Varda Books



 View book pages:
 Buy this book:
  eBookshuk
  




190 Morphology a) forms

by Zeev Ben-Hayyim
190  Morphology a) forms existing side- by- side, such as pu: nätdti, netdn, nütsn; rror: yesdb, yüsdb; ΓΠΤ: zeba, zäba; b) morphological suppletion, that is, different patterns in singular and plu­ral or in masculine and feminine, e. g., p n : rebas — rebtsdm; bsi: nefdl — nafalat; üsw: süfätpm — säfäti ( construct state); xw: annüsädm — näsäi ( construct state); etc. This kind of inflection of the participle cannot be explained by phonological processes acting on one basic form, as is the case with yädtm — yädäi; see 1.3.3. Parallel forms are found in TH as well, of course, but to a much smaller degree: tf^/ töTi1? and ιφ/ ιώ ( the latter outside the biblical cor­pus). Given the tendency of the Samaritan tradition to unify and harmonize, we may assume that this tradition made use of the variety of forms to express differences of meaning and exegesis, but this point is not sufficiently obvious and is in need of detailed investigation. Nonetheless, we note a certain ten­dency to use the füqdd and füqäd patterns to express a nominal function when a given verb has another pattern as well. Of the brook described in Dt 9: 21, the Samaritan tradition realizes τνπ ( without i!) as ayyütdd, i. e., continually descending, while the descent of the angels of Gn 28: 12 is pronounced wyäreddm. For the expression  pxnnw ( or  p x n . . .  ) , meaning a permanentresident, 1 4 8 the  form yüsdb is employed ( Gn 13: 7, 50: 11, Nu 14: 14), and in each of those places ST is careful to render it as ΎΙΉ or ΊΧΗ, while in all other places, zur is pronounced yüsdb ( or at times yasab; see below) and translated as  ixi. Similarly, pa with the definite article is annütdn ( in Ex 16: 29: nütdn), mean­ing  regularly, continually gives, while in all other appearances, the particip­le jru is realized as natdn ( or netdn [ Ex 5: 10] or natan). Note also the difference between leqa npb ( Dt 27: 25) and lüqäi Tip1? ( Gn 19: 14). The distinction be­tween nominal and verbal participles is well known from Palestinian Aramaic and SA: qätel  is verbal, qätöl is nominal. This distinction is to be found in MH as well. 1 4 9 However,  it would seem that we are dealing here with a tendency alone, and in any case, our sources — the translations and exegesis — are not able to instruct us as to the exact function of each of the parallel forms, and the fact of morphological suppletion attests to the weakness of these distinctions 1 4 8 It would be relevant to contrast  jyjDn p x rrorr ( yüsabl) ( Gn 50: 11) with  ηπ  an 71ΓΟ nw rnsyi ( yesdb!) ( Gn 23: 10), or with impn 3WV  DJK  WK ( SP yesdb n « r!) ( Gn 24: 3). 1 4 9 This issue is discussed briefly in LOT III/ 2, 109, n. to lines 79- 80. The  distinction between nominal and verbal participles in SA is clearly evident from the ancient liturgical poetry, as noted there, e. g., Ιϊιγρ yäob  a giver : an yaab  giving; ] 1KT zäon ( from the root ρτ)  nourishes : ) KT zadti  nourishing, ibid., 168; Tny  abod  creator :  ny  abdd  creating, ibid., 89. An interesting parallel in MH is to be found in Debarim Rabba ( ed. Lieberman, Jerusalem 1939/ 40), 22, where D- Qy onx ( Dt 2: 4) is explained as omay onx. [ As to the semantic distinction between these two kinds of participles, see now M. Mishor, The Tense System  in Tannaitic He­brew ( Ph. D. thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1983], 170 [ Hebrew]. Chapter Home  | TOC  | Index t t

Zoom in  zoom  Zoom out
  << Topic >>             |<   <<    Page       >>   >|  
190 Morphology a) forms existing side- by- side, such as pu: nätdti, netdn, nütsn; rror: yesdb, yüsdb; ΓΠΤ: zeba, zäba; b) morphological suppletion, that is, different patterns in singular and plu­ral or in masculine and feminine, e. g., p n : rebas — rebtsdm; bsi: nefdl — nafalat; üsw: süfätpm — säfäti ( construct state); xw: annüsä'dm — näsä'i ( construct state); etc. This kind of inflection of the participle cannot be explained by phonological processes acting on one basic form, as is the case with yä'dtm — yädä'i; see 1.3.3. Parallel forms are found in TH as well, of course, but to a much smaller degree: tf^/ töTi1? and ιφ/ ιώ ( the latter outside the biblical cor­pus). Given the tendency of the Samaritan tradition to unify and harmonize, we may assume that this tradition made use of the variety of forms to express differences of meaning and exegesis, but this point is not sufficiently obvious and is in need of detailed investigation. Nonetheless, we note a certain ten­dency to use the füqdd and füqäd patterns to express a nominal function when a given verb has another pattern as well. Of the brook described in Dt 9: 21, the Samaritan tradition realizes τνπ ( without i!) as ayyütdd, i. e., continually descending, while the descent of the angels of Gn 28: 12 is pronounced wyäreddm. For the expression \\" pxnnw\\" ( or \\" p x n . . . \\" ) , meaning a permanent resident, 1 4 8 the form yüsdb is employed ( Gn 13: 7, 50: 11, Nu 14: 14), and in each of those places ST is careful to render it as ΎΙΉ or ΊΧΗ, while in all other places, zur is pronounced yüsdb ( or at times yasab; see below) and translated as \\" ixi. Similarly, pa with the definite article is annütdn ( in Ex 16: 29: nütdn), mean­ing \\" regularly, continually gives,\\" while in all other appearances, the particip­le jru is realized as natdn ( or netdn [ Ex 5: 10] or natan). Note also the difference between leqa npb ( Dt 27: 25) and lüqä'i Tip1? ( Gn 19: 14). The distinction be­tween nominal and verbal participles is well known from Palestinian Aramaic and SA: qätel is verbal, qätöl is nominal. This distinction is to be found in MH as well. 1 4 9 However, it would seem that we are dealing here with a tendency alone, and in any case, our sources — the translations and exegesis — are not able to instruct us as to the exact function of each of the parallel forms, and the fact of morphological suppletion attests to the weakness of these distinctions 1 4 8 It would be relevant to contrast ' jyjDn p x rrorr ( yüsabl) ( Gn 50: 11) with ηπ ' an 71ΓΟ nw rnsyi ( yesdb!) ( Gn 23: 10), or with impn 3WV ' DJK \\" WK ( SP yesdb n « r!) ( Gn 24: 3). 1 4 9 This issue is discussed briefly in LOT III/ 2, 109, n. to lines 79- 80. The distinction between nominal and verbal participles in SA is clearly evident from the ancient liturgical poetry, as noted there, e. g., Ιϊιγρ yä'ob \\" a giver\\" : an' ya'ab \\" giving\\"; ] 1KT zä'on ( from the root ρτ) \\" nourishes\\" : ) KT za'dti \\" nourishing,\\" ibid., 168; Tny ' abod \\" creator\\" : \\" ny ' abdd \\" creating,\\" ibid., 89. An interesting parallel in MH is to be found in Debarim Rabba ( ed. Lieberman, Jerusalem 1939/ 40), 22, where D'- Qy onx ( Dt 2: 4) is explained as omay onx. [ As to the semantic distinction between these two kinds of participles, see now M. Mishor, The Tense System in Tannaitic He­brew ( Ph. D. thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1983], 170 [ Hebrew]. << Chapter >> Home | TOC | Index t t
Zoom in  zoom  Zoom out
  << Topic >>             |<   <<    Page       >>   >|  

Varda Books - 1-59045-916-4


 Other related titles:
Hebrew-English Tanakh: the Jewish BibleHebrew-English Tanakh: the Jewish Bible

 Already viewed books:
A Grammar of Samaritan HebrewA Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew


TANAKH - INTERACTIVE HEBREW BIBLE