.4–3.5.12.2.5, p. 146), pausal

forms with penultimate stress, which occur not only in the suffix-tense but in
the prefix-tense and the imperative as well (such as hd;BE&KI, WdB&EKI, WdBE&k"y], ydiBE&k"T},
WdBE&K"), reflect a more archaic structure than the parallel contextual forms
(hd;B}KI, WdB}KI, WdB}k"y], ydiB}k"T}, WdB}K").
4.3.5.4.4. In the prefix-tense (as in the imperative and infinitive) the first
radical is followed by pata˙, the second by ßere, which corresponds to the re-
constructed Proto-Semitic a–i pattern. The Proto-Semitic vocalization of the
prefix is u, as demonstrated by Akkadian and Classical Arabic on the oppo-
site edges of Semitic. Since, however, after the emergence of the internal pas-
sive, u was felt to mark the passive, in Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic u was
eliminated and a substituted for it, as demonstrated by BHeb vQEb"a“ (rather
than vQEb"a*’ ) and Ugaritic ªabqt ‘I will ask’.
4.3.5.4.4n. Whereas pata˙ rather than ßere prevails after the second radical in the suffix-
tense in contextual forms as a result of Philippi’s Law, in the prefix-tense, both in pause
and in context, only ßere occurs. In the Babylonian vocalization, however, pata˙ /segol
does occur in context, especially preceding r. It appears that, in the Tiberian tradition,
pausal forms, not affected by Philippi’s Law because of pausal lengthening and, therefore,
preserving ßere, have superseded the contextual forms, in which i has shifted to a. In the
2fp and 3fp of the prefix-tense (as well as in the 2fp of the imperative), the Babylonian tra-
dition reflects a by Philippi’s Law: wat-t´dabbárna ‘and they spoke’, in contradistinction
to the Tiberian vocalization, in which forms with pata˙ (such as hn;p}a"&n;T} ‘the women com-
mit adultery’ Hos 4:13) are quite exceptional and ßere prevails (thus, hn;r]BE&d'T}).
In Gºez the prefix vowel has short e < u (although, theoretically, in this language i too
shifts to e).
The active form was, as stated, originally *ªufaººil, the passive form *ªufaººal, the op-
position being indicateded by i : a, and not by u, the usual mark of the passive.
Should one also assume that the first a of the prefix-tense of piººel reflects the impact of
the yaqattvl form (for which, see §4.3.2.2.14, p. 196) before its disappearance? R. Steiner
(1980: 513–18) posited the prefix vowel a only for Ugaritic, whereas for Biblical Hebrew
(as well as for Aramaic) he suggested i. This assumption may be buttressed by the prefix
vowel i in El-Amarna in both the D-theme and the causative theme (see Rainey 1996:
2.134; 190–94); however, as noted by both Steiner and Rainey, its attestation is somewhat
ambiguous. Steiner relies primarily on the Babylonian tradition of Biblical Hebrew; how-
ever, forms such as Babylonian ªedabber ‘I will speak’ do not necessarily attest to an
original prefix vowel i ; cf. e.g., qal imperative forms such as Babylonian ªemaß ‘be
strong!’ < *ªåmaß (see Yeivin 1985: 482–83). If one nevertheless accepts Steiner’s sug-
gestion of the prefix vowel i in piººel, one may perhaps derive it by analogy with puººal. In
puººal, original *yufaººal shifted to *y´faººal, which was restructured to l["pUy] with u as the
mark of the passive (see §4.3.5.5.2, p. 232). In the 1s, the aleph originally had the vocal-
ization ø, being derived from u: dB"kUa’*. By the well-known dissimilation of o . . . u > i . . .
u (see §1.19.8, p. 58) it shifted to *ª îkubbad, and piººel, which had the same prefix vowel
as puººal in all the other persons, viz., swa, was restructured according to it. This, how-
ever, is mere speculation. Tropper’s suggestion (2000: 545) that the Ugaritic prefix vowel
a may represent an indefinite reduced vowel contravenes the fact that vowels in this posi-
tion are not reduced in Ugaritic (cf., e.g., the participle of the D-theme opening with mu-;
see §4.3.5.4.5 below).
00-Blau.book Page 232 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.5.4.5. ∑ Absolute
Puººal; Hitpaººel
Infinitive; Verbal Themes 232

4.3.5.4.5. The participle begins with m, which originally had the vowel u,
based on the testimony of Akkadian, Classical Arabic, and Ugaritic (see Trop-
per 2000: 562).
4.3.5.4.5n. The parallel nouns in Gºez have ma-.

4.3.5.5. Puººal
4.3.5.5.1. The puººal is the (internal) passive of the piººel. Like the internal
passive in general (see §4.3.5.1.1, p. 216; §4.3.5.8.1, p. 236), its characteristic
vowel is u. Since u preceding a doubled consonant is, as a rule, preserved and
does not shift to qamaß qa†an, forms with qamaß qa†an preceding the second
radical are rare (in contradistinction to hof ºal): μymID;a:m} ‘reddened’.
4.3.5.5.2. According to the evidence from Classical Arabic, apparently the
original form of the suffix-tense was *puººila with i in the second syllable.
The Hebrew a in these forms (dB"KU) seems to be partly due to the analogical
pressure of the prefix-tense (dB"kUy]) and partly to the influence of Philippi’s
Law. dB"kUy] itself arose, it seems, from *yupöaººal(u), as attested by Ancient Ca-
naanite (see Rainey 1996: 2.180) and Classical Arabic yuqattal(u): the u in the
prefix was reduced in open unstressed syllables and, because the passive was
felt to be closely connected to u, it was restructured to l["pUy] with u (after the
first radical) as the mark of the passive. The participle, originally *muqattal,
developed in a similar way. No imperative is attested from puººal, as expected
from a passive pattern. /t/N[U ‘his being afflicted’ Ps 132:1 perhaps reflects a
construct infinitive.
4.3.5.5.2n. It seems less likely to posit *yuquttal (u) as the original prefix form from which
the Biblical Hebrew form can be derived directly; in this case, the Ancient Canaanite and
Arabic form ( yuqattal ) would then be due to the impact of the active ( piººel ) prefix-tense
with a after the first radical.
4.3.5.5.3. As usual (see §3.5.12.2.4–3.5.12.2.5, p. 146), pausal forms with
penultimate stress, such as WdB:&KU, WdB&:kUy], reflect a more archaic structure than
the parallel contextual forms with final stress (such as WdB}KU, WdB}kUy]).

4.3.5.6. Hitpaººel
4.3.5.6.1. The hitpaººel is, as a rule, used as the reflexive of piººel: dBEKI ‘to
honor’, dBEK"t}hI ‘to honor oneself’. It may also denote reciprocal action: War;t}TI
‘you look on each other’ Gen 42:l; note that in this case reciprocity refers to a
verb in the qal: ha:r; ‘to see’. The possibility must not be ruled out that this
form was originally the t-form of qal and was transferred to the hitpaººel after
the t-form of the qal had fallen into desuetude. Denominative hitpaººel may
denote pretension, as in lDeG't}hI ‘he pretended to be great’, hL:j"t}hI ‘he pre-
tended to be sick’.

spread is 6 points short

00-Blau.book Page 233 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

233 Themes ∑ 4.3.5.6.4.

Absolute Infinitive; VerbalHitpaººel

4.3.5.6.2. The t of the hitpaººel prefix may be affected by changes. If the

first radical is a sibilant, metathesis obtains (ËPET"v‘hI ‘to pour itself’); t partly
assimilates to ßade (in addition to metathesis: qDef"x}hI ‘to justify oneself’) and
totally to a dental (aM:F"yi ‘to defile oneself’; WaK}D'yi ‘to let themselves be
crushed’; however, note Judg 19:22 μyqIP}D't}mI ‘beating violently’).
4.3.5.6.3. Whereas in Biblical Hebrew the t of hitpaººel is devoid of a
vowel, in Arabic it is followed by a: taqattala. This may reflect a Proto-
Semitic doublet (cf. §4.3.5.3.2n, p. 228, as to nif ºal); cf. BHeb μv´ ‘name’, ˆBE
‘son’, in contrast to Arab ªism, ªibn. Nevertheless, as in the case of nif ºal, it is
not unlikely that in Proto-Semitic, in the suffix-tense t was followed by a,
whereas in the prefix-tense it was devoid of a vowel, as maintained in Gºez,
which then, according to the principle of archaic heterogeneity, would have
preserved the Proto-Semitic feature. In Biblical Hebrew, the vocalization of
the prefix-tense prevailed, whereas its homogeneous formation with a in Ara-
bic is due to the analogical influence of the prefix-tense. The h of hitpaººel
may be primary; it may, however, be due to the influence of hif ºil.
4.3.5.6.4. In the Babylonian vocalization, the second radical is followed by
pata˙/segol in context in the whole paradigm of hitpaººel (with the exception
of the participle, which reflects ßere), and by qamaß in pause (Yeivin 1985:
550ff.). That a was indeed the original characteristic vowel of both the
prefix- and suffix-tense (as well as the imperative), is demonstrated by Se-
mitic languages (Classical Arabic, Gºez), on the one hand, and vestiges of the
Tiberian tradition (especially the occurrence of qamaß in pause), on the other.
In the Tiberian vocalization, by the influence of the piººel, ßere has penetrated
the whole paradigm of hitpaººel; however, as stated, vestiges of the original
pata˙ are well attested (πN'a"t}hI ‘he was angry’ Deut 1:37; qZ'j"t}niw] ‘and let us
strengthen ourselves’ 2 Sam 10:12; gN'["t}hI ‘delight yourself’ Ps 37:4). More-
over, the fact that qamaß prevailed in Tiberian vocalization in pause (e.g.,
ˆn;/Bt}hI ‘he considered’ Isa 1:3; WlL:&P"t}yi ‘they will pray’ Isa 45:14; WvD;&qt
" }hI ‘they
sanctified themselves’ 2 Chr 5:11) clearly suggests that the original vowel of
the second radical of hitpaººel was a. The (original) ßere in the participle was
long (in the pre-Tiberian period), as in every absolute noun, but short in the
finite forms of the verbs, as proven by its alternation with pata˙.

4.3.5.6.4n. Even in the 2/3fp form of the prefix-tense, alongside pata˙ (hn;k}L"&h"t}TIw' ‘they
walked to and fro’ Zech 6:7), which reflects original pata˙ on the one hand and the action
of Philippi’s Law on the other. ßere is attested as well (hn;k}PE&T"v‘TI ‘they are poured out’
Lam 4:1).
Note that in hitpaººel as well the syllable structure of the pausal forms is more archaic
than that of the contextual forms!
The fact that the original vowel of the second radical was a in Tiberian demonstrates
that the principle of archaic heterogeneity has to be applied judiciously and must not be
carried to excess. Tiberian vocalization, to be sure, reflects diversity, which however may
00-Blau.book Page 234 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.5.7. ∑ Hif
Absolute
ºil Infinitive; Verbal Themes 234

easily be accounted for by the assumption of a as the characteristic vowel in both the
suffix- and prefix-tenses, influenced by the e of the piººel.

4.3.5.7. Hif ºil

4.3.5.7.1. The hif ºil serves mainly as the causative of the qal. However,
the hif ºil may be stative as well, especially when derived from adjectives:
vyrij”h< ‘he was vrejE, i.e., mute, he was silent’; ˆyBIl}hI ‘he was ˆb:l:, i.e., white’;
ˆyqIz]hI ‘he became ˆqEz;, i.e., old’; cf. also lyKIc‘hI, derived from the substantive
lk<c& ´ ‘cleverness’, i.e., ‘to be clever, to understand’. Close to the causative
sense is the declarative: ‘to declare someone as such and such’, as in qyDix}hI
‘to declare someone to be qyDixI, i.e., righteous, just’; and similarly ['yv¥r]hI ‘to
declare someone to be [v…r;, i.e., guilty’. Privative usage is rare, e.g., vyri/h ‘to
disinherit, to exterminate’, literally, ‘to remove the hV…rUy], i.e., the inheritance’.
4.3.5.7.1n. Causative usage means causing someone to do something, such as aybIhE ‘he
caused to come’, i.e., ‘he brought’; lykIa”h< ‘he caused to eat’, i.e., ‘he fed’. For the differ-
ence between causative and factitive, cf. §4.3.5.4.1, p. 229.
4.3.5.7.2. The hif ºil is marked by h preceding the vowelless first radical;
however, it is elided in word-medial position, i.e., after the prefixes of the
prefix-tense and the m- of the participle, as is the case with h on the border of
two morphemes (i.e., in internal open juncture; see §3.3.5.3.3.1, p. 92).
4.3.5.7.3. Many Semitic languages also have h in the causative, but others
have s. Even among the closely related dialects of Epigraphic South Arabian,
Sabaic has h, the other languages s. Moreover, in the t-form of the causative,
many h/aleph languages (viz., Classical Arabic, Gºez, Sabaic, as well as mod-
ern South Arabian) exhibit st, presumably owing to the phonetic difficulty of
adding t to h/aleph. The same alternation h/s occurs in the third-person per-
sonal pronoun (see §§4.2.2.4–4.2.2.4.2, pp. 162–163), usually parallel to the
causative theme; only Ugaritic has h in the pronoun, s in the causative. It
seems that this alternation reflects an ancient dialectal feature that already ex-
isted in Proto-Semitic: h/s are presumably pronominal elements, identical to
those contained in the third-person personal pronoun, and their interchange
seems to be a morphophonemic, rather than a phonological, phenomenon. See
§4.2.2.4, pp. 162–163.
4.3.5.7.3n. In addition to h, some languages exhibit its phonetic alternative, aleph. Phoe-
nician has y, presumably a secondary development (perhaps a glide that developed after
negative yaI?).
It is only in Aramaic that the t-theme is derived from the h /aleph form.
In Old Akkadian, ¶ rather than s begins both the saf ºel and the personal pronouns of
the third person.
4.3.5.7.4. In Arabic and Gºez both the first and the second radical have a.
Vestiges of a after the first radical have been preserved in Biblical Hebrew in
00-Blau.book Page 235 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

235 Hif ºil ∑ 4.3.5.7.5.

Absolute Infinitive; Verbal Themes

I-w verbs: dylI/h ‘to beget’, which developed from *hawlid. Remnants of a
after the second radical may have been preserved after the second radical in
geminate verbs such as lq"hE ‘to show contempt’ (if it does not reflect the effect
of Philippi’s Law). As a rule, on the basis of the evidence from these lan-
guages, a–a is posited as the basic pattern. In Biblical Hebrew, the pattern i (e)
after the second radical is explained as being due to the analogical influence of
the prefix-tense, whereas after the first radical it is explained as reflecting at-
tenuation (cf. the parallel situation in the piººel; see §4.3.5.4.2, pp. 229–230).
This theory, however, is not without difficulties (even more than in the case of
piººel). The extreme inconsistency of attenuation clearly indicates that it is a
very late feature; nevertheless, the i in both the first and the final syllables is
attested as early as El-Amarna: hi-ih-bé-e = ayBIj}h< ‘he hid’. Moreover, the
ßere in the prefix of geminate and II-w/y verbs stands in an open syllable (bsEhE
‘he turned’, μyqIhE ‘he established’), which is not affected by attenuation. As in
the case of piººel, it is not impossible to regard the i–i pattern as original and
to consider the ªaf ºala pattern to be late, owing to the analogy of the active qal
pattern. It seems preferable, however, to posit two basic forms from which
the suffix-tense of the active causative theme must be derived (see Blau
1971c: 152–58 = Topics, 174–80): one with a–a, as preserved in Arabic and
Gºez, and one with i–i, corresponding to the u–u stative (suprus) in Akkadian.
According to this theory, the situation in the active causative-theme to a cer-
tain degree resembles that of qal (as was the case also with piººel), in which
the Biblical Hebrew stative suffix-tense paºel/ paºol corresponds to the Akka-
dian stative paris/parus. Similarly, in the hif ºil, the suffix-tense ly[Ip}hI <
*hif ºil corresponds to the stative suprus of the Akkadian causative theme,
whereas Arabic/Gºez ªaf ºala continues the active pattern a–a.
4.3.5.7.4n. Two basic forms are posited for the suffix-tense of the hif ºil in a manner similar
to the case of the piººel; see §4.3.5.4.2n, p. 230, where extensive literature is cited.

4.3.5.7.5. The second radical may be followed by i, e, or a. The long i after

the second radical is very surprising indeed, since it appears in syllables that
were open in Proto-Hebrew in contradistinction to all the other Semitic lan-
guges. Accordingly, it is attested in dyBIk}hI < *hikbida, dyBIk}y' < *yakbidu, as well
as the construct infinitive dyBIk]h" < *hakbidu. Since long vowels in closed syl-
lables were shortened in Proto-Hebrew (and, it seems, in Proto-Semitic; see
§3.5.12.2.14n, p. 151), the i in this position was shortened. This accounts for the
ßere in the imperative dBEk}h" and the short prefix-tense dBEk}y,' dBEk}Y'w' as well as for
i > a (Philippi’s Law) in yTId]B"&k}h,I etc. Since this long i in hif ºil can only be ac-
counted for in II-w/y verbs (μyqIh,E μyqIy); , its occurrence in strong verbs can only
be explained by the assumption of analogy with II-w/y verbs.
4.3.5.7.5n. The absolute infinitive, like the imperative, is dBEk}h", which is rather surprising.
If one posits that the absolute infinitive had case endings, since it was a nominal form, it
00-Blau.book Page 236 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.5.7.6. ∑ Absolute
Hif ºil; Hof
Infinitive;
ºal Verbal Themes 236

should have contained i, standing in an open syllable. I wonder whether or not the absolute
infinitive dBEk}h" arose through the influence of the imperative. It could also be assumed that
the absolute infinitive, because of its verbal nature, had no case endings. This, however,
goes against the evidence of the qal absolute infinitive l/[P: < *faºal, containing long a,
which could only occur in open syllables. It seems somewhat far-fetched to derive the ab-
solute infinitives of qal and hif ºil from different sources, as if qal paºol was a nominal
form terminating in case endings, in contrast to the verbal character of hif ºil infinitive
hapöºel with W ending. One could also posit that the absolute infinitive was always without
case endings, but in the qal it terminated in the suffix -i, as reflected by Arab faºali. How-
ever, in III-laryngeal/pharyngeal verbs the absolute infinitive reflects a final long vowel:
['mEV…hI, ['mEv‘h" (see §4.3.7.3.4n, p. 240). Should one assume that the absolute infinitive
hif ºil of II-w/y verbs (such as μqhE : ‘to establish’) reflects a biradical structure and that the
haf ºel of strong verbs was rebuilt on its pattern?
ˆT<d]B"k}hI / μT<d]B"k}hI in the 2p of the suffix-tense, stressed on its last syllable, is due to the
paradigmatic pressure of yTId]B"&k}hI, etc. However, the suffixless forms of the short prefix-
tense and the imperative (as well as the absolute infinitive) contain ßere rather than pata˙
according to Philippi’s Law, perhaps through the influence of the pausal forms.
4.3.5.7.6. As in the piººel, the original Proto-Semitic prefix vowel of the
hif ºil prefix-tense was u, in accordance with the testimony of both Akkadian
and Classical Arabic; however, in Ugaritic it was superseded by a (for the
possible reason, see §4.3.5.4.4, p. 231). However, BHeb dyBIk}y' with a may be
derived from both *yuhakbid and *yahakbid (cf. the participle dyBIk}m", which
may be derived from both *muhakbid and *mahakbid ). The parallel devel-
opment of the piººel (see §4.3.5.4.4, p. 231) prima facie attests to original
*yahakbid.
4.3.5.7.7. Since in hb:yTI&k}hI, WbyTI&k}T", ybIyTI&k}h", etc., the penultimate syllable
had a long vowel, the stress did not shift to the final syllable even in contex-
tual forms, contrary to other verbal themes.

4.3.5.8. Hof ºal

4.3.5.8.1. The hof ºal (huf ºal) is the internal passive of hif ºil, marked, as in
the puººal, by u, which on this verbal theme precedes the first radical. This u
however, as a rule, shifts in the Tiberian vocalization to qamaß (qa†an); never-
theless, exceptions do occur, as in Ël"v‘hU ‘to be thrown’, alongside Ël"v‘h:. In the
participle, perhaps through the influence of the m, u prevails: Ël:v‘mU, yet qamaß
qa†an does occur, as in rz;v‘m: ‘twisted’. In I-laryngeal/pharyngeal verbs, the
first radical is preceded by qamaß qa†an even in the participle. However, in
verbs in which the u is followed by a doubled consonant (especially in I-n
verbs, such as vG'hU ‘to be brought near’ from root ngs), only u is attested, be-
cause u is usually preserved preceding a doubled consonant.
4.3.5.8.2. According to the evidence from Classical Arabic, it appears that
the original form of the suffix-tense was *ªupöºila with i in the second syllable.
The Hebrew a after the second radical in these forms (dB"k}hU) is, it seems,
partly due to the analogical pressure of the prefix-tense and partly to the influ-
ence of Philippi’s Law.

spread is 6 points long

00-Blau.book Page 237 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

237 Rare
Absolute
Verbal
Infinitive;
Themes; Verbal Themes ∑ 4.3.7.1.2.
I-Laryngeals

4.3.5.8.2n. The original *i in the second syllable of the suffix-tense is still rarely pre-
served, as in hj:yNi‡hUw] ‘and she was granted rest’ Zech 5:11.

4.3.6. Rare Verbal Themes

4.3.6.1. In strong verbs, it is only rarely that the third radical is repeated:
hl:l}m}aU ‘it languished’ Isa 24:4, and the same applies to the reduplication of
the second and third radicals: Wrm:&r]m"j’ ‘they are in ferment’ Lam 1:20. Cf. also
hw;j“T"v‘hI ‘he bowed down’, reflecting, at least synchronically, the repetition of
the last radical w (the root is wjv; one w is represented by w, the second by the
final h-;; cf. also tv≤q <& ywej“f"m}KI ‘about a bowshot away’ Gen 21:16).
4.3.6.1n. On the other hand, the same verb in Ugaritic synchronically reflects the histaf ºel
of ˙wy. Historically, however, the related Biblical Hebrew verb s˙˙ ‘to be bowed down’
attests that the s was radical rather than afformative.
4.3.6.2. It is not certain whether forms such as r[Esøy] ‘it swirls’ Hos 13:3,
correspond to the verbal theme *paºal with long a after the first radical. The
form is well attested in Classical Arabic, G’ez, and modern South Arabian
dialects, being, it seems, one of the characteristics of Southwest Semitic (cf.,
e.g., Kienast 2001: 232–33, par. 198.5). For special patterns in II-w/y verbs
and mediae geminatae, see §4.3.8.7.5, pp. 256ff.
4.3.6.3. The conjugation of quadriradical verbs parallels that of piººel,
puººal: hN;m<s}r]k"y] ‘it tears it off’ Ps 80:14, similar to hN;r,B}væy]; μG;r]tUm} ‘translated’
Ezra 4:7, similar to rB:v¨m}.

4.3.7. Phonological Variations

4.3.7.1. I-Laryngeals/Pharyngeals
4.3.7.1.1. In the prefix-tense (as well as the imperative and infinitive) of
the nif ºal, the prefix always has ßere as compensation for the lack of doubling
of the first radical. Even preceding ˙, ßere occurs, and this generally does not
give rise to vowel lengthening as compensation for the lack of doubling (see
§3.3.3.1.3, p. 82): bv´j:hE ‘to be accounted’. This applies also to r: πder;y e ‘to be
pursued’.
4.3.7.1.2. The prefix in the suffix-tense of nif ºal and hif ºil is vocalized
with segol, which arose from i (preceding the laryngeal/pharyngeal, by partial
assimilation; see §3.3.3.3.3, p. 84; this does not apply to I-r): db"[”n,, dybI[”h<.
hof ºal always has qamaß qa†an, rather than u: db"[’h:. When the laryngeal/pha-
ryngeal is vowelless (with quiescent swa), it need not change (especially pre-
ceding b, g, d, k, p, t, even with aleph: μyDia}y' ‘to become red’, ryDia}y' ‘to make
glorious’). It may, however, develop a ˙a†af in accordance with the preceding
vowel: dybIa“m" ‘to destroy’, dybIa”h<; dm:[’m: ‘to be caused to stand’. The vowel
preceding the laryngeal/pharyngeal with ˙a†af is not lengthened, although it
now stands in an open syllable. It seems that this opening belongs to a late
00-Blau.book Page 238 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.7.1.3. ∑ Absolute
I/II Laryngeals
Infinitive; Verbal Themes 238

period in which short vowels could stand in open syllables, presumably be-
cause no quantitative differences between vowels obtained, and all classes of
vowels were able to stand in every kind of syllable. Forms with lengthening of
the preceding vowel are attested rarely, as in T:r]b"&[“hE ‘you transferred’ Josh
7:7; Wl[“TEw' ‘and you went up’ Ezek 36:3; hl:[“hø ‘was offered’ Judg 6:28.
4.3.7.1.2n. It is also possible that the preservation of the short vowel is due to some extent
to the impact of forms without ˙a†af, i.e., with quiescent swa, which alternated with the
˙a†af forms.
Note that the ˙a†af after these lengthened vowels is ˙a†af pata˙.
4.3.7.1.3. In the prefix-tense of the qal, the difference between yiq†al and
yaq†ul is well preserved (cf. §4.3.5.2.3.1, p. 221), but yaq†il has disappeared.
The i of the prefix of yiq†al assimilates to the following laryngeal/pharyngeal,
to become segol (cf. §4.3.7.1.2 above): dr'j”T< ‘you are/she is terrified’ whereas
the a of yaq†ul is preserved: vbø j“y' ‘he binds’. Aleph tends to segol: in the first-
person singular of the prefix-tense, even in that of the yaq†ul pattern, it has se-
gol: vbøj”a<, and segol is indeed the usual vowel of the prefixes of the yaq†ul
pattern of I-aleph verbs: rgoa”y, ‘he gathers’ hn;r]goa”T<; cf. the imperative of the qal
≈m"a” ‘be strong!’, rgoa” (in contrast to ld'j“ ‘cease!’, vbøj“ in non-aleph verbs).
4.3.7.1.3n. However, preceding the vowelless second radical, the tendency is to use pata˙
– pata˙, instead of the expected segol – segol, especially in the yaq†ul pattern of I-aleph
verbs: yrig]a"T"‚ Wrg]a"y' because of a (somewhat limited) inclination of ha†af segol to change to
˙a†af pata˙ with the shift of the stress; cf. μ/da” ‘Edom’, ymIdøa“ ‘Edomite’.
4.3.7.1.4. Quite different is the conjugation of the very frequent verb hy;h:
‘to be’, root hyy (and similarly hy;j: ‘to live’, root ˙yy). The first radical often
preserves the quiescent swa, and prefixes frequently behave as if they did not
precede a laryngeal/pharyngeal: hy,h}TI, hy,j}yi, hy;h}ni, and even with swa medium:
μt<yyih}wi, μt,yyij}wi.
4.3.7.1.4n. yj" is formed according to the pattern of verbs mediae geminatae.

4.3.7.2. II-Laryngeals/Pharyngeals
4.3.7.2.1. For the differences in compensation for the doubling of the
second radical in piººel, puººal, and hitpaººel, see §3.3.3.1.6, p. 83. Accord-
ingly, in contradistinction to the compensation for the doubling in raEPE ‘he
glorified’, ra"Pø ‘he is glorified’, raEP:t}hI ‘he glorified himself’, it is absent in μjEni
‘he consoled’, μj"nu ‘he was consoled’, μjEn't}hI ‘he comforted himself’. Note that
in puººal the u preceding ª, h, º, and r always changes to o, as in μylIh:bøm} ‘has-
tened’, and the vowel preceding r in this position always changes: vreGe ‘he
drove out’, vreg;y]. i is sometimes preserved even when preceding aleph: ≈aEni ‘he
condemned’; with a, pata˙ and qamaß alternate: yx"a“n'm} / yx"a“n;m} ‘those who con-
demn me’.
4.3.7.2.2. For a mobile swa following ª, h, ˙, or º (yet not r), ˙a†af pata˙ is
regularly substituted: hl:a“v… ‘she asked’, Wla“v‘yi, μylIa“/v.

spread is 12 points long

00-Blau.book Page 239 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

239 Absolute Infinitive; Verbal Themes ∑ 4.3.7.3.4.

II/III-Laryngeals

4.3.7.2.3. The characteristic vowel of the prefix-tense, etc., is, as a rule, a,

through assimilation to the preceding laryngeal/pharyngeal: l["m}yi ‘he acts
treacherously’; o is exceptional: l[øm}TI.
4.3.7.2.4. Preceding a laryngeal/pharyngeal followed by swa medium, the
consonant cluster is opened (by assimilation to the laryngeal/pharyngeal) by a,
rather than by i as usual: ylIa“væ ‘ask!’; Wfj“væ ‘slaughter!’ (in contrast to ybIt}KI;
Wgr]hI ‘kill!’).
4.3.7.2.4n. This does not, however, apply to r.

4.3.7.3. III-Laryngeals/Pharyngeals
4.3.7.3.1. To this category belong not only III-˙/º but also III-h verbs (i.e.,
those few verbs that terminate in consonantal h, in final position marked by
mappiq: Hb"G; ‘to be high’, Hm"T: ‘to wonder’, Hm"K: ‘to faint, to tarry’). However,
at the same time, III-r verbs behave as strong verbs (if one disregards a certain
inclination to a), and III-aleph verbs are veritable weak verbs.
4.3.7.3.1n. Cf. §3.5.11.8, p. 142; one must not mix up these genuine III-h verbs with the
III-y verbs, which very often terminate in the vowel letter h: hl:G: ‘he uncovered’; hn,q}yi ‘he
will buy’.
4.3.7.3.2. Vowelless laryngeals/pharyngeals do not generate ˙a†af:
yTI[}m"&v… ‘I heard’, etc. They are vocalized with ˙a†af only preceding pronomi-
nal suffixes, perhaps because of the shift of the stress. The ˙a†af is attested in
the 1p of the suffix-tense: WhWn‡[“L"BI ‘we have swallowed him’ Ps 35:25, as well
as before pronominal suffixes bearing stress (Ú-, μk<-, ˆk<-): Új“l:v‘a< ‘I shall send
you’ 1 Sam 16:1; μk<[“væy ow] ‘and let him save you’ Isa 35:4.
4.3.7.3.2n. Nevertheless, the 2p of the suffix-tense (as in μT<&j‘l"v‘, etc.) is always without
˙a†af, despite the shift of stress, perhaps through the influence of the forms in which stress
preceded the laryngeal/pharyngeal (as yTIj}l"&v…, T:j}l"&v…), as well as the inclination to pre-
serve the occlusive pronunciation of the t.
The ˙a†af is less frequent preceding t, presumably because of its propensity for occlu-
sive pronunciation (which was preserved even in the 2fs of the suffix-tense after an anap-
tyctic vowel, such as T}j"l"&v…, etc.; see §4.3.7.3.3 below).
4.3.7.3.3. In the 2fs of the suffix-tense an anaptyctic vowel a develops,
which does not, however, turn the following t into a spirant, presumably be-
cause of its propensity for occlusive pronunciation: T}j"l"v & …; T}j"q&"l: ‘you took’
(in contrast to tj"q"&l: ‘to take’); T}j"l"v
& ‘ni ‘you were sent’ (in contrast to the par-
ticiple tj"l"v
& ‘ni).
4.3.7.3.4. Through the influence of the laryngeal/pharyngeal, a preceding
ßere, when it represents an originally short vowel (in the pre-Tiberian period),
has a propensity to shift to a: jL"v¥, jL"væy], jL"væ.
4.3.7.3.4n. That ßere represents an originally short vowel can be demonstrated by internal
reconstruction (see §3.3.3.3.1n, p. 84), on the strength of the parallel pata˙. This is the
00-Blau.book Page 240 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.7.3.5. ∑ Absolute
Laryngeals/Pharyngeals;
Infinitive; Verbal I-aleph
ThemesVerbs 240

case in the contextual forms of the full verbal forms, i.e., in the suffix-tenses, the prefix-
tenses, and the imperative. On the other hand, the ßere, whenever originally long, tends to
be preserved (and is, accordingly, followed by pata˙ furtivum). This is the case in pause,
where the ßere is long owing to pausal lengthening (as in ['mEV…y i in contrast to [m"V…yi in con-
text). Futhermore, this is the case in the nominal forms of the verb, i.e., in the participle
and the infinitives (as in ['mE/v [in construct μY;h" [g'rø ‘disturbing the sea’ Isa 51:15, since
construct forms contain a short vowel in closed final stressed syllables], j'LEvæm}, and the in-
finitive ['mEV…hI in contrast to the imperative [m"V…hI). Nevertheless, exceptions frequently oc-
cur in the construct infinitive, such as jL"væl} alongside j'LEvæl}, and even in hif ºil not only
j'ykI/h ‘to rebuke’ Hab 1:12 occurs but also jk"/hl}h" ‘is it to rebuke?’ Job 6:26.

4.3.7.3.5. In the prefix-tense and the imperative of qal, through the influ-
ence of the laryngeals/pharyngeals, the pattern yif ºal, f´ºal prevails: [m"v‘y,i
[m"v‘ (see §4.3.5.2.6.1, p. 226).

4.3.8. The Weak Verbs

4.3.8.1. Introduction
4.3.8.1.1. Now we will treat verbs in which one of the radicals is apt to be
absent (with or without doubling of the following consonant) or to appear as
a long vowel. In this connection, we will return to the problem of biradical
roots.

4.3.8.2. Weak I-aleph Verbs

4.3.8.2.1. Regular I-aleph verbs behave as I-laryngeals/pharyngeals.
Some, however—viz., db"a: ‘to perish’, lk"a: ‘to eat’, rm"a: ‘to say’, as well as two
verbs which also belong to III-y, i.e., hb:a: ‘to be willing’ and hp:a: ‘to bake’—
differ in the formation of the prefix-tense of the qal (see the paradigm on
p. 297).
4.3.8.2.2. For the development of these “weak” forms, see above, §3.3.4.2.1,
p. 87. Note a pausal form such as rmEaTø, which seems to reflect an earlier stage
than rm"aTø. It is reasonable to posit *táªmur > *tamur > *tomur as the starting
point. By vowel dissimilation (see §1.19.9, p. 58) rmEaTø arose. This form was
preserved in pause, in which because of pausal lengthening Philippi’s Law did
not act because it is restricted to short vowels. In context, however, where
short i appeared in a closed stressed syllable, it shifted to a and was also mar-
ginally influenced by the rarity of the yaf ºil pattern and the following r. This
original state, however, has been blurred and pata˙ is attested in pause as well,
as in rm"&aYow' (see §3.5.13.4, p. 154). At the same time, in zja ‘to grasp’, ßere pre-
vailed in context: zjEayo.
4.3.8.2.3. In some verbs, doublets of weak and strong formations occur, as
in zj<Tø&w' (spelled without aleph, 2 Sam 20:7) ‘and it grasped’ alongside zjøa”Y,w',
πsETø (spelled without aleph, Ps 104:29) ‘you will collect’ in contrast to πsøa”T<.
00-Blau.book Page 241 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

241 Absolute Infinitive; VerbalI-n Verbs ∑ 4.3.8.3.3.

Themes

4.3.8.3. I-n Verbs

4.3.8.3.1. If the n is immediately followed by a consonant (which, in this
case, is the second radical, the n being the first one), it is assimilated to it:
*ªœnpol > lPøa<. But if the second radical is a laryngeal/pharyngeal, the n is not
as a rule assimilated: tj"n]TIw' ‘and it went down’ Ps 38:3.
4.3.8.3.1n. The preservation of the n preceding laryngeals/pharyngeals does not establish
the existence of the weakening at an early period, although it is attested by the consonantal
text. The inclination toward refraining from doubling laryngeals/pharyngeals whenever
possible is widespread even in languages in which the doubling of laryngeals/pharyngeals
has been preserved. Thus, in the official reading of the Qurªan, the tajwid, there is a ten-
dency to assimilate a final n to the first consonant of the following word; but if the next
word begins with a laryngeal/pharyngeal, the assimilation does not take place.
The unassimilated form tj"n]TIw' occurs alongside tj"TE. The n is also assimilated to ˙ in
μj"ni ‘he had compassion’, the nif ºal of n˙m < *nin˙am. Among the laryngeals/pharyngeals,
only ˙ assimilates to a preceding n. This fact provides an additional indication that ˙ lost
the ability to be doubled comparatively late (a conclusion also supported by the rarity of
compensatory lengthening of the vowel preceding a ˙ that should have been doubled).

4.3.8.3.2. In other cases, it is only rarely that no assimilation takes place.

O. Rössler (1961: 445; 1962: 125–41) claimed that these forms did not assim-
ilate their n because the n was originally followed by a vowel, occurring in
forms parallel to Akkadian iparras and Gºez y´nagger (cf. above §4.3.2.2.14,
p. 196). Accordingly, a form such as Wrxø&n]yi ‘they will guard’ Deut 33:9 reflects
original *yanaßßar(u) or a similar pattern. If we could substantiate this theory,
it would be of no mean importance, because it would attest the existence of a
second prefix-tense in a West Semitic language. However, Rössler failed to
demonstrate that these forms with n have a function which differs in any way
from the n-less forms. Therefore, we tend to adopt A. Bloch’s view (1963: 41–
50) that the n-forms are merely dialectal and stylistic variants, and, in spite of
Rössler’s qualifications, one must also take into consideration Bergsträsser’s
claim (1918–29: 2.122) that n-forms are comparatively frequent in pause.
4.3.8.3.2n. Bergsträsser assumed that these pausal forms do not reflect the living, spoken
language. Apparently, pausal forms in general fulfilled an important function in the sol-
emn reading of the Scriptures, and, accordingly, pausal forms tended to be longer than
contextual ones. This feature is reflected by pausal lengthening, which caused longer
forms to prevail in pause (pausal Wrmø&v‘yi in contrast to Wrm}v‘yi in context), by the use of III-y
verbs with y in pause, and by the penetration of yq†lun into the pause. Cf. also μg' yniWB&s"
yniWb&b:s} ‘they have surroundeed me, indeed they have surrounded me’ Ps 118:11. Accord-
ingly, it is quite likely that Wrxø&n]yi, being longer than WrXø&yi* (because the latter contained a
lengthened rather than a doubled ß), was preferred in pause.

4.3.8.3.3. The imperative of the qal with a as the characteristic vowel is

formed without n: vG' ‘come near!’, ac… ‘lift!’. This occurs also with the con-
struct infinitive (which is then expanded by the feminine ending; or more cor-
rectly, which because of its shortness has preserved the feminine ending):
00-Blau.book Page 242 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.8.3.4. ∑ Absolute
I-n VerbsInfinitive; Verbal Themes 242

*gast > tv≤G‡ ,. This is also the case with the only verb that has preserved i as the
characteristic vowel: ˆTE ‘give!’, tTE < *tint.
4.3.8.3.4. ntn is also exceptional in being the only verb in which n as the
third radical is assimilated to an immediately following consonant: T:t"&n;, yTIt"&n;.
These forms conform to the general sound shift according to which n was as-
similated to an immediately following consonant in every position, including
n as third radical. As a rule, however, in III-n verbs the n was restored when
it immediately preceded a consonant: T:n]k"&v… / yTIn]m"&a”h< by analogy to forms in
which n was not immediately followed by a consonant and therefore survived
(such as hn;k}v…/ ˆk"v… ‘he/she dwelt’, hn;ymI&a”h< / ˆymIa”h< ‘he/she believed). (Verbs
were especially liable to be affected by analogy because of their uniformity
and regularity.) However, in forms that were less subject to analogy, the regu-
lar sound shift survived, and n was assimilated to an immediately following
consonant even when it occupied the position of the last radical. This was the
case with nouns which, being less regular and uniform than verbs, were less
open to analogy (tB" ‘daughter’ < *bint; tm<a” ‘truth’ < *ªamint, from the same
root ªmn from which the above-mentioned yTIn]m"&a”h< is derived). Similarly, ˆtn
was so frequent that it was not affected by analogy with the forms that pre-
served the n. As a result, forms such as yTIt"&n; with assimilated nun remained,
resisting the influence of forms such as ˆt"n;, hn;t}n;.
4.3.8.3.4n. In Phoenician, however, the original sound shift has been preserved and n as
the third radical is always assimilated. It has sometimes been suggested that the final n of
ntn was not preserved because of dissimilation from the initial n and that Biblical Hebrew
was not affected by the assimilation of n when used as the last verbal radical (see P. Joüon
1923: par. 17g; cf. also Z. S. Harris 1939: 39–40, who, however, justly dissociates himself
from this view). Nevertheless, the assimilation of n when preceding a consonant in every
position, even when used as the last radical, is sufficiently demonstrated by the assimila-
tion of the n in nouns. Accordingly, in the case of ntn, dissimilation could have been, at
most, a marginal factor.
4.3.8.3.5. Different explanations have been given for the elision of the n in
the qal imperative and construct infinitive. Scholars who derive I-n verbs
from triradical roots, including those with a as the characteristic vowel in the
prefix-tense (and imperative) of qal, account for the elision of n in the imper-
ative by analogy with the prefix-tense (e.g., *n´gas shifted to vG' by analogy
with vG'yi) and explain tv≤G,& through the influence of I-w(y) verbs (tv≤G,&‚ vG' cor-
responding to t["D'&, [D' / tb<v≤&, bv´). This explanation, however, has to be able to
explain the problem of why the imperative of the pattern yiq†ol preserves the
n (lpøn] rather than *pol).
4.3.8.3.6. Accordingly, it has been proposed (see, e.g., Kienast 2001: 350–
52). that the verbs that elide the n do so only synchronically but historically
reflect original biradical roots with n-augment. Nöldeke (1910: 179–201) has
called attention to the alternation of I-n/I-w/I-y/I-ª roots, which accordingly
00-Blau.book Page 243 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

243 Absolute Infinitive;

I-n andVerbal
I-y(w) Verbs ∑ 4.3.8.4.1.
Themes

have to be interpreted as biradical roots with initial n-/w-/y-/ ª- augment. Ac-

cording to this theory, tv≤G,&‚ vG' are archaic biradical forms that were later
transformed into the triradical scheme with the aforementioned augments.
However, Nöldeke adduces this alternation also with verbs that have a yiq†ol
qal pattern, so the question arises why these verbs are built exclusively ac-
cording to the triradical pattern.
4.3.8.3.6n. In Phoenician and Ugaritic, ˆtn has the form ytn, suggesting that this verb in
Semitic languages has to be interpreted as reflecting biradical tn with n/y augment. How-
ever, since Phoenician also has vestiges of ntn, it seems more cogent, prima facie, to posit
ntn as the original form and derive ytn by a back-formation from ˆTE, by analogy with I-w
verbs (such as dr'y;, i.e., dre : dr'y; = ˆTE : X; X = ˆty).
4.3.8.3.7. jql ‘to take’ behaves as a I-n verb, assimilating its l to an imme-
diately following consonant (jQ"a< ‘I will take’) and eliding it in the imperative
and construct infinitive: jq" ‘take!’, tj"q& " ‘to take’ (in contrast to the nif ºal
jq"l}ni). This behavior has often been explained as being due to the (inverse)
analogy of ˆtn. This analogy may have been an additional reason for the pres-
ervation of the exceptional behavior of this I-l verb, but it was at most a mar-
ginal factor. Apparently, this very frequent verb, because of its frequency, has
maintained the sound shift lC(onsonant) > CC, i.e., the total assimilation of l
to an immediately following consonant, according to which, e.g., vB"l}yi ‘he
wears a garment’ should have shifted to *yibbas. However, through the ana-
logical influence of other forms (vb"l:, vbE/l), the l was restored, except in
jql, which resisted analogy because of its frequency. The assimilation of l to
an immediately following consonant should not surprise us, though it is much
less frequent than the assimilation of n.
4.3.8.3.7n. In the less-frequent nif ºal jq"l}ni, however, the l was analogically restored. How-
ever, surprisingly, the nif ºal ˆT"ni, μT<T"ni was not affected by analogy, and the initial n has
not been analogically restored.
For the assimilation of l-, cf. the behavior of the Arabic article ªal-.
It seems less likely to posit a biradical q˙, which was allegedly expanded by the initial
augments l/n to triradical lq˙/*nq˙, lq˙ being attested, e.g., in the suffix-tense of qal (jq"l:),
*nq˙ in its prefix-tense (jQ"yi); for this theory, see Friedrich 1999: 97, par. 153–54 (following
von Soden 1995). The qal construct infinitive tj"q& " seems to be due to the analogy of I-n
verbs of the qal yif ºal pattern (as in t["G‡ ' ‘to touch’, from root ngº, prefix-tense [G'yi).

4.3.8.4. I-y(w) Verbs

4.3.8.4.1. Although the origin of some qal forms is obscure, most of them
can easily be derived from triradical roots. Even the imperative qal bv´ can
be derived by the assumption of dissimilation from triradical *witib (see
§4.3.8.4.10, p. 246). The other biradical forms, viz., the prefix-tense bv´ye and
the construct infinitive tb<v& ≤ can be explained as newly derived from bv´. This
proposal has the advantage of accounting for the elision of the first radical in
00-Blau.book Page 244 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.8.4.2. ∑ Absolute
I-y(w) Verbs
Infinitive; Verbal Themes 244

the vicinity of i, although one has to admit that the suggested sound shift gives
the impression of being an ad hoc invention.
4.3.8.4.1n. Moreover, if one posits that the imperative of qal was phonemically monosyl-
labic, the initial wi of *witib in fact phomemically lacked a vowel and, accordingly, was
quite unstable. On the other hand, one also has to take into consideration the possibility
that imperative forms tended to be shortened because of their exclamatory character. (For
the exceptional shortening of interjections, see H. Paul 1937: 179–81.)
4.3.8.4.2. On the other hand, Nöldeke (1910: 179–201; see §4.3.8.3.6,
p. 242) has demonstrated that I-n and I-w/I-y roots interchange. Since this al-
ternation cannot be considered phonetic, it has to be interpreted as reflecting
an alternation in the extension of biradical roots to triradical structure by
the initial augments n/w(y)/ª.
4.3.8.4.2n. This assumption, however, is not without difficulties. The evidence of the vari-
ous Semitic languages attests to the biradical formation of the yaq†il pattern ( pace Birke-
land 1940: 90–102, whose attempt to postulate additional forms with original a after the
second radical is not convincing); nevertheless, Nöldeke’s examples (1910: 179–201) are
not restricted to this pattern. Accordingly, one has to assume a somewhat skeptical attitude
toward both the theory of biradical origin and the theory of triradical origin. Nevertheless,
it is not out of question that the I-n verbs in general, both those of the qal yiq†al and those
of the yaq†ul pattern, were originally biradical. Whereas those of the yaq†ul pattern have
become wholly triradical by the augment n-, those of the yiq†al pattern contain residues of
the original biradical formation.
4.3.8.4.3. But even if we accept Nöldeke’s theory, we have to project this
augmentation of biradical roots back to the Proto-Semitic period, since it is at-
tested in other Semitic languages as well. Accordingly, Hebrew I-y verbs must
be regarded synchronically as triradical, exhibiting w/y as their first radical.
And even on the theory of the biradical origin of I-w verbs, it seems quite
likely that it was only the imperative qal of the yaq†il pattern that preserved
the Proto-Semitic biradical formation, whereas originally the prefix-tense was
formed on a triradical basis, to be newly derived later from the biradical im-
perative. This is suggested by the correspondence of Ugar qal (e.g., the Uga-
ritic imperative bl ‘conduct!’) to BHeb hif ºil (e.g., lybI/y). Apparently, forms
such as lybI/y reflect the original qal pattern yaq†il, formed on a triradical basis,
which was later reinterpreted as hif ºil (for details, see Blau 1973b).
4.3.8.4.3n. In Akkadian, indeed, the imperative lacks the first radical (type bil), yet iprus
is ubil, pace Kienast 2001: 354, who considers Akkadian ubil to be a genuine biradical
form. It seems, however, prima facie, that the initial u is due to the influence of the trirad-
ical parallel ubil < *yawbil. Kienast’s proposal to attribute it to the influence of the saf ºel
verbal theme is quite dubious. Furthermore, I do not understand J. Huehnergard’s sugges-
tion (1987b: 193) that Akkadian ubbal, which, according to Huehnergard influenced ubil,
arose from *yawabbal, as if awa shifted to u. On the other hand, Huehnergard (1987b:
192) has adduced quite convincing proofs that ubil is a ghost form, and if so, the short u of
ubil remains unclear. However, it seems reasonable somehow to connect the (short) u of
00-Blau.book Page 245 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

245 Absolute Infinitive; Verbal

I-y(w) Verbs ∑ 4.3.8.4.8.
Themes

ubil with w as first radical—in other words, to posit (also) a triradical scheme, perhaps in-
volving the contamination of biradical and triradical patterns.
4.3.8.4.4. Historically, I-y verbs are either original I-y verbs or have to
be derived from original I-w roots. In Northwest Semitic, w in word-initial
position had shifted to y (see above, §3.4.8.2, p. 103), and the differences be-
tween the two groups were further blurred by widespread analogy. Since
original I-w verbs were more conspicuous, original I-y verbs were attracted
by them, the most striking case being, it seems, [dy ‘to know’, from which
forms such as [D', [d'y,e [d'/n, ['ydi/h, characteristic of I-w roots, are derived. On
the other hand, through the influence of piººel and puººal forms with initial w
> y, y also prevailed in these verbal themes in word-medial position (as td,L,&ym ' }
‘midwife’), to intrude even into hitpaººel, as in WdL}y't}Yiw' ‘and they declared
their pedigree’.
4.3.8.4.4n. Cf. §1.15.5, p. 50. Nevertheless, w has been preserved in jK"w't}hI ‘to argue’,
hD;w't}hI ‘to confess’, and it is attested even in [D'w't}hI ‘to make oneself known’, although [dy,
as mentioned, originally began with y, rather than with w.
4.3.8.4.5. The original w of (original) I-w verbs has mainly been pre-
served in the hif ºil, hof ºal, and nif ºal, in which it occurred in verb-internal
position.
4.3.8.4.6. In the nif ºal and hif ºil, vestiges of an original w in a prefix with
an a vowel have been preserved: dl"/n < *nawlad, dylI/h < *hawlid; for the his-
torical interpretation of these forms, see §4.3.5.3.2, p. 228; §4.3.5.7.4, p. 234.
4.3.8.4.6n. In the prefix-tense, dlEW;yi. Only one verb has y in the prefix-tense: hr,Y;yi Exod
19:13. But, according to M. Lambert (1898: 142), this form must be interpreted as an
original passive of qal (*yirœb < *yuyrœb), which was vocalized as nif ºal by the Masoretes;
cf. also Blau (1973b = Studies, 88 n. 12). For the shift of uy to i, cf. §3.4.3.3, p. 97.
4.3.8.4.7. The hof ºal exhibits long u preceding the second radical: bvæWh <
*huwsab.
4.3.8.4.8. Original y has been preserved in the hif ºil in a whole group of
verbs: lylIyhE ‘to howl’ < *haylil, qyniyhE ‘to give suck’ < *hayniq, ˆymIyhE ‘to go to
the right’ < haymin, and also byfIyhE ‘to do well’. This last verb behaves as if its
root were y†b, rather than the original †wb; in qal, the suffix-tense †wb ‘to be
good’, still preserving the II-w pattern (see §4.3.8.7.2.4, p. 254), is superseded
by the prefix-tense y†b, as in bf"yyi). Because original byfIhE, which belongs to
the II-w pattern, was identical in pronunciation to byfIyhE, which belongs to the
I-y pattern, it was transferred to I-y verbs, and then other I-y forms were de-
rived from it. Contrariwise, yqß ‘to awake’, belonging, as demonstrated by
comparative evidence and by the qal ≈q'yyi, to I-y verbs, passed in the hif ºil to
the root qyß, since ≈yqIyhE* (I-y) and ≈yqIhE (II-y) were phonetically identical.
(This explanation is much more likely than the attempt by Buhl [1915] to con-
nect ≈yqIhE with ≈yiq& " ‘summer’.)
00-Blau.book Page 246 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.8.4.9. ∑ I-y(w)
Absolute
Verbs,
Infinitive;
Qal Verbal Themes 246

4.3.8.4.8n. A few hif ºil forms preserve the original ay diphthong, e.g., μyniymIy]m"; and also
Wrv¥y]y' ‘they look straight’ Prov 4:25.
Alongside forms apparently from a root y†b, the hif ºil t:bøyfIh” from the original root †wb
is attested as well (as it is also in Rabbinic Hebrew).
The alternation of II-y/w and I-y verbs occurs in other cases as well, and not only on
the strength of the phonetic identity of the suffix-tense of hif ºil: ‘to be afraid’ qal suffix-
tense yTIr]go‡y;, prefix-tense rWgy;; in the hif ºil of vWB ‘to put to shame’ both vbIhE (II-w) and
vybI/h (I-w) are attested.
4.3.8.4.9. In the qal, two historical groups are attested:
4.3.8.4.10. In the first group, the verbs dl"y; ‘to bear’, ax:y; ‘to go out’, dr'y ;
‘to go down’, and bvæy; ‘to sit’ elide their first radical in the prefix-tense, the
imperative, and the construct infinitive.
4.3.8.4.10n. Comparison with the other Semitic languages demonstrates that the first radi-
cal was originally w. Internal reconstruction (as in, e.g., ayxI/h ‘to take out’ and nif ºal dl"/n
‘to be born’) points to the same conclusion.
4.3.8.4.11. The second radical in these forms is followed by historical i,
and since i has almost disappeared in the prefix-tense and the imperative (see
above, §4.3.5.2.3.2, p. 222), it must be considered to be original, as also at-
tested by other Semitic languages. Therefore, corresponding forms with a
after the second radical, which without exception are restricted to II/III-
laryngeals/pharyngeals ([d'y ; ‘to know’, [d'y;e dj"y; ‘to be united’, dj"ye; [q"y ; ‘to be
dislocated’, [q"y)e , must be interpreted as exhibiting original i, which shifted to
a by assimilation to the following or preceding pharyngeal/laryngeal. Com-
pare the occurrence of h[:De ‘knowledge’ (with e < i) alongside t["D'& (with a).
4.3.8.4.11n. In the prefix-tense and the imperative, historical i has shifted to e. In the con-
struct infinitive (e.g., td,l<&), e < i is also the basic vowel (cf. the parallel hd;lE < *lida(t)),
which shifted by Philippi’s Law to a, and finally by segolization to œ.
4.3.8.4.12. The prefix-tense yaq†il pattern should have been *yasib > bv´y;
according to the other Semitic languages and Barth’s Law (see §4.3.5.2.3.1,
p. 221, and §4.3.5.2.3.1n, p. 222). However, by vowel assimilation, the prefix
vowel changed to e: bv´ye, [d' y e < ['dey e *. This e is preserved even when the stress
is remote: WN[<& d;y e ‘he will know it’ Jer 17:9.
4.3.8.4.12n. Is the preservation of the e in forms such as WN[<d;y e due to the tendency to dif-
ferentiate between the suffix-tense in which the first vowel is reduced (as /[d;y] ‘he knew
it’) and the prefix-tense? Or was it rhythmically influenced by the prefix-tense of the sec-
ond group of I-y verbs (as in hN:d,[:yyi ‘he will assign her’) with long vowel in the first syl-
lable? Or did both factors interact?
4.3.8.4.13. As we have seen (see §4.3.5.2.6.2, p. 227), although infinitive
forms with the feminine ending are attested in the strong verb, they neverthe-
less prevail in some weak verbs in which the feminine ending rhythmically
supplements the infinitive form, which was shortened because of the elision of

spread is 6 points long

00-Blau.book Page 247 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

247 Absolute Infinitive; Verbal

I-y(w) Qal ∑ 4.3.8.4.19.
Themes

the “weak” radical. This is the case in the construct infinitive of this class of
verbs: *sibt > (by the action of Philippi’s Law) *sabt > (by segolization) tb<v& ≤.
4.3.8.4.13n. As a rule, the feminine ending t prevails; however, -at (> h-;) is also attested,
as in td,l<&/hd;lE ‘birth’, as well as t["D'&/h[:De.
4.3.8.4.14. Through Philippi’s Law, the 2/3fp of the prefix-tense has a
after the second radical : hn;k}l"&TE ; however, in the imperative, it has e, as in
hn;k}lE & (influenced by ËlE).
4.3.8.4.14n. ˚lh ‘to go’ behaves as if it belonged to this verbal class; see §4.3.8.4.16
below.
4.3.8.4.15. Two imperatival forms (which even if they are original inter-
jections, behave as imperatives of yhb) have exceptional forms: (1) the sin-
gular imperative form with penultimate stress hb:h& : ‘give; come now’ (instead
of the expected *håb2 a# with ultima stress), and (2) the plural imperative form
with ultima stress, though the latter reflects the lengthening of the penult
vowel Wb&h: (instead of the expected *håb2 ú with reduced penult vowel). The
exceptional patterning of these forms probably reflects their original charac-
ter as interjections.
4.3.8.4.16. As already stated (see §3.3.5.5.1, p. 94), ˚lh ‘to go’ behaves as
if it belonged to this class in the prefix-tense, the imperative, and the construct
infinitive of qal (ËlEye, ËlE, tk<l<&) and the hif ºil (ËylI/h).
4.3.8.4.17. The irregular verb lkøy; ‘to be able’, which has the qa†ol pattern
in the suffix-tense of qal, reflects the archaic sound shift iw > u in the prefix-
tense (see §3.4.3.3, p. 97): *yiwkal > lk"Wy and conjugates regularly.
4.3.8.4.18. In the second group, the y is preserved: imperative vb"y] ‘be
dry!’, prefix-tense vb"yTI (< *tiybas), almost always with characteristic a after
the second radical, construct infinitive vbøy]. Some verbs vacillate between
both classes: vr'yyi ‘he will inherit’, but imperative vre, in pause vr;, construct
infinitive tv≤r,&.
4.3.8.4.18n. Yif ºol is quite exceptional: qxøYiw' (pay attention to the defective spelling of the
˙iriq) ‘and he poured’ Gen 28:18.
Is vr; a mixed form of pausal vr;y ] and vre?
4.3.8.4.19. Double consonants: long vowel plus simple consonant is
rhythmically more or less identical to short vowel plus double (long) conso-
nant (for this feature, see §3.5.7.4.6, p. 124; §4.2.5.2, p. 180). Accordingly,
the long vowel that occurs in the first syllable of many I-y verbs as a result of
monophthongization is apt to alternate with a short vowel plus double conso-
nant. Thus, in hof ºal td,L<h & U ‘being born’, instead of the expected td,l< &Wh*, oc-
curs. Short vowel plus double (long) consonant rather than long vowel plus
simple consonant is especially frequent with ßade as second radical: bX"ni ‘take
one’s stand’; cf. bXEy't}hI in the same sense; rx"y; ‘to form’ has the prefix-tense
00-Blau.book Page 248 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.8.5. ∑ III-aleph
Absolute Infinitive;
Verbs Verbal Themes 248

forms rx<y Yi‡w' Gen 2:7 with (originally) long i (and, accordingly, rx<Yi‡w' Gen 2:19
has to be interpreted as containing long i as well) and Úr]X:a<w] Isa 49:8. AqX:a< Isa
44:3 alternates with forms without gemination.
4.3.8.4.19n. In light of byxIn] ‘pillar’, bX"ni, and byXIhI ‘to station’, forms connected with yßb
may be derived form the root nßb as well. Similarly, gyXIhI ‘to set’ may be derived from both
yßg and nßg; tyxh, etc., ‘to set on fire’ may be derived from both yßt and nßt; and ['yXIhI
meaning ‘to lay’ may be derived from both nߺ and yߺ (which, in the light of comparative
evidence, is more likely; cf. above, §4.3.8.3.6, pp. 242–243).

4.3.8.5. III-aleph Verbs

4.3.8.5.1. The conjugation of this verbal class can easily be accounted for
by the weakness of the aleph and analogy with III-y verbs . Because of the
elision of final aleph, forms arose that were identical to those of III-y roots,
such as maßaª ‘he found’ (ax:m:) : gala ‘he uncovered’ (hl:G;), attracting other
forms by analogy, such as al:p}hI ‘to make wonderful’, instead of the expected
aylIp}h,I in analogy with hl:g]h;I af</j ‘sinning’, instead of the expected afE/j, in
analogy with hl</G; yWcn; ‘carried’, instead of the expected aWcn; (cf. §§3.3.4.2.3–
3.3.4.2.4, pp. 87–88). In some cases III-y verbal forms totally prevailed, as in
hn;ax<&m}TI, ytIaxE&m}ni. On the other hand, there are a few III-aleph forms instead of
the expected III-y forms, especially in the verb hr;q; ‘to happen’, as in Wha:&r;q}W
ˆ/sa: ‘and disaster will befall him’ Gen 42:38.
4.3.8.5.2. Aleph not followed by a vowel is elided and the preceding vowel
lengthened: *maßaªti > ytIax:&m:; *ßamiªti > ytIamE&x:; *timmaliªna > hn;al< &M:T.I
4.3.8.5.2n. For the precise conditioning of this sound shift, see above, §§3.3.4.1–3.3.4.2,
pp. 86ff. This shift occurred before the action of Philippi’s Law; see §4.3.8.5.3 below.
The segol after the third radical is due to assimilation of the ßere < ˙iriq to the follow-
ing qamaß; see §3.5.10.4, p. 137, and §4.3.8.6.9, p. 251.
4.3.8.5.3. Five verbs in the suffix-tense of the qal reflect the stative paºel
pattern, preserving the e also before prefixes beginning with a consonant
(ytIalE&m:), because the aleph was elided before Philippi’s Law started acting:
amEf: ‘to be unclean’, arey ; ‘to be afraid’, alEm: ‘to be full’, amEx: ‘to be thirsty’, anec…
‘to hate’. The participles of these verbs as a rule follow the paºel pattern
(amEf:), but in ane/c it has already been superseded by the more frequent poºel.
4.3.8.5.4. The prefix-tense of the qal, corresponding to both the paºal and
paºel patterns of the suffix-tense, has a after the second radical, through the in-
fluence of the laryngeal aleph (when it was still pronounced): ax:m}y,i al:m}y.i

4.3.8.6. III-y Verbs

4.3.8.6.1. Historically, III-y verbs have absorbed the III-w verbs. Since
very often the same sound shifts affected III-w and III-y forms (see above,
§3.4.7.1, p. 102), they were mixed up, and the more frequent III-y verbs super-
seded the III-w verbs. This phenomenon belongs to a general drift that occurs
00-Blau.book Page 249 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

249 Absolute Infinitive; Verbal

III-y Verbs ∑ 4.3.8.6.4.1.
Themes

again and again in the Semitic languages. Forms such as yTIwl] " &v… ‘I was quiet’
have to be considered late forms, derived from the adjective wlEv… ‘quiet’. Very
few genuine vestiges of the III-w verbs have been preserved in the passive
participle of qal: Wc[:h< ‘which is made’ Job 41:25 < *hœ-ºa¶uw (cf. also Job
15:22: the k´tib2 wpxw = w´ßapöuw, the q´re is yWpx:w ] ‘and spied out’). As stated
above (see §4.3.8.5.1), III- aleph verbs also exhibit the tendency to pass to
III-y, and, indeed, in Rabbinic Hebrew the III-y verbs have absorbed III-aleph
verbs to an even higher degree.
4.3.8.6.2. It has been often claimed that the special behavior of III-y verbs
(and w), caused by the elision of y (and w), is a Proto-Semitic feature. But this
claim cannot be substantiated (see Birkeland 1940: 41–46). Not only are the
results of the elision of the y (and w) different in the various Semitic languages
(as in hn,b}yi ‘he will build’ in Biblical Hebrew, aneb}y i in Biblical Aramaic, yabni
in Classical Arabic), but, e.g., both Ugaritic and the ancient Phoenician in-
scriptions from Byblos have preserved the original y to a great extent. There-
fore, it appears that, in Proto-Semitic, consonantal y/w were preserved as
the third radical, to be elided only in the various Semitic languages.
4.3.8.6.3. It is easy to derive the Hebrew forms of III-y verbs from trirad-
ical roots with final y by positing sound shifts and analogy. A possible excep-
tion is the short prefix-tense, with forms such as wx"y ]w' ‘and he ordered’, which
should have terminated in a long vowel, if indeed it arose from a III-y root
(*wayy´ßawwiy > *wayßawwi) (see Blau 1977c: 27–29 = Topics, 260–62).
This, however, does not prove that all the existing III-y roots were originally
biradical. It only demonstrates that some of these roots were originally birad-
ical, terminating in a long vowel, whereas it appears that other forms emerged
from triradical III-y (w) roots. The coexistence of biradical forms terminating
in a long vowel and triradical III-y(w) roots that developed a final long vowel
by the elision of the y (w) has, no doubt, contributed to the transfer of such bi-
radical roots to III-y verbs. Nevertheless, synchronically, all these verbs have
to be considered triradical. The only exceptions to this statement are the short
prefix-tense and the short imperative (e.g., wx" ‘order!’).
4.3.8.6.4. The most conspicuous feature of this verbal class is the almost
complete homogeneity of all verbal patterns regarding their endings; the
forms primarily differ only in their beginnings. This partly stems from sound
shifts resulting in the same vowel, independently of the vowel preceding the
final y, and partly from the very extensive occurrence of analogy.
4.3.8.6.4.1. Final y (and also w) followed by a vowel was elided when pre-
ceded by a(n originally) short vowel. If the vowel following the y was long, it
prevailed over the (originally) short vowel preceding it: *tugalliyi > yLIg'T,}
*tugalliyu > WLg'T;} *tugallayi > yLIguT,} *tugallayu > WLguT.} If the vowel following
the y was (an originally short) a, qamaß was the result of the elision (see above,
§3.4.4.4, p. 98): *galaya > hl:G,; *raßiya > hx:r.; The same process occurred in
00-Blau.book Page 250 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.8.6.4.2. ∑ III-y
Absolute
Verbs
Infinitive; Verbal Themes 250

all the 3ms forms of the suffix-tense. The 3fs form *hoglayat > tl:g]h: ‘she was
taken into exile’ Jer 13:19 reflects the archaic form of the feminine ending,
still preserving its t (which, it seems, was elided only after short a but pre-
served after long a). As these examples demonstrate, the a, arising from the
elision of the y (and w) has not shifted to o, perhaps because the elision of the
y is later than the Canaanite shift â to o, or (also) owing to paradigmatic pres-
sure, the suffix-tense often being characterized by a, rather than o. On the
other hand, o does occur in the construct infinitive, which, as a rule, termi-
nates in -ot: t/lG] ‚ t/lg] h". The t of -ot is, no doubt, the feminine ending, which
was preserved in these infinitive forms because of their relative shortness (as
in I-n and I-y verbs; see §4.3.8.3.3, pp. 241–242; §4.3.8.4.13, pp. 246–247).
The o, however, is either due to the Canaanite shift, if it still operated, and/or
to the analogy of the construct infinitive forms of the sound verb in qal, which
contained o (rmøv‘). If indeed it was due (only) to analogy, the development
first took place in the qal and spread afterward to the other verbal themes.
4.3.8.6.4.1n. For the preservation of the t-ending after long a, see §4.3.3.4.8n, p. 211. For
further details, see Blau 1980 = Topics, 126–37. Cf. also tyh ‘she was’ in the Siloam
inscription.

4.3.8.6.4.2. As mentioned, the original ending of the 3fs of the suffix-tense

was -at. The usual ending however, is ht:-]: ht:l}G;, ht:L}Gi, ht:l}g]h:, etc. These
forms are due to the analogical adaptation of the structurally exceptional
forms galat, gillat, hogölat to the structure of the strong verb hr;m}v…, hd;B}KI,
hd;B}k}h:.
4.3.8.6.5. When the y occurred between two short vowels, the second of
which was not a (i.e., ayu, ayi, awu, awi, iyu, iyi, iwu, iwi, uyu, uyi, uwu, uwi),
the result of the elision of the y/w was segol. This is characteristic of the
prefix-tense (hl<g]yi, hl<g]y ', hl<G;y,i etc.) and the masculine participle in the absolute
(hl</G‚ hl<g]m", hl<g]ni) in all the verbal themes.
4.3.8.6.5n. As a matter of fact, the shift of ayu, ayi, awu, awi to segol is due to a sound
shift, whereas that of iyu, iyi, iwu, iwi, uyu, uyi, uwu, uwi is due to analogy with ayu, ayi,
awu, awi; for details, see §3.4.5.8, p. 101.
The lengthened prefix-tense (the cohortative) and the accusative of the participle, termi-
nating in -a, should have resulted in final qamaß. However, the ordinary prefix-tense, ter-
minating in -u and resulting in -œ, superseded the cohortative. The nominative/genitive of
the participle, terminating in -u/-i, prevailed over the accusative.

4.3.8.6.6. Final -ay shifted to ßere, as did final -iy by analogy with -ay (see
above, §3.4.5.8, p. 101). As a result, all the construct forms of the participles
of III-y verbs terminate in ßere, as well as all the imperative forms: hlE/G, hlEG],
hlEG;hI, etc.
4.3.8.6.6n. The case endings of the construct forms had already been elided when the eli-
sion of y occurred; see §3.4.5.5, p. 100 (hdec‘); §4.4.4.5, p. 268.
00-Blau.book Page 251 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

251 Absolute Infinitive; Verbal

III-y Verbs ∑ 4.3.8.6.9.
Themes

As a matter of fact, the short prefix-tense should have terminated in ßere, since it ended
in -ay/-iy without a following vowel. Nevertheless, these forms were superseded by forms
terminating in segol, representing the ordinary prefix-tense; pausal forms such as hLEg't} alø
Lev 18:7 are exceptional.

4.3.8.6.7. The short prefix-tense (as well as the imperative of piººel,

hitpaººel, and hif ºil) often has a shortened, apocopated form, with elision of
the final vowel: ar]Y'w' ‘and he saw’, ar;Yew' ‘and he appeared’, lk"y ]w' ‘and he fin-
ished’, sK"t}Yiw' ‘and he covered himself’; wx" ‘order!’, lj:t}hI (the qamaß is due to
pause). Since the second radical of the prefix-themes of qal and hif ºil is de-
void of a vowel (hl<g]y,i hl<g]y)' , the elision of the final h-, makes the shortened
forms terminate in a consonantal cluster (D]rY] we ' ‘and he ruled’, T}p}y' ‘may He
widen’), which as a rule is opened: the resulting forms are similar to the sego-
late nouns (see §4.4.6.3, p. 274), as in, e.g., qal ˆp<Yi‡w' ‘and he turned’, ˆp<Ne‡w;' c["Y‡w' '
‘and he did’; hif ºil br,Y‡w, ' ‘and he made much’; l["Yw'‡ ' ‘and he brought up’ (for-
mally identical to qal ‘and he went up’); πr,h<& ‘cease!’
4.3.8.6.7n. No shortened forms of the passive themes puººal and hof ºal are attested.
Because the final vowel derived from a triradical III-y root should have been long and
accordingly preserved, the omission of the final syllable in the apocopated forms, prima
facie, hints at the biradical origin of these forms; see §4.3.8.6.3, p. 249.

4.3.8.6.8. In the first and second persons of the suffix-tense, either long
ßere or ˙iriq occurs. In qal, piººel, and hitpaººel and, as a rule, also in hif ºil,
˙iriq prevails; in nif ºal, puººal, and hof ºal, ßere prevails. However, in the 1s,
even in piººel, hitpaººel, and hif ºil, ßere predominates, presumably out of a
propensity for dissimilation in order to prevent two i vowels in the same word.
Moreover, the general tendency toward ˙iriq obtains in the 1p (as in WnylI &g]n)i ,
for no obvious reason. Historically, the forms with full ßere stem from ay,
those with full ˙iriq from iy; however, analogical formations intervened. The
possibility of the influence of biradical roots terminating in long i also must
not be excluded. In qal, surprisingly enough, the forms with i have completely
superseded those with e (even in the 1s, as in ytIyl&IG;), prima facie because
paºila forms prevailed.
4.3.8.6.8n. If indeed some very frequent verbs, such as hy;h: ‘to be’, hc…[: ‘to do’ (cf. Gºez
‘to do’ gabra, pattern paºila) were from the paºila type, it is not difficult to understand
why this verbal class prevailed.

4.3.8.6.9. A ßere preceding qamaß shifts to segol in the 2fp and 3fp of the
prefix-tense and in the 2fp of the imperative by assimilation (see above,
§3.5.10.4, p. 137): hn;yl<&g]TI, hn;yL<&g'T}.
4.3.8.6.9n. This is not the case, however, in the 2ms of the suffix-tense, as in t:ylE&g]ni, no
doubt through the analogical influence of corresponding verbal forms such as ytIylE&g]ni, tylEg]ni.
03-Blau Page 252 Thursday, May 6, 2010 8:58 AM

4.3.8.6.10. ∑ Absolute
III-y / II-w
Infinitive;
/y Verbs Verbal Themes 252

4.3.8.6.10. In the passive participle of qal, y was preserved following a

long vowel: yWlG; , μyyiWlG] . The preservation of y after long vowels (see above,
§3.4.4.1, p. 97) explains the occurrence of exceptional forms with y such as
& ‘y i ‘they are at ease’(rather than Wlv‘yi*). Apparently, these forms represent
Wyl:v
ancient pausal structures in which the y, owing to pausal lengthening, was pre-
ceded by a long vowel and accordingly preserved. Since the differences be-
tween these pausal and contextual forms were too big (Wyl:v & ‘y i : Wlv‘y),
i however,
these pausal forms with y were superseded by the contextual forms, and forms
such as Wlv‘yi were used in the pause as well. Forms with y also survived in ele-
vated emotional style outside the pause. Moreover, even new forms were
coined in which the y was preceded by mobile swa: ˆyuw]ry] i ‘they will be satu-
rated’ Ps 36:9 (see Blau 1997: 183–87 for details).
4.3.8.6.10n. In contrast to the theory presented here, these forms are generally considered
to reflect late formations; see, e.g., Bergsträsser 1918–29: 2.169–70 n. 12.
If my theory proves to be true, it demonstrates that the elision of y is later than pausal
lengthening.

4.3.8.7. II-w/y Verbs

4.3.8.7.1. Historical Derivation

4.3.8.7.1.1. It is rather arduous to analyze this verbal class historically.
Some forms cannot possibly be derived from triradical roots. However, even
if one agrees to derive some of these forms from biradical roots with a long
(or, according to others, a short) vowel separating the two radical consonants,
the problems connected with the historical derivation of this verbal class
are not yet solved. Why, for instance, did a shift to o in the nif ºal (g/sn;, g/Syi)
but not in the qal (μq; , hm:q:&, Wmq:&)? (On this question, see §4.3.8.7.2.3n, p. 253.)
4.3.8.7.1.2. In what follows, we will base ourselves on the assumption that
II-w/y verbs must be derived for the most part from biradical roots with a me-
dial long vowel that have been adapted to triradical structure by medial w/y. In
this way, we will attempt to solve the main difficulties concerning this verbal
class, without denying that the history of II-w/y verbs is even more opaque
than that of the other verbal classes.

4.3.8.7.2. Qal
4.3.8.7.2.1. In the qal of II-w/y verbs, as in the strong verb, several pat-
terns are attested. The most frequent pattern has a in the suffix-tense and u in
the prefix-tense: μq:, μWqy;. The a of qam is remarkable, since, in accordance
with the Canaanite shift, it should have shifted to *qom. The a may perhaps be
explained as due to paradigmatic pressure. In the first and second persons, this
a stood in a closed syllable, which, in Proto-Hebrew, did not permit long vow-

spread is 3 points long

00-Blau.book Page 253 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

253 Absolute Infinitive;

II-w/y
Verbal
Verbs, Qal ∑ 4.3.8.7.2.3.
Themes

els (see above §3.5.12.2.14n, p. 151; §4.3.3.3.2, p. 206). This is the reason
that the imperative forms lDeb}h", hn;l}Deb}h" (< *hab2 dil, *hab2 dilna) and the prefix-
tense form hn;l}Deb}T" (< *tab2 dilna) correspond to lyDib}y' (< *yab2 dilu). And it is
for this reason that in the qal of II-w verbs, hn;m}qø&T: (< *taqumna) corresponds
to μWqy; (< *yaqumu). Accordingly, *qamti, *qamta, *qamt, *qamnu, *qamtœm
shifted to qamti, qamta, qamt, qamnu, qamtœm. Because of the occurrence of
a in these persons, a (rather than o) prevailed in the third person as well. Note
that we must posit a, rather than short a, because it occurred in an open syl-
lable (*qama, etc.).
4.3.8.7.2.1n. The qal imperative μWq rather than *qom is a late formation produced by
analogy to the prefix-tense. This development occurred at a time when long vowels could
occur in closed syllables.
4.3.8.7.2.2. The qal participle is μq:, the nominal form of the suffix-tense,
as is usual in the strong verb in the stative themes paºel/paºol (as ˆv´y; / lkøy; ; cf.
tmE, v/B). The a did not shift to o, because of the influence of the suffix-tense,
on the one hand, and the influence of the plural participle (in which the a oc-
curred in an unstressed syllable, μymIq,: t/m&q:), on the other.
4.3.8.7.2.2n. As a matter of fact, v/B does not stem from an original paºol; see §4.3.8.7.2.4,
p. 254.
In a few participial forms, o is marginally attested: μymI/Qh" 2 Kgs 16:7.
4.3.8.7.2.3. The paºel pattern is reflected by tmE, for which the yq†l is tWmy;,
such as μWqy;. The e of tmE, instead of the expected i (cf. Aram tymI) is very re-
markable, since in Hebrew it is short i that is lengthened to ßere, yet the i of tmE
is, prima facie, long, as suggested by the parallel qamaß of μq: as well as by
the fact that the ßere is preserved in participial forms such as ytEm.E No really
satisfactory explanation for this situation has thus far been suggested. At any
rate, during the fourth stage of stress the ßere was long and therefore the pen-
ultimate stress was preserved: ht:mE&, WtmE&.
4.3.8.7.2.3n. Cf., e.g., Blau 1969a: 4 = Topics, 302, where contamination of biradical and
triradical forms is suggested. It has been proposed (see, e.g., Bergsträsser 1918–29: 2.155
n. 3) that the biradical root contained a short, rather than long, medial vowel. This theory
would indeed explain the ßere of tmE as well as the fact that the Canaanite shift a! > o did
not affect μq: in the simplest way. According to this theory, it was only after the Canaanite
shift had ceased acting that the medial short a was lengthened to a. Indeed, it appears that
II-w/y verbs must be derived also from biradical roots with a short medial vowel; the prob-
lem, however, is whether or not traces of the short medial vowel have been preserved in
Biblical Hebrew. Bergsträsser’s theory is contradicted by the action of the Canaanite shift
in the nif ºal: g/sn;, g/Syi. Bergsträsser’s proposition that the originally short medial vowel
was lengthened in nif ºal before it occurred in qal is not convincing, since the conjectured
qal form *qam, being monosyllabic, was shorter than the supposed disyllabic nif ºal form
*nasag and therefore more apt to be lengthened. I am inclined to posit a threefold origin of
this verbal class: biradical forms with short vowels, biradical forms with long vowels, and
triradical forms. The medley of these forms, which were also affected by analogical level-
ing, makes their historical reconstruction almost impossible.
00-Blau.book Page 254 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.8.7.2.4. ∑ II-w/y
Absolute
Verbs,
Infinitive;
Qal Verbal Themes 254

4.3.8.7.2.4. At the same time, it appears that r/a ‘to shine’, v/B ‘to be
ashamed’, and b/f ‘to be good’ do not reflect a paºula pattern, as was some-
times suggested: Akkadian †ab and bas, as well as Ugaritic ra", clearly attest to
original a, as does the prefix vowel e in v/bye, r/aTE, which, in accordance with
Barth’s Law (see §4.3.8.4.12, p. 246), exhibits the yif ºal pattern (in contrast to
the yaf ºul/yaf ºil pattern reflected by μWqy; / ryv¥y;). Despite the original a, how-
ever, these verbs are stative verbs, conjugated adjectives (perhaps as in, e.g.,
r/a). The shift a! > o occurred at first in originally open stressed syllables (as in
*basa > v/B) and then spread analogically throughout the entire paradigm (as
in yTIv‘ Bø&, hn;v‘ bø &TE, and the imperative v/B). The prefix-tense of bwf is bf"yyi,
built by suppletion from the root y†b.
4.3.8.7.2.4n. For these verbs as representing the paºula pattern, see, e.g., Bergsträsser
1918–29: 2.155 nn. 3, 7. Bergsträsser is wrong in rejecting the identification of v/B with
Akkadian bas because it is based on the identity of the West Semitic perfect with the
Akkadian present (ibasu). Instead, v/B should be identified with the Akkadian stative
(bas).
r/aTE may also be interpreted as nif ºal; this interpretation becomes even more likely in
light of the qal form hn;r]aø&T:, which, however, may be due to the impact of the more fre-
quent hn;m}qø&T:.
The shift a! > o occurred in stressed syllables, because the Canaanite shift affected only
such syllables. And the shift occurred in open syllables, since in Proto-Hebrew long vow-
els in closed syllables were shortened so that a changed to short a.
4.3.8.7.2.5. Whereas the prefix vowel in v/bye, r/aye attests to an original
characteristic a after the first radical, the prefix vowel a of a/by; ‘he will
come’ attests to an original u after the first radical. The o instead of the ex-
pected u after the first radical perhaps reflects an original jussive, which was
especially frequent in this verb (in expressions such as ‘let him come’) and,
therefore, it prevailed over the ordinary prefix-tense. Similarly, the imperative
is aBO . As a matter of fact, the imperative should have been *qom, *¶em; how-
ever, it changed to μWq, μyc¥ through the influence of the prefix-tense (see
§4.3.8.7.2.1n, p. 253).
4.3.8.7.2.6. In the first and second persons of the paºel pattern, the original
i had shifted to a by Philippi’s Law: yTIm"&, T:m"&. (Through the influence of these
forms, μT<&m" also emerged, although the a is unstressed.) In addition to tmE, this
pattern remained only in some adjectives and substantives which correspond
to the participle, both from roots attested in qal, such as dze ‘insolent’, ≈lE
‘scorning’, r[E ‘awake’, rGe ‘sojourner’ (alongside the participle rG; ‘sojourn-
ing’), and from other roots, such as ˆKE ‘honest’, d[E ‘witness’, rne ‘lamp’.
4.3.8.7.2.7. In the 2/3fp of the prefix-tense, alongside forms such as hn;m}qø&T:
(with short vowel; see §4.3.8.7.2.1, pp. 252–253), forms such as hn;ym<&WqT} also
occur. These are formed by analogy with III-y verbs (such as hn;yl<&g]TI), thus
making the preservation of the long vowel possible.

spread is 12 points short

00-Blau.book Page 255 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

255 Absolute Infinitive;

II-w/y Verbs,
Verbal Nif ºal ∑ 4.3.8.7.3.3.
Qal,Themes

4.3.8.7.2.8. So far we have dealt with II-w verbs. II-y verbs are less fre-
quent. They differ from the II-w verbs in the prefix-tense, the imperative, the
infinitive, and sometimes in the passive participle of qal, exhibiting i for the u
of the II-w verbs. Since the prefix-tense forms of the II-y verbs are identical to
the hif ºil, they are apt to be transferred to the hif ºil of II-w verbs, and thus
they diminish more and more (cf., e.g., qal T:m}c"&, μyc¥y;, from which the hif ºil
μyc¥mE was derived, to give rise to qal II-w μWcy;; further qal hT:n]B"&, ˆybIy,; along-
side hif ºil ˆybIhE).
4.3.8.7.2.8n. See Nöldeke 1904: 34–47. Cf. the literature cited in Bergsträsser 1918–29:
2.153, par. 28t, who also mentions the possibility that in the verb byn, the hif ºil is original
and the qal is secondary.

4.3.8.7.3. Nif ºal

4.3.8.7.3.1. The Nif ºal is characterized by o (< a ! ), which should be inter-
preted, at least in the prefix-tense, as being derived from a biradical base.
4.3.8.7.3.2. If the o after the first radical in the suffix-tense precedes a
stressed o, it changes to u: ytI/g&Wsn] ‘I turned back’, perhaps by dissimilation
from the following stressed o. It is remarkable that in the 2p the o is preserved:
μt<&/x/pn] ‘you have been scattered’. Is the o due to the fact that the second o is
unstressed? However, one must not lose sight of the shift of unstressed o to u
that occurs in the participle without a following o: μykIWbn] ‘confused ones’
(alongside μyni/bn] ‘intelligent ones’); cf. also the alternation o/u: q/tm: ‘sweet’,
hq:Wtm}; s/nm: ‘flight’, (br,j<&) ts"Wnm} ‘flight (from sword)’.
4.3.8.7.3.3. In the first and second persons of the suffix-tense of nif ºal and
hif ºil (and also in geminate verbs in the qal and hof ºal), the suffix is preceded
by the “connective” vowel o. The conjecture that it is due to the impact of
III-w forms (see, e.g., Bauer-Leander 1922: 430) is unlikely, since III-w verbs
are a rather marginal verbal class that disappeared quite early from Biblical
Hebrew. It is much more likely (cf. also Bergsträsser 1918–29: 2.141) that it
represents the extension of the original suffix of the 1s of the suffix-tense (as
still preserved in ªanoki < ªanaku) to the other forms of the first and second
persons: *katabaku > *kataboku > *k´taboti. In most verbal classes, however,
this o disappeared through analogy to the other forms; nevertheless, in II-w/y
(and mediae geminatae) verbs the omission of the o and the resulting closing
of the preceding syllable would have caused extensive shortening of the verbal
forms (as is, indeed, attested in the hif ºil, e.g., T:p}n‡h
' E in contrast with ytIp&øynih“ ‘I
waved’). Therefore, the o, enabling the preservation of the long vowel charac-
teristic of the II-w/y verbs (and of the double second radical characterizing me-
diae geminatae) and adapting these verbal forms to the rhythm of the sound
verb, spread to the other forms of the suffix-tense that opened with a suffix be-
ginning with a consonant.
00-Blau.book Page 256 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.8.7.4. ∑ II-w/y
Absolute
Verbs,
Infinitive;
Hif ºil/Hof
Verbal
ºalThemes 256

4.3.8.7.4. Hif ºil and Hof ºal

4.3.8.7.4.1. Rather remarkable is the ßere of the prefix h in the suffix-tense
of the hif ºil: μyqIhE ‘he raised’. It must not be interpreted as being due to the im-
pact of I-y verbs (such as ˆymIyhE ‘he went to the right’), because in I-y verbs the
e does not change, whereas in μyqIhE, etc., it is reduced by the shift of stress
(ytI/m&yqIh)“ . It appears that this e attests to an original i, which corresponds to
Akkadian u; see §4.3.5.7.4, p. 235. The same ßere occurs in the prefix me- of
the participle: μyqImE.
4.3.8.7.4.2. Some of the features occurring in the hif ºil of the strong verb
are attested in II-w/y verbs in other verbal themes as well. A feature attested in
II-w/y verbs (and mediae geminatae) is that the feminine-singular participle
always has ultima stress (hm:&q:, hg;‡ /sn], hm:&yqIm}), because the final case vowel
has been omitted (< *qamátu, *nasogátu, *meqimátu), on the theory of a gen-
eral penult stress (see above, §3.5.12.2.2, p. 144). However, in the feminine
singular of the suffix-tense, as well as in those forms of the prefix-tense
which terminate in a long vowel, the original penult stress is preserved, since
they did not elide their final vowel: hm:q:&, hg:/s&n;‚ hm:yqI&hE; ymIWq&T:, Wg/S&yi‚ WmyqI&T:. In
originally closed syllables, the results of short vowels are preserved: μqEh:,
E :, μq:Y;‡w' (read: wayyaqom).
hn;m}q&T
4.3.8.7.4.3. The hof ºal is characterized by u preceding the first radical (as
also are I-w/y and mediae geminatae verbs). Since in I-w verbs its occurrence
is original, this u in II-w/y and mediae geminatae verbs has to be attributed to
the analogy of I-w verbs: in II-w/y and mediae geminatae verbs, short u, the
characteristic vowel of the hof ºal, stood in an open syllable and, being un-
stressed, would have been elided, leaving hof ºal without distinct marking.
Therefore, it was remodeled according to the structure of I-w verbs.
4.3.8.7.4.3n. Original I-y verbs were also restructured on the structure of the I-w verbs. For
the original form of this verbal class, see above, §3.4.3.3, p. 97.
4.3.8.7.4.4. Because a long vowel plus simple consonant is rhythmically
almost identical to a short vowel plus double (long) consonant (cf. §4.2.5.2,
p. 180), some II-w verbs in the hif ºil and hof ºal behave like I-n verbs (along-
side “normal” II-w formations). This situation may also be a result of the in-
fluence of mediae geminatae verbs, which sometimes double their first
radical (see §4.3.8.8.1b, p. 258) and, being rather close to II-w verbs, might
have influenced them: μyniyLIm" ‘murmuring’, gySIm"‚ ‘displacing’, tySIm" ‘inciting’,
j'yNihI ‘he put down’.

4.3.8.7.5. Piººel, Puººal, Hitpaººel

4.3.8.7.5.1. The formation of piººel, puººal, and hitpaººel modeled on the
formation of strong verbs (μY'q I ‘he fulfilled’) is exceptional and is a charac-
00-Blau.book Page 257 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

257 Absolute Infinitive;

II-w/y Verbs,
Verbal
Piººel, etc. ∑ 4.3.8.7.5.3.
Themes

teristic of late Biblical Hebrew (and indeed it is attested in Rabbinic Hebrew

as well). Sometimes, instead of doubling the second radical, the first and third
radicals are doubled, giving rise to a quadriliteral verbal formation:
lj"l}j"t}TIw' ‘and she writhed’ Esth 4:4. As a rule, however, these verbal themes
are built with o after the first radical and the repetition of the third radi-
cal, as in: μmE/q, μm"/q, μmE/qt}hI.
4.3.8.7.5.2. In mediae geminatae verbs, too, these verbal themes are built
in a similar manner: bbE/s ‘he surrounded’, bb"/s, bbE/Ts}hI. Here, to be sure, the
number of verbs formed by analogy with strong verbs is greater (as in lLEqI ‘he
cursed’, lL"q U ‘he was cursed’, lLEP"t}hI ‘he prayed’). Nevertheless, as Bergsträs-
ser (1918–29: 2.140) surmised, it is possible that the higher frequency of these
“normal” forms has its roots in defective spelling, which did not mark the o,
and so originally the percentage of o-formations was higher than is reflected
in biblical vocalization. Furthermore, forms with total reduplication of the
first and second radicals occur, giving rise to a quadriliteral verbal formation,
as in lGe l}Gi ‘he rolled’, lGel}G't}hI ‘he rolled himself’.
4.3.8.7.5.2n. It is possible that, e.g., tT"KI ‘he crushed’ was originally *kotat.

4.3.8.7.5.3. Although II-w verbs (such as μmE/q, μm"/q, μmE/qt}h)I and mediae
geminatae verbs (such as bbE/s, bb"/s, bbE/Ts}h)I are externally alike, they syn-
chronically represent different patterns: μmE/q, μm"/q, μmE/qt}h,I derived from μwq,
reflect paºlel, paºlal, and hitpaºlel, whereas bbE/s, bb"/s, bbE/Ts}h,I stemming
from bbs, represent poºel, poºal, and hitpoºel. However, these two verbal
classes are related and many alternate pairs occur; cf. ßwr-ßrr ‘to bind’, sw˙-
s˙˙ ‘to bow down’, gwd-gdd ‘to attack’. Therefore, historically, these verbal
themes, derived from II-w/y and mediae geminatae verbs, must not be ana-
lyzed separately without a connection to the other form, although either form
could have arisen independently in any of the pairs. Nevertheless, the mere oc-
currence of a pattern in one verbal class heightened its occurrence in the other,
even if it did not cause the emergence of the other form altogether. Moreover,
comparison with Aramaic demonstrates not only that this pattern could have
emerged in any of these verbal classes but also that it may have been derived
from two different bases (see Blau 1971c: 147–51 = Topics, 169–73 for partic-
ulars). In Biblical Hebrew (see above, §1.1.6, pp. 1–2; §3.5.2.6, p. 108), o is
equivocal as to its origin: it may be derived from both a and aw (bbE/s may be
derived from both *sawbeb and sabeb). In Aramaic, however, o stems only
from aw, whereas a is preserved without change. Nevertheless, even in Ara-
maic, both forms are attested, sometimes with aw/o (as ªetbawrar ‘to be at
loss’ from bwr, ªetgawrer ‘to ruminate’ from grr in Syriac, gob2 eb2 ‘to answer’
from gwb in Palestinian Christian Aramaic), and with a (although to a rather
limited extent; as in la†e† ‘to curse’ from lw†, lapöepö ‘to connect’ from lpp in
Targum Onkelos according to the Babylonian tradition only). Therefore, it
00-Blau.book Page 258 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.8.7.5.4. ∑ Absolute
Piººel, etc.;
Infinitive;
MediaeVerbal
Geminatae
Themes
Verbs 258

may be surmised that in Biblical Hebrew, as well, these patterns have multiple
origins, partly stemming from palel, etc., partly from pawlel, etc.
4.3.8.7.5.3n. A similar situation can be observed with verbs in the quadriliteral formation.
Although externally similar, they also represent different patterns: ºilºel from ºwl reflects
pilpel; gilgel from gll piºpel.
4.3.8.7.5.4. On the one hand, the number of II-w/y verbs conjugated as
strong verbs is limited: [w'G : ‘to perish’, jw'x: ‘to cry’, by'a: ‘to be hostile’. These
seem to be late forms, and some are denominative (by'a: derived from byeaø ‘en-
emy’). On the other hand, in III-y verbs that have w/y as the second radical,
the second radical regularly behaves as a “strong” consonant: hw;l: ‘to be
joined, to borrow’, hW;xI ‘to order’, hW;qI ‘to hope’, hy;h: ‘to be’, hy;j: ‘to live’; ˙yy
may also be conjugated as a mediae geminatae verb: yj" ‘alive’.

4.3.8.8. Mediae Geminatae Verbs

4.3.8.8.1. At least some of these verbs have to be derived from biradical
roots. This is especially conspicuous in the qal of stative verbs. Verbs such as
lq" ‘to be light’, in the suffix-tense hL:q,"& WLq"& clearly behave as conjugated ad-
jectives and have not yet been adapted to the triradical scheme (hL:q,"& WLq"&, and
not hl:l}q:*, Wll}q:*; in contradistinction to action verbs such as hb:b}s:, Wbb}s:).
Moreover, the inconsistent behavior of the (first) two radicals attests to a bi-
radical origin as well:
(a) As a rule, of course, it is the second radical that is doubled: ytI/B&s", WBsø&T:,
ytI/B&sIh“.
(b) Nevertheless, not infrequently, the first radical is doubled, the so-called
“Aramaic” formation, as in dQøYiw' ‘and he bowed down’, WdQ}Yiw', lD'y i ‘he will be
brought low’.
4.3.8.8.1(b)n. Since this formation is characteristic of Aramaic, it is quite possible that at
least some of these forms in Biblical Hebrew are due to Aramaic influence. It seems less
likely that these forms should be analyzed as nif ºal.
(c) Forms without reduplication are attested: Wmz]y ; (instead of the expected
*yazómmu; root zmm) ‘they intend’ Gen 11:6; hl:b}n; (instead of the expected
*nabõólla; root bll) ‘let us confuse’ Gen 11:7.
(d) Both the first and second radical may be doubled: WTK"&yu ‘they will be
crushed’ Job 4:20; WBSE&Y'w' ‘and they turned’ Judg 18:23.
4.3.8.8.2. The fact that four different kinds of formation are attested in
these verbs, in addition to their alternation with II-w/y verbs (itself a verbal
class of at least partial biradical origin; see §4.3.8.7.1.1, p. 252), makes the bi-
radical origin of mediae geminatae verbs very likely as well. Many verbal
forms, such as bS"yi ‘he turns around’ in nif ºal, can hardly be derived from a tri-
radical base.
4.3.8.8.2n. On the other hand, it seems that Bergsträsser (1918–29: 2.141) went too far
when he claimed that bsøy; represents a biradical base, since *yasbubu could not have de-
00-Blau.book Page 259 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

259 Absolute Mediae

Infinitive;
Geminatae Verbs ∑ 4.3.8.8.6.
Verbal Themes

veloped into *yasubbu ( > BHeb bsøy); . As a matter of fact, yastatiru ‘he will hide’, in a
rather parallel way, dialectically developed into yasattiru, thus attesting the possibility
that *yasubbu stemmed from *yasbubu. See Blau 1969b: 39 = Middle Arabic, 362.

4.3.8.8.3. As for the formation of piººel, puººal, and hitpaººel, see above,
§4.3.8.7.5, pp. 256ff.
4.3.8.8.4. In the qal, action and stative verbs are clearly differentiated:
On the one hand, stative verbs, having a in all their forms, are merely conju-
gated adjectives (cf. above, 4.3.8.8.1, p. 258) and are not formed in accor-
dance with the structure of the strong verbs (no forms such as *qal´lu, *qolel
are attested). Action verbs, on the other hand, that exhibit u (o) in the prefix-
tense (bsøy); do have forms identical to those of the strong verb (hb:b}s:, Wbb}s:,
bbE/s). In the light of the qal forms ytI/N‡G " and ˆ/nG:, ˆge y ; ‘he defends’ must be in-
terpreted historically as the i(e)-prefix-tense of the qal, which was synchroni-
cally understood as hif ºil (and, in Rabbinic Hebrew, gave rise to the genuine
hif ºil forms ˆgehE, ˆgemE). Thus, the prefix-tense of the qal conforms to Barth’s
Law: yif ºal (lq' y)e as against yaf ºul / yaf ºil (bsøy;, ˆgey); (see above, §4.3.5.2.3.1,
p. 221).
4.3.8.8.5. As stated, it is the second radical that is generally doubled (in
the qal, nif ºal, hif ºil, and hof ºal; for the different formation of the piººel,
puººal, and hitpaººel, see §4.3.8.7.4.2, p. 256). The doubling does not take
place in word-final position (such as bsøy;, bsEhE, etc.), which does not permit
doubling (see above, §3.5.11.3, p. 139), or in word-internal position when the
second radical is vowelless: hn;b}sE&T:. It is difficult to interpret this detail his-
torically. It may be secondary, due to the effect of II-w/y verbs (hn;m}q&T E :), or a
result of the intention to avoid a deviant form (*tasebb´na does not conform
to any pattern). However, it may be original, reflecting an archaic biradical
formation.
4.3.8.8.6. As in II-w/y verbs (see §4.3.8.7.4.2, p. 256), the vocalic suffixes
of the finite verb forms are unstressed, because the penultimate syllable,
being closed by the doubling of the second radical, preserved the original pen-
ultimate stress. The same process occurred in II-w/y verbs with a long penul-
timate syllable: hL:q'& (in contrast to the participle hL:&q"), WLq"&, WLq"&T,E yBIsø&T:, hB:s"&n;
(in contrast to the participle hB:&s"n], the vowel of the n being reduced because of
its distance from the stress), hB:s&h E E (in contrast to the participle hB:&sIm}, the
vowel of the m being reduced because of its distance from the stress), hB:s"&Wh
(in contrast to the participle hB:&s"Wm).

4.3.8.8.6n. For the “connective” vowel o in the suffix-tense first and second persons (pre-
ceding a consonantal suffix), as in ytI/B&s", ytI/B&s"n], ytI/B&sIh“, ytI/B&s"Wh, and the (optional) œö con-
nective vowel in the 2fp and 3fp of the prefix-tense (as hn;yB<&sUT}, hn;yB<&sIT}), which is even
more frequent than in II-w/y verbs (ytI/m&yqIh“, hn;ym<&yqIT}), see §4.3.8.7.2.7, p. 254; §4.3.8.7.3.3,
p. 255. Note that, in contradistinction to II-w/y verbs, the connective vowel o occurs in qal
as well.
00-Blau.book Page 260 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.3.8.8.7. ∑ Mediae Geminatae Verbs; the Noun, Synopsis 260

4.3.8.8.7. The nif ºal (in all likelihood, of biradical origin) has a after the
first radical in the suffix-tense (and a in the participle), which alternates with
ßere: lq"n; / lqEn; ‘it was easy’. However, forms with o are also attested: WZbø&n;w ]
‘and they will be plundered’. Thus is the situation in the prefix-tense/impera-
tive as well: as a rule, a prevails (πK"aI ‘I will bow’), which, in the root ˙ll only,
interchanges with e: ljETE ‘she is defiled’ Lev 21:9 (in contrast to lj: y e [in pause]
Isa 48:11); o is rare: Isa 24:3 z/BTI z/BhI ‘it will indeed be plundered’ (note the
plene spelling!).
4.3.8.8.8. In the hif ºil, a prevails in the 3ms of the suffix-tense, e in the
prefix-tense: lq"hE, lqEy; ‘to make (it) light’. However, e occurs in the suffix-
tense as well: ljEhE ‘he began’.
4.3.8.8.9. The hof ºal is characterized by u: cf. §4.3.8.7.4.3, p. 256.

4.4. The Noun

4.4.1. A Synopsis
4.4.1.1. In the Semitic languages in general, and in Biblical Hebrew in par-
ticular, the line between substantives and adjectives is rather blurred. Gen-
erally speaking, adjectives are closer to verbs than to substantives (cf. stative
verbs, which often merely are conjugated adjectives; cf. above, §4.3.2.2.9,
p. 194). As is the case with verbs, the structure of triradical adjectives is rather
developed, and certainly more than is true of substantives. The marking of
gender is more uniform in adjectives than in substantives: adjectives without
the feminine suffix are always masculine, those with the feminine suffix al-
ways feminine (l/dG: ‘big’ is always masculine, hl:/dG} always feminine; this
applies to participles as well: btE/K is always masculine, tb<t<&/K, hb:t}/K always
feminine). Similarly, the marking of the plural is more uniform: μy-i in adjec-
tives (and participles) always marks masculine plural, t/- feminine plural
(μylI/dG}, t/l/dG], etc.). This, however, is not always the case with substantives,
though it is the prevalent pattern. For details, see below, §4.4.2, pp. 263–265.
4.4.1.1n. Pace Kienast (2001: 73–80, especially p. 77), who, relying on Akkadian, sepa-
rates substantival and adjectival nominal forms. Nevertheless, in order to apply his thesis
to the Semitic languages, he is forced to posit quite unlikely sound shifts, as if in Hebrew
qa†l had shifted to qa†al, thus supposing an unpredictable behavior of qa†l, which, accord-
ing to Kienast, developed into both qa†a⁄l and qœ!†œl (Kienast 2001: 85, par. 77.2b; 89, par.
84.1). Moreover, he is compelled to impose Modern Arabic word structure on Classical
Arabic noun formation, in order to justify the use of qatal as a noun, rather than as an ad-
jective, as if it arose by anaptyxis from Modern Arabic qatl devoid of case endings (Kie-
nast 2001: 100–105). Not only does he predate the influence of Modern Arabic; he also
posits random conduct for qatl, which, according to Kienast, was sometimes retained and
sometimes shifted to qatal; see 4.4.1.7, pp. 262–263.
Adjectives that apply to feminine only may exceptionally not exhibit feminine gender,
such as lWKvæ bDø ‘(female) bear robbed of offspring’ 2 Sam 17:8.
00-Blau.book Page 261 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

261 Connection of Nouns and Verbs ∑ 4.4.1.4.

4.4.1.2. We distinguish between primitive and derived nouns. Primitive

nouns, such as μv´ ‘name’, are not derived from any other word. Derived
nouns are either deverbal (when stemming from a verb, such as hb:h:a“ ‘love’
from bh"a: ‘to love’; h[:De& ‘knowledge’ from [d'y; ‘to know’), or denominal
(when derived from another noun, such as μreKø ‘vinedresser’ from μr,K<& ‘vine-
yard’; tV…q " ‘bowman’ from tv≤q <& ‘bow’).
4.4.1.3. The morphological connection between nouns and verbs was
studied at the end of the nineteenth century by two scholars, P. de Lagarde
(1889) in his Übersicht über die im Aramäischen, Arabischen und Hebräi-
schen übliche Bildung der Nomina, and by J. Barth in his Die Nominalbildung
in den semitischen Sprachen (2nd ed., 1894a). The first part of Barth’s book
was published in the same year as de Lagarde’s work; the second part ap-
peared in 1891. Barth’s entire book appeared in a second edition (with in-
dexes) in 1894. According to de Lagarde, nouns relate either to the imperative
or to the suffix-tense; according to Barth, nouns relate either to the prefix-
tense or to the suffix-tense. Since, for all practical purposes, the imperative
and the prefix-tense are structurally alike, the differences between the two
methods are not striking. Because Barth’s book is more comprehensive and
much better known, we will content ourselves with citing Barth’s method
(which, in many respects, also represents de Lagarde’s method).
4.4.1.4. Barth stresses the fact that nouns of the same pattern may denote a
state or an action; thus rysIa: ‘prisoner’ and dyqIP: ‘overseer’ are both of the
paºil pattern. However, the first denotes a state, the second an action, prima
facie, in clear contradistinction to the verb, in which state and action are
sharply differentiated in both the suffix-tense and the prefix-tense (which is
identical to the imperative). The characteristic vowel of the verb (i.e., the
vowel following the second radical) marks the opposition state : action (see
§4.3.5.2.2.1, p. 220; §4.3.5.2.3.1, p. 221). In the suffix-tense, i/u (e/o) indicate
state, whereas a indicates action. In the prefix-tense (and the imperative) i/u
(e/o) indicate action; a indicates state:

Pattern of State Pattern of Action

suffix-tense paºil / paºul paºal
prefix-tense yif ºal yaf ºul(/yaf ºil)

Barth bridges this difference between nouns and verbs in the following way:
in nouns also, the vowel after the second radical is the characteristic vowel.
(In monosyllabic nouns, of course, the only vowel is the characteristic one,
such as i in *sipr ‘book’ [> rp<sE&]). Accordingly, i is the characteristic vowel of
rysIa: / dyqIP:. (Of course, the long i is nothing but a lengthened form of origi-
nally short i.) He connects the structure of the noun with that of the verb and
00-Blau.book Page 262 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.4.1.5. ∑ Connection of Nouns and Verbs 262

claims that any noun in which, e.g., characteristic i marks state is related to the
suffix-tense, because it is in the suffix-tense that i indicates state. In contrast,
i signifying action has to be connected to the prefix-tense, in which i is the
marker of action. Accordingly, rysIa: is related to the suffix-tense, dyqIP: to the
prefix-tense.
4.4.1.5. Many scholars criticized Barth’s (and Lagarde’s) method. First, it
was claimed, it cannot be disproved (and therefore it cannot be demonstrated,
either). Every noun denotes either an action or a state and contains either a or
i/u (or their derivatives). Since in verbs any of these vowels may mark either
action or state (depending on whether it occurs in the suffix or the prefix-tense),
the attribution of any noun to one of these tenses gives rise to a vicious circle.
Moreover, though Barth speaks only of the relation between verbs and nouns,
this classification creates the impression that nouns, in general, are derived
from verbs. However, the facts are much more complex since, alongside de-
verbal nouns, denominal verbs are by no means exceptional. Moreover, the as-
sumption that the “characteristic” vowel of a noun is always identical to that of
a verbal form from which it is (allegedly) derived is by no means necessary.
Morphological derivation may be accompanied by apophony (i.e., vowel
change, the derived form reflecting a different vowel). This has especially been
stressed by J. Kurylowicz (1961; English adaptation, 1972), passim.
4.4.1.6. Despite these qualifications, one must not lose sight of the merits of
Barth’s work. In many cases in which there is a historical relation between
nominal and verbal forms (which is not necessarily the result of derivation),
Barth’s method enables the linguist to recognize this relation and to uncover
hidden connections (as in the case of rk<ze‡ < *zikr, the i of which enables us to
postulate an archaic qal prefix-tense *yazkir and thus understand why the Bib-
lical Hebrew hif ºil ryKIz]y ' corresponds in other Semitic languages to [the more
original] qal; for details, see §4.3.5.2.3.2, p. 223; and Blau 1961: 81–86). Thus,
despite its far-reaching schematization, Barth’s system has great merits in lay-
ing bare many hidden relations in the field of nouns. Moreover, his book is the
clearest systematic arrangement of nouns in the field of Semitics.
4.4.1.7. Recently, Kienast (2001: 71–80), basing his analysis on Akkadian,
has suggested a different classification, in which substantives and adjectives.
are differentiated. He does not derive the noun from the verb; on the contrary,
he derives verbal forms from adjectival nominal forms (p. 334). Since, how-
ever, a strict separation of substantives and adjectives is contradicted both by
Biblical Hebrew and the other Semitic languages (see above, §4.4.1.1n,
p. 260), it is difficult to accept Kienast’s derivation. The cornerstone of Kie-
nast’s theory is the adjective qa†al, from which verbal forms are allegedly de-
rived; however, qa†al has a substantival nature in most Semitic languages. In
addition, he is forced to posit quite unlikely sound shifts in order to apply his
thesis to the various Semitic languages. In Hebrew, for example, he argues
00-Blau.book Page 263 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

263 Gender ∑ 4.4.2.3.

that qa†l shifted to qa†al, thus conjecturing an unpredictable behavior for qa†l,
which, according to him, developed into both qa†a⁄l and qœ!†œl (Kienast 2001:
85, par. 77.2b; 89, par. 84.1). Moreover, he is compelled to impose Modern
Arabic word structure on Classical Arabic noun formation in order to justify
the use of qatal as a noun, rather than as an adjective, as if it arose by anap-
tyxis from Modern Arabic qa†l devoid of case endings (Kienast 2001: 100–5).
Not only does he anachronistically apply the influence of Modern Arabic, but
he also posits random conduct for qa†l, which, according to him, was some-
times retained and sometimes shifted to qa†al.

4.4.2. Gender
4.4.2.1. In Biblical Hebrew, as in the other Semitic languages, there are
two genders: masculine and feminine. Gender is a grammatical category that
formally marks agreement between words in a sentence; thus, its primary
function is syntactic. As is true of many languages with gender, the gender of
substantives in Biblical Hebrew sometimes correlates with the natural sex of
animate beings. But this correspondence is only partial; more broadly, all
nouns, including inanimate objects, are classified as grammatically masculine
or feminine. Therefore, not only animate beings are either masculine (like vyaI
‘man’) or feminine (like hV…aI ‘woman’), but also inanimate objects (such as
ˆj:l}v¨ ‘table’ masculine, aSEKI ‘chair’ masculine, ≈r,a<& ‘earth, land’ feminine,
hv…B:y' ‘dry land’ feminine).
4.4.2.2. Some scholars surmise that in the Semitic languages, including
Biblical Hebrew, there originally existed a much broader system of nominal
classification (as is reflected, for example, in the complex nominal categories
of the Bantu languages), and thus masculine and feminine are only the residues
of this system. It has also been claimed that the suffix -at originally marked sin-
gularity (nomen unitatis), in opposition to collective nouns with zero ending
(“masculine” nouns; cf. Kienast 2001: 131, §122.1). Perhaps nouns with the
-at suffix are derived from (“masculine”) nouns with zero ending and their sig-
nification results from their opposition to the latter. That is, in opposition to the
masculine Ël<m<& ‘king’, hK:l}m" denotes ‘queen’; in contrast to the collective noun
r[:c´ ‘hair’, the “feminine” hr;[“cæ marks a single hair, whereas hg;D,; being de-
rived from gD; ‘a single fish’, has a collective meaning.
4.4.2.3. In some cases, the possibility has been considered that suffixes of
a different nature were interpreted as marking the feminine by metanalysis.
However, no certain cases of this kind are known. H. Bauer (1914: 371–72)
had the ingenious idea that the double parts of the body became feminine in
the Semitic languages, because the 3md *paºala of the suffix-tense (which is
also the corresponding dual form in Classical Arabic) was reinterpreted as
3fp (which in Proto-Semitic was indeed *paºala). In the Semitic languages
00-Blau.book Page 264 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.4.2.4. ∑ Gender 264

(especially Arabic), in general, and in Biblical Hebrew, in particular, the femi-

nine ending, as mentioned above, is used to mark nomen unitatis. According
to Bauer again (see Bauer-Leander 1922: 511z), the ending marking nomen
unitatis was originally different from the feminine ending (perhaps being re-
lated to Arabic taww ‘single [thing]’), but was reinterpreted as the feminine
ending, and so the nouns with this ending were transferred to the feminine
category. We have already seen (see §4.2.4.5.2, p. 179) that the final -t ending
of tazO ‘this (feminine)’ was possibly originally a demonstrative element with
no gender distinction, which was reinterpreted as the feminine suffix.
4.4.2.4. As a rule, masculine nouns do not have an ending (i.e., they have
a zero ending, e.g., Ël<m<& ‘king’). Feminine nouns terminate either in the
stressed -a suffix, as in hK:l}m" ‘queen’, derived originally from -at, which is still
preserved in non-final position, when preceding pronominal suffixes (/tK:l}m"),
and even in construct (where it stands in internal open juncture: ab:v‘AtK""l}m"
‘the queen of Sheba’), or in -t, such as ydiWhy] ‘Jew’, tydiWhy] ‘Jewess’. This latter
ending is apt to give rise to segolate forms, as in tb<v& ≤/y ‘sitting’ < *yasibt;
t["m"&/v ‘hearing’ < *samiºt. It stands to reason that these two feminine suffixes
are genetically related, -at being the original ending from which, under certain
phonetic conditions (caused by stress), the a was elided. The original condi-
tioning of this elision has been blurred by widespread analogy, so that the
original constraints can no longer be reconstructed. In Biblical Hebrew, there
is a certain tendency to use -at (> -a) in the absolute, -t in the construct and
preceding pronominal suffixes (such as *mamlakat > hk:l:m}m" ‘kingdom’ in the
absolute, tk<l<m& }m" < *mamlakt in the construct, and yTIk}l"m}m").
4.4.2.4n. Cf. §§4.3.3.4.6–4.3.3.4.8, pp. 210–211. In exceptional cases, -at has not shifted
to -a. It was, e.g., preserved in (original) adverbs such as tr;j’m: ‘the morrow’ (originally:
‘tomorrow’), because as an adverbial marker it was felt necessary (cf. Blau 1979a: 10 =
Topics, 29, par. 2.3.1). It is also preserved in poetic usage (tq'r]B: ‘emerald’, alternating
with tq<r,&B:) and especially in proper nouns (tp"r]x:), presumably borrowed from another di-
alect that preserved -at.
For the unstressed nominal ending -a (h-:), see below, §4.4.4.13, p. 269.

4.4.2.5. Some very archaic feminine nouns lack a special ending, not only
those denoting feminine beings (such as μaE ‘mother’, ˆ/ta: ‘she-ass’), but
others as well, such as ˆb<a<& ‘stone’, ≈r,a<& ‘earth’ (see above, §4.4.2.1, p. 263),
ry[I ‘city’, /Bri ‘ten thousand’, ˆp<G,& ‘vine’. This is especially the case with nouns
denoting the double parts of the body (see above, §4.4.2.3, p. 263), such as dy;
‘hand’, lg,r,& ‘foot’ and also names of countries and towns. Some nouns (such as
Ër,D,& ‘way’, j'Wr ‘spirit, wind’, vm<v& ≤ ‘sun’) are both feminine and masculine.
Masculine nouns with the feminine ending are exceptional. Similarly excep-
tional is tl<h<&qø (perhaps originally the name of the office ‘collection’, if the
feminine ending does not have an intensive force as in Arabic), as in tl<h<&qø rm"a:
‘Qohelet said’ Eccl 1:2, in contrast to tl<h<&qø hr;m}a: Eccl 7:27, where the gram-
00-Blau.book Page 265 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

265 Statuses ∑ 4.4.3.2.

matical ending has prevailed over the sense. Strangely enough, hr;/m ‘razor’ is
construed as masculine in /varøAl[" hl<[“y'Aalø hr;/mW ‘and no razor will come
upon his head’ 1 Sam 1:11.

4.4.3. Statuses: Absolute, Construct, Pronominal

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 govegrning 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 ab-
solute: Arb"D] ‘the speech of’ as opposed to the absolute rb:D;; tq' d]xI (with the
construct feminine ending) ‘righteousness of’ as opposed to the absolute
hq:d;x}. Moreover, as these examples demonstrate, the final closed syllables of
absolute nouns contain a long vowel, those of the construct a short vowel (see
§3.5.7.1.5, p. 120).
4.4.3.1n. It is not the case that construct nouns are proclitic according to the biblical can-
tillation marks; this, however, is no doubt due to the solemn, ceremonial reading of the
Bible. In everyday speech, especially in quick conversation, the construct was often de-
void of stress and formed one stress unit with the following noun (the nomen rectum),
which bore the stress of both nouns. Cf. §3.5.7.6.10, p. 131. The construct noun is also
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 hyphen-
ated construct nouns, as is the case, e.g., in ˆ/YxIAtB" ‘the daughter of Zion’. The vowel of
the stressed construct noun was changed by Philippi’s Law and afterward the noun be-
came hyphenated.
4.4.3.2. The status pronominalis, i.e., the status of nouns governing pro-
nominal suffixes (which perform a function similar to that of English posses-
sive 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 length-
ening is excluded only before the so-called “heavy” suffixes μk<-, ˆk<- (and μh<-,
ˆh<-; e.g., μk<&d]y), , 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, see the following section (§4.4.4.6, p. 268).
4.4.3.2n. The “heavy” suffixes are invariably stressed. The suffix Ú- attached to singular
nouns (such as in Ú&d]y); bears the stress as well, but this stress is secondary (see §3.5.12.2.8,
00-Blau.book Page 266 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.4.4. ∑ Cases 266

p. 147). The original penultimate stress has also been preserved in pause (Úd,&y); and in plural
nouns (Úyd,&y ; ).

4.4.4. The Cases

4.4.4.1. In many languages, nouns have grammatical markers that express
the relationship of the noun to the other words in the sentence. These markers
are called cases. According to the evidence from various Semitic languages
(Akkadian, Arabic, Ugaritic), there were at least three cases in Proto-Semitic
(but see below, §4.4.4.2), viz., nominative (also called the casus rectus), ac-
cusative, and genitive (also called the oblique cases, in opposition to the nom-
inative, the casus rectus). The nominative is used in a relatively independent
position in the sentence, viz., as the subject (or in agreement with it) and as the
(nominal) predicate; the oblique cases, on the other hand, mark that the noun is
governed by another word. The accusative, as a rule, is governed by the verb
(casus adverbialis, in the full sense of the word, the case dependent on the
verb). Therefore it denotes the direct object, which is governed by the (transi-
tive) verb, and the adverbial, which modifies the verb. It is also used in inter-
jections, originally often direct objects of a now-omitted verb. The genitive is
the casus adnominalis, the case dependent on a noun. Therefore, a noun gov-
erned by a construct (the nomen rectum; such as Ël<M<&h" in Ël<M<&h"Arb"D] ‘the king’s
commandment’; cf. the “Saxon genitive” in English) originally stood in the
genitive, acting as possessor, source, etc., of the construct. Historically, most
prepositions were nouns in construct in adverbial function (cf. §4.2.3.3.2,
p. 170; §5.1.1, p. 283). Therefore, prepositions themselves originally stood in
the adverbial accusative, the nouns governed by them (being originally nouns
governed by the construct) in the genitive. This construct function of the
prepositions is reflected even in their vocalization; cf., e.g., tM"[Ul} ‘close to’
(e.g., hx<[:h< tM"[Ul} ‘close to the backbone’ Lev 3:9), terminating in the construct
(feminine) ending -at.
4.4.4.2. According to the evidence from Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Arabic,
the case endings of the singular were -u in the nominative, -a in the accusa-
tive (including adverbial usage), and -i in the genitive. In addition to these
three main cases, there was an adverbial case with an -u ending, presumably
surviving in Biblical Hebrew in μaøt}PI ‘suddenly’, μvø l}v¥ ‘the day before yes-
terday’. Originally, this adverbial ending was also used with the absolute in-
finitive preceding a finite verb, as indicated by Akkadian and Ugaritic (as in
T:k}l"&h: Ëløh: ‘indeed you went’ < *halaku halakta).
4.4.4.2n. Kienast (2001: 179, par. 162.7) identifies this adverbial case with the nomina-
tive, claiming that this identification suggests that early Semitic was ergative. He com-
pares the English preposition “by,” which has agentive function denoting the logical
subject in “the temple was built by the king” but locative signification in “the temple was
built by the river” and instrumental meaning in “the temple was built by bricks.” Such a

spread is 3 points long

00-Blau.book Page 267 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

267 Mimation ∑ 4.4.4.4.

comparison, however, seems inappropriate, reflecting that sort of excessive application of

the term ergative that has infected linguistic literature since the late 1960s. Cf. also
M. Waltisberg 2002: 1–62.
4.4.4.3. The omission of short final vowels affected the case endings in two
stages. First, final i/u were omitted, but a was retained, giving rise to the
opposition -a (= accusative, including adverbial) : W (representing nominative/
genitive, including vocative). Later, final -a was elided as well.
4.4.4.3n. For the greater stability of a, which resulted in its being omitted after i/u, cf.
§3.5.7.2.3n, p. 122.
In the cohortative, a was preserved; cf. §4.3.2.2.6, p. 192. In the case system, the para-
digmatic pressure to preserve final short vowels was less evident. On the one hand, the
former genitive was rather superfluous (it was sufficiently indicated by the preceding con-
struct or preposition). On the other hand, the former accusative in the function of direct
object was quite clearly differentiated from the subject not only by word order (following,
as a rule, the subject) but also by taE, the facultative marker of the definite direct object.
4.4.4.4. In Classical Arabic, determinate nouns terminate in the case vowels
u/a/i; in indeterminate nouns, these vowels are followed by a final n (called
nunation): un/an/in. In Sabaic, a dialect of Epigraphic South Arabian, mima-
tion, i.e., final-m (um/am/im), corresponds to nunation and is attached to in-
determinate nouns as well. In Akkadian, however, in which the category of
determinate nouns is wanting altogether, mimation is used in general with
nouns (except for nouns in construct). There are some vestiges of mimation in
Canaanite: the earliest Egyptian transcriptions of Jerusalem as Urusalimim oc-
cur around 1800 b.c.e. It is not clear whether this mimation was used with
indeterminate nouns (and then extended to proper nouns, as was nunation in
Arabic) or employed, as in Akkadian, in nouns in general (except in nouns in
construct and preceding pronominal suffixes). Prima facie, forms such as
μaøt}P,I μvø l}v¥ (see above, §4.4.4.2, p. 266) suggest the possible existence of mi-
mation in Hebrew, as do μN;jI ‘gratuitously, μm:/y ‘by day’, μn;m}a/U μn;m}a: ‘truly’ (cf.
also μq:yre ‘emptily, vainly’). At any rate, it was omitted very early, as one may
infer from the lack of any indication of it after 1800 b.c.e. A hint of the former
use of mimation in Biblical Hebrew in every position except in the construct
can be seen in the alternate forms for ‘father’ and ‘brother’ (as suggested by
R. Steiner): the construct forms have long -i in ybIa“ ‘father of’ and yjIa“ ‘brother
of’, but the long vowel is absent in the absolute forms (ba: , ja: ). If indeed mi-
mation obtained in the absolute in general, then the u, etc., of *ªabum, *ªa˙um
was shortened (being in a closed syllable; see above, §3.5.12.2.14n, p. 151) to
*ªabum and *ªa˙um to become, with the dropping of the mimation and the final
short casevowels, ba:, ja:.
4.4.4.4n. In Minaic (as opposed to Sabaic), there is great freedom in the use or omission of
mimation. See A. F. L. Beeston 1962: 31, par. 27.3/4; 1984: 30–31, par. 14.2/3.
One cannot exclude the possibility that in Proto-Semitic mimation/nunation occurred
with determinate nouns only, because indeterminate nouns had no case endings. (We can
00-Blau.book Page 268 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.4.4.5. ∑ Cases 268

compare the use of taE with determinate nouns only, because it was deemed superfluous to
mark indeterminate direct objects. This was perhaps the case because, as a rule, the sub-
ject was determinate and the opposition determinate : indeterminate was usually sufficient
for marking the opposition subject : object.) Later, in Akkadian, m became the common
suffix of ordinary nouns, whereas in Sabaic and Classical Arabic, m/n by further develop-
ment became the markers of indeterminate nouns. Cf. Blau 1974: 34 = Studies, 362, §3.1
(end). Diem (1975: 239–58) has presented convincing arguments that mimation originally
was characteristic of the singular; nunation, of the dual and plural. In many languages, this
original distinction (representing archaic heterogeneity) was leveled out: in some, m pre-
vailed; in others, n. Therefore, mimation and nunation have to be treated together. In Bib-
lical Hebrew, at any rate, -m prevailed in the dual and plural (whereas in Rabbinic Hebrew,
presumably through the influence of Aramaic and/or the neutralization of the difference
between final m and n, -n kept the upper hand).
Biblical Hebrew μq; yre corresponds to El-Amarna riqami. This comparative evidence
and the oxytone stress of words with -am attest to the omission of a final (short) vowel. Cf.
the theory (cited also by Kienast 2001: 144, par. 139.5) that mimation stems from ma. This
theory, however, does not fit the i of El-Amarna riqami. Cf. below, §4.4.4.12, p. 269.
4.4.4.5. In Akkadian, the construct lacks case vowels. In Biblical Hebrew
as well, the construct did not have case vowels at an early period, although the
absolute still had them, as demonstrated by the different behavior of *¶adayu
> hd,c… in contrast to construct hdec‘ < *¶aday (see above, §3.4.5.5, p. 100;
§3.5.7.1.5, p. 120; §4.3.8.6.6n, p. 250). It has been claimed that Proto-Hebrew
was also lacking case vowels in the construct. This claim, however, must be
rejected for the following reasons:
4.4.4.6. The so-called “connective” vowels in status pronominalis (as in
Wnde&y); are clearly vestiges of case endings. It cannot be claimed that they are
anaptyctic vowels, because this does not account for the different behavior of
the 3fs of the suffix-tense preceding pronominal suffixes without these vowels
(as Wnt}r'&m:v)‘ .
4.4.4.7. In prepositions the “connective” vowel is sometimes a. This can
only be accounted for if we consider the “connective” vowels originally to
have been case endings. Prepositions, being originally adverbials in construct
(see above, §4.4.4.1, p. 266), terminated in -a, which was accordingly pre-
served (as in Wnl:& ‘to us’, WnM:&[I ‘with us’). Nouns, however, could be followed
by any case vowel and therefore a was much more restricted (Wnde&y,; rather than
*yada!nu).
4.4.4.7n. For the disposition of Biblical Hebrew to preserve a, see §3.5.7.2.3n, p. 122.
The qamaß in WnM:&[I, etc., is, it seems, due to the intrusion of the pausal form into the
contextual form.
4.4.4.8. The (long) i of the construct forms ybIa“, yjIa“ (cf. above, §4.4.4.4,
p. 267) also hint that case vowels were being used in construct.
4.4.4.9. So far, we have based the existence of case vowels in the construct
on internal reconstruction. The case vowels attested in construct in Arabic and
Ugaritic also point in the same direction.
00-Blau.book Page 269 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

269 Cases ∑ 4.4.4.14.

4.4.4.10. We have already mentioned (above, §§4.4.4.6–4.4.4.8, p. 268) the

vestiges of case endings that are preserved as “connective” vowels preceding
pronominal suffixes, as well as in the i in ybIa,“ yjIa“ in construct.
4.4.4.11. We have also mentioned (above, §4.4.4.2, p. 266; §4.4.4.4, p. 267)
adverbial -u preserved in μaøt}P,I μvø l}v¥ .
4.4.4.12. It has been often claimed that the adverbs μN;j,I μm:/y, μn;m}a: / μn;m}a,U
μq: yre represent fossilized adverbial accusatives. The case endings, as a rule,
were redundant and therefore easily omitted. In adverbial function, however,
they continued to be markers of this grammatical category and were accord-
ingly preserved (cf. Blau 1979a: 10 = Topics, 29, par. 2.3). It seems, however,
that these adverbials (partly at least) do not historically represent merely accu-
sative endings plus mimation but accusative endings plus an adverbial ending
-mi. This is intimated not only by the El-Amarna transcription (EA 137:21)
riqami but also by the ultima stress in Biblical Hebrew, which (see above,
§4.4.4.4n, p. 268) indicates that a final vowel after the m was elided.
4.4.4.13. The terminative (unstressed) h-; (as in hx:r]a"& ‘to the earth’), oc-
curs also in exclamations (such as hl:lI&j: ‘far be it’, literally, ‘ad profanum!’).
In poetry it became merely ornamental (as in ht:[:&Wvy] Jonah 2:10 ‘help’, and,
in one case, even in prose, where hl:y]l"&, originally ‘at night’, has superseded
lyil"& ‘night’). This ending was usually interpreted simply as an accusative end-
ing and the h as a vowel letter. However, its spelling in the consonantal script
of Ugarit with h (as hxra") proves that it should be interpreted as terminating
in an originally consonantal h. Since the h was later elided, such an elision oc-
curs, as a rule, in internal open juncture (see above, §3.3.5.3.3.4, p. 92), it ap-
pears that it has to be analyzed as being composed of the accusative a and the
adverbial ending h (without a following vowel, since the penultimate stress
intimates that no final vowel was elided), and not as representing a single mor-
pheme, the adverbial ending -ah.
4.4.4.13n. For the behavior of the terminative ending, see Blau 1992 = Studies, 89–93.

4.4.4.14. Especially in poetic style, construct nouns terminate in the

ending -i (as in /ntøa“ yniB} ‘his ass’s colt’ Gen 49:11), and sometimes -o
(≈r,a<&A/ty]j"w ] ‘and beast of the earth’ Gen 1 :24; r[øb} /nB} ‘the son of Beor’ Num
24:3). Many scholars consider these endings to be archaic case endings that
were preserved in internal open juncture (see D. Robertson 1969: 211–23 for
bibliographical details), in contrast to the otherwise early disappearance of
case endings in the construct. H. Bauer (as well as Bauer-Leander 1922: 525)
surmised that r[øb} /nB} must be interpreted historically as containing an antic-
ipatory pronoun, viz., ‘his son, i.e., Beor(’s)’. Then this -o became fossilized
and was used even when preceding a noun that is not masculine singular,
such as ≈r,a<&A/ty]j." However, Bauer’s opinion that the -i of (/ntøa)“ yniB} also was
a (dialectal) pronominal suffix (as occurs in Phoenician inscriptions) is very
00-Blau.book Page 270 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.4.5. ∑ Cases; Dual 270

unlikely. J. Barth regards -i/-o as stemming from nouns such as ybIa“, yjIa“, or ymIj“
‘father-in-law of’. The difficulty, however, is that -o does not occur in these
nouns. For the time being, at least, the origin of these endings remains unclear.

4.4.5. Dual and Plural

4.4.5.1. The dual is an archaic feature of the Semitic languages. It eventu-
ally disappeared in most Semitic languages and was replaced by the plural. A
very wide usage of the dual is attested in Classical Arabic (and probably also
in Ugaritic), where it was used productively not only with substantives but
also with pronouns, verbs, and adjectives. The question then arises whether
this wide usage was attested already in Proto-Semitic or whether the dual was
originally limited to substantives (or perhaps even to certain substantives),
and its extension to the other parts of speech is due to a later analogical de-
velopment.
4.4.5.1n. See C. Fontinoy (1969) passim.
4.4.5.2. In Biblical Hebrew, the dual is not productive and thus the use of
the dual is very limited (be it a reflection of the Proto-Semitic situation, a re-
turn to it, or a limitation of it). The dual is attested only with certain substan-
tives: nouns denoting measure (μyit"&M:a" ‘two cubits’), time (μyim"&/y ‘two days’,
μyit"&n;v‘ ‘two years’), nouns consisting of two parts (μyin'‡z]amø ‘scales’) or occur-
ring as a rule in pairs (μyil"&[“n' ‘a pair of sandals’), and especially the double
parts of the body (μyid'&y ; ‘hands’, μyil"&g]r' ‘feet). In the latter class, the dual was so
frequent that its form partly superseded the form of the plural so that the form
of the dual was used even when it referred to more than ‘two’, as in μyip"&n;K} vv´
‘six wings’ Isa 6:2. Nevertheless, the use of the dual is not always productive
even for paired body parts (in contrast to its use in Arabic); cf., e.g., ≈MEa"T}w'
h:yt<&/[røz] ‘and she strengthened her arms’ Prov 31:17.
4.4.5.2n. H. Blanc used the term “pseudo-dual” (1970) to refer to the use of the dual for
the plural, because synchronically and functionally the suffix μyi-'& ceased to indicate a dual
(i.e., it does not refer to ‘two’ of something) and instead came to denote any number more
than one (i.e., it has the function of the plural). Perhaps the term “ex-dual” is more appro-
priate; see below, §4.4.5.6n, p. 271.
4.4.5.3. The dual morpheme is μyi-'& < *-aym.
4.4.5.4. The original form of the dual morpheme was *-ayn. The final -m
is due to the analogical influence of the singular (see §4.4.4.4n, p. 268).
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
00-Blau.book Page 271 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

271 Dual ∑ 4.4.5.7.

the singular noun (dy; - μyid'&y); . The feminine ending is preserved before the dual
ending (μyit"&n;v‘). In construct and status pronominalis the -n is omitted (cf. be-
low, §4.4.5.7.1, p. 272).
4.4.5.6. The form μyir'&h’x: ‘noon’ does not reflect a historical dual. We can
see this clearly on the basis of the Moabite Meshaº inscription, where the dual
(and the plural) are formed by nunation (e.g., ˆtam ‘two hundred’ line 20,
ˆ[bra ‘forty’ line 8). Accordingly, μrhxh ‘noon’, which occurs in line 15 of
the inscription, cannot be analyzed as terminating in a dual suffix but as hav-
ing an adverbial ending, which is also added to place names, such as μyil"v & …Wry],
μyin'‡/rjø. It is difficult to know whether μyiB"&r]["h: ˆyBE ‘at dusk’ also exhibits this
adverbial ending (perhaps with the secondary addition of the preposition ben)
or is instead dual, denoting ‘between sunset and darkness’. The words μyim"&v…
‘heaven’ and μyim"& ‘water’ seem to be externally dual forms, reflecting intricate
phonetic and morphological developments that are not easy to reconstruct. It
has been claimed (see Bauer-Leander 1922: 619–20) that *may, the etymon of
μyim,"& was reduplicated to form the plural *maymay. The reduplicated base be-
come *meme by monophthongization, and from that form μyim"& was derived by
back-formation (the final -e was interpreted as the plural construct ending).
Since the words for ‘water’ and ‘heaven’ rhyme in most Semitic languages,
μyim"&v… could be interpreted as being formed according to the pattern of μyim."&
However, for all their ingenuity, these derivations cannot be buttressed by any
facts.

4.4.5.6n. The term “pseudo-dual” best fits forms such as μyir'&h’x:. However, I prefer the term
“ex-dual,” rather than “pseudo-dual,” for the dual of the double parts of the body, since
they were once genuine duals (see above, §4.4.5.2n, p. 270).
For details on dual and plural in the Mesaº inscription, see Blau 1979c: 143–45 =
Topics, 344–46. The mimation of the adverbial ending in Moabite intimates that originally
there was mimation in the singular but nunation in the dual and the masculine plural. This
language, then, so closely related to Biblical Hebrew, preserved the original Proto-Semitic
situation as to mimation (characteristic of the singular) and nunation (marking the dual
and the masculine plural).
Compare Arab al-ºisaªani with BHeb μyiB"&r]["h: ˆYBE; however, in Arabic, dual forms a po-
tiori are frequent (i.e., the use of the dual of a noun instead of the singular of this noun and
another noun related to it), whereas in Biblical Hebrew they are not attested.
For the primordial way of forming plural by reduplication, cf. the plural t/YpIyPI
‘(mouths >) edges’ from hP< ‘mouth’, to which the plural suffix -ot was added in addition to
the reduplication.

4.4.5.7. In Proto-Semitic, according to the evidence from some of the Se-

mitic languages, the ending of the masculine plural was -una in the nomina-
tive case and -ina in the oblique case. In Biblical Hebrew, the original nunation
of the masculine plural (see above, §4.4.5.4) was superseded by mimation. Af-
ter the disappearance of the case system, the oblique plural case supplanted the
00-Blau.book Page 272 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.4.5.7.1. ∑ Masculine Plural 272

nominative plural (as happened also in dual; see above, §4.4.5.5, pp. 270–271):
-im, as in μysIWs ‘horses’.
4.4.5.7.1. In Akkadian, the masculine-plural substantives have the endings
-u in the nominative and -i in the oblique case, without either mimation or nu-
nation. This archaic lack of mimation (nunation) is preserved in Biblical He-
brew (and other Semitic languages) in construct and preceding pronominal
suffixes (where the final -e is used also as the plural construct ending): AysEWs,
μk<ysEWs. As these examples show, the masculine plural in construct and in sta-
tus pronominalis has the dual ending: AysEWs < *susay- (such as ydey ] ‘the hands
of’ < *yaday) instead of the expected *susi, and μk<ysEWs instead of the expected
*susikœm. This replacement of the original plural suffixes by the dual endings
should not surprise us. Because the dual is very frequent with pronominal suf-
fixes (e.g., with the double parts of the body) and because it also could be used
to denote more than two (see above, §4.4.5.2, p. 270), its intrusion into the
domain of the original plural is not unexpected. As a rule, this -ay is monoph-
thongized (AysEWs, μk<ysEWs), but preceding qamaß it shifts to segol by assimila-
tion (Úys<&Ws, h:ys<&Ws) (see above, §3.5.10.4, p. 137); it is preserved only with the
1s pronominal suffix, because originally the y was doubled: *susay-ya > ys"Ws.
4.4.5.7.1n. In Akkadian, the dual also has nunation in the absolute, but the construct state
and status pronominalis are devoid of it. Cf. BHeb -e < *-ay, originally the oblique case,
which has superseded the nominative -a (for this feature, see §4.4.5.5, pp. 270–271). For
residues of this -a, see §4.5.1.11, p. 282. The suffix -u has been preserved in Biblical He-
brew in the plural of the finite forms of the verb (Wrm}v…, Wrm}v‘yi, Wrm}v¥).
4.4.5.7.2. Some nouns are pluralia tantum, substantives used in the plural
only, such as μyniP: ‘face’, μyYij" ‘life’, μyriW[n] ‘youth’, etc. The form μyhIløa” is a
pluralis maiestatis, an intensive plural of rank, as is μyni/da“ ‘lord, master’ Mal
1:6, especially with pronominal suffixes, as in wyn;døa“ ‘his lord’. These plurals
pattern syntactically as singulars (as in ˆt"n; μk<ybIa“ yhEløawe μk<yhEløa” ‘your God and
the God of your father gave’ Gen 43:23; lpEno μh<ynedøa“ ‘their lord fell’ Judg 3:25).
4.4.5.7.2n. The term yn;døa“ ‘my God’ as opposed to ynidøa“ ‘my lord’ is used to distinguish di-
vine reference from human. The genuine plural is yn'døa“ ‘my lords’ Gen 19:2.
4.4.5.7.3. As stated above (§4.1.2.1n, p. 157; §4.4.1.1, p. 260), it is only in
adjectives that the masculine plural always signifies masculine gender and the
feminine plural always signifies feminine gender. With substantives, how-
ever, the plural ending -im is sometimes added to feminine nouns: hV…aI
‘woman’, plural μyv¥n;; vg,l<&PI ‘concubine’, plural μyv¥g]l"PI. This is especially fre-
quent with species of fauna and flora, as in hn;/y ‘dove’, plural μyni/y; hF:jI
‘wheat’, plural μyFIjI; hr;[øc‘ ‘barley’, plural μyri[øc‘. These singulars were origi-
nally not real feminines but apparently nomina unitatis (collective nouns), the
plurals perhaps being derived from the suffixless bases.
00-Blau.book Page 273 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

273 Feminine Plural ∑ 4.4.5.10.

4.4.5.7.3n. The fact that masculine-plural and feminine-plural suffixes on adjectives al-
ways denote masculine and feminine gender, respectively, is no doubt a late analogical
feature, since the addition of plural endings to adjectives is itself a late feature, which
arose by attraction to the substantive that the adjective modifies.

4.4.5.8. According to the evidence from Akkadian and Classical Arabic,

the feminine plural terminated in -atu in the nominative, and -ati in the
oblique. By dint of the Canaanite shift and the elision of final short vowels, it
became -ot in Biblical Hebrew. The -t appears to be identical to the feminine
morpheme, as also suggested by the fact that -a(t) of the fs is omitted before
-ot: hY;j" ‘animal’, plural t/Yj". Preceding pronominal suffixes, the masculine-
plural morpheme -e (originally the dual; see above, §4.4.5.7.1) is added to -ot,
as in Úyt<&møx}[" ‘your bones’. In the 3p, original μt:/ba“ alternates with later
μh<ytE/ba“. Many masculine nouns form their plural with -ot, as in t/ba: ‘fa-
thers’, t/mqøm} ‘places’.
4.4.5.9. In the Southwest Semitic languages (Arabic, South Arabian, and
Ethiopic), the plural is often formed by the use of patterns different from the
singular rather than by attaching a plural suffix. This strategy is the so-called
broken or internal plural. Apparently, these broken plurals were originally
(mostly) collective nouns, and is likely that the southern dialects developed
the strategy of broken plurals from a nucleus of collective nouns that had ex-
isted in Proto-Semitic. The beginnings of some broken plurals can be dis-
cerned in Biblical Hebrew as well: e.g., Úr]Wkz]AlK: ha<r;y e ‘all your males will
appear’, Exod 23:17, where the collective nature of Úr]Wkz] is hinted at by the
singular ha<r;y,e though verbs preceding plurals may occur in the singular.
4.4.5.9n. According to some scholars, the southern dialects preserved a Proto-Semitic (and
even Afroasiatic) feature, and the occurrences of broken plurals in Biblical Hebrew and
the other Semitic languages have to be considered residues. Nevertheless, the compara-
tively late age of the broken plurals is proven by their invariably triradical (or quadri-
radical) forms, whereas the plurals formed by addition of suffixes sometimes preserved bi-
radical formations (see Blau 1978a: 29–30 = Topics, 316–17).

4.4.5.10. The so-called segolate nouns (monosyllabic nouns that lack a

vowel after the second radical, such as *malk > Ël<m<& ‘king’, hK:l}m" ‘queen’)
form their plurals with qamaß after the second radical: μykIl:m}, t/kl:m}. Al-
though the pattern of these plural nouns is different from that of the singular,
they must not be considered broken plurals, because they terminate in the or-
dinary plural suffixes (m´lakim, m´lakot) and the attachment of these plural
suffixes is primary. This analysis is proven by Classical Arabic forms such as
ªarÎ ‘land’, plural ªaraÎuna (a clear case of residue); wurfa(t) ‘upper chamber’,
plural wurafat.
4.4.5.10n. For exceptional monosyllabic formation of the plural of monosyllabic nouns
(without a after the second radical), see §4.5.1.11, p. 282.
00-Blau.book Page 274 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.4.6. ∑ Nominal Patterns 274

4.4.6. Nominal Patterns

4.4.6.1. It is customary to arrange the nominal patterns in accordance with
historical principles. Thus, nouns such as s/K < *kas ‘cup’ and π/[ < ºawpö
‘fowl’ are separated, although synchronically they are identical, whereas the
latter noun is treated together with ≈r,a<& < *ªarß ‘earth’, tyiB"& < *bayt ‘house’,
etc., although synchronically they are different. From a practical viewpoint of
learning nominal patterns, it generally seems more advantageous to arrange
the material synchronically (cf. also Z. Ben-Óayyim 2000: 240–42).
4.4.6.2. In a synchronic classification of noun patterns, it seems appropri-
ate not to classify nouns according to the absolute only. Many changes occur
in the construct and before pronominal suffixes (owing to the shift of the
stress), and nouns exhibiting the same patterns in the absolute may behave
differently in their “declension.” Therefore, the form of the singular preceding
“heavy” suffixes will be added to the absolute form because it reflects the
most far-reaching changes and is often identical to the construct. Accordingly,
rb:D; ‘thing’, for instance, will be classified as qa†al, q´†al- (the last form re-
flecting μk<r]b"D] or the construct -rb"D]). Vowel length reflects the pre-Tiberian
period, when vowel length was still phonemic (such as μk:j: = ˙akam ‘wise’ in
contrast with μk"j: = ˙akam ‘he was wise’).
4.4.6.3. The division of nouns is primarily based on the absolute. There-
fore, rb:D; ‘thing’ and lm:G; ‘camel’ will be cited in sequence, the former as qa†al,
q´†al- (as mentioned above), the latter as qa†al, q´†all- (according to μk<L}m"G)} .
However, in segolate (i.e., originally monosyllabic) nouns, the absolute repre-
sents a later development, and in the segolates the pattern preceding pronomi-
nal suffixes preserved the original pattern. Therefore, the main criterion for
classifying segolate nouns is based on the status pronominalis. Conse-
quently, it is expedient to classify qœ!†œl, qa†l- (Ël<m,<& μk<K}l}m)" and qœ!†al, qa†l-
([l"s<& ‘rock’, μk<[“l}s)" according to the qa†l pattern.
4.4.6.3n. *qa†l shifted by the opening of the final consonant cluster by anaptyctic segol to
*qátœl, which by assimilation of the a to the œ became *qœ!†œl.
One must not confuse diachronic and synchronic approaches. But when they happen to
coincide, this is advantageous, rather than problematic.
4.4.6.4. In evaluating the phonemic status of the segolate anaptyctic
vowel, one has to take into consideration its somewhat anachronistic attesta-
tion. It appears as early as the transcriptions of the Septuagint (third century
b.c.e., e.g., rt<G,& Gaqer), yet Origen (second century c.e.) transcribed these
words as terminating in a consonantal cluster (e.g., ls<KE& Cesl ‘folly’ Ps
49:14). Now, it could be claimed that Origen reflects a dialect different from
that of the Septuagint. This explanation, however, seems unnecessarily com-
plicated. Instead, it seems much more likely that the opening of the cluster
was an early phonetic phenomenon that occurred in stress stage iii simulta-
00-Blau.book Page 275 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

275 Nominal Patterns ∑ 4.4.6.7.

neously with the omission of final short vowels; however, the syllable formed
by the anaptyctic vowel did not count phonemically, and so these nouns re-
mained phonemically monosyllabic. The Septuagint reflects a phonetic tran-
scription of the segolates, whereas Origen provides a phonemic transcription.
4.4.6.4n. The same analysis applies to pata˙ furtivum, which is also an anaptyctic vowel
(see §3.3.3.2, p. 83). Compare the alternation of forms such as ['de&W;y i : [d'W;y,i reflecting the
interchange of vowel + pata˙ furtivum with a solitary vowel, thus intimating that the pata˙
furtivum does not count phonemically. In Arabic dialects as well, anaptyctic vowels often
change the phonetic but not the phonemic structure. For example, a syllable opened by an
anaptyctic vowel (a phonetic change) still behaves like a closed syllable with respect to
stress (the phonemic system). See, e.g., H. Grotzfeld 1964: 36; and Blau 1978b: 102–3 =
Topics, 115–16.

4.4.6.5. The most common nominal prefix is m, which also occurs in

many participial forms. Very frequent patterns include maq†al, maq†el, miq†al,
as in Ëa:l}m" ‘messenger’, j'TEp}m" ‘key’, lD;g]mI ‘tower’, and the counterparts of
these patterns with the feminine ending, such as hk:l:m}m" ‘kingdom’, hn;[Ev‘m"
‘support’. Quite common although less frequent is the nominal t-prefix, as in
≈BEv‘T" ‘chequered work’, usually with the feminine ending: hr;a:p}TI ‘glory’,
hm:Der]T" ‘sleep’, hp:WqT} ‘circuit’.
4.4.6.6. A noteworthy suffix used for noun formation is -on/-an. Histori-
cally, both suffixes represent -an; however, in the first, a shifted to o, but in
the second suffix, it did not. Thus, ‘sacrifice’ is ˆB:r]q:, originally *qurban, in-
stead of *qurbon, perhaps owing to dissimilation to avoid the vowel sequence
u . . . o. Accordingly, one would have expected the second qamaß of ˆB:r]q: to be
unchangeable. However, because the occurrence of original long a in Biblical
Hebrew after the shift of stressed a to o was rather restricted, original long,
unchangeable a tended to be influenced by lengthened, changeable a (cf.
above, §3.5.7.6.11n, p. 132). This is the case with the a in the suffix of ˆB:r]q:.
4.4.6.6n. Nonetheless, the explanation offered here does not account for a noun such as
ˆv…b}KI ‘kiln’ or for the alternation of -an/-on in Aramaic; see Ben-Óayyim (2000: 285
n. 56).

4.4.6.7. The historical qi††alon pattern is peculiar. It becomes qi†lon in all

its forms except the absolute singular, such as ˆ/rK:zi ‘remembrance’, -ˆ/rk}zi,
t/nrøk}zi. Since geminated b, g, d, k, p, t does not become simple when followed
by swa (i.e., -ˆ/rk}zi cannot be derived from ˆ/rK:zi), one could interpret the de-
clension of these nouns as reflecting a mixture of the qi††alon and qi†lon pat-
terns. However, it seems better to follow J. Barth (1984a: 324) in regarding
q´†alon as the basic pattern from which qi††alon, with secondary gemination,
was derived.
4.4.6.7n. Barth’s theory, however, does not account for the limitation of the gemination to
the absolute singular.
00-Blau.book Page 276 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.4.6.8. ∑ Nominal Patterns 276

4.4.6.8. The suffix -i (as in ydiWhy] ‘Jewish, Jew’, originally -iy), spelled Y-i
word-medially (hY;diWhy]), forms the relative adjective (also called by the Arabic
term nisba), denoting relation and connection. It is used, inter alia, to desig-
nate patronymics and tribal names, e.g., ydWhy] is derived from hd;Why]; as proved
by this example, the feminine ending is omitted preceding the nisba. Its mp
form is not only -iyyim but also, by dissimilation, -im (μyYirib}[I alongside μyrib}[I
‘Hebrews’).
4.4.6.8n. The historical form must be considered iy rather than original -iyy, in light of the
parallel Aramaic -ay with a long vowel preceding the y.
Y-i in biblical spelling represents both -iyy and -iy (cf., e.g., μyYiqIn] representing n´qiyim).
4.4.6.9. The suffix -ut occurs especially in late Biblical Hebrew, apparently
influenced by Aramaic words such as tWsK} ‘covering’. Originally, the suffix
was the feminine ending -t, added to nouns from III-w roots terminating in -u:
*k´su plus -t = k´sut. By metanalysis (i.e., by a historically wrong analysis),
such a noun was interpreted as consisting of *k´s plus -ut and then -ut was
added to other roots as well (such as tWkl}m" ‘kingdom’). The history of the suf-
fix -it seems to be similar. It arose from III-y roots: b´ki plus t = tykIB} ‘weep-
ing’, which was interpreted as *b´k plus -it and then attached to other roots:
tyriaEv‘ ‘residue’.
4.4.6.10. We have already dealt above with III-y nouns terminating in se-
gol (he), arising from -ayu/-iyu (see §3.4.5.2, p. 99). Some singular forms
with pronominal suffixes are built as though they were plurals, since the origi-
nal -ay- has been contracted to -e, such as Úy[<&re ‘your companion (singular!)’,
wyc…[ø ‘his Creator’. For the singular construct form terminating in h-e (hc´[ø),
see §3.4.5.5, p. 100. As for the plural forms, the situation has become, by ex-
tensive analogy, quite blurred. Forms with the elision of y, such as *ºo¶iyim,
*ºo¶iyot ‘those who do’ > μyc¥[ø, t/c[ø; *qanayim ‘reeds’ > μyniq:; *¶adayot
‘fields’ > t/dc…, alternate with forms in which the y was analogically restored,
such as μyyid;G } ‘kids’; μyij:mUm} ‘full of marrow’ Isa 25:6; t/yr;a“ ‘lions’; cf. also
t/YmIhø (with secondarily geminated y) ‘those who growl’ Prov 1:21, alongside
t/mhø. From forms such as μyc¥[ø, understood as composed by metanalysis
from *ºo¶ plus -im, a new base ºo¶ was derived, from which new forms with
pronominal suffixes were constructed: /c[ø, instead of wyc…[ø.
4.4.6.11. In the following, we will cite some of the most important nominal
patterns, arranged according to synchronic principles, based on the absolute
singular and the singular preceding “heavy” suffixes (as described above,
§§4.4.6.2–4.4.6.3, p. 274):
4.4.6.11.1. qal, qal-: gD; ‘fish’:
μk<ygeD] Úyg,&D; -ygeD] μygiD; μk<g]D' Úg] D; AgD' gD;
The feminine form is qala, q´lat-: hn;v… ‘year’:
. . . μk<t}n'v‘ Út}n;v‘ Atn'v‘ hn;v…
00-Blau.book Page 277 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

277 Nominal Patterns ∑ 4.4.6.11.12.

4.4.6.11.2. qal, q´li-: ba: ‘father’, ja: ‘brother’:

μk<ybIa“ ÚybI&a: AybIa“ ba:
μk<yjIa“ ÚyjI&a: AyjIa“ ja:
4.4.6.11.3. qal, qal-: b[: ‘cloud’:
μk<ybE[: Úyb<&[: AybE[: μybI[: μk<b}[: Úb}[: (!Ab[") Ab[: b[:
The feminine form is qala, qalat-: hm:q: ‘standing grain’:
μk<tE/mq: Úyt<&/mq: At/mq: t/mq: μk<t}m"q: Út}m:q: Atm"q: hm:q:
4.4.6.11.4. qO!wœl, qol- (segolates derived from II-w roots): Ëw,T:& ‘midst’:
/k/T AË/T Ëw,T:&
4.4.6.11.4n. The qamaß is due to the assimilation of pata˙ to the following w.
4.4.6.11.5. qáyil, qel- (segolates derived from II-y roots): tyiz'‡ ‘olive(-tree)’,
(!)μytIyze Atyze tyiz'‡

lyij"& ‘strength, army’:

(!)Úyl,&y;j“ (!)μylIy;j“ AlyjE lyij"&
4.4.6.11.6. qal, qall-: μ[" ‘people’:
μk<M}[" μ["
4.4.6.11.7. qal, qill-: πs" ‘threshold’:
μk<P}sI πs"
4.4.6.11.8. qel, qill-: ≈jE ‘arrow’:
μk<X}jI ≈jE
4.4.6.11.9. qol, qull-: bDø ‘bear’, lKø ‘whole, all’:
μk<B}DU WnBE&DU bDø
μk<L}KU (!)WnL:&KU AlK: lKø
4.4.6.11.10. qœ!†œl, qa†l- (segolates with a as characteristic vowel): Ël<m<&
‘king’:
μk<ykEl}m" Úyk<&l:m} AykEl}m" (!)μykIl:m} μk<K}l}m" ÚK}l}m" AËl<m<& Ël<m<&
The feminine form is qa†la, qa†lat: hK:l}m" ‘queen’:
μk<ytE/kl}m" Úyt<&/kl}m" t/kl}m" (!)t/kl:m} μk<t}K"l}m" Út}K:l}m" AtK"l}m" hK:l}m"
4.4.6.11.11. qœ!†al, qa†l- segolates derived from III-h/ º/˙ roots: [l"s<& ‘rock’:
Úy[<&l:s} Ay[El}s" (!)μy[Il:s} μk<[“l}s" Ú[“l}s" y[Il}s" A[l"s<& [l"s<&
μk<y[El}s"
4.4.6.11.12. qœ!†œl, qi†l- (segolates with a > i as characteristic vowel): cb<K<&
‘lamb’:
μk<yc´´b}KI Úyc≤&b:K} Ayc´´b}KI (!)μyc¥b:K} μk<c‘b}KI Úc‘b}KI Acb<K<& cb<K<&
The feminine form is qi†la, qi†lat-: hc…b}KI ‘ewe-lamb’:
μk<ytE/cb}KI Úyt<&/cb}KI At/cb}KI (!)t/cb:K} μk<t]cæb}KI Út}c…b}KI Atcæb}KI hc…b}KI
00-Blau.book Page 278 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.4.6.11.13. ∑ Nominal Patterns 278

4.4.6.11.13. q´†i, qi†y-/qœ†y- segolates derived from III-y roots (cf.

§3.5.12.2.9n, p. 148): yriP} ‘fruit’, ydiG] ‘kid’:
μk<y]r]P< Úy]r]P< yyir]PI AyriP} yriP}
Úyy,d‡ ;G] (!)yyed;G] (!)μyyid;G] μk<y]d]G, Úy]d]G, yyid]Gi AydiG } ydiG }
(!)μk<yyed;G]
4.4.6.11.14. qo!†œl, qo†l- (segolates with o as charateristic vowel): ˆr,Go‡
‘threshing floor’:
μk<ytE/nr]G; Úyt<&/nr]G; At/nr]G; (!)t/nr;G] μk<n]r]G; Ún]r]G; Aˆr,Go‡ ˆr,Go‡
The feminine form is qo†la, qo†lat: hB:r]j: ‘ruin’:
μk<ytE/br]j: Úyt<&/br]j: At/br]j: (!)t/br;j’ μk<t}B"r]j: Út}B:r]j: AtB"r]j: hB:r]j:
4.4.6.11.15. qø†i, qo†y- segolates derived from III-y roots: ymI&D ’ ‘rest’, ylI&j’
‘sickness’:
AymID] ymID’
(!)μk<yyel:j’ (!)Ayyel:j’ (!)μyyil:j’ yyil}j: AylIj’ yl&Ij’
4.4.6.11.16. qa†al, q´†al-: rb:D; ‘speech’:
μk<yreb}Di Úyr,&b:D] Ayreb}Di μyrib:D] μk<r]b"D] Úr]b:D] Arb"D] rb:D;
4.4.6.11.17. q´†ala, qi†lat-: hb:d;n] ‘voluntariness’:
μk<ytE/bd]ni Úyt<&/bd]ni At/bd]ni t/bd;n] μk<t}b"d]ni Út}b:d]ni Atb"d]ni hb:d;n]
4.4.6.11.18. qa†al, q´†all-: lm:G; ‘camel’:
μk<yLEm"G] ÚyL<&m"G] AyLEm"G] μyLIm"G] μk<L}m"G] ÚL}m"G] Alm"G] lm:G;
4.4.6.11.19. qa†el, q´†al-: ˆqe z; ‘old’:
μk<yneq}zi Úyn,‡qzE ] Ayneq]zi μyniqzE ] μk<n]q Ez]* Ún]qez] Aˆq"z] ˆqe z;

4.4.6.11.19n. The a is due to Philippi’s Law.

4.4.6.11.20. q´†ela, q´†elat-: hk:reB} ‘pond’:

μk<ytE/kreB} Úyt<&/kreB} At/kreB} t/kreB} μk<t}k"reB} Út}k:reB} Atk"reB} hk:reB}
4.4.6.11.21. qa†ol, q´†ull- (denoting mainly colors): μdøa: ‘red’:
t/MdUa“ μyMIdUa“ hM:dUa“ μdøa:
4.4.6.11.22. qa†ol, q´†ol-: l/dG: ‘great’, μ/lv… ‘peace’:
t/l/dG] μylI/dG} hl:/dG} l/dG:
μk<m}/lv‘ Úm}/lv‘ Aμ/lv‘ μ/lv…
4.4.6.11.23. qe†al, q´†al-: bb:lE ‘heart’:
t/bb:l} μk<b}b"l} Úb}b:l} Abb"l} bb:lE
4.4.6.11.24. qa†il, q´†il-: ry[Ix: ‘young’:
t/ry[Ix} μyriy[Ix} hr;y[Ix} Ary[Ix} ry[Ix:
4.4.6.11.25. qa†ul, q´†ul-: μWx[: ‘mighty’:
t/mWx[“ μymIWx[“ hm:Wx[“ μWx[:
00-Blau.book Page 279 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

279 Nominal Patterns; Cardinal Numbers ∑ 4.5.1.2.

4.4.6.11.26. qo†el, qo†´l-: btE/K ‘writing’:

AybEt}/K μybIt}/K μk<b}t</K Úb}t</K ybIt}/K AbtE/K btE/K
t/bt}/K tb<t<&/K/hb:t}/K
4.4.6.11.26n. The original forms are *qo†´l´ka, *qo†´l´kœm; the segol opened the cluster
†´l´. The same applies to qi††el in §4.4.6.11.27.
4.4.6.11.27. qi††el, qi††´l- (denoting persons affected by physical defects):
μLEaI ‘dumb’:
t/mL}aI μymIL}aI μLEaI
4.4.6.11.28. q´†al, q´†al-: bt:K} ‘writing’:
(!) μk<ybEt:K} Úb<&t:K} (!)AybEt:K} μybIt:K} (!) μk<b}t:K} Úb}t:K} (!) Abt:K} bt:K}
4.4.6.11.29. qa††al, qa††al-: ˆY;D; ‘judge’:
(!)μk<yneY;D' Úyn‡,Y;D' (!)AyneY;D' μyniY;D' μk<n]YD' ' Ún]Y;D' AˆY'D' ˆY;D'
4.4.6.11.29n. These nouns, denoting intensified quality or occupation, originally have an
unchangeable qamaß in their last syllable, which may shift to pata˙ in the singular
construct.

4.5. Remarks on the Numerals

4.5.1. The Cardinal Numbers
4.5.1.1. In stark contradistinction to the other parts of speech, the cardinal
numbers three through ten terminating in -t-/h-; refer to masculine nouns,
whereas those with zero-ending refer to feminine nouns. This very peculiar
feature, characterizing the Semitic languages in general (except where later
development has blurred it), has not yet been explained adequately. In the fol-
lowing, we adduce three theories, not because we regard them as substanti-
ated but because they attest to one of the fundamental weaknesses inherent to
historical linguistics: logically built theories, ingeniously conjectured and re-
flecting profound knowledge of the subject, very often remain beautiful hy-
potheses, without any possibility of verification.
4.5.1.2. According to H. Reckendorf (1898: 265–87) these numbers origi-
nally terminated in a zero-ending (e.g., v/lv…), whereas BHeb hrec‘[<, Ug ºsrh,
Arab ºasrat(a)- denoted ‘decade’. Accordingly, hrec‘[< vlø v‘ means ‘three of
the decade’, i.e., ‘thirteen’, and the original relation between these two numer-
als was that of a construct noun and a governed noun. Later, because of the fi-
nal feminine ending (BHeb [!]h-e, Ug -h, Arab -at), the numbers 13–19 were
felt to be feminine, and by polarity masculine forms of the structure hv…/lv‘
rc…[: were built (hv…/lv‘ in opposition to vløv‘, rc…[: in contrast with hrec‘[<). In
these numbers, the units with W ending (vløv‘ , etc.) referred to feminine nouns;
those with -t-/h-; ending (hv…/lv‘, tv≤ lø&v‘) referred to masculine nouns, and
from these numbers the forms were transferred to the single numbers.
00-Blau.book Page 280 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.5.1.3. ∑ Cardinal Numbers 280

4.5.1.2n. For the somewhat intricate situation in Ugaritic, see Tropper 2000: 149–50, par.
62.201.
For discussion of the term “polarity,” coined by C. Meinhof, which denotes the anti-
thetical structuring of contrastive pairs such as masculine : feminine, singular : plural, see,
e.g., Bergsträsser 2.5–6, par. 1i. Cf. also below, §4.5.1.4.1.

4.5.1.3. J. Barth (1907–11:1–17) also posited that the cardinals three

through ten originally had a zero ending. In his opinion, however, hv…/lv‘,
tv≤ lø&v‘, etc., did not originally terminate in the feminine ending but in the mas-
culine pronominal suffix -tu, as preserved in Gºez (salastu). Later, salastu,
etc., although it referred to masculine nouns, was felt as terminating in the
feminine suffix, as if feminine numbers referred to masculine nouns.
4.5.1.3n. In Gºez, the feminine counterpart of the masculine pronominal suffix is -ti, as
preserved in ‘two’ feminine k´lªetti, in contrast to masculine k´lªettu.
4.5.1.4. According to H. Bauer (1912: 267–70), numbers such as hv…/lv‘,
tv≤ l&ø v‘, etc., do not terminate in the feminine suffix. In his opinion, the origi-
nal suffix was -tu; however, it was not a pronominal element but was related to
Arabic taww ‘single’ (see §4.4.2.3, p. 264), to mark nomen unitatis. There-
fore, there were two ways of denoting, e.g., ‘five ships’ (yni‡a’ being ‘fleet’, hY;nia’
‘ship’ its nomen unitatis):
a. ˙ames + taww + øni, literally, ‘five + single + fleet’, or
b. ˙ames + øni + taww, literally, ‘five + fleet + single’.
˙ames øni taww, developed into ynia’ tv≤mE&j,“ tv≤mE&j“ referring to the masculine
ynia’; ˙ames taww øni to hY;nia’ vmEj,: vmEj: referring to the feminine hY;nia’.
4.5.1.4.1. Other scholars consider the polarity of these numerals to be an
archaic Proto-Semitic feature that is a residue of a once much more wide-
spread phenomenon.
4.5.1.4n. See, e.g., E. Ternes (2002: 719–36), who elaborates on R. Hetzron’s idea (p. 732).

4.5.1.5. μyin'‡v‘ and μyiT"&v‘ ‘two’ are formed from the biradical base *s2in. Ac-
cordingly, one would have expected the feminine form to be *sinta!yim >
*sitta!yim. This form is indeed attested in the Samaritan tradition of Biblical
Hebrew. In the Tiberian tradition of Biblical Hebrew, however, it was restruc-
tured according to μyin'‡v‘, viz. μyiT"&v‘, the t with plosive pronunciation (both as
continuation of its plosive [geminated] pronunciation in *sitta!yim and be-
cause of the initial cluster st, the only case of initial cluster in Biblical
Hebrew).
4.5.1.5n. For the Samaritan form, see Ben-Óayyim (2000: 306, par. 5.1.2), who also deals
with the problem of its occurrence in manuscripts with Babylonian vocalization (ibid., n. 3).
The Tiberian form is st-, rather than *s´t. The phrase hrec‘[<AμyTEv‘mI ‘from twelve’
Jonah 4:11, with simple (non-geminated) s, also hints at the existence of the cluster st,
which, of course, did not permit the gemination of the s. Cf. Syriac ‘six’ sta with plosive t
because of the cluster st.
00-Blau.book Page 281 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

281 Cardinal Numbers ∑ 4.5.1.9.

4.5.1.6. In contrast to biradical μyin'‡v‘, [B"r]a" ‘four’ and hn,møv‘ ‘eight’ (< ta-
maniyu) are formed from quadriliteral bases; however, the ordinal numbers
y[IybIr] and yniymIv‘ are adapted to the triradical q´†ili pattern.
4.5.1.6n. [B"r]a" stems from a triradical root (rbº) with the prefix ªa, whereas hn,møv‘ derives
from quadriliteral smny.

4.5.1.7. The geminated s of hV…mIj“ ‘five’ is not original, since it is absent

from the other Semitic languages. It arose by analogy to the following num-
ber, viz., hV…v¥. Since successive numbers occur together often in counting,
they are apt to influence one other. This influence might have occurred in the
numbers [b"v& ≤ ‘seven’ and hn,møv‘ ‘eight’ as well, which according to the evi-
dence from the West Semitic dialects begin with s1 and s2, respectively. How-
ever, in Akkadian they begin with s. Brockelmann (1908–13: 1.486) surmised
that [b"v& ≤ originally began with s, as in Akkadian, and in the West Semitic dia-
lects this s shifted to s through the influence of vv´, etc. On the contrary, s2 of
hn,møv‘ in West Semitic is original, whereas in Akkadian it changed to s through
the influence of sebum, the Akkadian form of ‘seven’.
4.5.1.7n. In Ugaritic, ‘six’ is tt with assimilation of the first radical to the final t to become
tt. (Cf. the behavior of saf ºel in Ugaritic, where in verbs containing t, the s of saf ºel is as-
similated to the t, giving rise to taf ºel.) If the theory that ‘seven’ originally began with s
and its s in West Semitic is due to the influence of ‘six’ proves true, the influence of ‘six’
on ‘seven’ has to be predated to a period before *st changed to tt.

4.5.1.8. ‘Six’ has to be derived from s1ds2, as preserved in Epigraphic

South Arabian. In Hebrew, before the shift of s2 to s, the d was assimilated to
it:*sidt > *sitt, to become finally vv´, and similarly in Akkadian. The develop-
ment in Aramaic was similar, except that t had shifted to t: tv´. In Classical
Arabic too, the d was assimilated to the t; it was, however, a reciprocal assim-
ilation: the d became unvoiced through the influence of the t, which itself,
through the impact of d, changed to a plosive: sitt.
4.5.1.8n. In the case of Aramaic, the d could also have been assimilated to the t after it
shifted to t.
In Arabic, the presence of s instead of the expected s reflects the general Arabic shift
of s > s; see §1.10.2.2, p. 30.
4.5.1.9. The differences in the vocalization of the ¶in in ‘10’ are quite re-
markable. In some cases, the ¶in is followed by a (masculine hr;c…[“ and the ten
masculine numbers 11–19 rc…[:), in others by W (feminine rc≤[<& < *ºa¶r and the
ten feminine numbers 11–19 hrec‘[<). This is also the case in Classical Arabic.
The vowel following the ºayin is not fixed either: in rc…[: it is a, whereas hrec‘[<
(and μyric‘[< ‘20’) suggests original i (which through the influence of the
º shifted to segol; cf. above, §3.3.3.3.3, p. 84). hrec‘[< prima facie terminates in
the feminine suffix -e < -ay (which perhaps occurs in the proper noun yr'c… and
may be identical to the feminine ending a < -ayv in Classical Arabic).
00-Blau.book Page 282 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

4.5.1.10. ∑ Numerals 282

4.5.1.9n. The explanation suggested here, however, is not devoid of problems. In Ugaritic,
where vowel letters are quite exceptional, hrec‘[< is spelled ºsrh and occurs in prose texts
only. Cf. §3.3.5.2.4n, p. 92.
4.5.1.10. The units in 11–19 are basically identical to the numbers 1–9, yet,
as a rule, they have special feminine-context forms: (hrec‘[<) μyTEv‘, vlø v‘
(hrec‘[<), etc.
4.5.1.10n. Cf. the masculine form (rc…[:) μynev‘.
4.5.1.11. The plurals of 30–90 are special in denoting tenfold, 30 being ten
times three, 40 ten times 4, etc. As for μyric‘[< ‘20’, it appears that its original
form was dual *ºœ¶ra!yim ‘two 10s’ and its plural form is due to attraction to
the following multiples of 10s. Traces of the dual form subsisted in Akkadian
and Gºez, in which all the 10s (20 and higher) terminate in -a, the ancient
nominative form of the dual without nunation/mimation (cf. §4.4.5.5, p. 270;
§4.4.5.7.1, p. 272). It is likely that the dual -a ending of ‘20’ spread in Akka-
dian and Gºez to the other 10s. Instead of μy[Ib}v¥ ‘70’ and μy[Iv‘TI ‘90’, one
would have expected *s´baºim, *t´saºim in accordance with the plural forma-
tion of monosyllabic nouns (as are [b"v& ≤, [væTE& < *sibº, *tisº) with a after the
second radical (see §4.4.5.10, p. 273). It is possible that μy[Ib}v¥, μy[Iv‘TI are
formed according to the pattern of μyriv‘[< (originally *ºœ¶ra!yim) (Gordon
1965: 47 n. 1).
4.5.1.11n. A. Schlesinger (1962: 50–52) claimed that plural forms that are not real plurals
(such as μyTIv‘PI ‘flax’, etc., designating species, rather than several units; μy[Ib}v¥, μy[Iv‘TI
denoting ten times seven and nine) are not formed as segolates (monosyllabic nouns) with
insertion of a after the second radical.

4.5.2. The Ordinal Numbers

4.5.2.1. Separate forms of the ordinal numbers only exist for 1–10; with
the exception of ‘first’, they terminate in the nisba i (see above, §4.4.6.8,
p. 276) and are usually formed according to the pattern q´†ili (yv¥ylIv‘, y[IybIr],
yniymIv‘. The last two were transferred from the quadriradical to the triradical
pattern (see above, §4.5.1.6, p. 281). yV¥v¥ has been newly rederived from vv´
by dint of the nisba, because historical *s´disi was too different from the car-
dinal vv´. yniv´ ‘second’, on the other hand, reflects the original derived from a
biradical base.
4.5.2.1n. In Classical Arabic, however, the ordinal sadis has not been adapted to the cardi-
nal sitt.
4.5.2.2. As S. E. Loewenstamm (1955: 249–51; ET 1980: 13–16) has dem-
onstrated, in Proto-Semitic the notion ‘first’ did not exist, because when the
‘first’ of something stands alone, no series yet exists; it comes into being only
with the appearance of the ‘second’. The notion ‘first’ was introduced into the
various Semitic languages separately, as proven by the use of different words
00-Blau.book Page 283 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

283 Ordinal Numbers; Prepositions ∑ 5.1.1.

in them (in Biblical Hebrew ˆ/vari, < *roson by dissimilation, derived from
varø ‘head, front, beginning’). In Proto-Semitic, as still preserved in Ugaritic,
the concept ‘first’ was expressed by the counted noun, e.g., lk ym w tn tlt rbº
ym xms tdt ym ‘go (one) day/the first day, the second, the third, the fourth day,
the fifth, the sixth day’. Vestiges of this usage persist in Biblical Hebrew:
μy[Il:q} hrec‘[< vmEj“ tyniV´h" πtEK:l"w] . . . πtEK:l" μy[Il:q} hM:a" hrec‘[< vmEj“w' ‘and fifteen
cubits will be the hangings of the (first) side . . . and the second side has fifteen
(cubits) hangings’ Exod 27:14–15. A later development is reflected by the
Biblical Hebrew use of the cardinal dj:a< instead of the ordinal ˆ/vari, as in
Genesis 1 yniv´ μ/y . . . dj:a< μ/y, etc. ‘one day/the first day . . . the second day,
etc.’.
4.5.2.2n. The wording in Exod 28:17 is remarkable, where rWf and dj:a< rWf ‘the first row’
alternate, i.e., the more archaic usage alternates with the less archaic usage.

5.1. Remarks on Prepositions

5.1.1. As already stated (§4.2.3.3.2, p. 170; §4.4.4.7, p. 268), prepositions
are usually nouns in the adverbial (accusative) case in construct. This is
especially clear in Classical Arabic, with its very transparent, schematic case
system. Thus ‘we went together’ in Classical Arabic is qahabna maºan, where
maºan terminates in the adverbial (accusative) indefinite ending -an. In the
sentence ‘we went together with the child’ qahabna maºa-l-waladi, the whole
prepositional phrase (i.e., the preposition with its dependents) serves as adver-
bial. The preposition maºa, serving as head of the adverbial phrase, terminates
in -a, rather than in -an, because it stands in construct, and constructs are de-
void of nunation in Classical Arabic. Biblical Hebrew vocalization also re-
flects the fact that prepositions stand in construct (when preceding a noun or a
whole sentence) or in status pronominalis, when preceding pronouns: tar'q}lI
vyaIh: ‘toward the man’, vyaIh: tM"[Ul} ‘close by the man’, Út}ar;q}l,I μk<t}M"[Ul} ex-
actly correspond to vyaIh: tr'x: ‘the man’s distress’, Út}r:x:, μk<t}r'x:. The preposi-
tion d[b ‘away from, through, within’ preceding another preposition has the
form of an absolute noun: ËtEM:x"l} d["B"&mI ‘within your locks’ Song 4:1, d["B"& cor-
responding to segolate nouns such as rd,j<& ‘room’. When directly preceding a
noun, e.g., ˆ/Lj"h" d["B} ‘through the window’ Gen 26:8, it matches the construct
rd'j“ in its vocalization, and in status promonimalis, e.g., /d[“B" it corresponds
to /rd]j". The substantive μyniP: ‘face’ has the construct yneP}, and preceding pro-
nominal suffixes has the form Úyn,‡P:, μk<yneP}. This is exactly matched by the
preposition ynep}lI ‘in front of’, Úyn,‡p:l}, μk<ynep}lI, which is one of the numerous oc-
currences of a part of the body serving as a preposition, as is, e.g., dy'l} ‘by the
side of’, yney[El} ‘in the presence of’, etc.
5.1.1n. In the case of ynep}lI, of course, yneP} historically was not accusative but, being gov-
erned by the preposition l}, was genitive.
00-Blau.book Page 284 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

5.1.2. ∑ Prepositions 284

5.1.2. The only preposition with a more or less clear etymon that does not
originate in a noun is apparently K} ‘as, like’. It seems to be related to the deic-
tic element *ka, which occurs in hKø, hk:K:& ‘thus’ (cf. also, e.g., Arab (qa)ka
‘that’, and perhaps Rabbinic Hebrew ˆaK: ‘here’). This different origin is per-
haps reflected by the fact that it does not govern pronominal suffixes; forms
such as hM:hE&K:, hN;hE&K:, μhEK:, on the face of it, reflect k + independent pronoun,
thus perhaps reflecting a situation in which they were separate words. (The ex-
ception to this situation occurs in forms such as, μk<K:, μh<K:, ˆh<K:, i.e., preceding
“heavy” pronominal suffixes, which the preposition does take.) As a rule, k is
attached to pronominal suffixes with the linking syllable /m-: yni/m&K:, Ú/m&K:,
Wh/m&K:, h:/m&K:, μk<&/mK}, ˆk<&/mK}. This -mo apparently stems from -ma, which occurs
in Classical Arabic between prepositions and the governed noun. It also oc-
curs in poetic language after other prepositions: vaEA/mB} ‘in fire’ Isa 43:2;
br,j:&A/mL} ‘for the sword’ Job 27:14; and is frequent in Ugaritic, inter alia, be-
tween a preposition and the word(s) dependent upon it.
5.1.3. The origins of l} ‘to’ and B} ‘in’ are opaque. In other Semitic lan-
guages, prima facie, l} seems to stem from original *la (cf., preceding a
stressed syllable, tb<v&l≤ : , μWql: ‘to rise’, with pretonic lengthening), B} from *bi.
Thus, forms such as hz,B:, tazoB: ‘in this’ appear to have been influenced by
analogy with l}. The connection of l} with la< ‘to’ is not clear, nor is that of B}
with tyiB"& ‘house, inside’.
5.1.4. There are a few prepositions that have plural forms preceding pro-
nominal suffixes. This is self-evident with prepositions such as ynep}lI ‘in front
of’, being composed of plural nominal forms, but not with prepositions such
as l[" ‘on’ — Úyl<[& :, la< ‘to’ — Úyl<a & E, tj"T"& under’ — ÚyT<&j}T". For the explanation
of this phenomenon, it is convenient to start with l[", la<, which stem from
III-y roots (this is quite obvious in the case of l["; cf. ytIylI[& : ‘I went up’, hY;lI[“
‘roof-chamber’, ˆ/yl}[< ‘high’). Their more original form preceding nouns has
been preserved in (archaic) poetry: ylE[“/ylEa” < *ºalay(a)/*ºilay(a) (cf. §3.4.4.5,
p. 99), originally terminating in radical y, rather than in the plural suffix y-e. As
usual in III-y nouns (especially those terminating in h-,; see §4.4.6.10, p. 276),
the forms preceding pronominal suffixes are externally identical to plural
forms: Úyl<[& :, Úyl< &a.E By back-formation, through proportional analogy, the
forms l[", la< were derived from them (Úyd,&y; : Ady' = Úyl<&[: : x; x = l["; etc.) and
thus Úyl<[& :, Úyl<a
& E, etc., became plural forms of l[", la< synchronically. The plural
suffixes of ÚyT<&j}T" arose through contrastive analogy with its antonym l[". The
situation with respect to d[" ‘even to, until’ is quite complicated. The word re-
flects a blend of the root ºdy (ºdw), as preserved in the poetic form yde[“, and
ºwd, as suggested by the preservation of the qamaß in μk<yde[: ‘unto you (plural
masculine)’ Job 32:12. Again, the forms derived from ºdy preceding pronom-
inal suffixes were identical to plural forms, from which d[" was derived by
back-formation. Thus, a substantial nucleus of prepositions came into being
00-Blau.book Page 285 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

285 Prepositions; Waw ∑ 5.2.2.

Prepositions

with plural pronominal suffixes (at least synchronically), and these suffixes
continued spreading to additional prepositions. In ˆyBE ‘between’ this develop-
ment has not yet been completed: with singular suffixes, it has a singular
form; with plural suffixes, it has a plural form: yniyBE, Ún]yBE, etc.; Wnyne‡yBE (alternat-
ing with Wnne‡yBE), μk<yneyBE, etc.
5.1.4n. t/nyBE (and similar forms occuring in other Semitic dialects) with pronominal suf-
fixes WnyTE&/nyBE, μt:/nyBE stands in opposition to ˆyBE, having inclusive sense; cf. hl:a: an; yhIT}
Ún,‡ybEW Wnyne‡yBE WnytE&/nyBE ‘a covenant will be between us (including both parties, inclusive), be-
tween us (one party, exclusive) and you’ Gen 26:28. The alternate expression l} t/nyBE has
no special meaning.
This plural formation of ˆyBE arose independently in the various Semitic dialects, trig-
gered by the quite frequent repetition of this preposition (e.g., Ëv≤jø&h" ˆybEW r/ah: ˆyBE ‘between
the light and the darkness’ Gen 1:4).
5.1.5. The pronominal 1s suffix is yni-‡ in verbs, y-‡i in nouns (see §4.2.3.2.1,
p. 168). Because of the nominal origin of prepositions, it is y-‡i that is used with
them. Nevertheless, in archaic texts yni-‡ is attested as well: yniTE&j}T" ‘under me’
2 Sam 22:37 (in contrast to the later version, yT: j}T" Ps 18:37); ynide&[“B" ‘for me’ Ps
139:11, perhaps also yNiM<&mI ‘from me’; further, ydiM:[I ‘with me’, if it really stems
from *ºimmáni (cf. Blau 1974: 17–18 = Studies, 345–46).

5.2. Remarks on Connective and Conversive Waw

5.2.1. Conversive waw, which converts past to future and future to past, is
historically identical to the simple connective waw ‘and’. The original form of
both was *wa. The a of the connective waw lengthened in pretonic syllables to
qamaß hl:y]l"w& ; μ/y ‘day and night’. The usual form of the connective waw (and
of the conversive waw from past to future) is w´, which reflects the reduction
of a short vowel with the shift of stress.
5.2.1n. It has often been claimed that connective waw has a plethora of significations
besides the meaning ‘and’, sometimes numbering as many as 70. Against this pseudo-
polysemy, see R. C. Steiner, “Does the Biblical Hebrew Conjunction -w Have Many Mean-
ings, One Meaning, or No Meaning at All?” (Steiner 2000: 249–67). And, indeed, most, if
not all, of its occurrences reflect, one way or another, the meaning ‘and’. One has to bear
in mind that in Biblical Hebrew the differences between coordination and subordination
are blurred. As a result, -w may connect a main clause with its preceding subordinate clause
(as well as the topic with its comment, as is the case with the Arabic conjunction fa ‘and
[then]’).
5.2.2. After conversive waw indicating past, the presence of pata˙ plus
doubled consonant seems to be connected with the stress (see above, §3.5.12.2.16,
p. 152). Stress often (and originally, during the period of general penultimate
stress, always) falls on the first syllable of the short prefix-tense consisting of
two syllables (which comes after conversive waw): *wayyáb2 del ‘and he sepa-
rated’ (later becoming lDe&b}Y'w)' . Instead of the pretonic lengthening of the short
00-Blau.book Page 286 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

5.2.2. ∑ Waw
Prepositions 286

vowel of *wa, the following consonant was doubled, because a long vowel
plus a simple consonant is rhythmically (almost) identical to a short vowel
plus a geminated (long) consonant (see above, §4.2.5.2, p. 180).
00-Blau.book Page 287 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Paradigms

Qal
bt"K: ˆq"z; ˆfOq :
‘he wrote’ ‘he was old’ ‘he was small’

Suffix-tense
Sg. 3 m. bt"K: ˆq"z; ˆfOq :
3 f. hb:t}K: hn;qz} ; hn;f}q :
2 m. T:b}t"ˇK: T:n]qˇz" ; T:n]fOˇq :
2 f. T}b}t"K: T}n]qz" ; T}n]fOq :
1 m./f. yTIb}t"ˇK: yTIn]qˇz" ; yTIn]fOˇq :
Pl. 3 m./f. Wbt}K: Wnq}z; Wnf}q :
2 m. μT<b}t"K} μT<n]qz" ] 1 μT<n]f:q }

2 f. ˆT<b}t"K} ˆT<n]qz" ] ˆT<n]f:q }

1 m./f. Wnb}t"ˇK: 2 WNq"ˇz; WNfOˇq :
Prefix-tense
Sg. 3 m. bTøk}yi 3 bK"v‘yi

3 f. bTøk}TI bK"v‘TI
2 m. bTøk}TI bK"v‘TI
2 f. ybIT}k}TI ybIK}v‘TI
1 m./f. bTOk}a< bK"v‘a<
Pl. 3 m. WbT}k}yi WbK}v‘yi
3 f. hn;b}TOˇk}TI hn;b}K"ˇv‘TI
2 m. WbT}k}TI WbK}v‘TI
2 f. hn;b}TOˇk}TI hn;b}K"ˇv‘TI
1 m./f. bTOk}ni bK"v‘ni
1. Since ˙olam does not occur in an unstressed closed syllable, the second radical is vo-
calized with qamaß qa†an.
2. According to biblical orthography, if the same consonantal letter needs to be written
twice, without a separating vowel (Wnn]qˇz" ;*, and also Wnn]fq O *: ), it is spelled only once with heavy
dages, viz., WNq"ˇz,; and also WNfOq ˇ .: Cf. §3.5.11.1n, p. 138.
3. Similarly ˆq"z]y,i ˆf"qy} .i I have used bK"v‘yi ‘he will lie’ in the paradigm of the prefix-tense
and the imperative in order to illustrate the behavior of b, g, d, k, p, t.

287
00-Blau.book Page 288 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Paradigms ∑ Qal 288

Qal (cont.)
Imperative
Sg. 2 m. btOK} bk"v‘
2 f. ybIt}KI ybIk}v¥
Pl. 2 m. Wbt}KI Wbk}v¥
2 f. hn;b}tOˇK} hn;b}k"ˇv‘
Infinitives
Absolute b/tK: Construct btOK}
Participle
Sg. m. btE/K ˆqEz; 1 r/gy;

f. hb:t}/K/tb<tˇ</K hn;qzE ] hr;/gy]

Pl. m. μybIt}/K μyniqzE ] μyri/gy]
f. t/bt}/K t/nqEz] t/r/gy]
Passive Participle
Sg. m. bWtK:
f. hb:WtK}
Pl. m. μybIWtK}
f. t/bWtK}
1. Meaning ‘fearing’. The participle of ˆfq is not attested; ˆfOq : ‘small’, however, is used as
an adjective. Cf. also Rabbinic Heb l/ky; ‘being able’.
00-Blau.book Page 289 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

289 Derived Themes ∑ Paradigms

Derived Themes
Nif ºal Piººel Puººal Hitpaººel Hif ºil Hof ºal
bT"k}ni dBEKI dB"KU dBEK"t}hI dyBIk}hI dB"k}h:
‘it was ‘he ‘he was ‘he honored ‘he made ‘it was
written’ honored’ honored’ himself’ heavy’ made
heavy’
Suffix-tense
Sg. 3 m. 1bT"k}ni (dB"K)I dBEKI 1 dB"KU dBEK"t}hI dyBIk}hI 1 dB"k}h:

3 f. hb:T}k}ni hd:B}KI hd:B}KU hd:B}K"t}hI hd:yBIˇk}hI hd:B}k}h:

2 m. T:b}Tˇ"k}ni T:d]Bˇ"KI T:d]Bˇ"KU T:d]B"ˇK"t}hI T:d]Bˇ"k}hI T:d]Bˇ"k}h:
2 f. T}b}T"k}ni T}d]B"KI T}d]B"KU T}d]B"K"t}hI T}d]B"k}hI T}d]B"k}h:
1 m./f. yTIb}Tˇ"k}ni yTId]Bˇ"KI yTId]Bˇ"KU yTId]Bˇ"K"t}hI yTId]Bˇ"k}hI yTId]Bˇ"k}h:
Pl. 3 m./f. WbT}k}ni WdB}KI WdB}KU WdB}K"t}hI WdyBIˇk}hI WdB}k}h:
2 m. μT<b}T"k}ni μT<d]B"KI μT<d]B"KU μT<d]B"K"t}hI μT<d]B"k}hI μT<d]B"k}h:
2 f. ˆT<b}T"k}ni ˆT<d]B"KI ˆT<d]B"KU ˆT<d]B"K"t}hI ˆT<d]B"k}hI ˆT<d]B"k}h:
1 m./f. Wnb}Tˇ"k}ni Wnd]Bˇ"KI Wnd]Bˇ"KU Wnd]Bˇ"K"t}hI Wnd]Bˇ"k}hI Wnd]Bˇ"k}h:
Prefix-tense
Sg. 3 m. btEK:yi dBEk"y] dB"kUy] dBEK"t}yi dyBIk}y' dB"k}y;
3 f. btEK:TI dBEk"T} dB"kUT} dBEK"t}TI dyBIk}T" dB"k}T:
2 m. btEK:TI dBEk"T} dB"kUT} dBEK"t}TI dyBIk}T" dB"k}T:
2 f. ybIt}K:TI ydiB}k"T} ydiB}kUT} ydiB}K"t}TI ydiyBˇIk}T" ydiB}k}T:
1 m./f. /btEK:a< dBEk"a“ dB"kUa“ dBEK"t}a< dyBIk}a" dB"k}a:
btEK:aI
Pl. 3 m. Wbt}K:yi WdB}k"y] WdB}kUy] WdB}K"t}yi WdyBIˇk}y' WdB}k}y;
3 f. hn;b}t"ˇK:TI hn;d]BEˇk"T} hn;d]B"ˇkUT} /hn;d]BEˇK"t}TI hn;d]BEˇk}T" hn;d]B"ˇk}T:
(hn;d]B"ˇk"T)} hn;d]B"ˇK"t}TI
2 m. Wbt}K:TI WdB}k"T} WdB}kUT} WdB}K"t}TI WdyBIˇk}T" WdB}k}T:
2 f. hn;b}t"ˇK:TI hn;d]BEˇk"T} hn;d]B"ˇkUT} /hn;d]BEˇK"t}TI hn;d]BEˇk}T" hn;d]B"ˇk}T:
(hn;d]B"ˇk"T)} hn;d]B"ˇK"t}TI
1 m./f. btEK:ni dBEk"n] dB"kUn] dBEK"t}ni dyBIk}n' dB"k}n;
1. Note the pata˙, which is characteristic of finite verbal forms in the final closed,
stressed syllable (whereas nouns, including participles [dB: k}n,i dB:kUm}], contain qamaß in this
position). For details, see §3.5.7.1, pp. 119ff.
00-Blau.book Page 290 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Paradigms ∑ Derived Themes 290

Derived Themes
Short prefix-tense
Sg. 3m. dBEk}y'
3 f./2 m. dBEk}T"
The other forms, insofar as they exist, are identical to the ordinary prefix-tense.

Imperative
Sg. 2 m. btEK:hI dBEK" dBEK"t}hI dBEk}h"
2 f. ybIt}K:hI ydiB}K" ydiB}K"t}hI ydiyBIˇk}h"
Pl. 2 m. Wbt}K:hI WdB}K" WdB}K"t}hI WdyBIˇk}h"
2 f. hn;b}t"ˇK:hI hn;d]BEˇK" /hn;d]BEˇK"t}hI hn;d]BEˇk}h"
hn;d]B"ˇK"t}hI
Infinitives
Absolute /b/Tk}ni dBEK" d/BKU dBEK"t}hI dBEk}h" dBEk}h:
1 btEK:hI (d/BK")
Construct btEK:hI dBEK" not attested dBEK"t}hI dyBIk}h" not attested 2

Participle
Sg. m. bT:k}ni dBEk"m} dB:kUm} dBEK"t}mI dyBIk}m" dB:k}mU
f. /tb<Tˇ<k}ni 3 td,B<ˇk"m} /hd;B:kUm} 3 td,B<ˇK"t}mI /hd;yBIk}m" /hd;B:k}mU
hb:T:k}ni td,B<ˇkUm} td,B<ˇk}m" td,B<ˇk}mU
Pl. m. μybIT:k}ni μydiB}k"m} μydiB:kUm} μydiB}K"t}mI μydiyBIk}m" μydiB:k}mU
f. t/bT:k}ni t/dB}k"m} t/dB:kUm} t/dB}K"t}mI t/dyBIk}m" t/dB:k}mU
Short prefix-tense
Sg. 3m. dBEk}y'
3 f./2 m. dBEk}T"
The other forms, insofar as they exist, are identical to the ordinary prefix-tense.

1. b/Tk}ni is used when preceding the suffix-tense, btEK:hI when followed by the prefix-tense.
2. Only hM:Væh: ‘its being desolate’ Lev 26:34 and td,Lh < ˇ U ‘being born’ Gen 40:20 occur.
3. Feminine participle with hÎ; suffix is only attested with the preservation of the charac-
teristic ßere vowel after the second radical: hd; QrE 'm} ‘dancing, jolting’, hp:V´k"m} ‘witch’, hl:KEvæm}
‘suffering from abortion’; the last two forms are in substantival use. In the plural, however,
the ßere is reduced: μypIV‘k"m.} The same applies to the hitpaººel: hr;KnE 't}mI ‘strange woman’.
00-Blau.book Page 291 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

291 I-Laryngeals ∑ Paradigms

I-Laryngeals/Pharyngeals
Qal Nif ºal Hif ºil Hof ºal
db"[: dB"[}n, dyBI[}h< dB"[}h:
‘he worked’ ‘it was ‘he ‘he was
tilled’ compelled compelled
to labor’ to labor’
Suffix-tense
Sg. 3 m. db"[: /dB"[}n, /dyBI[}h< /dB"[}h:
db"[”n, dybI[”h< db"[’h:
3 f. hd:b}[: /hd;B}[}n, /hd;yBIˇ[}h< /hd;B}[}h:
hd;b}[<n, hd;ybIˇ[”h< hd;b}[:h:
2 m. T:d]b"ˇ[: /T:d]B"ˇ[}n, /T:d]B"ˇ[}h< /T:d]B"ˇ[}h:
T:d]b"ˇ[”n, T:d]b"ˇ[”h< T:d]b"ˇ[’h:
2 f. T}d]b"[: /T}d]B"[}n, /T}d]B"[}h< /T}d]B"[}h:
T}d]b"[”n, T}d]b"[”h< T}d]b"[’h:
1 m./f. yTId]b"ˇ[: /yTId]B"ˇ[}n, /yTId]B"ˇ[}h< /yTId]B"ˇ[}h:
yTId]b"ˇ[”n, yTId]b"ˇ[”h< yTId]bˇ[" ’h:
Pl. 3 m./f. Wdb}[: /WdB}[}n, /WdyBIˇ[}h< /WdB}[}h:
Wdb}[<n, WdybIˇ[”h< Wdb}[:h:
2 m. μT<d]b"[“ /μT<d]B"[}n, /μT<d]B"[}h< /μT<d]B"[}h:
μT<d]b"[”n, μT<d]b"[”h< μT<d]b"[’h:
2 f. ˆT<d]b"[“ /ˆT<d]B"[}n, /ˆT<d]B"[}h< /ˆT<d]B"[}h:
ˆT<d]b"[”n, ˆT<d]b"[”h< ˆT<d]b"[’h:
1 m./f. Wnd]b"ˇ[: /Wnd]B"ˇ[}n, /Wnd]B"ˇ[}h< /Wnd]B"ˇ[}h:
Wnd]b"ˇ[”n, Wnd]b"ˇ[”h< Wnd]b"ˇ[’h:
00-Blau.book Page 292 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Paradigms ∑ I-Laryngeals 292

I-Laryngeals/Pharyngeals (cont.)
Qal Nif ºal Hif ºil Hof ºal
dr'j}y, rGoa}y, vBOj}y'
‘he will be ‘he will ‘he will
terrified’ gather’ bind’
Prefix-tense
Sg. 3 m. /dr'j}y, /rGoa}y, /vBOj}y' dbE[:ye /dyBI[}y' /dB"[}y;
dr'j”y, rgoa”y, vbOj“y' dybI[“y' db"[’y;
3 f. /dr'j}T< /rGoa}T< /vBOj}T" dbE[:TE /dyBI[}T" /dB"[}T:
dr'j”T< rgoa”T< vbOj“T" dybI[“T" db"[’T:
2 m. /dr'j}T< /rGoa}T< /vBOj}T" dbE[:TE /dyBI[}T" /dB"[}T:
dr'j”T< rgoa”T< vbOj“T" dybI[“T" db"[’T:
2 f. /ydir]j}T< /yriG}a}T" /yv¥B}j}T" ydib}[:TE /ydiyBˇI[}T" /ydiB}[T} :
ydir]j<T< yrig}a"T" yv¥b}j"T" ydiybIˇ[“T" ydib}[:T:
1 m./f. /dr'j}a< /rGoa}a< /vBOj}a< dbE[:aE /dyBI[}a" /dB"[}a:
dr'j”a< rgoa”a< vbOj”a< dybI[“a" db"[’a:
Pl. 3 m. /Wdr]j}y, /WrG}a}y' /WvB}j}y' Wdb}[:ye /WdyBˇI[}y' /WdB}[}y;
Wdr]j<y, Wrg}a"y' Wvb}j"y' WdybIˇ[“y' Wdb}[:y;
3 f. /hn;d]r'ˇj}T< /hn;r]Goˇa}T< /hn;v‘BOˇj}T" hn;d]b"ˇ[:TE /hn;d]BEˇ[}T" /hn;d]B"ˇ[}T:
hn;d]r'ˇj”T< hn;r]gaˇo ”T< hn;v‘bOˇj“T" hn;d]bEˇ[“T" hn;d]b"ˇ[’T:
2 m. /Wdr]j}T< /WrG}a}T" /WvB}j}T" Wdb}[:TE /WdyBˇI[}T" /WdB}[}T:
Wdr]j<T< Wrg}a"T" Wvb}j"T" WdybIˇ[“T" Wdb}[:T:
2 f. /hn;d]r'ˇj}T< /hn;r]Goˇa}T< /hn;v‘BOˇj}T" hn;d]b"ˇ[:TE /hn;d]BEˇ[}T" /hn;d]B"ˇ[}T:
hn;d]r'ˇj”T< hn;r]ga”
o ˇ T< hn;v‘bOˇj“T" hn;d]bEˇ[“T" hn;d]b"ˇ[’T:
1 m./f. /dr'j}n, /rGoa}n, /vBOj}n' dbE[:ne /dyBI[}n' /dB"[}n;
dr'j”n, rgoa”n, vbOj“n' dybI[“n' db"[’n;
Short prefix-tense
Sg. 3 m. dbE[“y/' dBE[}y'
3 f./2 m. dbE[“T/" dBE[}T"
The other forms, insofar as they exist, are identical to the ordinary prefix-tense.

column 40 pts. short

00-Blau.book Page 293 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

293 I-Laryngeals ∑ Paradigms

I-Laryngeals/Pharyngeals (cont.)
Qal Nif ºal Hif ºil Hof ºal
Imperative
Sg. 2 m. ≈m"a” vboj“ dbE[:hE /dBE[}h" not attested
dbE[“h"
2 f. yxIm}aI yv¥b}jI ydib}[:hE /ydiyBˇI[}h"
ydiybIˇ[“h"
Pl. 2 m. Wxm}aI Wvb}jI Wdb}[:hE /WdyBˇI[}h"
WdybIˇ[“h"
2 f. hn;x}m"ˇa” hn;v‘bOˇj“ hn;d]b"ˇ[:hE /hn;d]BEˇ[}h"
hn;d]bEˇ[“h"
Infinitives
Absolute ≈/ma: v/bj: d/b[“n/' d/B[}n' /dBE[}h" /dBE[}h:
dbE[:hE dbE[“h" dbE[’h:
Construct ≈mOa” vboj“ dbE[:hE /dyBI[}h" not attested

dybI[“h"
Participle
Sg. m. vbE/j /dB:[}n, /dyBI[}m" /dB:[}m:
db:[”n, dybI[“m" db:[’m:
f. /tv≤b<ˇ/j /hd;B:[}n, /hd;yBI[}m" /hd;B:[}m:
hv…b}/j hd;b:[”n, hd;ybI[“m" hd;b:[’m:
/td,B<ˇ[}n, /td,B<ˇ[}m" /td,B<ˇ[}m:
td,b<ˇ[”n, td,b<ˇ[“m" td,bˇ[< ’m:
Pl. m. μyv¥b}/j /μydiB:[}n, /μydiyBI[}m" /μydiB:[}m:
μydib:[”n, μydiybI[“m" μydib:[’m:
f. t/vb}/j /t/dB:[}n, /t/dyBI[}m" /t/dB:[}m:
t/db:[”n, t/dybI[“m" t/db:[’m:
Passive Participle
Sg. m. vWbj:
f. hv…Wbj“
Pl. m. μyv¥Wbj“
f. t/vWbj“
00-Blau.book Page 294 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Paradigms ∑ II-Laryngeals 294

II-Laryngeals/Pharyngeals
Qal Nif ºal Hof ºal Piººel Puººal Hitpaººel
la"v… la"v‘ni la"v‘h: raEPE ra"PO raEP:t}hI
‘he ‘he asked ‘it was ‘he ‘he was ‘he glorified
asked’ for him- lent’ glorified’ glorified’ himself’
self’
Suffix-tense
Sg. 3 m. la"v… la"v‘ni la"v‘h: (ra"P)E raEPE ra"PO raEP:t}hI
3 f. hl:a“v… hl:a“v‘ni hl:a“v‘h: hr;a“PE hr;a“PO hr;a"P:t}hI
2 m. T:l}a"ˇv… T:l}a"ˇv‘ni T:l}a"ˇv‘h: T:r]a"ˇPE T:r]a"ˇPO T:r]a"ˇP:t}hI
2 f. T}l}a"v… T}la
} "v‘ni T}l}a"v‘h: T}r]a"PE T}r]a"PO T}r]a"ˇP:t}hI
1 m./f. yTIl}a"ˇv… yTIl}a"ˇv‘ni yTIl}a"ˇv‘h: yTIr]a"ˇPE yTIr]a"ˇPO yTIr]a"ˇP:t}hI
Pl. 3 m./f. Wla“v… Wla“v‘ni Wla“v‘h: Wra“PE Wra“PO Wra“P:t}hI
2 m. μT<l}a"v‘ μT<l}a"v‘ni μT<l}av
" ‘h: μT<r]a"PE μT<r]a"PO μT<r]a"P:t}hI
2 f. ˆT<l}a"v‘ ˆT<l}a"v‘ni ˆT<l}a"v‘h: ˆT<r]a"PE ˆT<r]a"PO ˆT<r]a"P:t}hI
1 m./f. Wnl}a"ˇv… Wnl}a"ˇv‘ni Wnl}a"ˇv‘h: Wnr]a"ˇPE Wnr]a"ˇPO Wnr]a"ˇP:t}hI
Prefix-tense
Sg. 3 m. la"v‘yi laEV…yi la"v‘y; raEp:y] ra"pOy] raEP:t}yi
3 f. la"v‘TI laEV…TI la"v‘T: raEp:T} ra"pOT} raEP:t}TI
2 m. la"v‘TI laEV…TI la"v‘T: raEp:T} ra"pOT} raEP:t}TI
2 f. ylIa“v‘TI ylIa“V…TI ylIa“v‘T: yria“p:T} yria“pOT} yria“P:t}TI
1 m./f. la"v‘a< /laEV…aI la"v‘a: raEp:a“ ra"pOa“ raEP:t}a<
laEV…a<
Pl. 3 m. Wla“v‘yi Wla“V…yi Wla“v‘y; Wra“p:y] Wra“pOy] Wra“P:t}yi
3 f. hn;l}a"ˇv‘TI hn;l}a"ˇV…TI hn;l}a"ˇv‘T: hn;r]aEˇp:T} hn;r]a"pOT} /hn;r]aEˇP:t}TI
(hn;r]a"ˇp:T)} hn;r]a"ˇP:t}TI
2 m. Wla“v‘TI Wla“V…TI Wla“v‘T: Wra“p:T} Wra“pOT} Wra“P:t}TI
2 f. hn;l}a"ˇv‘TI hn;l}a"ˇV…TI hn;l}a"ˇv‘T: hn;r]aEˇp:T} hn;r]a"pOT} /hn;r]aEˇP:t}TI
(hn;r]a"ˇp:T)} hn;r]a"ˇP:t}TI
1 m./f. la"v‘ni laEV…ni la"v‘n; raEp:n] ra"pOn] raEP:t}ni
00-Blau.book Page 295 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

295 II-Laryngeals ∑ Paradigms

II-Laryngeals/Pharyngeals (cont.)
Qal Nif ºal Hof ºal Piººel Puººal Hitpaººel
Imperative
Sg. 2 m. la"v‘ laEV…hI non-existent raEP: non-existent raEP:t}hI
2 f. ylIa“væ ylIa“V…hI yria“P: yria“P:t}hI
Pl. 2 m. Wla“væ Wla“V…hI Wra“P: Wra“P:t}hI
2 f. hn;l}a"ˇv‘ hn;l}a"ˇV…hI hn;r]aEˇP: /hn;r]aEˇP:t}hI
hn;r]a"ˇP:t}hI
Infinitives
Absolute l/av… /l/av‘ni laEv‘h: (r/aP:) r/aPO raEP:t}hI
laEV…hI raEP:
Construct laøv‘ laEV…hI not attested raEP: not attested raEP:t}hI
Participle
Sg. m. laE/v la:v‘ni la:v‘mU raEp:m} ra:pOm} raEP:t}mI
f. /tl<a<ˇ/v /tl<a<ˇv‘ni /tl<a<ˇv‘mU tr,a<ˇp:m} /tr,a<ˇpOm} tr,a<ˇP:t}mI
hl:a“/v hl:a:v‘ni hl:a:v‘mU hr;a:pOm} (hr;a“P:t}m)I
Pl. m. μylIa“/v μylIa:v‘ni μylIa:v‘mU μyria“p:m} μyria:pOm} μyria“P:t}mI
f. t/la“/v t/la:v‘ni t/la:v‘mU t/ra“p:m} t/ra:pOm} t/ra“P:t}mI
Passive Participle
Sg. m. lWav…
f. hl:Wav‘
Pl. m. μylIWav‘
f. t/lWav‘
00-Blau.book Page 296 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Paradigms ∑ III-Laryngeals 296

III-Laryngeals/Pharyngeals
Qal Nif ºal Hif ºil Hof ºal Piººel Puººal Hitpaººel
[m"v… [m"v‘ni ['ymIv‘hI [m"v‘h: jL"v¥ jL"v¨ [L"G"t}hI
‘he ‘he was ‘he ‘he was ‘he sent’ ‘he was ‘it broke
heard’ heard’ caused to caused to sent’ out’
hear’ be heard’
Suffix-tense
Sg. 3 m. [m"v… [m"v‘ni ['ymIv‘hI [m"v‘h: jL"v¥ jL"v¨ [L"G"t}hI
(j'LEv)¥ (['LEG"t}h)I
3 f. h[:m}v… h[:m}v‘ni h[:ymIˇv‘hI h[:m}v‘h: hj:L}v¥ hj:L}v¨ h[:L}G"t}hI
2 m. T:[}m"ˇv… T:[}mˇ"v‘ni T:[}mˇ"v‘hI T:[}mˇ"v‘h: T:j}L"ˇv¥ T:j}L"ˇv¨ T:[}L"Ǧ"t}hI
2 f. T}["m"ˇv… T}["m"ˇv‘ni T}["m"ˇv‘hI T}["m"ˇv‘h: T}j"L"ˇv¥ T}j"L"ˇv¨ T}["L"Ǧ"t}hI
1 m./f. yTI[}m"ˇv… yTI[}mˇ"v‘ni yTI[]mˇ"v‘hI yTI[}mˇ"v‘h: yTIj}L"ˇv¥ yTIj}L"ˇv¨ yTI[}L"Ǧ"t}hI
Pl. 3 m./f. W[m}v… W[m}v‘ni W[ymIˇv‘hI W[m}v‘h: WjL}v¥ WjL}v¨ W[L}G"t}hI
2 m. μT<[}m"v‘ μT<[}m"v‘ni μT<[}m"v‘hI μT<[}m"v‘h: μT<j}L"v¥ μT<j}L"v¨ μT<[}L"G"t}hI
2 f. ˆT<[}m"v‘ ˆT<[}m"v‘ni ˆT<[}m"v‘hI ˆT<[}m"v‘h: ˆT<j}L"v¥ ˆT<j}L"v¨ ˆT<[}L"G"t}hI
1 m./f. Wn[}m"ˇv… Wn[}mˇ"v‘ni Wn[}mˇ"v‘hI Wn[}mˇ"v‘h: Wnj}L"ˇv¥ Wnj}L"ˇv¨ Wn[}L"Ǧ"t}hI
Prefix-tense
Sg. 3 m. [m"v‘yi [m"V…yi ['ymIv‘y' [m"v‘y; jL"væy] jL"v¨y] [L"G"t}yi
(['LEG"t}y)i
3 f. [m"v‘TI [m"V…TI ['ymIv‘T" [m"v‘T: jL"væT} jL"v¨T} [L"G"t}TI
2 m. [m"v‘TI [m"V…TI ['ymIv‘T" [m"v‘T: jL"væT} jL"v¨T} [L"G"t}TI
2 f. y[Im}v‘TI y[Im}V…TI y[IymˇIv‘T" y[Im}v‘T: yjIL}væT} yjiL}v¨T} y[iL}G"t}TI
1 m./f. [m"v‘a< /[m"V…aI ['ymIv‘a" [m"v‘a: jL"væa“ jL"v¨a“ [L"G"t}a<
[m"V…a<
Pl. 3 m. W[m}v‘yi W[m}V…yi W[ymIˇv‘y' W[m}v‘y; WjL}væy] WjL}v¨y] W[L}Gt
" }yi
3 f. hn;[}m"ˇv‘TI hn;[}m"ˇV…TI hn;[]m"ˇv‘T" hn;[}m"ˇv‘T: hn;j}L"ˇvæT} hn;j]L"ˇv¨T} hn;[}L"Ǧ"t}TI
2 m. W[m}v‘TI W[m}V…TI W[ymIˇv‘T" W[m}v‘T: WjL}væT} WjL}v¨T} W[L}G"t}TI
2 f. hn;[}m"ˇv‘TI hn;[}m"ˇV…TI hn;[]m"ˇvT
‘ " hn;[}m"ˇv‘T: hn;j}L"ˇvæT} hn;j]L"ˇv¨T} hn;[}L"Ǧ"t}TI
1 m./f. [m"v‘ni [m"V…ni ['ymIv‘n' [m"v‘n; jL"væn] jL"v¨n] [L"G"t}ni
00-Blau.book Page 297 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

297 III-Laryngeals; I-aleph ∑ Paradigms

III-Laryngeals; I-Aleph

III-Laryngeals/Pharyngeals (cont.)
Qal Nif ºal Hif ºil Hof ºal Piººel Puººal Hitpaººel
Short prefix-tense
Sg. 3 m. [m"v‘y'
3 f./2 m. [m"v‘T"
The other forms, insofar as they exist, are identical to the ordinary prefix-tense.

Imperative
Sg. 2 m. [m"v‘ [m"V…hI [m"v‘h" non-existent jL"væ non-existent [L"G"t}hI
2 f. y[Im}v¥ y[Im}V…hI y[iymIˇv‘h" yjIL}væ y[iL}G"t}hI
Pl. 2 m. W[m}v¥ W[m}V…hI W[ymIˇv‘h" WjL}væ W[L}G"t}hI
2 f. hn;[}m"ˇv‘ hn;[}m"ˇV…hI hn;[]m"ˇv‘h" hn;j]L"ˇvæ hn;[}L"Ǧ"t}hI
Infinitives
Absolute ['/mv… /['/mv‘ni ['mEv‘h" ['mEv‘h: j'LEvæ j'/Lv¨ ['LEG"t}hI
['mEV…hI (j'/Lvæ)
Construct ['mOv‘ /['mEV…hI ['ymIv‘h" not attested j'LEvæ not attested ['LEG"t}hI
[m"V…hI
Participle
Sg. m. ['mE/v [m:v‘ni ['ymIv‘m" [m:v‘mU j'LEvæm} jL:v¨m} ['LEG"t}mI
f. /t["m"ˇ/v /t["m"ˇv‘ni /t["m"ˇv‘m" /t["m"ˇv‘mU tj"L"ˇvæm} /tj"L"ˇv¨m} t["LǦ" "t}mI
h[:m}/v h[:m:v‘ni h[;ymIv‘m" h[;m:v‘mU (hj:Lv } æm)} hj:L:v¨m} (h[:L}G"t}m)I
Pl. m. μy[Im}/v μy[Im:v‘ni μy[IymIv‘m" μy[im:v‘mU μyjIL}væm} μyjIL:v¨m} μy[IL}G"t}mI
f. t/[m}/v t/[m:v‘ni t/[ymIv‘m" t/[m:v‘mU t/jL}væm} t/jL:v¨m} t/[L}G"t}mI

Weak I-aleph Verbs—Qal

rm"a: ‘to say’
Prefix-tense
Sg. 3 m. rm"ayo Pl. 3 m. Wrm}ayo
3 f. rm"aTO 3 f. hn;r]m"ˇaTO
2 m. rm"aTO 2 m. Wrm}aTO
2 f. yrim}aTO 2 f. hn;r]m"ˇaTO
1 m./f. rm"aO 1 m./f. rm"ano
00-Blau.book Page 298 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Paradigms ∑ I-n 298

I-n Verbs
Qal Nif ºal Hif ºil Hof ºal
lp"n; vg"n; qT"ni lyPIhI lP"hU
‘he fell’ ‘he ‘he was ‘he felled’ ‘he was
approached’ drawn away’ felled’
Suffix-tense
Sg. 3 m. lp"n; vg"n*; qT"ni lyPIhI 1 lP"hU

3 f. hl:p}n; hv…g}n; hq:T}ni hl:yPIˇhI hl:P}hU

2 m. T:l}p"ˇn; T:v‘g"ň; T:qT
} "ˇni T:l}P"ˇhI T:l}P"ˇhU
2 f. T}l}p"n; T}v‘g"n; T}qT
} "ni T}l}P"hI T}l}P"hU
1 m./f. yTIl}p"ˇn; yTIv‘g"ň; yTIqT
} "ˇni yTIl}P"ˇhI yTIl}P"ˇhU
Pl. 3 m./f. Wlp}n; Wvg}n; WqT}ni WlyPIˇhI WlP}hU
2 m. μT<l}p"n] μT<v‘g"n] μT<qT
} "ni μT<l}P"hI μT<l}P"hU
2 f. ˆT<l}p"n] ˆT<v‘g"n] ˆT<qT
} "ni ˆT<l}P"hI ˆT<l}P"hU
1 m./f. Wnl}p"ˇn; Wnv‘g"ň; Wnq}T"ˇni Wnl}P"ˇhI Wnl}P"ˇhU
Prefix-tense
Sg. 3 m. lPOyi vG"yi qtEN;yi lyPIy' lP"yu
3 f. lPOTI vg"TI qtEN;TI lyPIT" lP"TU
2 m. lPOTI vg"TI qtEN;TI lyPIT" lP"TU
2 f. ylIP}TI yv¥g}TI yqIt}N;TI ylIyPIˇT" ylIP}TU
1 m./f. lPOa< vG"a< qtEN;a< lyPIa" lP"aU
Pl. 3 m. WlP}yi WvG}yi Wqt}N;yi WlyPIy' WlP"yu
3 f. hn;l}POˇTI hn;v‘G"ˇTI hn;q}t"ˇN;TI hn;l}PEˇT" hn;l}P"ˇTU
2 m. WlP}TI WvG}TI Wqt}N;TI WlyPIˇT" WlP"TU
2 f. hn;l}POˇTI hn;v‘G"ˇTI hn;q}t"ˇN;TI hn;l}PEˇT" hn;l}P"ˇTU
1 m./f. lPOni vG"ni qtEN;ni WlyPIˇn' lP"nu
Short prefix-tense
Sg. 3 m. lPEy'
3 f./2 m. lPET"
The other forms, insofar as they exist, are identical to the ordinary prefix-tense.

1. The u of hof ºal did not shift to o, because the shift u > o does not, as a rule, operate
preceding a geminate consonant.

column 6 pts. long

00-Blau.book Page 299 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

299 I-n ∑ Paradigms

I-n; natan

I-n Verbs (cont.)

Qal Nif ºal Hif ºil Hof ºal
Imperative
Sg. 2 m. lpOn] vG" qtEN;hI lPEh" non-existent

2 f. ylIp}ni yv¥G} yqIt}N;hI ylIyPIˇh"

Pl. 2 m. Wlp}ni WvG} Wqt}N;hI WlyPIˇh"
2 f. hn;l}pOˇn] hn;v‘G"ˇ hn;q}t"ˇN;hI hn;l}PEˇh"
Infinitives
Absolute l/pn; v/gn; qtEN;h,I q/Tni lPEh" lP"hU
Construct lpOn] tv≤G,ˇ qtEN;hI lyPIh" not attested

Participle
Sg. m. lpE/n qT:ni lyPIm" lP:mU
f. /tl<p<ˇ/n /tq<T<ˇni /hl:yPIm" /tl<P<ˇmU
hl:p}/n hq:T:ni tl<P<ˇm" hl:P:mU
Pl. m. μylIp}/n μyqIT:ni μylIyPIm" μylIP:mU
f. t/lp}/n t/qT:ni t/lyPIm" t/lP:mU

Conjugation of ˆt"n;
Qal Nif ºal Qal Nif ºal
ˆt"n; ˆT"ni
‘he ‘it was
gave’ given’
Suffix-tense
Sg. 3 m. ˆt"n; ˆT"ni Pl. 3 m./f. Wnt}n; WnT}ni
3 f. hn;t}n; hn;T}ni 2 m. μT<t"n] μT<T"ni
2 m. T:t"ˇn; T:T"ˇni 2 f. ˆT<t"n] ˆT<T"ni
2 f. T}t"n; T}T"ni 1 m./f. WNt"ˇn; WNT"ˇni
1 m./f. yTIt"ˇn; yTIT"ˇni

column 20 pts. short

00-Blau.book Page 300 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Paradigms ∑ I-n
natan; I-y(w) 300

Conjugation of ˆt"n; (cont.)

Qal Nif ºal Qal Nif ºal
Prefix-tense
Sg. 3 m. ˆTEyi ˆtEN;yi Pl. 3 m. WnT}yi Wnt}N;yi
3 f. ˆTETI ˆtEN;TI 3 f. hN;TEˇTI hN;t"ˇN;TI
2 m. ˆTETI ˆtEN;TI 2 m. WnT}TI Wnt}N;TI
2 f. yniT}TI ynit}N;TI 2 f. hN;TEˇTI hN;t"ˇN;TI
1 m./f. ˆTEa< ˆtEN;a< 1 m./f. ˆTEni ˆtEN;ni
Imperative
Sg. 2 m. ˆTE ˆtEN;hI Pl. 2 m. WnT} Wnt}N;jI
2 f. yniT} ynit}N;hI 2 f. hN;TEˇ hN;t"ˇN;hI
Infinitives
Absolute ˆ/tn; ˆtEN;h,I ˆ/Tni Construct tTE ˆtEN;hI
Participle
Sg. m. ˆtE/n ˆT:ni Pl. m. μyniT:ni
f. etc. hn;T:n/i tn,T<ˇni f. t/nT:ni

I-y(w)Verbs
Qal Nif ºal Hif ºil Hof ºal
ds"y/; rq"y; bvæy; [d'y; bvæ/n byv¥/h bvæWh
III-pharyngeals/
laryngeals
‘it was precious’/ ‘he sat’ ‘he knew’ ‘it was ‘he set’ ‘it was
‘he founded’ inhabited’ set’
Suffix-tense
Sg. 3 m. ds"y,; rq"y; bvæy; [d'y; bvæ/n byv¥/h bvæWh
3 f. hr;q}y; hb:v‘y; h[:d]y; hb:v‘/n hb:yv¥ˇ/h hb:v‘Wh
2 m. T:r]qˇy" ; T:b}væˇy; T:[}d'ˇy; T:b}væˇ/n T:b}væˇ/h T:b}væˇWh
2 f. T}r]qy" ; T}b}væy; T}["d'y; T}b}væ/n T}bv
} æ/h T}b}væWh

column 30 pts. short

00-Blau.book Page 301 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

301 I-n ∑ Paradigms

I-y(w)

I-y(w)Verbs (cont.)
Qal Nif ºal Hif ºil Hof ºal
1 m./f. yTIr]qˇy" ; yTIb}væˇy; yTI[}d'ˇy; yTIb}væˇ/n yTIb}væˇ/h yTIb}væˇWh
Pl. 3 m./f. Wrq}y; Wbv‘y; W[d}y; Wbv‘/n Wbyv¥ˇ/h Wbv‘Wh
2 m. μT<r]qy" ] μT<b}væy] μT<[}d'y] μT<b}væ/n μT<b}væ/h μT<b}væWh
2 f. ˆT<r]qy" ] ˆT<b}væy] ˆT<[}d'y] ˆT<b}v/æ n ˆT<b}væ/h ˆT<b}væWh
1 m./f. Wnr]qy"ˇ ; Wnb}vˇ yæ ; Wn[}d'ˇy; Wnb}væˇ/n Wnb}væˇ/h Wnb}væˇWh
Prefix-tense
Sg. 3 m. ds"yyi, rq"yyi bv´ye [d'ye bv´W;yi byv¥/y bvæWy
3 f. rq"yTI bv´TE [d'TE bv´W;TI byv¥/T bvæWT
2 m. rq"yTI bv´TE [d'TE bv´W;TI byv¥/T bvæWT
2 f. yriq}yTI ybIv‘TE y[Id]TE ybIv‘W;TI ybIyv¥ˇ/T ybIv‘WT
1 m./f. rq"yaI bvEaE [d'aE bv´W;aI byv¥/a bvæWa
Pl. 3 m. Wrq}yyi Wbv‘ye W[d]ye Wbv‘W;yi Wbyv¥ˇ/y Wbv‘Wy
3 f. hn;r]qˇy" TI hn;b}væˇTE hn;[}d'ˇTE hn;b}væˇW;TI hn;b}v´ˇ/T hn;b}væˇWT
2 m. Wrq}yTI Wbv‘TE W[d]TE Wbv‘W;TI Wbyv¥ˇ/T Wbv‘WT
2 f. hn;r]qˇy" TI hn;b}væˇTE hn;[}d'ˇTE hn;b}vWæˇ ;TI hn;b}v´ˇ/T hn;b}væˇWT
1 m./f. rq"yni bvEne [d'ne bv´W;ni byv¥/n bvæWn
Short prefix-tense
Sg. 3 m. bv´/y
3 f./2 m. bv´/T
The other forms, insofar as they exist, are identical to the ordinary prefix-tense.

Imperative
Sg. 2 m. ds"y,] rq"y] bv´ [D' bv´W;hI bv´/h non-existent

2 f. yriq}yi ybIv‘ y[ID] ybIv‘W;hI ybIyv¥ˇ/h

Pl. 2 m. Wrq}yi Wbv‘ W[D] Wbv‘W;hI Wbyv¥ˇ/h
2 f. hn;r]qˇy" ] hn;b}vˇE hn;[}D'ˇ hn;b}væˇW;hI hn;b}v´ˇ/h
Infinitives
Absolute d/sy;, r/qy; b/vy; ['/dy; b/v/n bv´/h bv´Wh
bv´W;hI
Construct d/sy], r/qy] tb<vˇ ≤ t["D'ˇ bv´W;hI byv¥/h not attested
00-Blau.book Page 302 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Paradigms ∑ I-n
I-y(w); III-aleph 302

I-y(w)Verbs (cont.)
Qal Nif ºal Hif ºil Hof ºal
Participle
Sg. m. dsE/y, 1rq:y; bv´/y ['de/y bv…/n byv¥/m bv…Wm
f. etc. hr;q:y] /tb<v≤ˇ/y t["d'ˇ/y /hb:v…/n /hb:yv¥/m /tb<v≤ˇWm
hb:v‘/y (h[:d]/y) tb<v≤ˇ/n tb<v≤ˇ/m hb:v…Wm
Pl. m. μyriq:y] μybIv‘/y μy[Id]/y μybIv…/n μybIyv¥/m μybIv…Wm
f. t/rq:y] t/bv‘/y t/[d]/y t/bv…/n t/byv¥/m t/bv…Wm
1. rq"y;, being a stative verb (original *yaqer), has an adjectival participle; see above,
§4.3.5.2.5.1, p. 225.

III-aleph Verbs
Qal Nif ºal Hif ºil Hof ºal Piººel Puººal Hitpaººel
ax:m: ax:m}ni ayxIm}hI ax:m}h: aLEmI aL:mU aLEm"t}hI
‘he ‘it was ‘he caused ‘he was ‘he filled’ ‘it was ‘they
found’ found’ to find’ caused to filled’ massed
find’ themselves’
Suffix-tense
Sg. 3 m. ax:m: ax:m}ni ayxIm}hI ax:m}h: aLEmI aL:mU aLEm"t}hI
3 f. ha:x}m: ha:x}m}ni ha:yxIˇm}hI ha:x}m}h: ha:L}mI ha:L}mU ha:L}m"t}hI
2 m. t:ax:ˇm: t:axEˇm}ni t:axEˇm}hI t:ax:ˇm}h: t:aLEˇmI t:aL:ˇmU t:aLEˇm"t}hI
2 f. tax:m: taxEˇm}ni taxEˇm}hI tax:m}h: taLEmI taL:mU taLEm"t}hI
1 m./f. ytIax:ˇm: ytIaxEˇm}ni ytIaxEˇm}hI ytIax:ˇm}h: ytIaLEˇmI ytIaL:ˇmU ytIaLEˇm"t}hI
Pl. 3 m./f. Wax}m: Wax}m}ni WayxIˇm}hI Wax}m}h: WaL}mI WaL}mU WaL}m"t}hI
2 m. μt<ax:m} μt<axEm}ni μt<axEm}hI μt<ax:m}h: μt<aLEmI μt<aL:mU μt<aLEm"t}hI
2 f. ˆt<ax:m} ˆt<axEm}ni ˆt<axEm}hI ˆt<ax:m}h: ˆt<aLEmI ˆt<aL:m ˆt<aLEm"t}hI
1 m./f. Wnax:ˇm: WnaxEˇm}ni WnaxEˇm}hI Wnax:ˇm}h: WnaLEˇmI WnaL:ˇmU WnaLEˇm"t}hI
Prefix-tense
Sg. 3 m. ax:m}yi axEM:yi ayxIm}y' ax:m}y; aLEm"y] aL:mUy] aLEm"t}yi
3 f. ax:m}TI axEM:TI ayxIm}T" ax:m}T: aLEm"T} aL:mUT} aLEm"t}TI
2 m. ax:m}TI axEM:TI ayxIm}T" ax:m}T: aLEm"T} aL:mUT} aLEm"t}TI
2 f. yaIx}m}TI yaIx}M:TI yaIyxˇIm}T" yaIx}m}T: yaIL}m"T} yaiL}mUT} yaiL}m"t}TI

column 16 pts. long

00-Blau.book Page 303 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

303 I-n ∑ Paradigms

III-aleph

III-aleph Verbs (cont.)

Qal Nif ºal Hif ºil Hof ºal Piººel Puººal Hitpaººel
1 m./f. ax:m}a< /axEM:aI ayxIm}a" ax:m}a: aLEm"a“ aL:mUa“ aLEm"t}a<
axEM:a<
Pl. 3 m. Wax}m}yi Wax}M:yi WayxIˇm}y' Wax}m}y; WaL}m"y] WaL}mUy] WaL}m"t}yi
3 f. hn;ax<ˇm}TI hn;ax<ˇM:TI hn;ax<ˇm}T" hn;ax<ˇm}T: hn;aL<ˇm"T} hn;aL<ˇmUT} hn;aL<ˇm"t}TI
2 m. Wax}m}TI Wax}M:TI WayxIˇm}T" Wax}m}T: WaL}m"T} WaL}mUT} WaL}m"t}TI
2 f. hn;ax<ˇm}TI hn;ax<ˇM:TI hn;ax<ˇm}T" hn;ax<ˇm}T: hn;aL<ˇm"T} hn;aL<ˇmUT} hn;aL<ˇm"t}TI
1 m./f. ax:m}ni axEM:ni ayxIm}n' ax:m}n; aLEm"n] aL:mUn] aLEm"t}ni
Short prefix-tense
Sg. 3 m. axEm}y'
3 f./ 2 m. axEm}T"
The other forms, insofar as they exist, are identical to the ordinary prefix-tense.

Imperative
Sg. 2 m. ax:m} axEM:hI axEm}h" non-existent aLEm" non-existent aLEm"t}hI
2 f. yaIx}mI yaIx}M:hI yaiyxIˇm}h" yaIL}m" yaiL}m"t}hI
Pl. 2 m. Wax}mI Wax}M:hI WayxIˇm}h" WaL}m" WaL}m"t}hI
2 f. hn;ax<ˇm} hn;ax<ˇM:hI hn;ax<ˇm}h" hn;aL<ˇm" hn;aL<mˇ "t}hI
Infinitives
Absolute a/xm: /a/xm}ni axEm}h" axEm}h: aLEm" a/LmU aLEm"t}hI
axEM:hI (a/Lm")
Construct axOm} axEM:hI ayxIm}h" not attested aLEm" not attested aLEm"t}hI
Participle
Sg. m. axE/m ax:m}ni ayxIm}m" ax:m}mU aLEm"m} aL:mUm} aLEm"t}mI
f. taxE/m /taxEm}ni /taxEm}m" /taxEm}mU taLEm"m} /taLEmUm} taLEm"t}mI
(ha:x}/m) ha:xm
: }ni ha:yxIm}m" ha:x:m}mU (ha:L}m"m)} ha:L:mUm} (ha:L}m"t}m)I
Pl. m. μyaIx}/m μyaIx:m}ni μyaIyxIm}m" μyaIx:m}mU μyaIL}m"m} μyaIL:mUm} μyaIL}m"t}mI
f. t/ax}/m t/ax:m}ni t/ayxIm}m" t/ax:m}mU t/aL}m"m} t/aL:mUm} t/aL}m"t}mI
00-Blau.book Page 304 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Paradigms ∑ I-n
III-y 304

III-y Verbs
Qal Nif ºal Hif ºil Hof ºal Piººel Puººal Hitpaººel
hl:G: hl:g}ni hl:g}hI hl:g}h: hL:Gi hL:GU hL:G"t}hI
‘he un- ‘he un- ‘he took ‘he was ‘he un- ‘he was ‘he un-
covered’ covered into taken into covered’ uncov- covered
himself’ exile’ exile’ ered’ himself’
Suffix-tense
Sg. 3 m. hl:G: hl:g}ni hl:g}hI hl:g}h: hL:Gi hL:GU hL:G"t}hI
3 f. ht:l}G: ht:l}g}ni ht:l}g}hI ht:l}g}h: ht:L}Gi ht:L}GU ht:L}G"t}hI
2 m. t:ylIǦ: t:ylEǧ}ni t:ylIǧ}hI t:ylEǧ}h: t:yLIǦi t:yLEǦU t:yLIǦ"t}hI
2 f. tylIG: tylEǧ}ni tylIǧ}hI tylEg}h: tyLIGi tyLEGU tyLIG"t}hI
1 m./f. ytIylIǦ: ytIylEǧ}ni ytIylEǧ}hI ytIylEǧ}h: ytIyLEǦi ytIyLEǦU ytIyLEǦ"t}hI
Pl. 3 m./f. WlG: Wlg}ni Wlg}hI Wlg}h: WLGi WLGU WLG"t}hI
2 m. μt<ylIG} μt<ylEg}ni μt<ylIg}hI μt<ylEg}h: μt<yLIGi μt<yLEGU μt<yLIG"t}hI
2 f. ˆt<ylIG} ˆt<ylEg}ni ˆt<ylIg}hI ˆt<ylEg}h: ˆt<yLIGi ˆt<yLEG ˆt<yLIG"t}hI
1 m./f. WnylIǦ: WnylEǧ}ni WnylIǧ}hI WnylEǧ}h: WnyLIˇGi WnyLEˇGU WnyLIˇG"t}hI
Prefix-tense
Sg. 3 m. hl<g}yi hl<G:yi hl<g}y' hl<g}y; hL<g"y] hL<gUy] hL<G"t}yi
3 f. hl<g}TI hl<G:TI hl<g}T" hl<g}T: hL<g"T} hL<gUT} hL<G"t}TI
2 m. hl<g}TI hl<G:TI hl<g}T" hl<g}T: hL<g"T} hL<gUT} hL<G"t}TI
2 f. ylIg}TI ylIG:TI ylIg}T" ylIg}T: yLIg"T} yLIgUT} yLIG"t}TI
1 m./f. hl<g}a< hl<G:aI hl<g}a" hl<g}a: hL<g"a“ hL<gUa“ hL<G"t}a<
Pl. 3 m. Wlg}yi WlG:yi Wlg}y' Wlg}y; WLg"y] WLgUy] WLG"t}yi
3 f. hn;yl<ǧ}TI hn;yl<Ǧ:TI hn;yl<ǧ}T" hn;yl<ǧ}T: hn;yL<ǧ"T} hn;yL<ǧUT} hn;yL<Ǧ"t}TI
2 m. Wlg}TI WlG:TI Wlg}T" Wlg}T: WLg"T} WLgUT} WLG"t}TI
2 f. hn;yl<ǧ}TI hn;yl<Ǧ:TI hn;yl<ǧ}T" hn;yl<ǧ}T: hn;yL<ǧ"T} hn;yL<ǧUT} hn;yL<Ǧ"t}TI
1 m./f. hl<g}ni hl<G:ni hl<g}n' hl<g}n; hL<g"n] hL<gUn] hL<G"t}ni
Short prefix-tense
Sg. 3 m. lg,yi ˇ lG:yi lg,y , ˇ lg"y] lG"t}yi
3 f./ 2 m. lg,TIˇ lG:TI lg,T<ˇ lg"T} lG"t}TI
1 m./f. lg,aIˇ lG:aI lg,a<ˇ lg"a“ lG"t}a<
Pl. 1 m./f. lg,ni ˇ lG:ni lg,n, ˇ lg"n] lG"t}ni

column 12 pts. long

00-Blau.book Page 305 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

305 I-n ∑ Paradigms

III-y; II w/y

III-y Verbs (cont.)

Qal Nif ºal Hif ºil Hof ºal Piººel Puººal Hitpaººel
The other forms, insofar as they exist, are identical to the ordinary prefix-tense.

Imperative
Sg. 2 m. hlEG} hlEG:hI hlEg}h" non-existent hLEG" non-existent hLEG"t}hI
2 f. ylIG} ylIG:hI ylIg}h" yLIG" yLIG"t}hI
Pl. 2 m. WlG} WlG:hI Wlg}h" WLG" WLG"t}hI
2 f. hn;yl<Ǧ} hn;yl<Ǧ:hI hn;yl<ǧ}h" hn;yL<Ǧ" hn;yL<Ǧ"t}hI
Infinitives
Absolute hløG: /hløg}ni hlEg}h" hlEg}h: hLEG" hLøGU hLEG"t}hI
hlEG:hI
Construct t/lG} t/lG:hI t/lg}h" not attested t/LG" not attested t/LG"t}hI
Participle
Sg. m. hl</G hl<g}ni hl<g}m" hl<g}m: hL<g"m} hL<gUm} hL<G"t}mI
f. hl:/G hl:g}ni hl:g}m" hl:g}m: hL:g"m} hL:gUm} hL:G"t}mI
Pl. m. μylI/G μylIg}ni μylIg}m" μylIg}m: μyLIg"m} μyLIgUm} μyLIG"t}mI
f. t/l/G t/lg}ni t/lg}m" t/lg}m: t/Lg"m} t/LgUm} t/LG"t}mI

II-w/y Verbs—Qal
v/B tmE μq:
‘he was ashamed’ ‘he died’ ‘he rose’
Suffix-tense
Sg. 3 m. v/B tmE μq:
3 f. hv…/Bˇ ht:mEˇ hm:q:ˇ
2 m. T: v‘BOˇ T:m"ˇ T:m}q'ˇ
2 f. T} v‘BO T}m" T}m}q'
1 m./f. yTI v‘BOˇ yTIm"ˇ yTIm}q'ˇ
Pl. 3 m./f. Wv/Bˇ WtmEˇ Wmq:ˇ
2 m. μT< v‘B: μT<m" μT<m}q'
2 f. ˆT< v‘B: ˆT<m" ˆT<m}q'

column 10 pts. short

00-Blau.book Page 306 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Paradigms ∑ I-n
II w/y 306

II-w/y Verbs—Qal (cont.)

1 m./f. Wnv‘BˇO Wnt}m"ˇ WNm}q'ˇ
‘he put’ μc:
Prefix-tense
Sg. 3 m. v/bye μyc¥y; μWqy;
3 f. v/bTE μyc¥T: μWqT:
2 m. v/bTE μyc¥T: μWqT:
2 f. yv¥/bˇTE ymIyc¥ˇT: ymIWqˇT:
1 m./f. v/baE μyc¥a: μWqa:
Pl. 3 m. Wv/bˇye Wmyc¥ˇy; WmWqˇy;
3 f. hn;v‘bOˇTE hn;ym<ˇyc¥T} / hn;m}cˇ T
´ : hn;ym<ˇWqT} / hn;m}qOˇT:
2 m. Wv/bˇTE Wmyc¥ˇT: WmWqˇT:
2 f. hn;v‘bOˇTE hn;ym<ˇyc¥T} / hn;m}cˇ T
´ : hn;ym<ˇWqT}/hn;m}qOˇT:
1 m./f. v/bne μyc¥n; μWqn;
Imperative
Sg. 2 m. v/B μyc¥ μWq
2 f. yv¥/Bˇ ymIycˇ ¥ ymIWqˇ
Pl. 2 m. Wv/Bˇ Wmyc¥ˇ WmWqˇ
2 f. hn;v‘BOˇ hn;m}cˇ ´ hn;m}qOˇ
Short prefix-tense
Sg. 3 m. μc≤Y;w̌', μc´y; μq:Y;w̌', μqOy;
The other forms, insofar as they exist, are identical to the ordinary prefix-tense.

Infinitives
Absolute v/B μyc¥ μ/q
Construct v/B μyc¥ μWq
Participle
Sg. m. v/B μc… μq:
f. hv…/B hm:c… hm:q:
Pl. m. μyv¥/B μymIc… μymIq:
f. t/v/B t/mc… t/mq:
00-Blau.book Page 307 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

307 I-n ∑ Paradigms

II w/y

II-w/y Verbs—Qal (cont.)

‘he enveloped’ fl:

Passive Participle
Sg. m. μyc¥/μWc fWl
f. hm:yc¥/hm:Wc hf:Wl
Pl. m. μymIyc¥/μymIWc μyfIWl
f. t/myc¥/t/mWc t/fWl

II-w/y Verbs—Derived Themes

Nif ºal Hif ºil Hof ºal Piººel Puººal Hitpaººel
g/sn; μyqIhE μq"Wh μmE/q μm"/q μmE/qt}hI
‘he moved ‘he raised’ ‘he was ‘he raised’ ‘he was ‘he rose’
away’ raised’ raised’
Suffix-tense
Sg. 3 m. g/sn; μyqIhE μq"Wh μmE/q μm"/q μmE/qt}hI
3 f. hg:/sˇn; hm:yqIˇhE hm:q}Wh hm:m}/q hm:m}/q hm:m}/qt}hI
2 m. t:/gˇWsn] /T:m}qˇh
" E T:m}qˇW" h T:m}m"ˇ/q T:m}m"ˇ/q T:m}m"ˇ/qt}hI
t:/mˇyqIh“
2 f. t/gWsn] /T}m}qh
" E T}m}qW" h T}m}m"/q T}m}m"/q T}m}m"/qt}hI
t/myqIh“
1 m./f. ytI/gˇWsn] /yTIm}qˇh
" E yTIm}qˇW" h yTIm}m"ˇ/q yTIm}m"ˇ/q yTIm}m"ˇ/qt}hI
ytI/mˇyqIh“
Pl. 3 m./f. Wg/sˇn; WmyqIˇhE Wmq}Wh Wmm}/q Wmm}/q Wmm}/qt}hI
2 m. μt</gWsn] /μT<m}qh
" “ μT<m}qW" h μT<m}m"/q μT<m}m"/q μT<m}m"/qt}hI
μt</myqIh“
2 f. ˆt</gWsn] /ˆT<m}qh
" “ ˆT<m}qW" h ˆT<m}m"/q ˆT<m}m"/q ˆT<m}m"/qt}hI
ˆt</myqIh“

column 50 pts. short

00-Blau.book Page 308 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Paradigms ∑ I-n
II w/y 308

II-w/y Verbs—Derived Themes (cont.)

Nif ºal Hif ºil Hof ºal Piººel Puººal Hitpaººel
1 m./f. Wn/gˇWsn] /Wnm}qˇh
" E Wnm}qˇW" h Wnm}m"ˇ/q Wnm}m"ˇ/q Wnm}m"ˇ/qt}hI
Wn/mˇyqIh“
Prefix-tense
Sg. 3 m. g/Syi μyqIy; μq"Wy μmE/qy] μm"/qy] μmE/qt}yi
3 f. g/STI μyqIT: μq"WT μmE/qT} μm"E/qT} μmE/qt}TI
2 m. g/STI μyqIT: μq"WT μmE/qT} μm"/qT} μmE/qt}TI
2 f. ygi/SˇTI ymIyqIˇT: ymIq}WT ymIm}/qT} ymIm}/qT} ymIm}/qt}TI
1 m./f. g/Sa< μyqIa: μq"Wa μmE/qa“ μm"/qa“ μmE/qt}a<
Pl. 3 m. Wg/Sˇyi WmyqIˇy; Wmq}Wy Wmm}/qy] Wmm}/qy] Wmm}/qt}yi
3 f. hn;g}SOˇTI hn;m}qˇT
E : hn;m}qˇW" T hn;m}mEˇ/qT} hn;m}m"ˇ/qT} hn;m}mEˇ/qt}TI
2 m. Wg/SˇTI WmyqIˇT: Wmq}WT Wmm}/qT} Wmm}/qT} Wmm}/qt}TI
2 f. hn;g}SOˇTI hn;m}qˇT
E : hn;m}qˇW" T hn;m}mEˇ/qT} hn;m}m"ˇ/qT} hn;m}mEˇ/qt}TI
1 m./f. g/Sni μyqIn; μq"Wn μmE/qn] μm"/qn] μmE/qt}ni
Short prefix-tense
Sg. 3 m. μqEy;
3 f./2 m. μqET:
1 m./f. μqEa:
Pl. 1 m./f. μqEn;
The other forms, insofar as they exist, are identical to the ordinary prefix-tense.

Imperative
Sg. 2 m. g/ShI μqEh: non-existent μmE/q non-existent μmE/qt}hI
2 f. ygi/SˇhI ymIyqIˇh: ymIm}/q ymIm}/qt}hI
Pl. 2 m. Wg/SˇhI WmyqIˇh: Wmm}/q Wmm}/qt}hI
2 f. hn;g}SOˇhI hn;m}qˇhE : hn;m}mEˇ/q hn;m}mEˇ/qt}hI
Infinitives
Absolute g/ShI/g/sn; μqEh: μqEWh μmE/q μ/m/q μmE/qt}hI
Construct g/ShI μyqIh: not attested μmE/q not attested μmE/qt}hI

column 60 pts. short

00-Blau.book Page 309 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

309 I-n ∑ Paradigms

II w/y; Mediae Geminatae

II-w/y Verbs—Derived Themes (cont.)

Nif ºal Hif ºil Hof ºal Piººel Puººal Hitpaººel
Participle
Sg. m. g/sn; μyqImE μq:Wm μmE/qm} μm:/qm} μmE/qt}mI
f. hg:/sn] hm:yqIm} /hm:q:Wm /hm:m}/qm} /hm:m:/qm} /hm:m}/qt}mI
tm<q<ˇWm tm<m<ˇ/qm} tm<m<ˇ/qm} tm<m<ˇ/qt}mI
Pl. m. μygi/sn] μymIyqIm} μymIq:Wm μymIm}/qm} μymIm:/qm} μymIm}/qt}mI
f. t/g/sn] t/myqIm} t/mq:Wm t/mm}/qm} t/mm:/qm} t/mm}/qt}mI

Mediae Geminatae Verbs

Qal Nif ºal Hif ºil Hof ºal
lq" bb"s: bs"n; bsEhE bs"Wh
‘it was ‘he ‘he turned ‘he caused to ‘he was
slight’ turned’ himself’ turn’ turned’
Suffix-tense
Sg. 3 m. lq" bb"s: bs"n; bs"h/E bsEhE bs"Wh
3 f. hL:qˇ " hb:b}s: hB:s"ˇn; /hB:sEˇhE hB:s"ˇWh
hB:s"ˇh*E
2 m. t:/Lˇq" t:/Bˇs" t:/Bˇs"n] /t:/BˇsIh“ t:/Bˇs"Wh
T:b}s"ˇhE
2 f. t/Lˇq" t/Bˇs" t/Bs"n] /t/BsIh“ t/Bs"Wh
T}b}s"hE
1 m./f. ytI/Lˇq" ytI/Bˇs" ytI/Bˇs"n] /ytI/BsIh“ ytI/Bˇs"Wh
yTIb}s"ˇhE
Pl. 3 m./f. WLq"ˇ Wbb}s: WBs"ˇn; WBsEˇh/E WBs"ˇhE WBs"ˇWh
2 m. μt</Lq" μt</Bs" μt</Bs"n] /μt</BsIh“ μt</Bs"Wh
μT<b}s"h“
2 f. ˆt</Lq" ˆt</Bs" ˆt</Bs"n] /ˆt</BsIh“ ˆt</Bs"Wh
ˆT<b}s"h“
1 m./f. Wn/Lˇq" Wn/Bˇs" Wn/Bˇs"n] Wnb}s"ˇh/E Wn/BˇsIh“ Wn/Bˇs"Wh

column 20 pts. short

00-Blau.book Page 310 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Paradigms ∑ I-n
Mediae Geminatae 310

Mediae Geminatae Verbs (cont.)

Qal Nif ºal Hif ºil Hof ºal
dd"q:
‘he bowed’

Prefix-tense
Sg. 3 m. dQOyi lq"ye bsOy; bS"yi bsEy; bs"Wy
3 f. dQOTI lq"TE bsOT: bS"TI bsET: bs"WT
2 m. dQOTI lq"TE bsOT: bS"TI bsET: bs"WT
2 f. ydiQ}TI yLIqˇT
" E yBIsOˇT: yBIS"ˇTI yBIsEˇT: yBIs"ˇWT
1 m./f. dQOa< lq"aE bsOa: bS"a< bsEa: bs"Wa
Pl. 3 m. WdQ}yi WLq"ˇye WBsOˇy; WBS"ˇyi WBsEˇy; WBs"ˇWy
3 f. hn;d]QˇOTI hn;l}qˇT
" E /hn;b}sOˇT: /hn;b}S"ˇTI /hn;yB<ˇsIT} /hn;yB<ˇs"WT
hn;yB<ˇsUT} hn;yB<ˇS"TI hn;b}sEˇT: hn;b}s"WT
2 m. WdQ}TI WLq"ˇTE WBsOˇT: WBS"TI WBsEˇT: WBs"ˇWT
2 f. hn;d]QˇOTI hn;l}qˇT
" E /hn;b}sOˇT: /hn;b}S"ˇTI /hn;yB<ˇsIT} /hn;yB<ˇs"WT
hn;yB<ˇsUT} hn;yB<ˇS"TI hn;b}sEˇT: hn;b}s"WT
1 m./f. dQOni lq' ne bsOn; bS"ni bsEn; bs"Wn
Imperative
Sg. 2 m. lq" bsO bS"hI bsEh: non-existent

2 f. yLIqˇ " yBIsOˇ yBIS"ˇhI yBIsEˇh:

Pl. 2 m. WLq"ˇ WBsOˇ WBS"ˇhI WBsEˇh:
2 f. hn;l}qˇ " hn;b}sOˇ hn;b}S"ˇhI hn;b}sEˇh:
Infinitives
Absolute b/bs: b/ShI, bSEhI bsEh: bsEWh
Construct bsO bSEhI bsEh: not attested

Participle
Sg. m. lq" bbE/s bs:n; bsEmE bs:Wm
f. hL:q " /tb<b<ˇ/s hB:s"n] hB:sIm} hB:s"Wm
hb:b}/s
Pl. m. μyLIq " μybIb}/s μyBIs"n] μyBIsIm} μyBIs"Wm
f. t/Lq" t/bb}/s t/Bs"n] t/BsIm} t/Bs"Wm
00-Blau.book Page 311 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

311 I-n ∑ Paradigms

Mediae Geminatae

Mediae Geminatae Verbs (cont.)

Qal
‘cursed’ rWra:
Passive Participle
Sg. m. rWra:
f. hr;Wra“
Pl. m. μyriWra“
f. t/rWra“
00-Blau.book Page 313 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Bibliography

Aartun, Kjell
1981 Noch einmal zum Problem der Haupttondehnung beim Nomen im
Althebräischen. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesell-
schaft 131: 28–41.
Aharoni, Yohanan
1975 Arad Inscriptions. Judean Desert Studies. Jerusalem: The Bialik Insti-
tute and The Israel Exploration Society. Hebrew. English ed. 1981, in
cooperation with J. Naveh, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Ahituv, Shmuel
1992 ynçAtyb ymy tyçarw ˆwçarAtyb ymym twyrb[ twbwtk tpwsa [Handbook
of Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions from the Period of the First Common-
wealth and the Beginning of the Period of the Second Common-
wealth]. 7 tyarqmh hydpwlqyxnah tyyrps [Library of the Encyclope-
dia Miqraªit 7]. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik.
2005 ymym ˆdryh rb[ twklmmw larçyA≈ram twbwtk tpwsa >btkmhw btkh
ˆwçarAtyb [Script and Inscriptions: Handbook of Ancient Inscrip-
tions from the Land of Israel and the Kingdoms beyond the Jordan
from the Period of the First Commonwealth]. hydpwlqyxnah tyyrps
21 tyarqmh [Library of the Encyclopedia Miqraªit 21]. Jerusalem:
Mosad Bialik.
Andersen, F. I., and Forbes, A. D
1986 Spelling in the Hebrew Bible. Biblica et Orientalia 41. Rome: Pontif-
ical Biblical Institute.
Avishur, Y., and Blau, J., eds
1978 Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East Presented to Samuel E.
Loewenstamm on His Seventieth Birthday. Jerusalem: E. Rubinstein.
Barr, James
1968 Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. Oxford:
Clarendon. Repr. with additions, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
1987.
Barth, Jakob
1889 Vergleichende Studien. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen
Gesellschaft 43: 177–91.
1893 Etymologische Studien zum semitischen, insbesondere zum hebräi-
schen Lexicon. Beilage zum Jahresbericht der Berliner Rabbiner-
Seminars von Jahren 1891–93. Leipzig: Hinrichs / Berlin: Itzkowski.
1894a Die Nominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen. 2nd ed. Leipzig:
Hinrichs.

313
00-Blau.book Page 314 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Bibliography 314

1894b Zur vergleichenden semitischen Grammatik. Zeitschrift der Deut-

schen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 48: 1–21.
1907–11 Sprachwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Semitischen 2. Jahres-
Bericht des Rabbiner-Seminars zu Berlin für 1909/1910. Berlin: Itz-
kowski.
1913 Die Pronominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Hin-
richs.
Bauer, Hans
1910 Die Tempora im Semitischen: ihre Entstehung und ihre Ausgestaltung
in den Einzelsprachen. Beiträge zur Assyriologie 8. Leipzig: Hinrichs.
1912 Noch einmal die semitischen Zahlwörter. Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 66: 267–70.
1914 Semitische Sprachprobleme. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlän-
dischen Gesellschaft 68: 365–72.
Bauer, Hans, and Leander, Pontus
1922 Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testa-
mentes. Halle an S.: Max Niemeyer. Repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1991.
Beeston, A. F. L.
1962 A Descriptive Grammar of Epigraphic South-Arabian. London:
Luzac.
1984 Sabaic Grammar. Journal of Semitic Studies Monograph 6. Manches-
ter: Journal of Semitic Studies, University of Manchester.
Bendavid, Abba
1958–59 twnfqw twlwdg tw[wntl hqwljh [The Division into Long and Short
Vowels]. Lesonénu 22: 7–35, 110–36.
Ben-David, Israel
1995 arqmh ym[fw rybjt >arqmbç tyrb[b qsph twrwxw rçqh twrwx [Con-
textual and Pausal Forms in Biblical Hebrew: Syntax and Accentua-
tion]. Jerusalem: Magnes.
Ben-Óayyim, Zeªev
1951 tynwmdqh tymrab twrtsnh [The Third Person Plural Feminine in Old
Aramaic]. Eretz-Israel 1 (Schwabe Volume): 135–39. Jerusalem: Is-
rael Exploration Society.
1954 Studies in the Traditions of the Hebrew Language. Madrid: Instituto
Arias Montano.
1957 trwsmw hrwsm [Masorah and Tradition]. Lesonénu 21: 283–92.
1958–62 La Tradition Samaritaine et sa Parenté avec les Autres Traditions de la
Langue Hébraïque. Mélanges de Philosophie et de Littérature Juives
3–5: 89–128.
Ben-Óayyim, Zeªev, with Tal, Abraham
2000 A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew: Based on the Recitation of the
Law in Comparison with the Tiberian and Other Jewish Traditions.
2nd ed. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns / Jerusalem: Magnes.
00-Blau.book Page 315 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

315 Bibliography

Ben-Yehuda, Eliezer
1919 ?tyrb[ wrbd ytmya d[ [How Long Did They Speak Hebrew?]. New
York: Kadimah.
Berggrün, Nissan
1995 tyrb[h ˆwçlb μynwy[ [Studies in the Hebrew Language]. Collected and
edited by Yits˙a˚ He˚elman. Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew
Language.
Bergsträsser, Gotthelf
1909 Das hebräische Präfix v. Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissen-
schaft 29: 40–56.
1918–29 Hebräische Grammatik. Leipzig: Vogel/Hinrichs. Repr., Hildesheim:
Olms, 1986. [Abbreviation: Bergsträsser.]
1928 Einführung in die semitischen Sprachen: Sprachproben und gramma-
tische Skizzen. Munich: Hueber.
1983 Introduction to the Semitic Languages: Text Specimens and Gram-
matical Sketches. Trans. and sup. Peter T. Daniels. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns. Corrected repr., 1995.
Beyer, Klaus
1969 Althebräische Grammatik: Laut- und Formenlehre. Göttingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht.
1984 Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer, samt den Inschriften aus
Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fasten-
rolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
1994 Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer. Ergänzungsband. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Birkeland, Harris
1940 Akzent und Vokalismus im Althebräischen mit Beiträgen zur ver-
gleichenden semitischen Sprachwissenschaft. Skrifter utgitt av der
Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo. II. Hist.-filos. Klasse. 1940.
No. 3. Oslo: Jacob Dybwad.
Blanc, Haim
1970 Dual and Pseudo-Dual in the Arabic Dialects. Language 46: 42–57.
Blau, Joshua

Articles marked with • appear in Blau, Topics (1998b).

Articles marked with * appear in Blau, Middle Arabic (1988).
Articles marked with + appear in Blau tyrb[ twnçlbb μynwy[ [Studies] (1996).

+1952 tybyfqa harwhb lw[p ynwnyb [The paºul Participle in Active Sense].
Lesonénu 18: 67–81 = Studies: 313–29.
+1954 Zum angeblichen Gebrauch von ta vor dem Nominativ. Vetus Testa-
mentum 4: 7–19 = [translated into Hebrew] Studies: 137–48.
00-Blau.book Page 316 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Bibliography 316

+1956a Gibt es ein emphatischen ªet im Bibelhebräischen? Vetus Testamen-

tum 6: 211–12 = [translated into Hebrew] Studies: 137–48.
+1956b Über homonyme und angelich homonyme Wurzeln. Vetus Testamen-
tum 6: 242–48 = [translated into Hebrew] Studies: 166–74.
+1956c Zum Hebräisch der Übersetzer des AT. Vetus Testamentum 6: 97–99 =
[translated into Hebrew] Studies: 175–76.
+1957a Hob2 ´re Samajim (Jes. xlvii 13) = Himmelsanbeter. Vetus Testamen-
tum 7: 183–84 = [translated into Hebrew] Studies: 235.
1957b Über die t-form des Hif ºil im Bibelhebräisch. Vetus Testamentum 7:
385–88.
+1957c Über homonyme und angeblich homonyme Wurzeln II. Vetus Testa-
mentum 7: 98–102 = [translated into Hebrew] Studies: 166–74.
1959 Adverbia als psychologische und grammatische Subjekte / Prädikate
im Bibelhebräisch. Vetus Testamentum 9: 130–37.
1961 Reste des i-Imperfekts von ZKR Qal. Vetus Testamentum 11: 81–86.
•1968a On Problems of Polyphony and Archaism in Ugaritic Spelling. Jour-
nal of the American Oriental Society 88: 523–26 = Topics: 339–43.
•1968b Some Difficulties in the Reconstruction of “Proto-Hebrew” and
“Proto-Canaanite.” Pp. 29–43 in In Memoriam Paul Kahle, ed. Mat-
thew Black and Georg Fohrer. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttes-
tamentliche Wissenschaft 103. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann = Topics:
266–82.
•1969a The Origins of Open and Closed e in Proto-Syriac. Bulletin of the
School of Oriental and African Studies 32: 1–9 = Topics: 299–307.
*1969b Some Problems of the Formation of the Old Semitic Languages in the
Light of Arabic Dialects. Pp. 38–44 in Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Conference on Semitic Studies Held in Jerusalem, 19–23 July
1965. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities =
Middle Arabic: 361–67.
+1970a tyrb[h ˆwçlh lç hyrwfsyhb twy[b [Problems in the History of He-
brew]. Pp. 9–23 in larçy twdlwtb μyrqjm >ˆwla whyldgl ˆwrkz rps
tyrb[h ˆwçlbw [In Memory of Gedalyahu Alon: Essays in Jewish His-
tory and Hebrew Philology], ed. Mena˙em Dorman, Shemuel Safrai,
and Mena˙em Stern. Tel Aviv: ha-Kibuts ha-Meªu˙ad = Studies: 25–
40.
+1970b hmwdqh tyrb[b hm[fhh ylwglgl twr[h [Notes on Changes in Stress
in Early Hebrew]. Pp. 27–38 in ˆmryç μyyj rps [Hayyim (Jefim) Schir-
mann Jubilee Volume], ed. Shraga Abramson and Aaron Mirsky.
Jerusalem: Schocken Institute for Jewish Research of the Jewish
Theological Seminary of America = Studies: 41–52.
1970c On Pseudo-Corrections in Some Semitic Languages. Jerusalem: Israel
Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
•1971a Marginalia semitica I. Israel Oriental Studies 1: 1–35 = Topics: 185–
220.
00-Blau.book Page 317 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

317 Bibliography

1971b On the Repetition of the Predicate in the Bible. Pp. 234–40 in Bible
and Jewish History Dedicated to the Memory of Jacob Liver, ed. B. Uf-
fenheimer. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press = Studies: 124–30.
•1971c Studies in Hebrew Verb Formation. Hebrew Union College Annual
42: 133–58 = Topics: 155–80.
•1972a Marginalia semitica II. Israel Oriental Studies 2: 57–82 = Topics:
221–46.
*1972b Middle and Old Arabic Material for the History of Stress in Arabic.
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 35: 476–84 =
Middle Arabic: 297–305.
1973a Remarks on Some Syntactic Trends of Modern Standard Arabic. Is-
rael Oriental Studies 3: 172–231.
+1973b Der Übergang der bibelhebräischen Verba I w (y) von Qal in Hifºil im
Lichte des Ugaritischen. Ugarit-Forschungen 5: 275–77 = [translated
into Hebrew] Studies: 87–88.
+1974 twymç twnwçlb ([wdyyh ta llwk) μyywnykh trwtb μynwy[ [Studies in the
Theory of Pronouns (including Determination) in Semitic Languages].
Pp. 17–45 in ˆwly ˚wnjl ˆwrkyz rps [Memorial Volume in Honor of He-
noch Yalon], ed. E. Y. Kutscher, S. Lieberman, M. Kaddari. Jerusalem:
Kiryat Sefer = Studies: 345–73.
+1975 hmwdqh tyrb[b hm[fhh μwjtb twy[b l[ [On Problems of Stress in
Ancient Hebrew]. Pp. 62–73 in lyywwxrwq ˚wrb rps [Essays Honoring
Baruch Kurzweil], ed. M. Z. Kaddari. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan Univer-
sity = Studies: 54–65.
1976 A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Porta Linguarum Orientalium n.s. 12.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2nd ed., 1993.
1977a An Adverbial Construction in Hebrew and Arabic: Sentence Adverbi-
als in Frontal Position Separated from the Rest of the Sentence. The
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Proceedings 6/1. Jerusa-
lem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
*1977b The Beginnings of the Arabic Diglossia: A Study of the Origins of
Neo-Arabic. Afroasiatic Linguistics 4/4 = Middle Arabic: 1–38.
•1977c Marginalia semitica III. Israel Oriental Studies 7: 14–32 = Topics:
247–65.
+1977d Notes on Relative Clauses in Biblical Hebrew [Hebrew]. Shnaton 2:
50–53 (English summary, xi) = Studies: 162–65.
•1977e “Weak” Phonetic Change and the Hebrew ¶in. Hebrew Annual Re-
view 1: 67–119 = Topics: 50–103.
•1978a Hebrew and North-West Semitic: Reflections on the Classification of
the Semitic Languages. Hebrew Annual Review 2: 21–44 = Topics:
308–32.
•1978b Hebrew Stress Shifts, Pretonic Lengthening, and Segolization: Pos-
sible Cases of Aramaic Interference in Hebrew Syllable Structure. Is-
rael Oriental Studies 8: 91–106 = Topics: 104–19.
00-Blau.book Page 318 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Bibliography 318

+1978c tybr[b ymtsh lybsh [qr l[ hwçj ˆwyd) arqmb ymtsh lybsh l[
(tysalqh [On Invariable Passive Forms in Biblical Hebrew and Clas-
sical Arabic. Pp. 185–94 in auuçl μyçgwm ˆwmdqh jrzmbw arqmb μyrqjm
μfçnwyl [Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East Presented to Sam-
uel E. Loewenstamm on His Seventieth Birthday], ed. Y. Avishur and
J. Blau. Jerusalem: E. Rubinstein = Studies 114–23.
+1978d arqmh tyrb[b hyd[lbw nAb trtsnw rtsn yywnyk [Pronominal Third-
Person Singular Suffixes with and without n in Biblical Hebrew].
Eretz-Israel 14 (H. L. Ginsberg Volume) 125–31 = Studies: 94–104.
•1979a Non-Phonetic Conditioning of Sound Change and Biblical Hebrew.
Hebrew Annual Review 3: 7–15 = Topics: 26–35.
•1979b Redundant Pronominal Suffixes Denoting Intrinsic Possession. Jour-
nal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 11: 31–37 = Topics: 146–54.
•1979c Short Philological Notes on the Inscription of Mesaº. Maarav 2: 143–
57 = Topics: 344–58.
•1979d Some Remarks on the Prehistory of Stress in Biblical Hebrew. Israel
Oriental Studies 9: 49–54 = Topics: 120–25.
•1980 The Parallel Development of the Feminine Ending -at in Semitic Lan-
guages. Hebrew Union College Annual 51: 17–28 = Topics: 126–37.
•1981a On Pausal Lengthening, Pausal Stress Shift, Philippi’s Law and Rule
Ordering in Biblical Hebrew. Hebrew Annual Review 5: 1–13 = Top-
ics: 36–49.
+1981b hyh h[pwtk twynwrgh tçljh lç hylwglg l[ [On the Development of
the Weakening of the Gutturals as a Living Phenomenon]. Lesonénu
45: 32–39 = Studies: 17–24.
1981c The Renaissance of Modern Hebrew and Modern Standard Arabic:
Parallels and Differences in the Revival of Two Semitic Languages.
University of California Publications: Near Eastern Studies 18.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
1982a On Polyphony in Biblical Hebrew. Pp. 105–83 in The Israel Academy
of Sciences and Humanities Proceedings 6/2. Jerusalem: Israel Acad-
emy of Sciences and Humanities.
+1982b sjy tlym ydy l[ μykrxwmw μx[ μçb μyjtwph μyrçwqm ytlb μyfpçm
arqmb [Asyndetic Prepositional Clauses Opening with a Substantive
in Biblical Hebrew]. Pp. 277–86 in [Bible Studies: Y. M. Grintz in
Memoriam], ed. B. Uffenheimer. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press
= Studies 155–61.
•1982c Remarks on the Development of Some Pronominal Suffixes in He-
brew. Hebrew Annual Review 6: 61–67 = Topics: 138–45.
+1982–83 arqmh trwpysb μynmzh tkr[m l[ μyrwhrh [Thoughts on the Tense Sys-
tem in Biblical Narrative]. Pp. 19–23 in μyrmam >ˆmgylz hyra qjxy rps
qyt[h μlw[bw arqmb [Essays in Honor of Isaac Leo Seeligmann: Ar-
ticles in the Bible and in the Ancient World], ed. Yair Zakovitch and
Alexander Rofé. Jerusalem: A. Rubinstein = Studies: 109–13.
00-Blau.book Page 319 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

319 Bibliography

+1983 Eine Theorie der Haupttondehnung im Althebräischen. Zeitschrift der

Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 133: 24–29 = [translated
into Hebrew] Studies: 72–76.
+1985 hçdjh tyrb[h lç twbkçhAbr hypwal twr[h [Remarks on the Multi-
layered Character of Modern Hebrew]. Pp. 87–92 in Aˆba μhrba rps
≈rah t[ydybw twrpsb ,arqmb ,ˆwçlb μyrqjm >ˆçwç [Essays in Honor
of Avraham Even-Shoshan: Studies in Language, in Bible, in Litera-
ture, and in the Geography of Israel], ed. Lurya Ben-Tsiyon. Jerusa-
lem: Kiryat Sefer = Studies: 272–77.
+1986 ypylyp qwj lç hygwlwnwrkh l[ [Remarks on the Chronology of Phi-
lippi’s Law]. Pp. *1–*4 in Proceedings of the 9th World Congress of
Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, August 1985. Jerusalem: World Union of
Jewish Studies = Studies: 12–16.
+1987a tyarqmh hygwlwmyfal tysalq rtbh tybr[h lç htmwrt l[ [On the
Contribution of Post-Classical Arabic to Biblical Etymology]. Pp. 93–
103 in duum lç wtdlwhl hnç ham talmb rwal μyaxwy >arqmb μyrqjm
wfwsaq [Studies in Bible: Dedicated to the Memory of U. Cassuto on
the 100th Anniversary of His Birth], ed. Haim Beinart and Samuel E.
Loewenstamm. Jerusalem: Magnes = Studies: 198–208.
•1987b Minutiae aramaicae. Pp. 3–10 in Perspectives on Language and Text:
Essays and Poems in Honor of Francis I. Andersen’s Sixtieth Birth-
day, July 28, 1985, ed. E. W. Conrad and E. G. Newing. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns = Topics: 290–98.
*1988 Studies in Middle Arabic and Its Judaeo-Arabic Variety. Jerusalem:
Magnes.
+1989–90 arqmbç tyrb[h tmw[l hçdjh tyrb[h lç bkrwmh hnbmh l[ [On the
Compound Structure of Modern Hebrew as Opposed to Biblical He-
brew]. Lesonénu 44: 103–14 = Studies: 278–89.
+1992 hmgmh ahb μymyytsmh twmçh trwxtl tyrwfsyh trgsm tbxhl h[xh
[A Suggestion for Establishing a Historical Framework for the Mor-
phology of Nouns Ending in Locative -h]. w–h ˆwçlb μyrqjm [Studies
in Language 5–6]: 7–11 = Studies: 89–93.
•1995 The Monophthongization of Diphthongs as Reflected in the Use of
Vowel Letters in the Pentateuch. Pp. 7–11 in Solving Riddles and Un-
tying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jo-
nas C. Greenfield, ed. Z. Zevit, S. Gitin, and M. Sokoloff. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns = Topics: 21–25.
+1996 tyrb[ twnçlbb μtnwy[ [Studies in Hebrew Linguistics]. Jerusalem:
Magnes. Hebrew. [Includes Hebrew translations of some German ar-
ticles from the 1950s.]
1997 arqmh tyrb[ lç twrwxhw hghh trwtb twy[b [Issues in Biblical Pho-
netics and Morphology]. Lesonénu 60: 181–89.
•1998a On the History and Structure of Hebrew = Topics: 11–19.
1998b Topics in Hebrew and Semitic Linguistics. Jerusalem: Magnes.
00-Blau.book Page 320 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Bibliography 320

2001 Phonological and Morphological Problems of Biblical Hebrew: Solu-

tions New and Old. Pp. 1–12 in Proceedings of the Israel Academy of
Sciences and Humanities 9/1. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences
and Humanities.
2007 hqyz twl[b twmwdq twymç twpç ytç lç ynwçlh ˆdm[m l[ μyrwhrh
arqml tytwbrt [Reflections on the Linguistic Status of Two Ancient
Semitic Languages with Cultural Ties to the Bible]. Lesonénu 49:
215–20.
Blau, Joshua, and Hopkins, Simon
*1985 A Vocalized Judaeo-Arabic Letter from the Cairo Genizah. Jerusalem
Studies in Arabic and Islam 6: 417–76 = Middle Arabic: 195–259.
Blau, Joshua, et al., eds.
1979 Studia Orientalia Memoriae D. H. Baneth Dedicata. Jerusalem:
Magnes.
Bloch, Ariel
1963 Zur Nachweisbarkeit einer hebräischen Entsprechung der akkadi-
schen Verbalform iparras. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländi-
schen Gesellschaft 113: 41–50.
1967 The Vowels of the Imperfect Preformatives in the Old Dialects of
Arabic. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft
117: 22–9.
Botterweck, G. J.
1952 Der Triliteralismus im Semitischen. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 3.
Bonn: Hanstein.
Bravmann, M. M.
1977 Studies in Semitic Philology. Studies in Semitic Languages and Lin-
guistics 6. Leiden: Brill.
Breuer, Mordechai
1981 ‘μy[f’W yrqW bytK .d ./dWqynbw arqmh ym[fB t/ygws lç ˆrWrybl [To-
wards the Clarification of Problems of Biblical Accents and Punctua-
tion 4. Qere and ketib and †eºim]. Lesonénu 45: 260–69.
1995 [rkt μhl ˆyaç twqps [Insoluble Problems]. Lesonénu 58: 283–96.
Brockelmann, Carl
1908–13 Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen.
2 vols. Berlin: Reuther und Reichard. Repr., Olms: Hildesheim, 1961.
1940 Neuere Theorien zur Geschichte des Akzents und des Vokalismus im
Hebräischen und Aramäischen. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlän-
dischen Gesellschaft 94: 332–71.
1951 Die ‘Tempora’ des Semitischen. Zeitschrift für Phonetik und allge-
meine Sprachwissenschaft 5: 135–54.
1956 Hebräische Syntax. Neukirchen Kreis Moers: Verlag der Buchhand-
lung des Erziehungsvereins.
Brown, Francis; Driver, S. R.; Briggs, Charles A.
1907 A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Claren-
don.
00-Blau.book Page 321 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

321 Bibliography

Buhl, Frants
1915 Wilhelm Gesenius’ hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch
über das Alte Testament. 16th ed. Leipzig: Vogel. Repr., Berlin:
Springer, 1962.
Bursztyn, Israel
1929 Vollständige Grammatik der alt- und neuhebräischen Sprache. Vi-
enna: Gerold.
Cantineau, Jean
1931 De la place de l’accent de mot en Hébreu et en Araméen Biblique.
Bulletin d’études orientales de l’Institut Français de Damas 1: 81–
98.
1932 Élimination des syllables brèves en Hébreu et en Araméen Biblique.
Bulletin d’études orientales de l’Institut Français de Damas 2: 125–
44.
1960 Études de linguistique arabe. Paris: Klincksieck.
Chomsky, Noam
1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.
1995 The Minimalist Program. Current Studies in Linguistics 28. Cam-
bridge: M.I.T. Press.
Cohen, David
1989 L’aspect verbal. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
Cohen, H. R. (Chaim)
1978 Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic. So-
ciety of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 37. Missoula, MT:
Scholars Press.
1989 The “Held Method” for Comparative Semitic Philology. Journal of
the Ancient Near Eastern Society 19 (Semitic Studies in Memory of
Moshe Held): 9–23.
Cross, Frank Moore, and Freedman, David Noel
1952 Early Hebrew Orthography: A Study of the Epigraphic Evidence.
American Oriental Series 36. New Haven: American Oriental Soci-
ety.
Degen, Rainer
1969 Altaramäische Grammatik der Inschriften des 10–8. Jh. v. Chr. Ab-
handlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 38. [Mainz]: Deutsche
Morganländische Gesellschaft.
Diem, Werner
1975 Gedanken zur Frage der Mimation und Nunation in den semitischen
Sprachen. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft
125: 239–58.
1997 Suffix Konjugation und Subjektspronomina: Ein Beitrag zur Rekon-
struktion des Ursemitischen und zur Geschichte der Semitistik. Zeit-
schrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 147: 10–76.
00-Blau.book Page 322 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Bibliography 322

Dietrich, Manfred; Loretz, Oswald; and Sanmartín, Joaquín

1995 The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other
Places. Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas und Meso-
potamiens 8. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Dion, P.-E.
1974 La langue de Yaªudi: Description et classement de l’ancien parler de
Zencirli dans le cadre des language sémitiques du nord-ouest. Water-
loo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University/Corporation for the Publica-
tion of Academic Studies in Religion in Canada.
Donner, Herbert, and Röllig, Wolfgang
1971–76 Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Har-
rassowitz.
Driver, S. R.
1892 A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syn-
tactical Questions. 3rd ed. Repr. of the 3rd ed., with introd. by W. Ran-
dall Garr. Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans /
Livonia, MI: Dove, 1998.
Edzard, Lutz E.
1998 Polygenesis, Convergence, and Entropy: An Alternative Model of
Linguistic Evolution Applied to Semitic Linguistics. Wiesbaden: Har-
rassowitz.
Fischer, Wolfdietrich
1959 Die demonstrativen Bildungen der neuarabischen Dialekte: Ein Bei-
trag zur historischen Grammatik des Arabischen. The Hague: Mou-
ton.
1972 Grammatik des klassischen Arabisch. Porta Linguarum Orientalium
n.s. 11. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
2002 A Grammar of Classical Arabic. 3rd ed. Trans. J. Rodgers. New Ha-
ven: Yale University Press.
Fontinoy, Charles
1969 Le duel dans les langues sémitiques. Paris: Société d’Édition “Les
Belles Lettres.”
Fraenkel, S.
1898 Zum sporadischen Lautwandel in den semitischen Sprachen. Beiträge
zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft 3: 60–86.
Friedrich, Johannes
1951 Phönizisch-punische Grammatik. 1st ed. Analecta Orientalia 32.
Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Friedrich, Johannes, with Röllig, Wolfgang; Guzzo, Maria Giulia Amadasi; and
Mayer, Werner R.
1999 Phönizisch-punische Grammatik. 3rd ed. Analecta Orientalia 55.
Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
00-Blau.book Page 323 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

323 Bibliography

Garbell, Irene
1954 Quelques observations sur les phonémes de l’hébreu biblique et tradi-
tional. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 50: 231–43.
Garbini, Giovanni
1960 Il Semitico di Nord-Ovest. Istituto orientale di Napoli. Annali. Sezi-
one linguistica. Quaderni 1. Naples: Istituto Universario Orientale.
Garr, W. Randall
1985 Dialect Geography of Syria–Palestine, 1000–586 b.c.e. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press. Repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisen-
brauns, 2004.
Geiger, Abraham
1845 Lehr- und Lesebuch zur Sprache der Mischnah. Breslau: Leuckart.
Gelb, Ignace J.
1961 Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar. 2nd ed., rev. and enlarged. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.
Gesenius, Wilhelm
1812 Hebräisch-deutsches Handwörterbuch über die Schriften des Alten
Testaments. Leipzig: Vogel.
1835–58 Guilielmi Gesenii Thesaurus Philologus Criticus Linguae Hebraeae
et Chaldaeae Veteris Testamenti. Leipzig: Vogel.
Ginsberg, H. Louis
1929–30a Studies on the Biblical Hebrew Verb, I: Masoretically Misconstrued
Internal Passives. II: Heterogeneous Infinitive-Finite Constructions.
American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 46: 53–58.
1929–30b Studies on the Biblical Hebrew Verb, III: Phonetic Problems. Ameri-
can Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 46: 127–38.
Goetze, Albrecht
1939 Accent and Vocalism in Hebrew. Journal of the American Oriental
Society 59: 431–59.
1942 The So-Called Intensives of the Semitic Languages. Journal of the
American Oriental Society 62: 1–8.
Gogel, Sandra L.
1998 A Grammar of Epigraphic Hebrew. Society of Biblical Literature Re-
sources for Biblical Study 23. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Goldenberg, Gideon
1977 The Semitic Languages of Ethiopia and Their Classification. Bulletin
of the School of Oriental and African Studies 40: 461–507. Repr. in
Goldenberg 1998: 286–332.
1998 Studies in Semitic Linguistics: Selected Writings. Jerusalem: Magnes.
Gordon, C. H.
1965 Ugaritic Textbook. Analecta Orientalia 38. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute.
00-Blau.book Page 324 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Bibliography 324

Graetz, Heinrich
1902 History of the Jews, II: From the Reign of Hyrcanus (135 b.c.e.) to
the Completion of the Babylonian Talmud (500 c.e.). Philadelphia:
The Jewish Publication Society of America.
Grammar = J. Blau. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Porta Linguarum Orienta-
lium n.s. 12. 2nd edition. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1993. [1st ed.,
1976]
Grimme, Hubert
1896 Grundzüge der hebrœischen Akzent- und Vokallehre. Collectanea Fri-
burgensia 5. Freiburg: Universitætsbuchhandlung.
Grotzfeld, Heinz
1964 Laut- und Formenlehre des Damaszenisch-Arabischen. Abhandlun-
gen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 35/3. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.
Gyarmathi, Sámuel
1968 Affinitas linguae hungaricae cum linguis fennicae originis gram-
matice demonstrate. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Origi-
nal: Göttingen, 1799.
Hackett, Jo Ann
1984 The Balaam Text from Deir Alla. Harvard Semitic Monographs 31.
Chico, CA: Scholars Press.
Harris, Z. S.
1939 Development of the Canaanite Dialects: An Investigation in Linguis-
tic History. American Oriental Series 16. New Haven: American Ori-
ental Society.
Har-Zahav, Tsevi
1953 tyrb[h ˆwçlh qwdqd [Grammar of the Hebrew Language], vol. 3/2.
Tel Aviv: Ma˙barot le-Sifrut.
Held, Moshe
1965 Studies in Comparative Semitic Lexicography. Pp. 395–406 in Stud-
ies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, ed.
H. G. Güterbock and T. Jacobsen. Assyriological Studies 16. Chicago:
The Oriental Institute.
1970–71 Studies in Biblical Homonyms in the Light of Akkadian. Journal of
the Ancient Near Eastern Society 3: 46–55.
1973 Pits and Pitfalls in Akkadian and Biblical Hebrew. Journal of the An-
cient Near Eastern Society 5: 173–90.
1974 Hebrew maºgal: A Study in Lexical Parallelism. Journal of the An-
cient Near Eastern Society 6: 107–16.
1982 tydkah rwal tyarqmh hyprgwqysqlb μynwy[ [Studies in Biblical Lexi-
cography in the Light of Akkadian, Part I]. Eretz-Israel 16 (Harry M.
Orlinsky Volume): 76–85.
1985 Marginal Notes to the Biblical Lexicon. Pp. 93–103 in Biblical and
Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry, ed. Ann Kort and Scott
Morschauser. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
00-Blau.book Page 325 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

325 Bibliography

Hetzron, Robert
1974 La division des langues sémitiques. Pp. 181–94 in Actes du premier
Congrès internationale de linguistique sémitique et chamito-sémi-
tique: Paris, 16–19 Juillet 1969, ed. André Caquot and David Cohen.
Janua linguarum, series practica 159. The Hague: Mouton.
1976 Two Principles of Genetic Reconstruction. Lingua 38: 89–108.
Hoerning, R.
1889 British Museum Karaite Manuscripts: Descriptions and Collations of
Six Karaite Manuscripts of Portions of the Hebrew Bible in Arabic
Characters. London: Williams and Norgate.
Holladay, William L.
1971 A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament Based
upon the Lexical Work of Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Huehnergard, John
1981 Akkadian Evidence for Case-Vowels on Ugaritic Bound Forms. Jour-
nal of Cuneiform Studies 33: 199–205.
1987a The Feminine Plural Jussive in Old Aramaic. Zeitschrift der Deut-
schen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 137: 266–77.
1987b Three Notes on Akkadian Morphology. Pp. 181–93 in “Working with
No Data”: Semitic and Egyptian Studies Presented to Thomas O.
Lambdin, ed. David M. Golomb, with Susan T. Hollis. Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns.
1992 Historical Phonology and the Hebrew Piel. Pp. 209–29 in Linguistics
and Biblical Hebrew, ed. W. R. Bodine. Winona Lake, IN: Eisen-
brauns.
Humboldt, Wilhem von
1836 Über die Kawi-Sprache auf der Insel Java. Abhandlungen der König-
lichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Berlin: Königliche
Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Hurvitz, Avi
1972 ynç tyb ymyb arqmh ˆwçl twdlwtl >ˆwçll ˆwçl ˆyb [The Transition Pe-
riod in Biblical Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik.
Izre'el, Shlomo
1978 The Gezer Letters of the El-Amarna Archive: Linguistic Analysis. Is-
rael Oriental Studies 8: 13–90.
Jastrow, Otto
1978 Die mesopotamisch-arabischen Qeltu-Dialekte. Band I: Phonologie
und Morphologie. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes
43/4. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.
1981 Die mesopotamisch-arabischen Qeltu-Dialekte. Band II: Volkskundli-
che Texte in elf Dialekten. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgen-
landes 46/1. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.
00-Blau.book Page 326 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Bibliography 326

Jenni, Ernst
1968 Das hebräische Piºel: Syntaktisch-semasiologische Untersuchung
einer Verbalform im Alten Testament. Zurich: EVZ.
Joosten, Jan
1998 The Functions of the Semitic D-Stem: Biblical Hebrew Materials for
a Comparative-Historical Approach. Orientalia 67: 202–30.
Joüon, Paul
1923 Grammaire de l’Hébreu biblique. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Joüon, Paul, and Muraoka, T.
1991 A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2 vols. Rome: Pontifical Biblical In-
stitute.
Kafa˙, Y.
1972 ymwyp πswy ruub hyd[s wnbr ˆwagh çwryp μ[ >(ydabmla batk) hryxy rps
[Sefer Yetsirah (Kitab al-Mabadiª): With the Commentary of Rabbenu
Saºadia Gaon Ben Yosef ]. Jerusalem: Epstein.
Kahle, Paul
1959 The Cairo Genizah. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell. [1st ed., 1947.]
Khan, Geoffrey
1990 Karaite Bible Manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah. Cambridge Uni-
versity Library Genizah Series 9. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kienast, Burkhart
2001 Historische semitische Sprachwissenschaft: Mit Beiträgen von Erhart
Graefe (Altaegyptisch) und Gene B. Gragg (Kuschitisch). Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Klein, Ernest
1987 A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language
for Readers of English. New York: Macmillan / Jerusalem: Carta.
Koehler, Ludwig, and Baumgartner, Walter
1953 Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros. 1st ed. Leiden: Brill.
1958 Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros: Wörterbuch zum hebräischen
Alten Testament in deutscher und englischer Sprache. 2nd ed. Leiden:
Brill.
[Koehler, Ludwig,]; Baumgartner, Walter; Stamm, J. J.; et al.
1996 Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. 3rd ed.
Leiden: Brill.
2000 Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Trans.
M. E. J. Richardson et al. Leiden: Brill.
Krahmalkov, Charles R.
2002 Phoenician. Pp. 207–22 in Beyond Babel: A Handbook for Biblical
Hebrew and Related Languages, ed. J. Kaltner and S. L. McKenzie.
Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study 42. At-
lanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
00-Blau.book Page 327 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

327 Bibliography

Kurylowicz, Jerzy
1961 L’Apophonie en Sémitique. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolin-
skich. [English adaptation: Studies in Semitic Grammar and Metrics,
1972.]
Kutscher, Eduard Yechezkel
1965 Contemporary Studies in North-western Semitic. Journal of Semitic
Studies 10: 21–51.
1967 Mittelhebräisch und Jüdisch-Aramäisch im neuen Köhler-Baumgart-
ner. Pp. 158–75 in Hebräische Wortforschung: Festschrift zum 80.
Geburtstag von Walter Baumgartner, ed. Benedikt Hartmann et al.
Supplement to Vetus Testamentum 16. Leiden: Brill. [Repr. in Kut-
scher 1977: 156–73.]
1976 Studies in Galilean Aramaic. Bar-Ilan Studies in Near Eastern Lan-
guages and Cultures. Trans. Michael Sokoloff. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan
University, 1976.
1977 Hebrew and Aramaic Studies. Edited by Z. Ben-Óayyim et al. Jerusa-
lem: Magnes.
1982 A History of the Hebrew Language. Edited by Raphael Kutscher. Je-
rusalem: Magnes / Leiden: Brill.
Labov, William
1965 On the Mechanism of Linguistic Change. Pp. 91–114 in Report of the
Sixteenth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language
Studies, ed. C. W. Kreidler. Georgetown Monograph on Language
and Linguistics 18. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
[Repr. as Labov 1972.]
1972 On the Mechanism of Linguistic Change. Pp. 512–38 in Directions in
Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, ed. J. J. Gum-
perz and Dell Hymes. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. [Repr.
from Labov 1965]
1994 Principles of Linguistic Change: Internal Factors. Language in Soci-
ety 20. Oxford: Blackwell.
Labov, William, ed.
1980 Locating Language in Time and Space. New York: Academic Press.
Lagarde, Paul de
1889 Übersicht über die im Aramäischen, Arabischen und Hebräischen
übliche Bildung der Nomina. Göttingen: Dieterich.
Lambert, Mayer
1890 L’accent tonique en hébreu. Revue des Études Juives 20: 73–77.
1891a Commentaire sur le Séfer Yesira ou la Livre de la création par la Gaon
Saadya de Fayyoum. Bibliothèque de l’École Pratique des Hautes
Études. Sciences philologiques et historiques 85. Paris: Bouillon.
1891b Une série de Qeré Ketib. Paris.
1893 Le Vav Conversif. Revue des Études Juives 26: 47–62.
1897 De l’accent en arabe. Journal Asiatique 9: 402–13.
00-Blau.book Page 328 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Bibliography 328

1898 Notes grammaticales et lexicographiques. Revue des Études Juives

37: 142–43.
1903 De l’emploi des suffixes pronominaux avec noun et sans noun au fu-
ture et à l’impératif. Revue des Études Juives 46: 178–83.
Leemhuis, F.
1977 The D and H Stems in Koranic Arabic: A Comparative Study of the
Function and Meaning of the faººala and the ªaf ºala Forms in Koranic
Usage. Leiden: Brill.
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm [Latin, Gothofredius Guillelmus Leibnitius]
1710 Brevis designatio meditationum de Originibus Gentium ductis potissi-
mum ex indicio linguarum. Berlin. Repr., pp. 186–98 in vol. 4/2 of Op-
era omnia, ed. Ludovicus Dutens. Geneva: Fratres de Tournes, 1768.
Leroy, Maurice
1967 The Main Trends in Modern Linguistics. Trans. Glanville Price. Ox-
ford: Blackwell. Repr., Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1982.
Leslau, Wolf
1953 The Imperfect in South-East Semitic. Journal of the American Orien-
tal Society 73: 164–66.
Lieberman, Saul
1942 Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Life and Manners of Jewish
Palestine in the II–IV Centuries. New York: The Jewish Theological
Seminary of America. Repr., 1994.
1950 Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission,
Beliefs and Manners of Palestine of the I Century b.c.e.–IV Century
c.e. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America.
Lipinski, Edward
1997 Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. Orientalia
Lovaniensia Analecta 80. Leuven: Peeters.
Loewenstamm, Samuel E.
1955 twymçh twpçb “ˆwçar” gçwmh lç wtwwhth l[ [The Development of
the Term “First” in the Semitic Languages]. Tarbiz 24: 249–51. En-
glish translation, pp. 13–16 in Comparative Studies in Biblical and
Ancient Oriental Literatures. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 204.
Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1980.
Malkiel, Yakov
1962 Weak Phonetic Change, Spontaneous Sound Shift, Lexical Contami-
nation. Lingua 11: 263–75. Repr. in Malkiel 1968: 33–45.
1968 Essays on Linguistic Themes. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Malone, Joseph L.
1993 Tiberian Hebrew Phonology. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Mandelkern, S.
1967 Veteris Testamenti concordantiae hebraicae atque chaldaicae. Jerusa-
lem: Schocken. [Original, Leipzig: Veit, 1896.]
00-Blau.book Page 329 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

329 Bibliography

Marcus, R.
1942 The Word sibbolet again. Bulletin of the American Schools of Orien-
tal Research 87: 39.
Martinet, André
1970 Economie des changements phonétiques: Traité de phonologie dia-
chronique. 3rd ed. Berne: Francke. [1st ed., 1955.]
Meillet, Antoine
1951 Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, Tome II: Nouveau ti-
rage. Collection linguistique 11. Paris: Klincksieck. [Original, 1936]
1958a Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Collection linguis-
tique 8. Paris: Champion. [Original, 1925.]
1958b Note sure une difficulté générale de la grammaire comparée. Pp. 36–
43 in Meillet 1958a.
Middle Arabic = J. Blau. Studies in Middle Arabic and Its Judaeo-Arabic Variety.
Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988.
Milik, J. T.
1961 Textes hébreux et araméens. Pp. 65–205 in Les grottes de Murab-
baºât, ed. P. Benoît, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux. 2 vols. Discoveries in
the Judaean Desert 2. Oxford: Clarendon.
Mishor, Mordechai
1983 μyanth ˆwçlb μynmzh tkr[m [The Tense System in Tannaitic Hebrew].
Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University. [Hebrew with English sum-
mary.]
Morag, Shlomo
1963 ˆmyt ydwhy ypbç tyrb[h [The Hebrew Language Tradition of the Ye-
menite Jews]. Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language.
Moran, William L.
1950 A Syntactical Study of the Dialect of Byblos as Reflected in the Amarna
Tablets. Ph.D. dissertation, Johns Hopkins University. Repr. in Moran
2003: 1–130.
1960 Early Canaanite yaqtula. Orientalia 29: 1–19.
2003 Amarna Studies: Collected Writings. Edited J. Huehnergard and S. Iz-
re'el. Harvard Semitic Studies 54. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Mühlau, F., and Volck, W.
1878 Wilhelm Gesenius’ hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch
über das Alte Testament. 8th ed. Leipzig: Vogel.
Muraoka, Takamitsu, and Porten, Bezalel
1998 A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic. Handbuch der Orientalistik: Erste
Abteilung, Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten 32. Leiden: Brill.
Nöldeke, Theodor
1904 Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft. Strassburg: Trübner.
1910 Neue Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft. Strassburg: Trüb-
ner.
00-Blau.book Page 330 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Bibliography 330

Olmo Lete, Gregorio del, and Sanmartín, Joaquín

1996–2000 Diccionario de la lengua ugarítica. Aula Orientalis Supplementa 7–
8. 2 vols. Barcelona: AUSA.
2003 A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition.
Trans. W. G. E. Watson. Handbuch der Orientalistik 1/67. 2 vols.
Leiden: Brill.
Ornan, Uzzi, and Ben-Óayyim, Zeªev
1971 Hebrew Grammar. Cols. 77–175 in vol. 8 of Encyclopaedia Judaica.
Jerusalem: Keter.
Osthoff, Hermann, and Brugmann, Karl
1878 Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der indogermani-
schen Sprachen, Erster Theil. Leipzig: Hirzel. Repr., Documenta
semiotica 1. Linguistik. Hildesheim: Olms, 1974.
Palache, J. L.
1959 Semitic Notes on the Hebrew Lexicon, ed. and trans. R. J. Zwi Wer-
blowsky. Leiden: Brill.
Parker, Simon B
2002 Ammonite, Edomite, and Moabite. Pp. 43–60 in Beyond Babel: A
Handbook for Biblical Hebrew and Related Languages, ed. J. Kaltner
and S. L. McKenzie. Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Bib-
lical Study 42. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Paul, Hermann
1937 Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. 5th ed. Halle a.S.: Max Niemeyer.
Pedersen, Holger
1965 The Discovery of Language: Linguistic Science in the Nineteenth
Century. Trans. J. W. Spargo. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Philippi, F. W.
1878 Das Zahlwort Zwei im Semitischen. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Mor-
genländischen Gesellschaft 32: 21–98.
Poebel, A.
1939a The Antepenult Stressing of Old Hebrew and Its Influence on the
Shaping of the Vowels. American Journal of Semitic Languages and
Literature 56: 225–30.
1939b Penult Stressing Replacing Ultimate Stressing in Pre-exilic Hebrew.
American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature 56: 384–87.
Praetorius, Michael
1882 ˚lh und ˚ly. Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 2:
310–12.
Qimron, Elisha
1985–86a tyarqmh tyrb[b jtp /yryx ypwlyj [The Interchange of Íere and Pata˙
in Biblical Hebrew]. Lesonénu 50: 77–102.
1985–86b “tyarqmh tyrb[b jtp/yryx ypwlyj” rmaml twpswh [Additional Notes
on “The Interchange of Íere and Pata˙ in Biblical Hebrew”]. Leso-
nénu 50: 247–49.
00-Blau.book Page 331 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

331 Bibliography

1986 The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Harvard Semitic Studies 29. At-
lanta: Scholars Press.
Rainey, Anson F.
1996 Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed
Dialect Used by Scribes from Canaan. Handbuch der Orientalistik.
Erste Abteilung, Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten 25. 4 vols. Leiden:
Brill.
Reckendorf, H.
1895–98 Die syntaktischen Verhältnisse des Arabischen. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill.
Rendsburg, Gary A.
1988a The Ammonite Phoneme /t/. Bulletin of the American Schools of Ori-
ental Research 269: 73–79.
1988b More on Hebrew Sibbolet. Journal of Semitic Studies 33: 255–58.
1990 Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origin of Selected Psalms. So-
ciety of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 43. Atlanta: Scholars
Press.
1992 Shibboleth. Pp. 1210–12 in vol 5. of Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed.
D. N. Freedman et al. New York: Doubleday.
1999 Hebrew Philological Notes (I). Hebrew Studies 40: 27–32.
Rendsburg, Gary A., and Rendsburg, Susan L.
1993 Physiological and Philological Notes to Psalm 137. Jewish Quarterly
Review 83: 385–99.
Renz, Johannes, and Röllig, Wolfgang
1995–2003 Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik. 3 vols. Darmstadt: Wis-
senschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Revell, E. J.
1970 Hebrew Texts with Palestinian Vocalization. Near and Middle East
Series. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Reymond, Phillipe
1991 Dictionnaire d’hébreu et d’araméen bibliques. Paris: Cerf/Société bi-
blique française.
Ries, John
1894 Was ist Syntax? Ein kritischer Versuch. 1st ed. Marburg: Elwert. 2nd
ed., Prague, 1927. Repr. of 2nd ed., Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1967.
Robertson, David
1969 Morphemes -y(-i) and -w(-o) in Biblical Hebrew. Vetus Testamentum
19: 211–23.
Rooker, Mark F.
1990 Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel.
JSOTSup 90. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
Rössler, Otto
1961 Eine bisher unerkannte Tempusform im Althebräischen. Zeitschrift
der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 111: 445–51.
00-Blau.book Page 332 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Bibliography 332

1962 Die Präfixkonjugation Qal der Verba Iae NÛN im Althebräischen und
das Problem der sogenannten Tempora. Zeitschrift für die alttesta-
mentliche Wissenschaft 74: 125–41.
Ryder, Stuart A., II
1974 The D-Stem in Western Semitic. Janua Linguarum, Series Practica
131. The Hague: Mouton.
Sajnovics, J.
1968 Demonstratio idioma Ungarorum et Lapponum idem esse. Blooming-
ton: Indiana University Press. [Original, Copenhagen, 1770.]
Sarauw, Christian P. E.
1908 Die altarabische Dialektspaltung. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und ver-
wandte Gebiete 21: 31–49.
1939 Über Akzent und Silbenbildung in den älteren semitischen Sprachen.
Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Saussure, Ferdinand de
1959 Course in General Linguistics, ed. Charles Bally and Albert Seche-
haye, with Albert Reidlinger; trans. Wade Baskin. New York: The
Philosophical Library. Repr., New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.
1967 Cours de linguistique générale, ed. Rudolf Engler. Wiesbaden: Har-
rassowitz.
Schleicher, August
1868 Eine Fabel in indogermanischer Ursprache. Pp. 206–8 in vol. 2 of
Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der
arischen, celtischen und slawischen Sprachen, by Adalbert Kuhn und
August Schleicher. Berlin: Dümmler.
Schlesinger, Akiba
1962 wnwçlbw arqmb μyrqjm [Researches in the Exegesis and Language of
the Bible]. Jerusalem: Israel Society of Biblical Research.
Schlözer, A. S.
1781 Von den Chaldäern. Pp. 113–76 in Repertorium für biblische und
morgenländische Litteratur: Achter Theil. Leipzig: Weidmanns Er-
ben und Reich.
Schmidt, Johannes
1872 Die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der indogermanischen Sprachen.
Weimar: Böhlau.
Schuchardt, Hugo
1922a Hugo Schuchardt-Brevier: Ein Vademecum der allgemeinen Sprach-
wissenschaft, ed. Leo Spitzer. Halle: Max Niemeyer.
1922b Über die Klassifikation der romanischen Mundarten. Pp. 166–68 in
Schuchardt 1922a. [Originally his inaugural lecture (Probevorlesung)
at Leipzig in 1870 and first published in 1900.]
Segal, M. H.
1908–9 Rabbinic Hebrew and Its Relation to Biblical Hebrew and to Aramaic.
Jewish Quarterly Review 20: 647–737.
00-Blau.book Page 333 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

333 Bibliography

Siegfried, Carl, and Stade, Bernhard

1893 Hebräisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testamente. Leipzig: Veit.
Sievers, Eduard
1901 Metrische Studien. Studien zur hebräischen Metrik. Leipzig: Teubner.
Soden, Wolfram von
1959 Tempus und Modus im Semitischen. Pp. 263–65 in Akten des vier-
undzwanzigsten Internationalen Orientalisten-Kongresses München,
28. August bis 4. September 1957, ed. Herbert Franke. Wiesbaden:
Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft, in Kommission bei Franz
Steiner Verlag.
1995 Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. Analecta Orientalia 33.
Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Sommerfelt, Alf
1962 Diachronic and Synchronic Aspects of Language. Janua linguarum,
series major 7. The Hague: Mouton.
Speiser, E. A.
1942 The Shibboleth Incident (Judges 12:6). Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 85: 10–13.
Spitaler, Anton
1968 Zum Problem der Segolisierung im Aramäischen. Pp. 193–99 in
Studia Orientalia in Memoriam Caroli Brockelmann, ed. Manfred
Fleischhammer. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Martin-Luther-
Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Gesellschafts- und Sprachwissenschaft-
liche Reihe, Jg. 17, Heft 2/3. Halle/Salle. Repr., pp. 93–99 in Spitaler
1998.
1998 Philologica: Beiträge zur Arabistik und Semitistik, ed. Hartmut Bob-
zin. Diskurse zur Arabistik 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Stade, Bernhard
1879 Lehrbuch der hebräischen Grammatik. Leipzig: Vogel.
Steiner, Richard C.
1977 The Case for Fricative-Laterals in Proto-Semitic. American Oriental
Series 59. New Haven: American Oriental Society.
1979 From Proto-Hebrew to Mishnaic Hebrew: The History of ËA: and HA:.
Hebrew Annual Review 3: 157–74.
1980 Yuqattil, yaqattil, or yiqattil: D-Stem Prefix-Vowels and a Constraint
on Reduction in Hebrew and Aramaic. Journal of the American Ori-
ental Society 100: 513–18.
1982 Affricated Íade in the Semitic Languages. American Academy for
Jewish Research, Monograph 3. New York: American Academy for
Jewish Research.
1991 Addenda to The Case for Fricative-Laterals in Proto-Semitic. Pp.
1499–513 in Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau on the Occasion
of His Eighty-Fifth Birthday, ed. A. S. Kaye. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
00-Blau.book Page 334 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Bibliography 334

1996–97 The History of the Ancient Hebrew Modal System and Labov’s Rule
of Compensatory Structural Change. Pp. 253–61 in Towards a Social
Science of Language: Papers in Honor of William Labov, ed. G. R.
Guy et. al. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguis-
tic Science, Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 127–28.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
2000 Does the Biblical Hebrew Conjunction w- Have Many Meanings, One
Meaning, or No Meaning at All? Journal of Biblical Literature 119:
249–67.
2001 rwal luuhyr d[ swmynwryhm twyrwatw μyrwayt :tyrb[b tw[wnth ˚çm
ytdh swmlwph [The Duration of the Vowels in Hebrew: Descriptions
and Theories from Hieronymus/Jerome to R. Judah HaLevy in the
Light of the Religious Polemic]. Language Studies 8: 203–26.
Studies = J. Blau. Studies in Hebrew Linguistics. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1996. [In
Hebrew; includes Hebrew translation of some German articles from
the 1950s]
Ternes, Elmar
2002 Entgegengesetzte Genuszuweisung bei Numeralia im Semitischen:
Einige grammatiktheoretische und typologische Überlegungen. Pp.
719–36 in Sprich doch mit deinen Knechten aramäisch, wir verstehen
es!—60 Beiträge zur Semitistik: Festschrift für Otto Jastrow zum 60.
Geburtstag, ed. Werner Arnold and Hartmut Bobzin. Wiesbaden: Har-
rassowitz.
Testen, David
1994 The I-w Verbal Class and the Reconstruction of the Early Semitic
Preradical Vocalization. Journal of the American Oriental Society
114: 426–34.
Topics = J. Blau. Topics in Hebrew and Semitic Languages. Jerusalem: Magnes,
1998.
Torczyner [Tur-Sinai], H.
1910 Zur Bedeutung von Akzent und Vokalismus im Semitischen. Zeit-
schrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 64: 269–311.
Tropper, Josef
1993 Die Inschriften von Zircirli. Neue Edition und vergleichende Gram-
matik des phönizischen, sam’alischen und aramäischen Textkorpus.
Abhandlung zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas und Mesopotamiens
6. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
2000 Ugaritische Grammatik. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 273. Mün-
ster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Trubetzkoy, N. S.
1939 Grundzüge der Phonologie. Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague
7. Prague: Jednota Ceskych matematiků a fysiků. Repr., Nendeln/
Liechtenstein: Kraus, 1968. ET, Principles of Phonology, 1969.
Trans. C. A. M. Baltaxe. Berkeley: University of California Press.
00-Blau.book Page 335 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

335 Bibliography

French translation, Principes de phonologie, 1969. Trans. Jean Can-

tineau; preface by André Martinet; appendix of papers by Trubetzkoy
and Roman Jacobson. Paris: Klincksieck, 1949.
Tur-Sinai [Torczyner], Naphtali
1954 twrpsb hytwrwqmbw ˆwçlh [dmb dwsy twy[b >rpshw ˆwçlh [The Lan-
guage and the Book: Fundamental Issues in Linguistics and Litera-
ture], vol.: Language. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute.
UT = C. H. Gordon. Ugaritic Textbook. Analecta Orientalia 38. Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute, 1965.
Verner, Karl
1877 Eine Ausnahme der ersten Lautverschiebung. Zeitschrift für ver-
gleichende Sprachforschung 23: 97–130.
Wagner, Max
1966 Die lexikalischen und grammatikalischen Aramäismen im Alttesta-
mentlichen Hebräisch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestament-
liche Wissenschaft 96. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann.
Waltisberg, Michael
2002 Zur Ergativitätshypothese im Semitischen. Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 152: 11–62.
Waterman, John T.
1978 Leibniz and Ludolf on Things Linguistic: Excerpts from Their Corre-
spondence (1688–1703). University of California Publications in Lin-
guistics 88. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Wright, William
1896–98 A Grammar of the Arabic Language. 2 vols. 3rd ed. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Yahalom, J.
1997 Palestinian Vocalised Piyyu† Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah
Collections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yeivin, Israel
1968 wym[fw wdwqyn hbwx μra rtk [The Aleppo Codex of the Bible: A Study
of Its Vocalization and Accentuation]. Hebrew University Bible Pro-
ject. Jerusalem: Magnes.
1980 Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah. Trans. and ed. E. J. Revell.
Masoretic Studies 5. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press.
1985 ylbbh dwqynb tpqtçmh tyrb[h ˆwçlh trwsm [The Hebrew Language
Tradition as Reflected in the Babylonian Vocalization]. twrwqm
12 μyrqjmw [Texts and Studies 12]. Jerusalem: Academy of the He-
brew Language.
Yellin, David
1933 Une deuxième forme du hé interrogatif en hébreu biblique. Revue des
Études Juives 94: 137–56.
00-Blau.book Page 337 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Index of Authors

Aartun, K. 120 Bloch, A. 197, 222, 241

Ahituv, S. 5 Bopp, F. 13
Andersen, F. I. 106 Botterweck, G. J. 35
Bravmann, M. M. 130
Bally, C. 23 Breuer, M. 7
Barr, J. 37 Briggs, C. A. 28
Barth, J. 36, 101–102, 159, 179–180, Brockelmann, C. 63, 100, 102, 120,
217, 222, 227, 246, 254, 259, 261–262, 124–130, 134, 144, 162, 169, 184,
270, 275, 280 186, 201, 204, 208–209, 281
Bauer, H. 22, 25, 54, 102, 120, 124, Brown, F. 28
126–127, 137, 148, 161, 199–201, Brugmann, K. 27
204, 207, 255, 263–264, 269, 271, 280 Buhl, F. 28, 245
Baumgartner, W. 29 Bursztyn, I. 217
Beeston, A. F. L. 30, 163, 267
Bendavid, A. 83 Cantineau, J. 125, 129, 145
Ben-David, I. 230 Chomsky, N. 4
Ben-Óayyim, Z. 7, 55, 115, 136, 204, Cohen, D. 201
211, 229, 274–275, 280 Cohen, H. R. 34
Ben-Yehuda, E. 10 Cross, F. M. 91
Berggrün, N. 227
Bergsträsser, G. 3, 6, 13, 56, 61, 80, 88, Diem, W. 163–164, 268
91, 100, 102, 104, 115, 117, 120, 124, Dion, P.-E. 22
126, 131, 134–135, 138, 141–142, Donner, H. 5, 18
144, 189, 195, 197, 204, 208–209, Driver, S. R. 28, 201
213, 217, 241, 252–255, 257–258, 280
Beyer, K. 123, 134, 222 Edzard, L. 23
Birkeland, H. 22, 102, 120, 124, 126–
127, 137, 244, 249 Fischer, W. 39, 159
Blau, J. 6, 11, 15–16, 18–19, 21, 23, 26, Fontinoy, C. 270
31–32, 34–36, 38–41, 47, 51, 53–56, Forbes, A. D. 106
58, 69, 74–75, 78–80, 88–89, 91–92, Fraenkel, S. 41
94, 97–98, 101, 106, 115, 118, 120– Freedman, D. N. 91
121, 124, 129, 133–134, 137, 144, 147, Friedrich, J. 21–22, 214, 216, 230, 243
150, 152–153, 155, 160, 164, 166–
167, 170, 172, 179, 181, 188, 191, Garbell, I. 68
193, 204, 207–208, 211, 217, 222– Garr, W. R. 96–97
224, 226, 230, 245, 249–250, 252– Geiger, A. 9
253, 257, 259, 262, 264, 268–269, Gelb, I. J. 210
271, 273, 275, 285 Gesenius, W. 28, 189

337
00-Blau.book Page 338 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

338 Index of Authors

Ginsberg, H. L. 53, 115, 222 Kutscher, E. Y. 11, 41, 43, 81, 86, 161,
Goetze, A. 125, 229 166, 168, 183, 204–205, 218
Gogel, S. L. 5, 191
Goldenberg, G. 17–18 Labov, W. 42
Gordon, C. H. 95, 103, 282 Lagarde, P. de 262
Graetz, H. 10 Lagarde, P. de. 261
Grimm, J. 13 Lambert, M. 80, 145, 153, 172, 191,
Grimme, H. 124, 129, 142 212, 216–217, 245
Grotzfeld, H. 60, 222, 275 Landsberger, B. 199
Gyarmathi, S. 13 Leander, P. 25, 54, 102, 120, 124, 126–
127, 137, 148, 161, 199, 204, 207, 255,
Hackett, J. A. 22 264, 269, 271
Hanau, S. 115 Leemhuis, F. 229
Harris, Z. S. 242 Leibniz, G. W. 12
Har-Zahav, T. 217 Leroy, M. 23
Held, M. 34 Leslau, W. 201
Hetzron, R. 16, 210, 222, 280 Lieberman, S. 11
Hoerning, R. 110 Lipinski, E. 24
Holladay, W. L. 29 Loewenstamm, S. E. 282
Hopkins, S. 118 Luzatto, S. D. 10
Huehnergard, J. 104, 204, 230,
244 Malkiel, Y. 54
Malone, J. 4
Ibn Baron, Iß˙aq 13 Marcus, R. 41
Ibn Óazm 13 Martinet, A. 42
Ibn Jana˙, J. 34 Meillet, A. 15, 22–23, 222
Ibn Quraysh, Y. 13 Meinhof, C. 280
Izre'el, S. 230 Milik, J. T. 10
Morag, S. 106
Jastrow, O. 55, 162 Moran, W. L. 19, 207
Jenni, E. 229 Moses Ha-Kohen Gikatilla 217
Jones, W. 13 Mühlau, F. 189
Joosten, J. 229 Muraoka, T. 204, 208
Joüon, P. 207–208, 242
Judah the Prince (Rabbi) 9, 43 Nöldeke, T. 102, 104, 187–188, 210,
242–244, 255
Kahle, P. 80–81, 86, 171
Khan, G. 110 Olmo Lete, G. del 38
Kienast, B. 162–163, 195–197, 201, Origen 274–275
208, 210, 222, 226, 237, 242, 244, Ornan, U. 60
260, 262–263, 266, 268 Osthoff, H. 27
Klausner, J. 10
Klein, E. 29 Palache, J. L. 36
Koehler, L. 29 Parker, S. B. 18
Krahmalkov, C. R. 18 Paul, H. 244
Kurylowicz, J. 189, 262 Pedersen, H. 12
00-Blau.book Page 339 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Index of Authors 339

Philippi, F. W. 87, 104, 133–135, 137, Schuchardt, H. 19–20

150, 167–168, 174–175, 220, 222, Schultens, A. 34
228, 230–233, 235–236, 240, 247– Segal, M. H. 10
248, 254, 265, 278 Siegfried, C. 34
Poebel, A. 125 Sievers, E. 115, 171
Porten, B. 204 Soden, W. von 101, 195–196, 199, 210,
Praetorius, M. 95 215, 226, 243
Sommerfelt, A. 42
Qimron, E. 82, 90, 134, 162, 230 Stade, B. 34, 120
Steiner, R. C. 39, 55–56, 68–69, 91,
Rainey, A. F. 19, 222, 230–232 122, 149, 192, 231, 267, 285
Rask, R. K. 13
Reckendorf, H. 279 Ternes, E. 280
Rendsburg, G. A. 8, 41, 64, 170 Testen, D. 222
Renz, J. 5 Torczyner, H. see Tur-Sinai, N. H.
Revell, E. J. 7 Tropper, J. 22, 30, 68, 95, 160, 169,
Reymond, P. 29 172–173, 183, 186, 213, 222, 224,
Ries, J. 3, 61 230–232, 280
Robertson, D. 269 Trubetzkoy, N. S. 72
Röllig, W. 5, 18 Tur-Sinai, N. H. 230
Rooker, M. F. 212
Rössler, O. 241 Verner, K. 48
Ryder, S. R. 229 Volck, W. 189

Saadya Gaon (Rabbi) 80 Wagner, M. 101

Sajnovics, J. 13 Waltisberg, M. 267
Samuel ha-Nagid 217 Waterman, J. T. 13
Sanmartín, J. 38 Wright, W. 208
Sarauw, C. P. E. 99, 125, 134, 145, 210
Saussure, Ferdinand de 1 Yahalom, J. 7, 119
Schlegel, F. von 13 Yehuda Hanasi see Judah the Prince
Schleicher, A. 44 (Rabbi)
Schlesinger, A. 282 Yeivin, S. 7, 83, 89, 118, 134, 230–231,
Schlözer, A. L. 12 233
Schmidt, J. 19 Yellin, D. 140
00-Blau.book Page 340 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Index of Scripture Citations

Genesis Genesis (cont.) Genesis (cont.)

1 269, 283 20:17 212 41:34–35 192
1:2 78 21:6 114 41:43 216
1:3 61 21:16 237 41:51 230
1:4 150, 285 22:14 164 42:4 172
1:6 176 24:1 158 42:31 198
1:7 182 24:3 182 42:38 248
1:11 150 24:36 227 43:19 59
1:12 141 26:8 283 43:23 272
1:27 159, 190–191 26:28 285 43:26 142
1:31 177 27:2 194 43:34 67
2:3 214 27:33 109, 142 44:9 186
2:7 248 27:34 159 44:16 76
2:8 182 27:38 115, 140 45:4 182
2:12 115 28:18 247 49:10 114
2:19 186, 248 29:20 227 49:11 90, 172, 269
3:11 182 30:38 204 49:17 140
3:16 140 30:41 175
3:23 218 31:32 94 Exodus
4:23 203 31:41 178 1:22 218
5:22 201 32:18 220 2:3 114, 140
6:2 117 33:5 141 2:4 219
6:4 158 34:19 83 2:16 107
6:9 201 37:8 215 2:20 204
6:12 109 37:20 94 4:19 139
7:22 182 37:32 140 6:10 141
8:7 227 37:33 217 7:27 59
10 12 38:11 59 9:2 59
10:19 171 38:16 193 9:4–6 202
11:5 213 38:22 178 9:29 205
11:6 258 39:11 179 9:30 152
11:7 258 39:20 226 10:1 178
13:8 113 40:13 202 10:4 59
14:3 111 40:20 290 10:14 202
15:10 229 41:5ff. 40 13:7 108
17:10 178 41:12 142 14:31 117
18:4 218 41:13 142 15:11 78–79
19:2 140–141, 272 41:16 117 15:13 182, 184
19:33 164, 178 41:21 167 15:17 80, 114

340
00-Blau.book Page 341 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Index of Scripture Citations 341

Exodus (cont.) Numbers (cont.) Judges (cont.)

16:23 84 23:11 215 3:25 272
17:1 214 24:3 269 5:7 140
19:3 194 24:9 106 5:26 40
19:9 132 24:10 215 6:28 238
19:13 245 32:25 141 7:3 185
20:2 182 32:42 93, 173 12:6 8, 40, 336
20:8 214–215 33:1 80, 115 13:8 218
21:31 141 34:3 111 15:10 213
22:12 217 34:28 89 18:7 29
23:17 273 35:6 214 18:23 258
24:14 185 19:11 193
27:14–15 283 Deuteronomy 19:13 192
28:17 283 1:37 233 19:22 233
29:35 170 4:10 227 20:17 218
32:1 178 5:27 162 20:32 139
32:33 185 9:21 215 21:9 218
37:10 30 11:22 227
37:16 98 20:19 140 1 Samuel
21:7 212 1:11 265
Leviticus 26:12 227 2:14 192
3:9 266 27:8 83 2:23 178
5:19 112 28:24 170 3:17 193
6:3 220 31:10 108 4:15 212
10:19 140 31:21 203 4:22 218
11:4 226 32:7 158 6:12 205
11:6 226 32:8 195 10:8 194
18:7 251 32:10 172 10:11 139
21:9 260 32:13 172 12:3 117
26:12 201 32:15 185 14:33 88
26:33 191 32:32 140 16:1 239
26:34 290 32:36 8 16:17 214
33:9 241 17:35 107
Numbers 33:21 89 17:55 214
1:47 218 18:28 94, 172
4:7 98 Joshua 19:17 208
7:54 89 1:2 159 20:36 187
11:15 162 4:6 205 21:3 130
13:8 97 7:7 85, 238
13:20 140 9:11 107 2 Samuel
17:27 141 10:25 182 1:13 186
18:29 129 19:50 220 2:18 89
21:17 117 24:19 113 7:9 194
21:22 207 10:12 233
22:24 178 Judges 15:2 186
23:3 186 1:14 79 17:8 260
00-Blau.book Page 342 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

342 Index of Scripture Citations

2 Samuel (cont.) Isaiah (cont.) Amos

18:12 186 48:11 260 6:5 34
18:19 193 49:8 248 8:2 97
20:7 240 51:15 240 8:1–2 8
21:4 185 59:4 216
22:14 195 60:4 204 Jonah
22:27 219 2:10 269
22:37 5, 285 Jeremiah 4:11 280
4:7 114
1 Kings 4:11 219 Micah
8:38 205 4:20 80 2:7 113
12:5 29, 219 4:8 88
2 Kings 13:19 250
2:9 218 17:9 246 Habakkuk
2:10 218 20:9 223 1:12 240
4 170 23:37 170
5:1 156 25:30 117 Zechariah
16:7 253 31:34 67, 108 5:11 237
38:21 59 6:7 233
Isaiah 39:12 141
1:3 233 42:6 165 Malachi
1:31 85 48:41 212 1:6 272
2:11 107 48:42 212
2:16 29 Psalms
3:8 107 Ezekiel 18:14 195
6:2 164, 270 16:4 82 18:27 219
9:2 9 18:25 219 18:37 5, 285
10:27 114 23:48 135 18:40 5
12:5 97 23:48–49 174 18:49 5
14:19 144 28:14 162 20:7 198
18:4 132 33:32 214 22:10–11 29
24:3 260 34:31 166 28:1 141, 144
24:4 237 36:3 238 30:4 79
25:6 276 40:43 79 32:1 50
28:27 217 35:25 239
30:19 170 Hosea 36:9 252
32:9–11 203 4:13 231 37:4 233
32:11 212 10:7 34 38:3 241
34:11 78 13:3 237 43:2 201
34:15 105 13:8 105 49:14 274
35:4 239 13:14 114 50:19–21 198
40:25 105 74:2 184
43:2 284 Joel 77:4 223
44:3 248 1:17 114 78:14–15 198
44:13 321 80:14 237
45:14 233 89:39 162
00-Blau.book Page 343 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Index of Scripture Citations 343

Psalms (cont.) Proverbs Esther

92:6 194 1:21 276 1:2–3 214
93:1 220 4:16 53, 117 4:4 257
103:3 78 4:25 246 9:1 216
103:4 170 25:27 214
104:25 178 27:22 117 Daniel
104:26 182 31:17 270 5:27 26
104:29 240 8:13 52, 106
118:11 139, 241 Ruth 8:22 205
118:13 115 1:9 203 11:12 89
124 101 1:12 203
126:6 215 1:13 204 Ezra
132:1 232 1:20 203 2:69 89
132:12 184 2:8 205 4:7 237
137 334 3:3 208
137:3 220 4:15 94 Nehemiah
139:11 285 1:4 9
147:7 117 Song of Songs 4:7 140
1:4 141 13:16 86
Job 2:11 5
3:26 78 4:1 283 1 Chronicles
4:20 258 5:8 212 5:24 158
6:26 240 7:7 159
15:22 249 Ecclesiastes 17:8 194
20:2 107 1:2 264 25:4 89
21:16 172 1:9 185 25:27 89
22:28 152 4:2 216
27:14 284 4:14 89 2 Chronicles
29:22 117 5:5 92 2:15 9
30:8 158 7:27 264 5:11 233
32:12 284 6:29 205
41:25 249 Lamentations 19:2 141
1:20 237 22:5 89
4:1 233 27:6 219
29:16 129
00-Blau.book Page 344 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Index of Topics

a Akkadian (cont.)
as the result of a triphthong 98–99 diphthongs 44
as a result of lengthening 122, 129, D-theme 230–232
138 dual ending 31, 272
a tends to be preserved 55, 122 feminine plural noun endings 273
see also “dialect différentiel” feminine plural verbal endings 203,
absolute chronology 56 212
accusative feminine singular noun ending 39,
pronouns, accusative function 159, 45
168, 182 Geers’ Law 39
Proto-Semitic 165 imperatives 224
see also adverbials infinitives 215, 227
ºad 8, 284–285 laryngeals-pharyngeals 32
adjectives 157 mimation 267–268, 272
attributive 177 -n endings 205–206
gender of 15, 272 nif ºal 228
nouns and 260 numbers 281–282
suffix-tense and 195, 197, 225 nunation 272
adverbials 215 Old Akkadian 163
accusatives 101, 122, 170, 172–173, participles 254
175, 215, 269 passive absent in 16, 19
case system and 266, 268–269 passive participle 226
dual and 271 personal pronouns 160, 162, 164,
of limitation 186 166, 183, 209
affrication 68, 77 Philippi’s law absent in 134
Afro-Asiatic languages 24 plural substantives 272
Berber 24, 196 pronominal suffixes 173, 209
Egyptian 24, 30, 103 relative clause 183
Akkadian 16–17, 222, 256, 260, 272, relative pronouns 183
281 s in 30
Amarna Letters 18 s/h 162–163
as lingua franca 21 sound shifts
Assyrian 16 ˛/Î > ß 19
Babylonian 16 q > z 19, 26–27
biradical roots 244 ˙ > x 37, 40
case system 104, 266–268 t > s 19, 31
causative stem 163, 234–236 statives 195–197, 201, 208–210, 226,
definite article, lack of 180 229–230, 235, 254

344
00-Blau.book Page 345 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Index of Topics 345

Akkadian (cont.) analogy (cont.)

substantives 260, 262 and pausal forms 120–121, 152
tense system 195–196, 199–200 and pronominal suffixes
prefix-tenses 196–197, 241 1cp 173, 209
suffix-tense absent 16, 19 1cs 169
t-infix forms 218 2s 169–170
x 32, 37 3ms 172
ºal 99 3p 173, 175
aleph and pronouns 53, 209
after mobile swa 88 1cp 165
as a vowel letter 86 1cs 160
demonstrative element 179 2p 167
non-radical 89 2s 161
orthography of 86, 88 and segolates 32, 96, 98, 131, 148
place of articulation 65 and the Canaanite shift 87–88, 136,
vowel shifts and 87–89 138
see also prosthetic aleph and the elision of he 92–94, 172
allegro forms 92–94, 172 and the feminine ending 91, 264
allomorphs 117 and verbs 187
allophones 26, 28, 39, 56, 67, 72–73, between dipthongs 96, 101–102
78–80, 113 between numbers 281
alphabet, borrowing of 74–75 between verbs I-h and I-w/y 94–95
alveolars 65 between verbs I-n and I-y 243
Amarna Letters (Old Canaanite) 18–19 between verbs I-n and II-w/y /
case system 269 geminates 256
causative stem 235 between verbs I-y and
D-stem 230–231 II-w/y/geminates 256
energic forms 207 between verbs I-y and I-w 104, 245
hif ºil 235 between verbs II-w/y and
mimation 268–269 geminates 256–259
nif ºal 228 between verbs III-ª and III-y 50, 84,
puººal 232 248
tense system, prefix-tense 207, 222 contrastive 284
Ammonite 16 grammatical 50
Amorite 16, 18 in Arabic prefix-tense 228
analogy 49–51, 55, 115, 160, 165, 167– in closed stressed syllables 133
168, 170, 172–174, 177, 187, 194, in contrast to sound shift 87
209, 211–212, 222, 224, 230–232, in prepositions 155
235–236, 242–243, 264, 270, 273, with pronominal suffixes 93, 170
276, 284 in the prefix-tense 94, 175
and aleph 87 1cs 87
and bgdkpt letters 139 3fp 204
and biradical/triradical roots 188 conversive waw 194
and frequency 51–53, 95, 170, 242 in the qal imperative 224, 242
and gender distinction 55 in the qal infinitive 243
and nouns III-y 98, 276 in the qal prefix-tense 227
00-Blau.book Page 346 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

346 Index of Topics

analogy (cont.) Arabic (cont.)

in the suffix-tense 94, 172 as lingua franca 21
3p 93, 211–212 case system 159, 266–268, 283
in the use of the definite article 177 causative theme 163, 234–236
in verbs III-n 242 causative -t theme 163
in vocalization of the infinitive 213 causative-passive theme 236
infinitive, with the prefix-tense 213 Classical 125
leveling 160, 163, 167, 173, 175, d 27
209, 212, 220, 233, 242, 253 q 26
in verbs III-y 91, 249–251 q0 (˛) 38
inverse 243 D-theme 230–232
paradigmatic pressure 49–50, 52–53, Dp-theme 232
55–56, 59, 97, 88, 122, 133–134, Dt-theme 233
136, 139, 148, 161–162, 169–170, definite article 180
192, 198, 204, 207–209, 211, 242, demonstrative pronouns 179
250, 252 diphthongs 44
in the hif ºil 151, 235–236, 246, dual 32, 164–165
255 emphatics 68
in the hitpaººel 233–234, 245 faºala-theme 237
in the hof ºal 236 feminine ending 263–264
in the nif ºal 151, 255 fp noun ending 273
in the piººel 231, 245 fp suffix tense 212
in the puººal 232, 245 fp verbal endings 203
in the qal fs ending 90, 211, 264
of verbs II-w/y 253–255 infinitives 215, 227, 236
in the suffix-tense 209, 220 interrogative pronouns 186
in the w > y shift 50, 245 I-w roots 50
plural adjectives 273 lengthening in open unstressed
proportional 50, 102, 255, 284 syllables 125–126
analytic construction 165 Li˙yan 180
anaphoric function see pronouns Maghrebi 55, 125–126
anaptyxis 32, 45, 54, 57 monosyllabic nouns 16, 44–45
in aw/ay diphthongs 44, 96, 171 moods of prefix-tense 206–208
in III-laryngeals-pharyngeals 239 energetic 207–208
in monosyllabic nouns (segolates) jussive 206–207
32–33, 45–46, 55, 137, 155, 260, subjunctive 206–207
263, 274–275 negation 195, 206
in verbs III-y 251 -n endings 205–206
anceps 55, 122, 145, 148, 160–162, n-theme 228
166, 169, 192, 207, 210 Neo-Arabic dialects 18–19, 22, 39,
apo koinou 184 55, 123, 125–126, 129, 162, 164,
apophony 262 167–169, 205, 211, 217, 263
Arab grammarians 171 nomen unitatis 263–264
Arabic 12–13, 16, 18, 141, 208, 223, numbers 280–282
260, 270 nunation/mimation 267–268,
ancient dialects 188, 222 271
00-Blau.book Page 347 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Index of Topics 347

Arabic (cont.) Aramaic (cont.)

passive superseding reflexive Greek transliteration of 81
themes 217 infinitives 227
personal pronouns 160, 162–163, influence on Biblical Hebrew 9–12,
165 40, 42–43, 46, 123, 126–128,
Philippi’s law, absent in 134 148–149, 159, 161–162, 170, 205,
plurals 18, 273 212, 258, 276
prepositions 99, 283–284 3fp prefix-tense 205
pronominal suffixes 169, 173 fp imperative 203
qal imperatives 224 gemination 258
qal passive participle 226 -n endings 205
qal prefix tense 222 pretonic lengthening 42, 123–124,
relative clause 181, 183 126–129, 148
relative pronoun 184 pronouns 161
roots III-w/y 211 -ut 276
sound shifts influenced by Hebrew 26
f < p 39, 44 lingua franca 21
s > s 30, 45, 58, 163 monosyllabic nouns 16, 44–46
stress system 153 see also sursaut
† 75 -n endings 205, 275
t 30 Nabatean 75
tense system 24, 195–196, 211 nisba 276
prefix-tense 206, 222–224 numbers 281
suffix-tense 152, 208, 210 of Tiberias 80
t-forms 218 Old Aramaic 40, 74–75
triphthongs 101 personal pronouns 160–162, 165
verbal themes 216–217 polyphony in 39
see also the various themes pronominal suffixes 169, 173
vowels 85 qal passive replaced by reflexive
˛ (q0 ) 38 themes 216–217
Arad letters 5, 191, 194 qal passive participle 226
Aramaic 2, 8–10, 12–13, 16, 18–19, 22, relative clause 183
26, 37–40, 44, 55, 73, 75, 104, 123, roots III-w/y 211
127, 141, 162, 222 s 30
alphabet 74–75 s / ¶ 74
and Philippi’s Law 104, 134 sound shifts
as lingua franca 21 d > d 26
bgdkpt letters 26, 44 ˙ < x 32, 37
causative theme 216, 234 ˙ > x 56
causative t-theme 216 t > t 30
definite article, postpositive 26, 180 spoken 126
demonstrative pronouns and suffix tense 3 fs ending 211
elements 179–180 syllable structure 128
diphthongs 44 Syriac, Nestorian 56, 124
dual ending 32 t 74–75
fp verbal endings 203, 212 Tell Fekherye inscription 75
00-Blau.book Page 348 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

348 Index of Topics

Aramaic (cont.) assimilation, of vowels (cont.)

tense system in the qal prefix vowel 221–222,
prefix-tense 222 237, 239, 246
suffix-tense 208, 210–211 partial 237
t-forms 216, 218 ºatta 149–150
verbal themes 216 attenuation 130, 132, 228
verbs II-w/y and geminates 257 in the hif ºil 235
vowel structure 126 in the piººel 230
Yaªudic as dialect of 22 in the qal prefix vowel 221
see also Nabatean ºayin 65, 75–76, 86
see also sursaut
archaic heterogeneity 160, 209, 233– Babylonian vocalization 7, 105, 118,
234 132, 224
archiphoneme 79 ˙a†af vowels, absence of 84
ªåsœr 6, 8, 183 and pausal forms 230–231
Ashkenazic pronunciation 66, 68, D-theme 230
109 and Philippi’s law 134–135, 231
aspectual system 189, 201–202 and pata˙ 7, 82, 118, 132
and conversive waw 202 and the 2p independent personal
imperfective 201 pronouns 166–167
iterative or continuous past 192 dages 141
perfective 201 D-theme 231
assimilation 54, 57, 72, 77–78, 89–90, Dt-theme 233
93–95, 100, 115–116, 133, 136–137, Bar-Koziba letters 10
169–170, 173, 180–181, 183, 186, Barth-Ginsberg law 221–222, 246, 254,
214, 239, 241, 281 259
as spirantization 78 Berber 24, 196
of consonants 281 bgdkpt letters 28, 47, 56, 63–64, 78–81,
of he 93 118, 139–140, 213, 288
to a following consonant 94, 172, and dages lene 140
186 see below: pronounced as stops
to energic nun 94 and diphthongs 78
with 3fs suffix-tense 90, 94, 173 and raphe 78, 89–90, 110
with particles 94 and swa 114, 116
of lamed 77, 95, 140, 180, 243 as allophones 78
of nun 44, 57, 77, 115, 138–139, 228, as opposing phonemes 79–80
241 following vowelless r 79
in I-n verbs 214, 241–242 in geminates 80
of resh 183, 188 in Modern Hebrew 81
of swa 85 pronounced as fricatives 78–79,
of tav 57, 76, 233 115
of vowels 57, 85, 100, 136–137, 169– pronounced as stops 80
170, 173, 181, 188, 226, 238, 248, in qal infinitives construct 115,
251 213
and laryngeals-pharyngeals 246 see above: and dages lene
in the infinitive 226 transliterated in the Septuagint 81
00-Blau.book Page 349 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Index of Topics 349

Biblical Hebrew 16 Canaanite shift a > o 1–2, 21, 45, 48–

and mimation/nunation 267, 269, 271 51, 58–59, 87–88, 95, 99, 132, 136–
archaic 8 138, 149, 153, 160, 166, 179, 186,
feminine plural in the suffix- 225, 254, 273, 275
tense 212 and aleph 87–88
morphology 8 and III-y verbs 250
as a literary language 5 and II-w/y verbs 252–254
as a mixed language 127, 137 and nominal patterns 275
development of and the qal passive participle 218
consonantal text 5–6 nature of 136–137
vowels, orthography of 6 relative chronology of 137, 153
impediments 5 cantillation marks 7, 78, 82, 120, 131,
inscriptions, contemporary 5 143–144, 154, 182
late 8 connective 78
and the 3fp prefix-tense 205 disjunctive 152, 154
and the conversive waw 194 prose versus poetic 144
characteristics of 9 see alsoMasoretic text, accentual
layers of 5–7 system
standard 8 cardinal numbers 15, 32–33, 157, 164,
vocalization of 7, 109–110 279–282
vowels, transcriptions of 5 see also numerals
see also Origen; Septuagint case endings 45, 50, 169–170,
see also Aramaic influence on Biblical 266–273
Hebrew; cantillation marks; see also accusative; adverbials; dual;
Masoretic text genitive; nominative; plural
bilabials 65, 69, 77, 103 causative 229–231, 234
bilingualism 10, 43 see also hif ºil
biradicalism 53, 187–188 see also piººel
see also triradicalism change see language change; sound
blend see contamination shift
borrowing 15, 37–38, 42 cohortative 90, 122, 267
see also Aramaic, influence on as a subjunctive 207
Biblical Hebrew; pretonic as volitive 207
lengthening, foreign influence comparative linguistics see linguistics,
b†˙ 29 comparative
comparative reconstruction 30, 43–46
Canaanite 16, 18 see also etymology
alphabet 74–75 compensatory lengthening and II-
ancient (old) see Amarna Letters laryngeals-pharyngeals 82–83,
Byblos 207 238
personal pronouns 161 and the loss of final consonants 121
sound shifts and the loss of final short
d > z 21 vowels 119, 121
the infinitive absolute 214, 216 compound words 158–159, 176
Canaanite Amarna Letters see Amarna connecting (separating) vowel 47, 209,
Letters (Old Canaanite) 255, 259
00-Blau.book Page 350 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

350 Index of Topics

consonant cluster 239 Deir ºAlla 21–22

final 251, 274 demonstratives
initial 224, 280–281 presentative sense 178
consonants 63–64, 68–69, 73, 76 see also pronouns, demonstrative;
compared with vowels 14–15, 63–64 ordinal numbers
phonemic value 73, 76 dental-alveolars 69, 76–77
w and y as semi-consonants 64, 69, dentals 65
96–105 determination see definite article
word-final 102 “dialect différentiel” 122, 129, 161–
see also aleph; semi-consonant; waw; 162, 166, 175, 193
yod see also a tends to be preserved
construct 8, 99–100, 120, 158–159, diachronic see linguistics, historical
170, 214, 265 dialects 7, 11, 42, 127
see also genitive ancient Arabic 222
contamination 35, 38, 52–53, 92, 170, Li˙yan 180
175, 285 Canaanite 21–22, 127, 136
conversive-waw see waw-conversive the development of 20–21
development of 20
q > z 25–28, 30–33 Neo-Arabic 18–19, 22, 123, 125–
dages 126, 129, 164, 167–169, 205, 211,
as a stress marker 140–142 217, 222, 263
conjunctive 141 city 39
forte 111, 138–142 variation 5, 7, 23
and the swa 139–140 diphthongs 6, 70, 96–105
environments of 138–139 and quiescent aleph 99–100
with bgdkpt letters in and the bgdkpt letters 45, 78
gemination 80 aw 44, 71, 78, 108
see also gemination preserved 99–100
lene 140 stressed 96
dead languages 1, 4, 126–127 unstressed 97
Dead Sea Scrolls 6, 82, 90, 115, 162 ay 8, 44, 71, 78, 101, 250–251, 276
and Rabbinic Hebrew 10 before a suffix 93
personal pronouns 161, 168 preserved 100–101, 246
pronominal suffixes 171 stressed 96
d´b2 as 45–46 unstressed 97
definite article 179–181 descending 71
and attributive adjectives 177 development of aw/ay 96, 100–101,
as a demonstrative pronoun 176 108
as a generic determiner 181 divided into two syllables 44–45
as an individual determiner 180 effects of pause 100–101
elision of he 92 iw 51, 97, 247
lacking in Akkadian, Ugaritic, and iy 97, 100–102, 250–251
Geºez 180 uw 97
vocalization of 181 uy 97
d´˙iq 141 see also monophthongization
deictic function see pronouns, in deitic directional he 90, 122, 147, 149–150,
function 264

spread is 12 points long

00-Blau.book Page 351 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Index of Topics 351

directional he (cont.) elision, of he (cont.)

and the case system 269 in the directional he 92
elision of h 92–93, 269 in the hif ºil 92, 95
dissimilation 39–40, 44, 54, 57–59, 78, in third-person pronominal
95, 132, 162, 218, 222, 227, 231, suffixes 93, 172
240, 242–243, 251, 255, 275–276, in verbs I-h 94–95
283 of lamed 243
of aleph 87 of nun 241–242
of double consonants 27, 57, 183 of the feminine singular ending
of reduplicated biradical roots 58 (t) 121, 210–211, 264
of vowels 58, 132, 160, 251 of w/y 96, 98–99, 243, 246–247, 250,
resulting in aleph 89 276
doublets 38, 40, 54, 104, 161, 190, 228, in verbs III-y 249, 251
230, 233–234, 240 emphatics 68, 76
see also h/s alternation relationship to glottals and velars 68
drift 102, 121 enclitic, waw (conjunction) 103
3mp superseding 3fp 211–212 Epigraphic South Arabian 17, 267
III-w verbs absorbed by III-y causative stem 163, 234
verbs 248–249 d 26
internal qal passive replaced by definite article 180
reflexives 217, 228 numbers 281
original passive replaced by reflexive personal pronouns 162–163
forms 217, 228 plurals 18, 273
D-theme see Akkadian; Arabic; Gºez; preservation of ˙1 and ˙2 37
hitpaººel; piººel; puººal see also Sabaic; South Arabian
dual ergative 24–25, 266–267
in Akkadian numbers 282 ªet 8–9, 155
in nouns 90, 164, 170, 172, 270–272 Ethiopic 16–18
in independent pronouns 164–165 personal pronouns 160
mimation 268 plurals 18, 273
nunation 268 see also Gºez
Proto-Semitic 164, 171, 270 etna˙ 144, 154
pseudo-dual 271 etymology 28–45
exclamations 52
e see ßere; vowel system, e
Eblaite 17, 23 f < p 39, 44–45
Paleosyrian 17 factitive 229, 234
Edomite 17 family-tree model 16–19, 21–22
Egyptian 24, 30, 103 feminine singular ending 31, 39, 45,
elision 61, 90, 121, 179, 209–210, 241, 250,
of aleph 87–88 280
in verbs III-ª 248 and III-w roots 276
of final short vowels see vowel and III-y verbs 250
system, loss of final and nomen unitatis 263, 272,
of he 92–93, 95, 269 280
exceptions 93 and segolization 264
in the definite article 92 as a demonstrative element 264
00-Blau.book Page 352 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

352 Index of Topics

feminine singular ending (cont.) Gºez (Old Ethiopic) (cont.)

of infinitive construct 227, 241, 246– causative theme 163, 234–235
247, 250 definite article, absence of 180
see also elision, of the feminine diphthongs 44
singular ending (t); gender D-theme 230–231
fricatives 64, 69, 76–77 Dt-theme 233
function and sound shifts 55–56 dual ending 32
function words 52, 99 f < p 39, 44
furtive pata˙ 83–84, 240, 275 fp verbal ending 203, 212
glottalization 68
geminate verbs see verbs monophthongization 49
gemination 108, 111, 116 numbers 32, 74, 280, 282
and lengthening 180, 247 personal pronouns 160, 163, 166
and nominal patterns 275 Philippi’s law 104, 134
and pretonic lengthening 124, 132 preservation of ˙1 and ˙2 30, 37
and simplification 79–80, 100, 139, pronominal suffixes 173
259 qal passive participle 226
exceptions 139 sound shifts
in Aramaic 258 d > z 26
pretonic 152, 275, 286 s > s 30
relative chronology of its loss in t > s 30, 56
laryngeals/pharyngeals 83 tense system 196, 200
see also dages forte prefix-tense 223
gender suffix-tense 208–210, 251
feminine nouns 15, 31, 39, 90–91, see also Ethiopic
263–264 grammar 59, 62
in Semitic languages 15, 55, 263 Greek 11, 13, 28, 48, 56, 171
development of 263 see also Origen; Septuagint
of demonstrative pronouns 179,
264 h/s alternation 162–164, 168, 172–173,
of 2p independent personal 175, 234
pronouns 166–167 ÓaÎrami 163
of 2s independent personal ˙a†af 117–118, 143, 238, 239
pronouns 161 see also swa
of 2s pronominal suffixes 169–170 haplology 54, 59, 99, 169
of cardinal numbers 15, 279–280 Óashavya (Yavneh Yam) 5
masculine nouns 15, 264 he
genitive 122, 159, 168, 172 and the feminine ending 90–91
function of pronouns 168, 174, 182 as a consonant 89, 142, 172
subjective 214 in Ugaritic 92
see also construct as a vowel letter 89–90
Gezer calendar 5 a 90–91, 173
glide, and non-radical aleph 89 development of 90–91
glottals 65 e 100, 138
Gºez (Old Ethiopic) œ 99, 137
broken plural 273 o 90, 172
00-Blau.book Page 353 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Index of Topics 353

he (cont.) hof ºal 216, 236–237

assimilation of 93–94 and the qal passive 217–218
orthography of 90–92 II-w/y 256
see also analogy, and the elision of h; I-w/y 245, 247
definite article; interrogative h morphology of 236
Hebrew language 18, 21 ˙olam 108, 110–112, 119–120, 136–
alphabet 73–76 138, 225
as a dead language 126–127 see also Canaanite shift;
as a division of Canaanite 21 monophthongization, of aw
as a Semitic language 12 homonymy 29, 35–37
development of 9, 11, 22, 42, 148 hypercorrection 40, 42, 54, 88
Medieval 16 see also pseudo-correction
sound shifts
d > z 26–27 iconicity see onomatopoetic
t > s 30–33, 40–41, 74, 76 imperative 192, 197, 199–200, 207, 213
˙2 > ˙1 30, 32–33, 75–76, 86 archaic character 197
see also inscriptions; late Biblical historical development of 197
Hebrew; Medieval Hebrew; lengthened 193, 208
Modern Hebrew; Northern marking of persons 203–204
Hebrew dialect; Rabbinic Hebrew morphology of 203, 213
heterogeneity, archaic 160, 173, 204, 2/3 fp 90, 203–204
209, 228, 233, 268 Indo-European languages 13, 48, 62,
Hexapla 115 189
see also Origen infinitive absolute 212, 227
hiatus 168–169 in Semitic languages 214–216
hif ºil 216, 234 usage 214–216
I-w/y 235, 245 as a finite verb 191, 215–216
II-w/y 256 as a verbal intensifier 215
elision of he 92, 95 as an adverb 215
h/s alternation 234 as an imperative 9, 215
infinitives 235 infinitive construct 212–214, 232
morphology of 234–235 as a nominal form 213–214
characterstic vowel 235 as a verbal form 214
vowel preceding the first radical governed by k or b 115, 214
236–237, 256 governed by l 115, 213–214
t-form 219 historical development of 197
usage of 234 in III-laryngeals/pharyngeals 213
˙iriq 66, 82–83, 106–108, 112, 124, in III-y verbs 250
132–133, 138 in I-w/y verbs 246
see also vowel system, i-class usage 213–214
hitpaººel 76, 216, 232 with feminine ending 227, 241–242,
and assimilation 57 246, 250
and metathesis 59, 233 inscriptions 5–8, 10, 161, 165, 191, 194
I-w/y 50, 245 Arad 191, 194
morphology of 233 Canaanite 18, 161
usage of 232 Deir ºAlla 21
00-Blau.book Page 354 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

354 Index of Topics

inscriptions (cont.) l´ 9, 155, 284

Óashavya (Yavneh Yam) 5 lengthening see gemination
Lachish Letters 5, 165 lento forms 92–94, 172
Meshaº see Moabite leveling, analogical see analogy,
Phoenician 178, 249, 269 leveling
Samaria ostraca 5, 8 lexicography 59–61
Siloam 5, 250 linguistics 1
Tell Fekherye 75 combining approaches 4
see also Amarna Letters comparative 1–3, 5, 13–16, 22, 24,
interjections 157–158, 176, 178, 189, 28, 34–35, 43, 222
244, 247, 266 family-tree model 16–19,
internal reconstruction/analysis 46–47, 21–22
165, 196, 203, 239, 246 list model 23
interrogative he 77, 140 wave model 19–23, 104
diachronic see historical (below)
Judean dialect 96, 183 general 1
see also Hebrew generative 42
juncture, close Biblical Hebrew 4
internal 213 historical 1–3, 5, 25–28, 35, 43, 46–
open internal 92–93 47, 257
jussive 151, 192–194, 197, 213, 215 its relationship to philology 4
see also modal system, volitive; synchronic 1–3, 5, 244, 257
prefix-tense, short; volitive liquids 69, 77
loan words 2, 12, 30, 37, 40, 45–46,
k´ 215, 284 53–54
k´tib2 7 see also borrowing

labio-dentals 65, 69 mappiq 89, 142, 239

Lachish Letters 5, 165 maqqaf 78, 142, 144, 182, 184, 265
language change 1, 41 Masoretes 7, 123, 141
factors of 41–43, 50–51 and emphatics 68
factors of bilingualism 43 and the 2s pronominal suffix 171
langue 152 and the bgdkpt letters 78–81, 214
laryngeals-pharyngeals 65, 67, 69, 77, and the infinitive 214, 216, 227
81–83, 86, 108–109, 141 and the laryngeals-pharyngeals 86
and gemination 82–83, 241 and the qal passive 53, 217, 228, 245
and the definite article 181 and the swa 67, 105–106, 113–114,
influence on adjacent vowels 84, 116–117, 213–214
105, 108, 133, 239, 246 and the vowel system 106–107, 110
non-gemination, virtual doubling 82, Masoretic text
237, 241 accentual system 7
with ultra-short vowels 85, 130 as a musical system 143
Late Biblical Hebrew and the conversive as an indication of stress 143
waw 194 conjunctive accents 144
laterals 65, 69, 77 disjunctive accents 144, 154
Latin transcriptions 171 see also pausal forms
00-Blau.book Page 355 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Index of Topics 355

Masoretic text, accentual system (cont.) monophthongization 8, 51, 70–71, 99–

poetic 144 100, 107–108, 137, 172, 225, 271–
prose 144 272
consonantal text 5, 7 in northern Hebrew 97
mater lectionis see aleph; he; vowel in the Northwest Semitic
letters; waw; yod languages 97
Medieval Hebrew 16 in verbs I-w/y 247
Meshaº inscription see Moabite of aw 2, 43, 96–97, 99–100, 108,
metanalysis 263, 276 138, 172
metathesis 46, 54, 57, 59, 76–77, 218, of ay 2, 6, 8, 93, 96–97, 99–100, 107,
233 138
meteg 143 of final triphthongs 137, 276
and the swa 116, 140 see also diphthong, triphthong
as a marker of qamaß 142 monosyllabic nouns see nouns,
indicating an open syllable 79, monosyllabic
142 morpheme
purpose of 142 bound 52, 156, 165
mimation/nunation 267, 269, 271–272 definition of 156–157
minimal pairs 72 free 156, 165
Mishnaic Hebrew see Rabbinic Hebrew pattern 156
mixed language 22, 127, 137, 161 root 156
Moabite 16, 18 zero 156
demonstrative pronouns 178–179 morphology 2–3
diphthongs 97 and word derivation 62
feminine singular ending 91 study of 61, 156
mimation/nunation 271 morphophonemics 61
pronominal suffixes 174 morphosyntax 61–62
t-forms 218
modal system 192 Nabatean alphabet 75
cohortative 207–208, 267 see also Aramaic, Nabatean
energic 172–173, 207–208 nasal consonants 67, 77
indicative 190–191, 206 negation 158–159, 195,
subjunctive 206 206
volitive 192–193 neogrammarians 27, 48, 56
and conversive waw 192–193 nif ºal 216, 227–229
cohortative 192, 207–208, and the qal passive 53, 217–218,
267 227
imperative 192–193 meanings of 227
jussive 192–193, 206 morphology of 228
Modern Hebrew 11–12, 16 I-w/y verbs 228, 245
and the bgdkpt letters 81 II-w/y verbs 255
and the participle 3 suffix-tense
and the pronunciation of swa 116 I-laryngeals-pharyngeals 237
Modern South Arabian I-n verbs 243
causative stem 234 nisba 276, 282
personal pronouns 163 nominal clauses 225–226
00-Blau.book Page 356 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

356 Index of Topics

nominal patterns 2, 44, 274–279 Northern Hebrew dialect 5, 7–8, 96–98,

III-y roots 276 161, 169–170, 183
monosyllabic nouns see segolates Northwest Semitic 245
prefixes nouns 14, 157
mem 275 absolute 119–120, 135, 218, 265,
taw 275 267
q´†ala, qi†lat- 278 vowel quality and quantity 119–
q´†ela, q´†elat- 278 121, 123, 135, 218, 226, 228–
q´†i, qi†y-/qœ†y- 278 229, 265
qaw! œl, qol- 277 adjectives versus substantives 157–
qa††al, qa††al- 279 158, 260, 262, 272
qa†al, q´†al- 278 and verbs, morphological
qa†al, q´†all- 278 relationship 261–262
qa†el, q´†al- 278 biconsonantal/biradical 31, 260
qa†il, q´†il- 278 bisyllabic 54
qa†la, qa†lat- 277 case endings 96, 99, 104, 120–123,
qa†ol, q´†ol- 278 131, 175, 266, 273
qa†ol, q´†ull- 278 adverbial ending 266
qa†ul, q´†ul- 278 remnants in Biblical Hebrew 266–
qal, q´li- 277 269, 272
qal, qal- 277 collective 263, 272–273
qal, qal- 276 construct 99, 119–123, 130–131,
qal, qall- 277 133, 135, 265–266, 268
qal, qill- 277 in poetry 269
qala, q´lat- 276 vowel quality and quantity 119,
qala, qalat- 277 265
qáyil, qel- 277 denoting action 261
qe†al, q´†al- 278 denoting state 261
qel, qill- 277 deverbal 261–262
qi††el, qi††´l- 279 dual 32, 164, 170, 172–173, 270, 272
qi†la, qi†lat- 277 in form but not meaning (pseudo-
qo!†œl, qo†l- 278 dual) 164, 271
qo†el, qo†´l- 279 morphology of 270–271
qø†i, qo†y- 278 ergative type 24–25, 266–267
qo†la, qo†lat- 278 geminate 100, 119, 120–121, 133,
qœ!†al, qa†l- 277 135
qœ!†œl, qa†l- 277 gender 15, 260, 263
qœ!†œl, qi†l- 277 feminine 31, 211, 263–264
qol, qull- 277 masculine 263–264
suffixes monosyllabic 16, 32, 54, 57, 119,
-i 276, 282 263, 274–275
-on/-an 275 see also segolates
-ut 276 nomen unitatis 263–264, 272, 280
synchronic classification 274, 276– plural 270, 271–272
279 broken 18, 273
nominative 159, 172, 182 by reduplication 187, 271
00-Blau.book Page 357 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Index of Topics 357

nouns, plural (cont.) orthography (cont.)

in poetry see poetry, biblical of he 90–92, 137–138
morphology of 90, 271, 273 of waw 90, 104
pluralia tantum 272 of yod 105
poetry see poetry, biblical
primary/primitive 14–15, 31, 102, paºala theme 18, 237
157, 187, 261 palatals 65, 69, 77
statuses 265–266 Palestinian vocalization 7, 118–119,
synopsis 260–263 141
verbal 14–15 ˙a†af vowels 84
see also infinitive; participles paradigmatic pressure see analogy,
see also pronominal suffixes; segolates paradigmatic pressure
numerals 15, 33, 279–283 parallel development 16, 22–23, 55
11–19 92 semantic shifts 35–36
3–10 15 parole 152
see also cardinal numbers; ordinal participles 158
numbers historical development of its
nun energic 172–173, 207–208 function 3
nunation see mimation and verbless clauses 225–226
in the tense system 3–4, 9, 194, 225–
o 226
as a result of monophthongization of action verbs 225
see monophthongization of aw passive 226
as a result of the Canaanite shift 138, stative pattern of qal 225, 248
250 parts of speech 157
see also Canaanite shift criteria for divisions 157–158
historically long 138 passive, internal 16, 217–218, 231,
Old Aramaic see Aramaic 236
Old Canaanite see Amarna Letters see also hof ºal; puººal; qal, passive
onomatopoetic words 28, 51, 196–197, pata˙ 7, 46, 66–68, 82–85, 88, 96, 101,
229 105, 108, 110–113, 119, 129, 132,
oral consonants 67, 78 137, 223
ordinal numbers 157, 281–282 furtivum 83, 275
Origen 111, 115, 162, 190 see also attenuation; Philippi’s Law
see also Greek pausal forms 139, 144–145, 154, 171,
orthography 240
defective and plene 6, 67, 90 analogical effect on/by non-pausal
and the adjective/participle forms 120–121, 152, 220,
paºol 225 252
and the infinitive qal 213 and the stress system 47, 134–135,
of i 107 145, 154
of o 108 as an archaic feature 91, 146, 154
of o 90 compared with contextual forms 84,
of u 107 101, 233, 236, 251
of aleph 86 elision of final short vowels 91,
of final a 90, 204 155, 170
00-Blau.book Page 358 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

358 Index of Topics

pausal forms, compared with contextual Phoenician (cont.)

forms (cont.) personal pronouns 165, 167
preservation of archaic stress 146, t-forms 218
154, 171, 221, 223, 228, 231– the Canaanite shift 51
233, 240, 266 verbs
vowel length 132–135, 154, 231, III-y verbs 249
233, 241, 247 I-n verbs 243
vowel quality 154 phoneme, definition of 156
pausal lengthening 101, 139, 146–148, phonemes 2, 28, 39–40, 42, 56, 61, 72–
150–151, 172, 230, 240–241 73, 81, 112, 118, 131, 156
pausal stress shift 134, 146, 154–155 phonetics 1–2, 61, 63, 72, 82–83, 224,
pharyngeals 65 274–275
see also laryngeals classification of sounds
Philippi’s law 133–136, 228, 233, by duration 63–64
278 by place of articulation 63, 65
and Babylonian vocalization 134– by resonance chamber 63, 67
135, 231 by vocal chord movement 63,
and construct nouns 265 67
and the 2p/3p pronouns 167–168, phonology 72
174–175 piººel 216, 229
and the hif ºil 235–236 I-yod 50
and the hitpaººel 233 morphology of 229
and the hof ºal 236 participles 232
and the nif ºal 228 pausal forms 231
and the piººel 230–231 prefix-tense 231
and the puººal 232 usage
and the qal prefix-tense 222 denominative 229
and the qal suffix-tense 220, 254 factitive 229
and verbs intensifier 229
I-ª verbs 87, 240 privative 229
I-w/y verbs 247 plosives 64
III-ª verbs 248 plural 270–273
in Northwest Semitic 104, 134 broken 18, 273
relative chronology of 134–135 poetry
the environment of its biblical 8, 40, 150, 160, 171–172,
application 133, 135, 150 180, 183–184, 195, 198, 216, 269,
paradigmatic pressure 133 284
philology, its relationship to tense system 198
linguistics 4 Jewish liturgical 7
Phoenician 16, 18, 21, 211 Ugaritic epic 91
and the causative stem 234 polyphony 73–76
assimilation of nun 242 of ºayin 75
biradical roots 243 of ˙et 75
demonstrative pronouns 178–179 of ¶in/sin 73–75, 77
D-stem 230 polysemy 29, 35
feminine singular ending 91, 211 prefix, nominal 275
00-Blau.book Page 359 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Index of Topics 359

prefix-tense 197, 206–208 prepositions (cont.)

2/3 fp 90, 203–205 with pronominal suffixes 93, 99,
action/fientive verbs 261 170, 172–173, 175, 182, 186, 284
as imperfective 201 1s 285
as iterative or continuous past 192 plural forms 284
as present/future tense 192 presentative sense, demonstratives 178
cohortative 122, 192–193, 207 pretonic gemination 124, 132,152, 190,
energic 193, 208 226
governing pronominal suffixes 175 pretonic lengthening in open syllables
in poetry 198 42, 101, 123, 129, 131–132, 136,
in Semitic languages 221 138, 146–152, 154, 190, 205, 226
indicative 206 exceptions 131, 148
loss of final short vowels 206 a 129, 138, 152
morphology of 204–206 i 129
relationship to the independent u 129, 152
personal pronoun theories on development of 123–125
of 1cp 204 foreign influence 125–128, 148
of 1cs 162, 204 stress influence 125, 152
of 2s 162, 204 with pronominal suffixes 265
short 142, 194–195, 197, 225, 251, pretonic reduction 148
286 proclitics 52, 78, 94, 265
and the stress system 150–151, pronominal suffixes 159, 168–175
155 1cp 173
as modal 193, 195, 206 morphology of 173
as past tense 195, 199, 206 1cs 168–169
in verbs III-y 251 morphology of 160, 168–169
see also jussive relationship to the independent
stative verbs 261 personal pronoun 160
terminating in -un 205 2p 174
with waw 191, 195, 202, 285 morphology of 174
as imperfective 201 relationship to independent personal
as modal 193 pronouns 166
as past tense 192–193 2s 169–170
see also analogy, in the prefix-tense morphology of 169–170
prepositions 91, 155, 157, 170, 186, on prepositions 170
266, 283–285 pausal forms 171
and vowel reduction 131 3fs 89–90, 172
archaic forms 8, 99, 155, 284 elision of he 93
in the case system 266, 268, 283 morphology of 172–173
monoradical 189 3ms 90, 171
proclitic 52 elision of he 93
and infinitives construct 213 morphology of 171–172
beth 92–93, 115, 214, 284 3p 174
kap 92, 115, 214, 284 morphology of 174–175
lamed 92, 115, 213–214, relationship to independent personal
284 pronouns 166
00-Blau.book Page 360 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

360 Index of Topics

pronominal suffixes (cont.) pronouns (cont.)

and pretonic lengthening 224, 265 retrospective 182
archaic forms 8, 90 similarity to interjections 158
heavy 265 see also analogy, and pronouns
late forms 9 prosthetic aleph 32–33, 115–116, 165,
light 265 183, 228
on prepositions 170 Proto-Hebrew stress system 144
on suffix-tenses 10 Proto-Semitic 12, 16, 23, 25–26, 32,
with/without connective vowel 46– 35–36, 38–41, 43–46, 56, 118, 134,
47, 265, 268 137–138, 165, 170, 209, 220, 222,
see also analogy, and pronominal 282–283
suffixes a 48, 138
pronouns 53, 158–159 and the causative theme 234, 236
as compound words 158–159 and the D-theme 230–231
comparative 179 and the nif ºal 228
demonstrative 176, 178–179 and verbs I-n 244
3s 164 and verbs I-w/y 244
adjectival 177 and verbs III-y 249
and the definite article 176–177, biradical roots 244
184 case system 266, 271
as relative pronouns 184 consonant inventory 76
gender 179 demonstrative pronouns 179
near and far 176 diphthongs 45
see also demonstratives dual forms 165, 270
in anaphoric usage 159, 164, 176, fp verbal endings 204
180 f 75, 86
in deictic usage 158–159, 164, 176, ˙/f 75
178 ˙/x 32–33, 56, 75, 86
independent personal 159–168 imperative 203
1cp 165 mimation/nunation 267, 271
1cs 159–160 numerals 280
2p 166–168 participles 226
2s 161–162 personal pronouns 166
3p 166–168 1cs 160–161
3s 162, 164, 176 2p 166
dual 164–165 2s 162
interrogative 186 3s 163
as indefinite pronouns 186 plural forms 271
as relative pronouns 185 prefix-tense 196–197, 236
ya 186 pronominal suffixes
ym/hm 185–186 1cp 173
not triradical 189 2p 174
proleptic 159 2s 169
relative 181–185 3fs 172
rva 183, 186 3p 174
hz/wz/Wz 184 relative clause 182
v 183 ¶ 73–74
00-Blau.book Page 361 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Index of Topics 361

Proto-Semitic (cont.) qal, prefix-tense (cont.)

sound shifts characteristic vowel 220–221
q > z 25–28, 30–33, 37–38, 52, 76 influence on the imperative 224
f > º 75–76 yaf ºil 87, 221–223, 259
t > s 30–33, 40–41, 74, 76 yaf ºul 221–223, 259
x > ˙ 32–33, 37, 75–76, 86 yif ºal 221
ß1 /ß2 /ß3 38–40, 76–77 suffix-tense 220–221, 225, 230, 259
suffix-tense II-w/y 252, 254
affixes 209–210 III-ª 248
stative 195, 197, 220–221, 225 action/fientive verbs 220, 259
vowel inventory 111–112, 137–138 characteristic vowel 220–221
binary system of short vowels stative verbs 220–221, 225, 259
111, 220–221 t-form 218, 232
long vowels in closed syllables qamaß 108–114, 116, 118–119, 121–
shortened 151, 196, 206, 235 124, 132–133, 135–138, 140–143,
pseudo-correction 54–55, 205 145, 149–150, 152, 154–155, 205,
see also hypercorrection 213, 220, 223, 227–228, 232–233,
pseudo-dual 164 236–238
psychological predicate see rheme see also vowel system, a-class
puººal 216, 232 q´re 7, 161–162, 164–165, 208, 211–
and the qal passive 217–218 212, 249
morphology of 232 qibbuß 66, 107–108, 110, 112, 114, 136
see also vowel system, u-class
qal 14, 59, 61, 212, 216, 219–227 Qumran see Dead Sea Scrolls
imperative 130, 224
historical development 224 r 69, 71, 81–83, 238–239
I-n 241–242 Rabbinic Hebrew 9–11, 16, 42–43, 50,
I-w/y 247 69, 79, 81–83, 98, 126, 128, 136,
II-w/y 253–254 160, 162, 165, 169, 171, 176–178,
infinitive absolute 227 183, 185–186, 205, 211, 213–214,
infinitive construct 79, 81, 94, 115 223, 226–227, 229, 238–239, 246,
feminine 227 249, 256, 259, 268, 284
morphology 226–227 and demonstrative pronouns 176–
participles of 178
action/fientive verbs 225 and III-y verbs 50, 249
II-w/y 253–254 and proleptic pronouns 159
stative verbs 225 and relative clauses 183
passive 53, 217–218, 228, 245 and the 1cp independent personal
passive participle 218, 226, 252 pronouns 165
prefix-tense 221–224 and the 2s pronominal suffixes 171
I-ª 240 and the conversive waw 194
I-laryngeals-pharyngeals 238 and the definite article 177
I-w/y 246–247 and the D-themes 229, 256
II-laryngeals/pharyngeals 240 and the infinitive 213, 227
II-w/y 253–254 and the -n endings of the prefix-
III-ª 248 tense 205
action/fientive verbs 221, 259 and the participle 3, 223, 226
00-Blau.book Page 362 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

362 Index of Topics

Rabbinic Hebrew (cont.) resonance 67

and the prefix-tense 205 retrospective pronoun 182
and triphthongs 98 rheme 185, 191
and u-class vowels 136 rhythm 124–125
nature of 9–11 roots 14, 44
relationship to Biblical Hebrew 9–11 biradical 14, 53, 58, 95, 187–189,
tense system 9, 42, 211 244, 258, 280
raphe 78, 89–90, 140 and geminate verbs 258
reduction of short vowels 130 and verbs I-n 242–244
redundant feature(s) 167, 169, 177 and verbs I-w/y 242–244
relative chronology (historical and verbs II-w/y 97, 103, 252–253,
ordering) 28, 56 255
and Philippi’s Law 134–135 and verbs III-y 249
and the orthography of aleph 86, 88 nouns 15, 31, 102, 157, 187
in laryngeals/pharyngeals 83 verbs 187–188, 242–244
lengthening of short vowels in open III-h 89–90
syllables 82–83 quadriliteral 257–258, 281
of auxiliary ultra-short vowels 85 triradical 14–15, 157–158, 240, 242–
of diphthong reduction 96, 99 245, 249, 252
of he as a vowel letter for a 91 and geminate verbs 209
of pausal lengthening 150, 220, 252 and verbs II-w/y 103, 209
of Philippi’s Law 134, 150, 220, and verbs III-y 249
248 development of 187–188, 242–
of pretonic lengthening 126–129, 244
154
of spirantization 56, 79 ß 38–40, 76–77
of the Canaanite shift 99, 137 ¶ 73–75, 77
of the conversive waw 194, 198 s < t 30–33, 40–41, 74, 76
of the elision of aleph 87, 248 s/h alternation see h/s alternation
of the elision of he 93 Sabaic
of the elision of the feminine ending causative stem 163, 234
(t) 211 mimation 267–268
of the elision of w/y 250, 252 personal pronouns 162–163
of the loss of final short vowels 100, see also Epigraphic South Arabian
120, 267–268 Samaria ostraca 5, 8
of the loss of gemination in Samaritan tradition 6, 55, 69, 74, 115,
laryngeals/pharyngeals 83 160–161, 168, 190, 280
of the loss of quantitative vowel samekh 5, 73–74
distinctions in Biblical sandhi 78, 80, 166
Hebrew 149 scriptio defectiva and plena see
of the stress system of Proto- orthography, defective and plene
Hebrew 144–149, 153 segol 66, 90, 108, 112, 132–136, 167,
of triphthong reduction 99 170, 173, 175, 230
relative clause 181–185 and Philippi’s law 135, 230
in Semitic languages 181–182 and Proto-Semitic 137
syntax of 181–182, 185 and the definite article 181
00-Blau.book Page 363 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Index of Topics 363

segol (cont.) Semitic languages (cont.)

and the elision of w/y 100–101, 250– and the definite article 180
251 and the demonstrative pronouns 179
as a phoneme 112–113 and the dual independent personal
with interrogative he 113 pronouns 165
as a short vowel 107 and the infinitive 214, 216
as an allophone 113 and the relative clause 181–183
from monophthongization 107 cardinal numbers 15, 279, 281
in pausal and contextual forms 148 common features of 13
with pronominal suffixes 170 grammar 14–15, 270
segolates 44–46, 54–55, 57, 101, 131, morphology 221, 262
133, 137, 251, 273–274, 277–278, demonstrative pronouns 176
283 East 16
and pseudo-correction 54 emphatics 68
and stress 45, 148, 155 lack of compound words 158
phonemic value of anaptyctic morphology 15
vowel 274 nominal patterns 262
plural 47, 98, 115, 131, 273, Northwest 16, 18, 21–23
282 Philippi’s law 134
qa†l 115, 274, 277 shared innovations 104
qi†l 135, 277–278 shift of initial w to y 50, 103
qo†l 278 ordinal numbers 282
see also analogy, and segolates; Philippi’s law 134
anaptyxis plurals 273
semantic shift 29 Proto-Semitic see Proto-Semitic
semantics 35–36, 62 Southwest 16–17, 273
semi-consonant/semi-vowel 103–105 Arabic 23
see also diphthong; w; y Epigraphic South Arabian 23
Semitic, Northwest 18, 22–23 Ethiopic 23
Semitic languages 12–13, 16, 19, 21, paºala theme 18
23–24 shared innovation 17–18
1cp independent personal syntax 15
pronouns 165–166 verbal patterns 15
1cs independent personal causatives 163, 234
pronouns 160 Dt-stem 233
2p independent personal verbless clause 15
pronouns 166 vocabulary 12–14
2s independent personal West 16
pronoun 161 and the cohortative 207
2s independent personal and the prefix-tense 222
pronouns 161 and the suffix-tense
3s independent personal action/fientive verbs 195,
pronouns 162–164 208
alphabets 64, 68 stative verbs 197
see also polyphony shared innovations 16, 195–196,
and infixed t 218 222
00-Blau.book Page 364 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

364 Index of Topics

sentence, grammatical/psychological sound shift (cont.)

structure 185, 191 unconditioned 28, 30, 32
separating (connective) vowel 209, weak changes 37–38, 54, 57
255, 259 South Arabian 17–18, 162–163, 234,
Sephardic pronunciation 79, 85, 110, 273
112 Modern 163, 234
of swa 106, 116, 119 see also Epigraphic South Arabian;
of vowels 66, 105, 108–109, 116, Sabaic
138, 143 speech, lento/allegro 92–94, 172
Septuagint spirantization
as evidence for and the swa 114, 116, 131, 139
monophthongization 97 its development in Biblical
as evidence for polyphony 75–76, Hebrew 79–80
131 see also bgdkpt letters
as evidence for pretonic spirants 63–64
lengthening 56, 124, 129 stative verbs see suffix tense, stative
as evidence for the quantity of verbs
vowels 111, 115 status pronominalis see pronominal
as evidence for sound shifts 56 suffixes
as evidence for vocalization 5 stops 63–64, 69, 76, 78
as evidence with respect to i-class stress 2, 143–154
vowels 133 and pronominal suffixes 265
evidence for anaptyxis in 274–275 and syllabification 70
transliteration of bgdkpt letters 81 antepenultimate 140, 143–144
see also Greek expiratory 70
sequence of two stressed syllables 141, phonemic 143, 145–146, 150
152 stages
ßere 66, 82–84, 88, 90, 98, 100, 104– 1—stress of long vowels nearest
105, 107–108, 111–113, 119–120, ultima 153
123–124, 129, 131–138, 225 2—general penultimate
see also vowel system, e stress 144–146, 150
shared innovation 16–18, 104, 195– 3—loss of final short vowels and
196, 222 development of phonemic
sibilants 64, 69, 76–77 stress 146, 148, 150, 274
Siloam inscription 5, 250 4—inclination to ultimate
¶in 5, 73–75 stress 145–150, 153–155,
sin 74–75 171, 203, 223
solemn reading 117–118, 120, 131, summary of 153
139, 149 stress system of Proto-Hebrew 145
sonorants 64 Canaanite shift see Canaanite shift
sound shift 25–26, 28, 37, 42, 47, 50–51 loss of final short vowels 146,
and historical linguistics 25–26 221
dependency on function 55 penultimate stress 46, 87, 143–
regularity of 26–28, 30–33, 35–37, 146, 151, 236, 285
42, 47–48, 50, 74, 120 and the 1cs/2ms suffix-
exceptions 52 tense 221
00-Blau.book Page 365 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Index of Topics 365

stress, stress system of Proto-Hebrew, suffix-tense, stative verbs (cont.)

penultimate stress (cont.) as present tense 194–195, 198–
and the 2mp/3mp prefix- 199
tense 152 with pronominal suffixes 93–94, 175
and prefix-tense with -n see also analogy, in the suffix-tense
endings 205 superlinear vocalizations 7
and the short prefix- suppletion 53, 176
tense 151, 155, 206 sursaut 32–33, 44–46
and the vocalization of suruq 107–108, 110, 112, 136–138
conversive waw 152 swa 113–118, 140
pausal forms 46–47, 144–147 and dages forte 139
ultimate 46–47, 143, 150 medium 79, 81, 114–115, 130–131,
see also pausal stress shift 174
substantives see nouns and laryngeals-pharyngeals 239
suffix, nominal 275–276 development of 131
suffix-tense 208–212 in plural construct segolates 115,
1cp, relationship to independent 131
personal pronouns 209 in qal infinitives construct 213–
1cs 208 214
grammaticalization of 150 the development of 114–115
relationship to independent personal mobile 67, 80, 105, 113–117, 140,
pronouns 162, 208 142, 147
2p, relationship to independent before aleph 88
personal pronouns 166 pronunciation in Tiberian tradition
2s 208–209 67, 85, 105–106, 116
grammaticalization of 150 replaced by ˙a†af 80, 84–85, 105,
relationship to independent personal 109, 238
pronouns 162, 208 replaced by quiescent swa 115
3fs 46–47, 90, 94, 210–211, 250 two mobile swas 130–131
archaic form 8 with a vowelless consonant 114
3ms 210 see also swa medium
3p 211 quiescent 67, 80, 105, 113–117,
archaic form 8, 212 130
relationship to independent personal in qal infinitives construct 213
pronouns 166, 208 replaced by ˙a†af 29, 130–131,
action/fientive verbs 195–197, 220, 178
261 replacing mobile swa 114–115
affixes of 208 the five rules of 116
as past tense 192, 197 “the rule of” 130–131
as perfective 201 syllabification 70
as prophetic perfect 198–199 syllables
characteristic vowel of 220, 261–262 closed 70
in poetry 198 not containing long vowels 151,
stative verbs 194–196, 199, 201, 196, 206, 235, 252–253
220, 225, 248, 251, 253–254, stressed 149, 155
258–261 unstressed 108
00-Blau.book Page 366 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

366 Index of Topics

syllables (cont.) triphthongs (cont.)

open 70 with an originally long vowel 97
stressed 123, 148, 151 with an originally short vowel 98,
unstressed 123 250
synchronic linguistics see linguistics, word-final 99–102
synchronic
syntagma, closed 195–197 Ugaritic 16, 21, 35, 270
syntax 3–4, 61 and the Canaanite dialects 21–22
study of 62 biradical roots 243–244
see also morphosyntax Canaanite shift 137
synthetic constructions 165 case system 104, 266, 268
system, language 1, 3 causative theme 163, 236
causative t-stem 237
t demonstrative element 179, 264 consonantal h 91, 94–95, 186, 269
Tell el-Amarna see Amarna definite article, absence of 180
tense system 9, 61, 189–199, 201–202 demonstrative element hn 180
and poetry 198 diphthongs 44, 97
and the conversive waw 190–191 directional h 93, 122, 269
see also waw (conversive) D-theme 231–232
and the participle 3, 9 dual 165, 270
historical development of 3, 194– epic 91
195, 199 imperatives 224
H. Bauer’s theory 199–200 infinitive absolute 215
the prefix-tense 196–197 interrogative pronouns 186
the suffix-tense 195, 197 monosyllabic nouns 16, 45
indicative forms 190–192 numbers 281–283
past tense 190–192 participles 254
present/future 190, 192 personal pronouns 160, 163, 167
terminative he see directional he prepositions 284
Tiberian cantillation marks 144 pronominal suffixes 169, 174
see also cantillation marks relative clause 183
Tiberian vocalization 2, 7, 51, 66, 82– sound shifts
85, 110, 116–117, 126, 132, 134, q > d 21, 25, 27, 37–38, 52
137–138, 148, 154, 218, 223, 236, w > ß 39–40
280 ˙/x preserved 32, 37
see also Masoretes t preserved 30
Tigre 18 z preserved 52
topic versus comment 2 tense system
transcription 72, 171 prefix-tense 222
Greek 132 suffix-tense 210
see also Septuagint, Origen 132 t-forms 218
Latin 132 verbs III-y 104, 249
triphthongs 96–97 verbs I-n 243
resulting in a 98–99 uvulars 65, 69, 76
resulting in final œ 49, 53, 100, 103,
137, 250 variant readings 106, 285
00-Blau.book Page 367 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Index of Topics 367

velarized 68 verbs, II-w/y (cont.)

velars 65, 69 and the D-themes 256–258
verbal themes 60–61, 216–219 and the hif ºil 102, 196, 235–236,
of Biblical Hebrew 216 246, 256
of Proto-Hebrew 219 and the nif ºal 103, 228, 255
see also individual themes and the qal 102–103, 216–227,
verbless clause 252
as present 195, 197 as biradical 188, 252–253, 255
in Semitic languages 15 “connective/separating
negation of 225 vowel” 209, 255, 259
verbs 157 historical reconstruction 196, 252
I-ª 87, 240, 242 nature of roots 102–103
in the prefix-tense 238 III-ª 50, 84, 88, 239, 248–249
I-h, elision of he 94–95 analogy with III-y 248
I-˙ 83 and the qal prefix-tense 248
I-laryngeal-pharyngeal 87, 221, and the qal suffix-tense 248
236–238, 240 III-h 89–90, 239
and the bgdkpt letters 79 III-laryngeal-pharyngeal 79, 84,
in the prefix-tense 237 133, 239–240, 246
in the suffix-tense 237 and the infinitive construct 213,
I-n 241–243 226, 240
and lq˙ 243 III-n 77
as biradical 243–244 III-r 239
assimilation of nun 83, 241–242 III-w 102, 209, 249, 255
elision of nun 241–242 III-y 8, 50, 54–55, 90–91, 102, 172–
I-w 51, 102 173, 175, 211, 241, 248–252,
analogy with I-y 51, 102, 104 254, 258
I-w/y 235, 243–248 and the D-themes 258
and hlk 247 and the qal 252
and laryngeal-pharyngeal 246 as triradical 188, 249
and monophthongization 247 in the prefix-tense 175, 250–251
as biradical 244 in the suffix-tense 251
D-themes 245 action/fientive 195–197, 220, 261
hif ºil 8, 245 aspects 189–190, 201–202
hof ºal 245, 247 biradical 187–188
nif ºal 245 cohortative 192–193, 250
qal 8, 51, 246–247 converted tenses see waw conversive
I-y 50–51, 102, 243 final short vowels omitted 223
analogy with I-w 104 geminate 221, 255–256, 258–260
elision of y 243 and the hif ºil 235, 260
II-ª 54 and the hof ºal 260
II-laryngeal-pharyngeal 84, 238– and the nif ºal 228, 260
239, 241 and the qal 225, 259
in the prefix-tense 239, 246 as biradical 188, 258
II-w/y 49–50, 102–103, 245, 252– “connective/separating vowel”
258 209, 255, 259
00-Blau.book Page 368 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

368 Index of Topics

verbs (cont.) vowel system of Biblical Hebrew (cont.)

laryngeal-pharyngeal 238–239 development of short vowels in nouns
moods 192–194 and verbs 119–121, 123–
quadriliteral 237, 257 124
rare themes 237 full vowels 63–66, 105, 108, 112,
reduplication 237, 257–259 137
stative see suffix-tense, stative i-class vowels 106–107, 129, 132–
tenses 189–201 136, 138
t-themes 218–219 e 107, 132–133, 135–
volitive 192–194, 207 138
see also imperative; infinitive; see also ßere
participle; tenses; prefix-tense; plene and defective spelling 106–
suffix-tense 107
Verner’s law 47 see also ˙iriq
virtual doubling 83, 238 long vowels 1–2
voiced/unvoiced sounds 67–69, 77, loss of final short vowels 96, 119–
104–105 120, 146, 151, 154–155, 175, 197,
vowel letters 5–7, 50, 64–65, 67, 73, 267
86, 104–108, 112, 137, 148, 171, and the imperative 203
173, 179, 186, 239, 269, 282 the prefix-tense 206
see also aleph; he; waw; yod markers of quality 106, 108–110,
vowels 14, 63 149
as continuants 64 orthography of historically long
back 66 vowels 67, 106–107
compared with consonants 63 phonemic opposition of long and short
front 66 vowels 82, 110, 112, 132,
high 65–66 225
low 66 phonemic value of vowel marks 2,
rounded 66 112, 118
separating 209 reduction of a
short pretonic 129–130, 148
reduction of 130 see also pretonic
loss of final 47, 55, 146 propretonic 221
see also case endings see also pata˙; qamaß
spread 66 short vowels in closed syllables 108,
trapezoid of vowels 66 110–111, 119–121, 133, 151, 191,
(un)rounded 66 196, 206, 235
w and y as semi-vowels see u-class vowels 107, 129, 136, 138
consonants, semi-consonants o 108, 136
see also anceps; diphthongs, see also ˙olam
monophthongization plene and defective spelling 107–
vowel system of Biblical Hebrew 2, 108
65–66, 112–113 pretonic, preserved by gemination
a-class vowels 106, 111, 122, 129, 136
132, 137–138, 275 see also pretonic
see also pata˙; qamaß see also qibbuß; suruq
00-Blau.book Page 369 Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:29 AM

Index of Topics 369

vowel system of Biblical Hebrew (cont.) waw (conjunction), conversive (cont.)

ultra-short vowels 65, 67, 105, 112 as modal 192–193
allomorphs 117–118 as perfective 201
auxiliary 85, 108, 130–131, 237, as present/future 198
239 vocalization 152, 190, 285
phonemes 117 waw (letter/sound) 64, 70, 96–105
vowel length 111 as vowel letter 104–105
see also anceps shift of initial waw to yod 50, 102–
see also Tiberian vocalization 104, 245
see also consonants, w/y as semi-
w/y see consonants, w/y as semi- consonants; diphthongs;
consonants monophthongization
wave model 19–23, 104 West Semitic
waw (conjunction) 103 and the numbers 281
connective 190–191, 194–195, 202, word derivation 60, 62
285
conversive 9, 142, 147, 105–151, Yaªudic 21–22
155, 190–192, 195, 202, 206, Yemenite pronunciation 106, 109
285–286 yod
and Late Biblical Hebrew 194 as a vowel letter 105
and the prefix-tense 9, 190, 192, see also consonants, w/y as semi-
198 consonants
and the stress system 134, 150–
151, 190, 194, 221 z 25–28
and the suffix-tense 9, 190, 192, z < q 25–28, 30–33, 37–38
198, 221
as iterative or continuous past 9,
198