Varda Books



 View book pages:
 Buy this book:
  eBookshuk
  




80 Phonology Abu Sa id

by Zeev Ben-Hayyim
80  Phonology Abu Said, that the correct pronunciation of the pronominal suffix DD- is with fatha, i. e., kamma, not with kasra, i. e., kimma. See L O T I, 141, 143. Rule ( d), too, comes through clearly, though the words demonstrating its va­lidity are extremely few, such as tum oinn. There is no reasonable way to inter­pret such a form except as a result of * tüum  * tuüm ( 1.3.3), with the original form certain and in accordance with Rule ( d). With regard to Rule ( b), which clashes both with ( d) ( i. e., b[ 2]) and with ( c) ( i. e., b[ 1]), its existence in SH cannot be proved, since a form such as lebäb may have developed in SH from naV*, similar to  flan — emor, and had rule ( d) not been proven it would have been possible to derive emor from a base like ΤΗ Ίΐ& π*. Also, if we compare such forms as yedabberu, yittenu ( b[ 3]) with yissäbu inw, yissäu ixr, where the second radical is vocalized with a, they can easily be explained on the basis of Rule ( d). In a similar fashion one should explain sila ybx or zärü yriT on the basis of Rule ( d)( 1.3.1a). Similarly, in telad ibn, yelak the vowel of the prefix can be explained on the basis of Rule ( d). It may be possible to view the e/ α interchange as an indication of the existence of Rule ( b) in SH ( 1.5.1.2), for Θ usually derives from i/ e after a loss of stress; it may, however, develop in rare cases from vowels other than i/ e as well ( see LOT III/ l, 23, n. 26). If, in fact, the rule that i  e in an open syllable adjacent to the stress did not apply in the form of Hebrew which relates to SH, but rather i  sewa ( cf. kämtannem DlixnaD; see 2.2.1.5.2) — then that rule dis­plays more phonological order than TH, and simultaneously shows an ex­tremely interesting parallel to the development of the u vowel. Note: The conclusion that the i e shift did not take place in SH can be strengthened as follows: the noun naw took the form geniba ( 4.1.5.6), which, upon adding the 3rd sing. pronominal suffix, became gänäbtu, in accordance with the noun declension described in 4.1.5.7[ 4], The suf-fixed form shows that the vowel following the 2 was originally a short i — just as it was short in the TH form nan with the sere — and this i developed into a according to Philippis Law and into a long i when it did not shorten to sewa. 1.5.2.2 a Examples: dabar-, kanaf-, katip-, gann-, maqra-, maqnay-, mattan-, mahmad-, samar-, samarti, samartikä, samarü, yismur-, yilbas-, yilbasü, yahmud-. In TH the vowel a split into two, patah and qames ( which is a kind of Λ, see 1.2.7.2). Except for a few cases this vowel developed: a. into patah in a closed syllable [ 1] stressed, as in: | a,  ηιηψ; [ 2] unstressed, as in: jria, DHJana, η^ οψ. Chapter Home  | TOC  | Index

Zoom in  zoom  Zoom out
  << Topic >>             |<   <<    Page       >>   >|  
80 Phonology Abu Sa'id, that the correct pronunciation of the pronominal suffix DD- is with fatha, i. e., kamma, not with kasra, i. e., kimma. See L O T I, 141, 143. Rule ( d), too, comes through clearly, though the words demonstrating its va­lidity are extremely few, such as tum oinn. There is no reasonable way to inter­pret such a form except as a result of * tü'um < * tu'üm ( 1.3.3), with the original form certain and in accordance with Rule ( d). With regard to Rule ( b), which clashes both with ( d) ( i. e., b[ 2]) and with ( c) ( i. e., b[ 1]), its existence in SH cannot be proved, since a form such as lebäb may have developed in SH from naV*, similar to \\" flan — emor, and had rule ( d) not been proven it would have been possible to derive emor from a base like ΤΗ Ίΐ& π*. Also, if we compare such forms as yedabberu, yittenu ( b[ 3]) with yissäbu inw, yissä'u ixr, where the second radical is vocalized with a, they can easily be explained on the basis of Rule ( d). In a similar fashion one should explain sila ybx or zä'rü yriT on the basis of Rule ( d)( 1.3.1a). Similarly, in telad ibn, yelak the vowel of the prefix can be explained on the basis of Rule ( d). It may be possible to view the e/ α interchange as an indication of the existence of Rule ( b) in SH ( 1.5.1.2), for Θ usually derives from i/ e after a loss of stress; it may, however, develop in rare cases from vowels other than i/ e as well ( see LOT III/ l, 23, n. 26). If, in fact, the rule that i > e in an open syllable adjacent to the stress did not apply in the form of Hebrew which relates to SH, but rather i > sewa ( cf. kämtannem D'lixnaD; see 2.2.1.5.2) — then that rule dis­plays more phonological order than TH, and simultaneously shows an ex­tremely interesting parallel to the development of the u vowel. Note: The conclusion that the i> e shift did not take place in SH can be strengthened as follows: the noun naw took the form geniba ( 4.1.5.6), which, upon adding the 3rd sing. pronominal suffix, became gänäbtu, in accordance with the noun declension described in 4.1.5.7[ 4], The suf-fixed form shows that the vowel following the 2 was originally a short i — just as it was short in the TH form nan with the sere — and this i developed into a according to Philippi's Law and into a long i when it did not shorten to sewa. 1.5.2.2 a Examples: dabar-, kanaf-, katip-, gann-, maqra-, maqnay-, mattan-, mahmad-, samar-, samarti, samartikä, samarü, yismur-, yilbas-, yilbasü, yahmud-. In TH the vowel a split into two, patah and qames ( which is a kind of Λ, see 1.2.7.2). Except for a few cases this vowel developed: a. into patah in a closed syllable [ 1] stressed, as in: | a, ' ηιηψ; [ 2] unstressed, as in: jria, DHJana, η^ οψ. << Chapter >> Home | TOC | Index
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