Edition 1.2

15 December 2011

 

To print use PDF file here

Return to Table of Contents

 

History of the Ancient and Modern Hebrew Language

By David Steinberg

David.Steinberg@houseofdavid.ca

Home page http://www.houseofdavid.ca/

 

Excursus 2

Evolution of Pronunciation and Stress Patterns

(See also Biblical Hebrew Poetry and Word Play - Reconstructing the Original Oral, Aural and Visual Experience )

Box 23 - The Nature of Stress in Ancient and Modern Hebrew

Box 24 - The Independent Pronouns in EBHP and Colloquial Arabic Dialects

Box 25 - The Case System of Proto-Hebrew and  the Pronominal Suffixes of the Noun

Box 26 Nouns - Absolute, Construct and Pronominal Forms

Table 24 - History of Stress and Pronunciation of the Independant Pronoun

Table 25 - History of Stress and Pronunciation of the Pronominal Suffixes of the Noun

Table 26 - Pronominal Object Suffixes of the SC Verb

Table 27 - Pronominal Object Suffixes of the PC Verb

Table 28 - History of the Accusative Particle 'ẹt and its Inflected Form' ōtō = "him"

Table 29 - Stressed Noun Suffixes in Biblical Hebrew

Table 30 - Locative ה

A. The Proto-Hebrew SC  and its Carry-Over into BH

Table 31 - Reconstructed PC Forms in PH and EBHP

Table 32 - Disappearance of Formal Distinctions between PCimp, PCjus and PCpret (not preceded by waC-) in Strong Verb Except for Parts of Hiphil

B. The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System

1. Classes of Verbs

Table 33- Comparison of the Development (PH to TH) of Qal (a-u class) Jussive, Imperative, Infinitive Construct and Infinitive Absolute

Table 34 - Common Stative and Similar Qal Verbs

2. Background on Biblical Hebrew Prefix Conjugation

Table 35 - History of Stress and Pronunciation of the Hebrew Verb Prefix Conjugation

Time and Modal Implications of PC in Various Categories of BH Poetry

3. Background on Biblical Hebrew Suffix Conjugation (traditional "perfect")

Table 36 - History of Stress and Pronunciation of the Hebrew Verb - Suffix Conjugation

4. Participles, Imperatives and Infinitives

Table 37 - History of Stress and Pronunciation of the Hebrew Imperatives, Participles and Infinitives

 

 

Box 21 - The Nature of Stress in Ancient and Israeli Hebrew and MSA

“...The term stress is applied to the phonetic elevation of the voice, although, strictly speaking, the (Biblical) Hebrew stress, unlike that in ancient Greek and Latin, refers rather to more forceful articulation than higher musical pitch, the latter being a secondary element as in Modern Greek, Vulgar Latin... English, Italian etc. That the (Biblical) Hebrew stress is essentially a prominence of intensity or force of articulation is manifest in its effects on the vocalisation. In contrast, the contemporary Israeli pronunciation of Hebrew is characterised by a musical pitch accent.”

Quoted from Joϋon-Muraoka 1991 § 15a

 

"Stress and syllabification are closely related in Hebrew, as in many languages .... In Biblical Hebrew pitch had no phonemic function, and expiratory stress prevailed... 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."

Quoted from Blau 2010 §2.9.

 

Among those who have studied stress, there is no single acceptable definition of what it is and what acoustic parameters may contribute to it. This paper focuses on the dynamic, rhythmic distribution of stress on the phrase level in Arabic. It attempts to determine which of the three acoustic properties intensity, frequency, and duration contributes most to the stressed syllable in an utterance. It also tries to ascertain whether these properties function collectively or individually....

Intensity is an acoustic property that corresponds to loudness. According to Ladefoged (1993:187), "intensity is proportional to the average size, or ampli- tude, of the variations and air pressure." Different phonetic segments differ in sonority. Vowels within the syllable structure normally receive higher sonority than consonants; in particular, long and open vowels are the most sonorous and thus affect both the syllable type and structure in an utterance....

Frequency is an acoustic feature of sound that correlates with pitch and is measured in hertz (Hz). The pitch of a sound can be high or low, depending primarily on the vibration of the vocal cords. The vocal cords complete a cycle of closing and opening that depends on the varia- tion in air pressure that occurs in one second (Cruttenden 1986:1-8; Ladefoged 1993:186-87)....

The duration of a sound may affect the prominence of a syllable. In Arabic, all vowels may occur in either short or long forms; length is phonemic and is indicated in the transcription by a double vowel. At the same time, all of the consonants in Arabic may occur in either single or geminated forms. Accordingly, length for vowels and gemination for consonants are contrastive and phonemic. Vowels can only occur medially and finally, since no syllable or word in Arabic can have an initial vowel. Geminate consonants also occur in medial and final position. Consequently, a word or a syllable can start only with a single consonant. In addition, consonant clusters with a maximum of two members occur medially or finally....

The tentative results obtained from the analysis of the two production experiments ... prove that the placement of stress is on the long syllable, CVV, initially or medially.... The intensity, frequency, and duration measurements of each of the 1,540 syllables tested form the basis of these results. The intensity measurements contributed the most to this conclusion, since they are more directly associated with loudness, which is one feature that results in the relative prominence of a syllable in an utterance. The duration measurements support the positive results obtained from the intensity measurements....

Quoted from Al Ani 1992

 


 

Box 22 - The Independent Pronouns in *EBHP and Colloquial Arabic Dialects[1]

"In its system of pronouns, Hebrew discloses, for a number of persons, two allomorphs - one terminating in a vowel, the other with a consonant.

Person

Independent Pronouns in *EBHP

 

Allomorph Originally Ending with a Short Vowel which may have been Elided

Allomorph Ending with a Long Vowel

2 ms.

את

/ˈʾatta/ > /ˈʾat(t)/ [2]

אתה

/ˈʾattaː/[3]

2 fs.

את

/ˈʾatti/ > /ˈʾat(t)/

אתי

/ˈʾattiː/[4]

3 ms.

הוא

/ˈhuʾa/ > /ˈhuʾ/ > /ˈhû/

הואה

/ˈhuʾaː/[5]

3 fs.

היא

/ˈhiʾa/ > /ˈhiʾ/ > /ˈhî/

היאה

/ˈhiʾaː/[6]

2 mp.

אתם

/ʾatˈtima/ > /ʾatˈtim/

אתמה

/ʾatˈtimaː/[7]

2 fp.

אתן

/ʾatˈtinna/ > /ʾatˈtin(n)/

אתנה

/ʾatˈtinnaː/[8]

3 mp.

הם

/ˈhimma/ > /ˈhim(m)/

המה

/ˈhimmaː/

3 fp.

הן

/ˈhinna/ > /ˈhin(n)/ [9]

הנה

/ˈhinnaː/

A somewhat similar picture obtains in the pronominal systems of Arabic dialects. To exemplify the lines of resemblance, we shall here present the pronominal systems of some dialects in the Syro-Israeli area.

                              Person

Urban Dialects

Rural Dialects

 

Damascus

Bišmizzīn

(Lebanon)

Hōrān

Bīr Zēt

1 cs.

ʾana

ʾana

ani

ana

2 ms.

ʾәnte

ʾinti, ʾint

әnte, әnt

inte, int

2 fs.

ʾәnti

ʾinti

әnti

inti

3 ms.

hūwe

huwwi, hū

hū, hūwa

3 fs.

hiye

hiyyi, hī

hī, hīye

1 cp.

na

nina

әne, әna

ina

2 mp.

ʾәntu

ʾintu

әntu

intu

2 fp.

әntenn

intin

3 mp.

hәnne

hinni, hin

huMM, huMMa

him

3 fp.

henn, henne

hin

The following points are worthwhile noting;

(a) the preservation, from a historical point of view, of the final vowel in the 2nd pers. masc. sing.: Hebrew ʾatta, Arabic dialects inte (and variants).

(b) in the Hebrew forms for the 3rd pers. mast. and fem. sing. and plur. which have a vowel termination - huʾa, hiʾa, hemma, henna - the final vowel ā possibly goes back to ancient -at. Cf, hmt in ancient Phoenician (Byblian) and hwt, hyt, hmt in Ugaritic (in the genitive-accusative case) as well as the genetive-accusative pronominal morphemes šuātu/i, šāti/u (third pers. masc. sing.), šuiāti, šāti (fem. sing.), šunūti (mast. plur.) and šināti (fem. plur.) in Akkadian.

As to the longer forms in Arabic dialects (hūwe, huwwi, etc, for the masc. and hīyeʾ, hiyyi for the fem.), there seems to be no evidence to indicate such a historical development. What would seem plausible is either the assumption that the longer forms have preserved the final vowel of Classical Arabic (huwa, hiya), or, that they developed a new final vowel. But here we touch upon a rather intricate question, the existence of a final vowel in a number pronominal forms (cf. above table) in many Arabic dialects.

 

 

 


Box 23 - The Case System[10] of Proto-Hebrew and the Pronominal Suffixes of the Noun

As illustrated elsewhere, PH originally had a system of case endings similar to that of Classical Arabic[11]. As in Classical Arabic, attached pronominal suffixes, if any, followed the case endings. For the noun forms in the singular, feminine singular this consisted of a system of three cases[12] (nominative - suffix u (constr. u > Ø during PH period); accusative - suffix a (constr. a > Ø during PH period); genitive - suffix i (constr. i > Ø during PH period)). Nouns in the dual, masculine plural and feminine plural all had two cases[13] -

 dual - nominative - suffix áːmi (constr. and before pronominal suffix aː); oblique (= accusative plus genitive) - suffix áymi (constr. and before pronominal suffix ay);

masculine plural - nominative - suffix úːma (constr. and before pronominal suffix uː ); oblique - suffix íːma (constr. and before pronominal suffix iː ); and,

feminine plural - nominative - suffix óːtu (constr. and before pronominal suffix oːt ); oblique - suffix óːti (constr. and before pronominal suffix oːt ).[14]

Thus -

(1) your (ms.) male horse would have been -

Nominative (nom.) - /sūˈsukã/

Accusative (acc) - /sūˈsakã/

Genitive (gen.) - /sūˈsikã/

(2) your (ms.) female horse would have been -

Nominative - /sūsaˈtukã/

Accusative - /sūsaˈtakã/

Genitive - /sūsaˈtikã/

(3) your (ms.) two male horses would have been (suffixes added to construct form) -

Nominative - /sūˈsākã/

Oblique (obl.) - /sūˈsaykã/

(4) your (ms.) male horses would have been (suffixes added to construct form) -

Nominative - /sūˈsūkã/

Oblique - /sūˈskã/

(5) your (ms.) female horses would have been (suffixes added to construct form) -

Nominative - /sūsōˈtukã/

Oblique - /sūsōˈtikã/

At some time, presumably related to the drastic reduction in the use of the dual[15] and the decline of the case system in late BHA phase 2, the oblique ending (íːma > íːm ) became the single suffix for mp. absolute nouns and the dual oblique construct (ay ) became the single suffix for mp. construct nouns and preceded pronominal suffixes attached to plural nouns.

For this reason, in the following table, I will use the general approach in PH reconstructions of showing, where possible, the PH vocalization that developed into the BH form.

 

 

 


Box 24

Nouns - Absolute, Construct and Pronominal Forms

From Blau 2010 §4.4.3

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 governing 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 absolute: דְּבַר־ ‘the speech of’ as opposed to the absolute דָּבָר; צִדְקַת (with the construct feminine ending) ‘righteousness of’ as opposed to the absolute צְדָקָה.... The construct noun is ... 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 hyphenated construct nouns, as is the case, e.g., in בַּת־צִיּוֺן ‘the daughter of Zion’. The vowel of the stressed construct noun was changed by Philippi’s Law and afterward the noun became hyphenated.

4.4.3.2. The status pronominalis, i.e., the status of nouns governing pronominal suffixes (which perform a function similar to that of English possessive 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 lengthening is excluded only before the so-called “heavy” suffixes כֶם-, כֶן- (and הֶם, הֶן; e.g., יֶדְכֶם), 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....

 


 

Table 2 - History of Stress and Pronunciation of the Independent Pronoun

 

*PH

(c. 1200 BCE)

JEH[16]

*/JEH/

(mainly c. 750-586 BCE)

PMT

(c. 400-300 BCE)

EBHP

*/EBHP/+[17] *[EBHP][18]

(c. 850-550 BCE)

PTH

*/PTH/+

 (c. 400 CE)

TH

/TH/+ *[TH]

(c. 850 CE)

BHIH
[BHIH] = [IH]

(present)

1 cs.

/ˈʾanã/ >
( suffix /ῑ/ and verbal object suffix /nī/)
/
ˈʾanī/[19]

אני

אני

/ˈʾanī/[20]

[ˈʔɐniˑ]

/ˈʾanī/ >
/ʾăˈnī/[21]

contextual
/
ˈʾaːnī/

pausal[22]

/ʾăˈni/ [ʔɐ̆ˈniː]

contextual
/
ʾåni/ [ʔɔːniː]

pausal

ˈni]

/ʾaˈnaːkũ/ >
(≈suffixs /ῑ/ and object suffix /nī/)  
/
ʾaˈnoːkī/

[י] אנכ?[23]

אנכי

/ʾaˈnkī/[24]

ɐˈnkiˑ]

/ʾaˈnkī/ 
/ʾa
ːnoːˈkī/

contextual
/ʾ
aːˈnkī/

pausal

/ʾånoˈki/
[ʔɔ
ːnoːˈx]

contextual
/ʾ
åˈnoki/
[ʔɔ
ːˈnoːxiː]

pausal

[ɐnoˈxi]

(pausal

ˈnoxi])

2 ms.

/ˈʾanta/ >
/ˈ’attã/

[ת] א

אתה

/ˈʾatta(ː)/
[ˈʔɐttɐˑ]

 

/ˈʾattaː/
/
ʾatˈtaː/

contextual
/ˈʾaːttaː/

pausal

/ʾatˈtå/
[
ʔɐtˈtɔː]

contextual
/
ˈʾåttå/

[ˈʔɔːttɔː]

pausal

ˈ]

2 fs.

/ˈʾantĩ/ >
/
ˈʾattĩ/[25]

 

את

/ˈʾat(t)/ [ˈʾɐtt]

standard

/ˈʾatti(ː)/
[
ˈʔɐttiˑ]

occasion possibly northern

/ˈʾat/[26]

/ˈʾat/

[ˈʔɐːt]

[ɐt]

3 ms.

/ˈhuwat/ >
/ˈhuã/

הא

 

הוא

 

/ˈhû/? [ˈhuː]

/ˈhuʾ/? [ˈhʊʔ]

/ˈhuʾa(ː)/?

[ˈhʊʔɐˑ][27]

/ˈhû/

/ˈhu/

 [ˈhuː]

[ˈhu] ~ [ˈʔu]

3 fs.

/ˈhiyat/ >
/
ˈhiã/

 

 

היא הוא

 

/ˈhî/? [ˈhiː]

 */ˈhiʾ/? [ˈhɪʔ] */ˈhiʾa(ː)/?

[ˈhɪʔɐˑ]

/ˈhî/

/ˈhi/

[ˈhiː]

[ˈhi] ~ [ˈʔi]

1 cp.

/ˈniḥnã/ > /ˈnaḥnũ/ (≈ object suffix /nū/)
/(
’a)ˈnaḥnū/

נחנו

אנחנו

נחנו (rare)

/ʾaˈnaḥnū/

[ʔɐˈnɐħnuˑ]

/ʾăˈnaːḥnū/

/ʾăˈnaḥnu/

[ʔɐ̆ˈnɐ:ħnu:]

ˈxnu]

2 mp.

/ˈʾantumã/[28] >
/
ʾatˈtimã/

 

אתם

/ʾatˈtim/

[ʔɐtˈtɪm]?
[
ʔɐtˈtɛm]?

/ʾatˈtem/

/ʾatˈtɛm/

[ʔɐtˈtɛːm]

ˈtɛm]

2 fp.

/ˈʾantinnã/ >
/
ʾatˈtinnã/[29]

 

אתנה

Form 1.

/ʾatˈtin(n)/

[ʔɐtˈtɪnn]?
[
ʔɐtˈtɛn]?

Form 2.

/ʾatˈtinnaː/
[ʔɐtˈtɪnnɐˑ]

/ʾatˈten/

/ʾatˈtɛn/

[ʔɐtˈtɛːn]

ˈtɛn]

3 mp.

/ˈhum(ũ)/ > /ˈhimmã/

 

Form 1.

הם

/ˈhim(m)/

[ˈhɪmm]? [ˈhɛm]?

/ˈheːm/

/ˈhẹm/

[ˈhẹːm]

[ˈhɛm],

[ˈʔɛm] ~ [ˈɛm]

 

Form 2.

המה

/ˈhimmaː/ [ˈhɪmmɐˑ]? [ˈhɛmmɐˑ]?

/ˈheːmmaː/

/ˈhẹmmɔ/

[ˈhẹːmmɔː]

[ˈɛmɐ]

3 fp.

/ˈhinn(ã)/

 

 

Form 1.

הן

/ˈhin(n)/

[ˈhɪnn]? [ˈhɛn]?

/ˈheːn/

/ˈhẹn/

[ˈhẹːn]

[ˈhɛn] ~ [ˈʔɛn] ~
[
ˈɛn]

 

 

Form 2.

הנה

/ˈhinna(ː)/  [ˈhɪnnɐˑ]? [ˈhɛnnɐˑ]?

/ˈheːaː/

/ˈhẹnnå/

[ˈhẹːnnɔː]

 

[ˈ] ~
[ˈʔɛ] ~
[ˈɛ]

 


 

Table 25 - History of Stress and Pronunciation of the Pronominal Suffixes of the Noun

 

*PH

(c. 1200 BCE)

JEH[30]

*/JEH/

(mainly c. 750-586 BCE)

PMT

(c. 400-300 BCE)

EBHP

*/EBHP/+ *[EBHP]

(c. 850-550 BCE)

PTH

*/PTH/+

 (c. 400 CE)

TH

/TH/+ *[TH]

(c. 850 CE)

BHIH
[BHIH] = [IH]

(present)

1 cs.

s. noun

/íya/ > /íya/ (obl.)

// [íː] (nom.)

י

י

/î/
[
íː]

/î/
[
íː]

/í/
[
íː]

 

[í]

1 cs.

pl. noun

/áyiya/[31] > /áyya/ > /áyy/

י

י

/áy(y)/[32]

[ɐ́y][33]

/áy/

/áy/

[ɐ́y]

[áy]

1 cs.

SC

/n/

ני, י

ני, י

/nῑ/ [niˑ]

/nῑ/

/ni/ [niː]

[ni]

2 ms.

s. noun

/ákã/[34]

 

כ[35]

ך or rarely כה e.g. Ps 139.5; Pr 24.10

Your (ms.)

/áka(ː)/[36]
[ɐ́ˑ]

/áka(ː)/ /éka(ː)/ >
/ə
ˈkaː/

contextual

/ékaː/

pausal

/əˈkå/
[ə
ˈxɔː]

contextual
/ɛ́kå/
[
ɛ́ːxɔː]

pausal

[ˈxa]

(pausal
[
ɛ́xa])

 

2 ms.

pl. noun

/áykã/[37]

יכ and
יכה occur[38].

יך

/áyka(ː)/[39]
[
ɐ́ykɐˑ]?
[ɛ́yˑ]?

/éːkaː/

/ɛ́ːkå/

[ɛ́ːxɔː]

[ɛ́xa]

2 fs.

s. noun

/íkĩ/[40]

 

ך

/íki(ː)/[41] > /eːk/[42] [ẹːk]

 

/éːk/

/ẹ́k/

[ẹ́ːx]

 

[ɛ́x]

 

2 fs.

pl. noun

/áykĩ/

 

יך יכי (very rare)

/áyki(ː)/ >
/
áyk/ [ɐ́yk]

/áyik/

/áyik/

[ɐ́yix]

[áyix]

3 ms.

s. noun

/hũ/ > /áhũ/[43]

 

ה (normal form),
ו [44], יו(?)

ו  ה (rare)

See Tequ

(Form 1 (usual) /áhu/ > /áhũ/ > /áw/ > /ô/ [óː] OR

/úhũ/ > /ô(h)/ > /ô/

[óː]

Form 2 (rare)  /hu(ː)/ [huˑ]

Form 1

/ô/

Form 2

/huː/

Form 1
/
ó/
[óː]

Form 2
/hu/
[45]
[hu
ː]

 

Form 1

[ó]

Form 2

[ʔu]

3 ms.

p. noun

/áyhũ/

ו, יו, יה(?)

יו[46]

 

See Tequ

Form 1 usual /áyhu(ː)/ > /áyū/ > /áyō/ > /âw/ [áːw][47]

OR

/áyhu(ː)/ > /áwhu(ː)/ > /áwwu(ː)/ > /áww/ > /âw/ [áːw]

Form 2 (rare)

/áyhu(ː)/ >
[
ɐ́yhuˑ]?

[ɛ́yhuˑ]?

Form 1 /aːw/

Form 2 /êhuː/

Form 1
/
åw/

[ɔːw]

 

Form 2
/
hu/

[ẹ́ːhuː]

Form 1

[áv]

 

Form 2

[áʔu]

3 fs.

s. noun

/hã/

 

ה

See Tequ

/áha/ >

/â/ [ɐ́ː][48]

/â/ > /âh/[49] OR

/âh/

/åh/ [ɔ́ːh]

[á]

3 fs.

p. noun

/áyha/

 

יה

/áyha(ː)/

[ɐ́yhɐˑ]?

[ɛ́yhɐˑ]?

/áyha/ /êhaː/

/ɛ́hå/

[ɛ́ːhɔˑ]

[ɛʔa]

1 cp.

s. noun

Singular Noun

/nĩ/ > ( independent pronoun
(ʾa)nanū and the subject suffix -nū) /nū/

 

נו

/ínū/[50]

[ɪ́nuˑ]?

[ɛ́nuˑ]?

/éːnū/

/ẹ́nu/

[ẹ́ːnuː]

[ɛ́nu]

1 cp.

p. noun

Plural Noun

/áyna/ (≈ object suffix /nū/)
 /áynū/

 

ינו

/áynū/

[ɐ́ynuˑ]?
[
ɛ́ynuˑ]?

/éːnū/

/ẹ́nu/

[ẹ́ːnuː]

[ɛ́nu]

2 mp.

s. noun

/aˈkumu/ > /aˈkima/ (acc.)

/iˈkumu/ > /iˈkima/ (gen.)

כם

כם

/aˈkima/ >
/aˈkim/[51]

ˈkɪm]?
ˈkɛm]? OR

/iˈkima/ >
/iˈkim/[52]

ˈkɪm]?
ˈkɛm]?

/ˈkem/[53]

/ˈkɛm/

[ˈxɛːm]

[ˈxɛm]

2 mp.

pl. noun

/ayˈkumu/ >

/ayˈkima/

 

יכם

/áyˈkima/ > /ayˈkim/

[ɐyˈkɪm]?

[ɛyˈkɪm]?

/êˈkem/

/ẹˈkɛm/  [ẹːˈxɛːm]

ˈxɛm]

2 fp.

s. noun

/aˈkinna/ (acc.)

/iˈkinna/ (gen.)

 

כן

/aˈkinna/ > /aˈkin(n)/

[ɐˈkɪnn]?

[ɐˈkɛn]? OR

/iˈkinna/ > /iˈkin(n)/

ˈkɪnn]?

ˈkɛn]?

/ˈken/

[әˈxen]

/ˈkɛn/ [ˈxɛːn]

[ˈxɛn]

2 fp.

pl. noun

Plural Noun

/ayˈkinna/

 

יכן

/ayˈkinna/ > /ayˈkin/

[ɐyˈkɪn]? [ɛyˈkɪn]?

/êˈken/

/ẹˈkɛn/ [ẹːˈxɛːn]

ˈxɛn]

3 mp.

s. noun

/aˈhumu/ > /aˈhima/ (acc.)

/iˈhumu/ > /iˈhima/ (gen.)

ם

Form 1

הם

/aˈhima/ > /aˈhim/

[ɐˈhɪm] OR

/iˈhima/ > /iˈhim/

ˈhɪm]

/ˈheːm/[54]

/ˈhɛm/

[ˈhɛːm]

[ˈɛ́m]

 

 

Form 2

ם

/aˈhima/ /á(ː)m/

[áːm]

/áːm/

/åm/

[ɔ́ːm]

Form 1

[ɛ́m]

Form 2

[m]

3 mp.

pl. noun

/ayˈhumu/

 

Form 1

יהם

/ayˈhim/

[ɐyˈhɪm]? [ɛyˈhɪm]?

/êˈhem/

/ẹˈhɛm/ [ẹːˈhɛːm]

ˈʔɛm]

 

Form 2

ימו ( Poetic)

/áymuː/ > /áymoː/[55]

[ɐymoˑ]?

[ɛymoˑ]?

/êmoː/

/ˈmo/

[ẹːmoː]

[ɛmo]

3 fp.

/aˈhinna/ (acc.)

/iˈhinna/ (gen.)

 

Form 1

הן

/aˈhinna/ > /aˈhin(n)/

[ɐˈhɪnn]?
ˈhɛn]? OR

/iˈhinna/ > /iˈhin(n)/

ˈhɪnn]?
ˈhɛn]?

/aˈhinn/

/ˈheːn/[56]

/ˈhɛn/

[ˈhɛːn]

[ˈɛ́n]

 

Form 2

ן

/ˈhinna/ > /ˈhin/ > /á(ː)n/ [áːn]

/áːn/

/ån/

[ɔ́ːn]

[ˈán]

 

Table 26

Pronominal Object Suffixes of the SC  Verb[57]

 

Suffixed to Forms Ending in Consonant

Suffixed to Forms Ending in Vowel

 

EBHP

*/EBHP/+ *[EBHP] [58]

(c. 850-550 BCE)

TH

EBHP

*/EBHP/+ *[EBHP]

(c. 850-550 BCE)

TH

(c. 850 CE)

1 cs.

ánî

ַנִי

nî

נִי

2 ms.

áka(ː)

ְךָ

ka(ː)

ךָ

2 fs.

éːk

 ֵךְ/ ֶךְ

k

ךְ

3 ms.

áhu(ː)

ָהוּ/

hu(ː)

הוּ

3 fs.

áː

ָהּ

ha(ː)

הָ

1 cp.

á

ָנוּ

נוּ

2 mp.

aˈkim

ְכֶם

 

 

2 fp.

aˈkin

ְכֶן

 

 

3 mp.

áːm

ָם

m

ם

3 fp.

áːn

ָן

n

ן


 

Table 27

Pronominal Object Suffixes of the PC  Verb

 

Suffixed to Forms Ending in Consonant

Suffixed to Forms Ending in Vowel

 

Simple Suffixes

Suffixes With Epenthetic nun[59]

Simple Suffixes

Suffixes With Epenthetic nun

 

*/EBHP/+

TH

*/EBHP/+

TH

*/EBHP/+

TH

*/EBHP/+

TH

1 cs.

ínî

ֵנִי

ínnî

ֶנִּי

nî

נִי

ínnū

ֶנּוּ

2 ms.

íka(ː)

ְךָ

íkka(ː)

ֶךָּ

ka(ː)

ךָ

 

 

2 fs.

éːk

 ֵךְ

 

 

k

ךְ

 

 

3 ms.

íhu(ː)

ֵהוּ

ínnu(ː)

ֶנּוּ

hu(ː)

הוּ

 

 

3 fs.

íha(ː)

ֶהָ

ínna(ː)

ֶנָּה

ha(ː)

הָ

 

 

1 cp.

í

ֵנוּ

 

 

נוּ

 

 

2 mp.

iˈkim

ְכֶם

 

 

kim

כֶם

 

 

2 fp.

iˈkin

ְכֶן

 

 

kin

כֶן

 

 

3 mp.

éːm

ֵם

 

 

m

ם

 

 

3 fp.

éːn

ֵן

 

 

n

ן

 

 

 

Table 28

History of the Accusative Particle ʾt  and its Inflected Form ʾōtô = "him"

 *PH[60]

(c. 1200 BCE)

EBHP

*/EBHP/+ *[EBHP]

(c. 850-550 BCE)

PTH

*/PTH/+ *[PTH]

(c. 400 CE)

TH

/TH/+ *[TH]

(c. 850 CE)

BHIH
[BHIH] = [IH]

(present)

/iyyāt/ > /ʾat/

/ˌ’at/

[ˌʔɐt]? [ˌʔɛt]?

/ˌʾːt/

אֵת

/ˌʾt/ *[ˌʔːθ]

[ɛt] ~ [t]

/ʾɛt/

אֶת־

/ʾɛt/ *[ʔɛθ]

/iyˈyātahũ/ > (by elision of yy) /ˈʾâtahũ/ > /âˈtahũ/ >

/’ôˈtahũ/)[61]

/’ôˈtahũ/ > /’ôˈtaw/ >

/’ôˈtô/

 [ʔoːˈtoː]

/’ôˈtô/

אוֹתוֹ

/’ôˈto/

[ʔoːˈθ]

[oˈto]

 

 

Table 29 - Stressed Noun Suffixes in Biblical Hebrew

Meaning

*PH

(c. 1200 BCE)

EBHP

*/EBHP/+ *[EBHP]

(c. 850-550 BCE)

PTH

*/PTH/+ *[PTH]

(c. 400 CE)

TH

/TH/+ *[TH]

(c. 850 CE)

BHIH
[BHIH] = [IH]

(present)

Number and Gender Inflections

Fem. Sing.[62]

/átum/[63] > /átu/

ה

/át/  > /áː / > /áː/[64] [áː]

/áː /[65]

/å/ [ɔː]

[ɐ]

/ītu/[66]

ית

/īt/ [íːt]

/īt/ [íːθ]

/ít/ [íːθ]

[ít]

/ūtu/

ות

/ūt/ [úːt]

/ūt/ [úːθ]

/út/ [úːθ]

[út]

Dual

/áymi/[67]

ים

/áym/ [ɐ́ym]

/áyim/

/áyim/ [ɐ́ːyim]

 

[ɐ́yɪm]

 

Masc. Plural

/ma/ > /ma/ > /ῑm/

ים

/ῑm/ [íːm]

/ῑm/ [íːm]

/ím/ [íːm]

[ím]

Fem. Plural

/ātum/ > /ātu/ > /ōtu/ > /ōt/

ות

/ōt/ [óːt]

/ōt/ [óːθ]

/ót/ [óːθ]

[ót]

Nouns formed with Suffixes

Agent of action and/or adjective

/ānu/  > /ān/

ן /ān/ [áːn]

/ān/ [áːn]

/ån/ [ɔ́ːn]

[ɐ́n]

/ānu/ > /ōn/

וֹן /ōn/ [óːn]

/ōn/ [óːn]

/ón/ [óːn]

[ón]

Nisba - gentilic and, more generally “belonging to”.

/yu/ > /ῑy/ > /î/[68]

י (ms.) // [íː]

ים (mp.) /ˈyῑm/

[iːˈyiːm]

ית (fs.) /ῑt/ [íːt]

יות (fp.) /ˈyōt/

[iːˈyoːt]

// [íː]

/ˈyῑm/

[iːˈyiːm]

/t/ [íːθ]

/ˈt/

/í/ [íː]

/iˈyim/

[iːˈyiːm]

/ít/ [íːθ]

/iˈyot/ [iːˈyoːθ]

[í]

[iˈyim]

[ít]

[iˈyot]

Abstract

/ūtu/ > /ūt/[69]

ות (sing.)

/ūt/ [úːt]

/ūt/

[úːθ]

/út/

[úːθ]

[út]

ויות (pl.)

/ūˈyōt/ [uːˈyoːt]

/ūˈt/

/uˈyot/

[uːˈyoːθ]

[uˈyot]

 

 

Table 30

Locative ה[70]

(e.g. הַבַּיְתָה ‘homeward’)

EBHP

*/EBHP/+ *[EBHP]

(c. 850-550 BCE)

PTH

*/PTH/+ *[PTH]

(c. 400 CE)

TH

/TH/+ *[TH]

(c. 850 CE)

BHIH
[BHIH] = [IH]

(present)

/ah/ [ɐh]+

/â/+

/å/ [ɔː]+

/a/ [ɐ]+

+ unstressed suffix.

See - Tequ - Locative ה

 

Go to Part 2

Return to Table of Contents

 



[1] The material in this box was adapted from Morag 1989 pp. 111-114.

[2]  Rare in BH (Num. 11.15; Dt. 5.24; Ezek. 2814), common in post-biblical Hebrew (see Kutscher 1977 p. 10 ).

[3] According to Hendel-Lambdin-Huehnergard p. 19 ʾattāh (BH).

[4]  Only as a ketib form. See Gesenius, p. 106. We shall not deal here with the forms for this person.

[5]  In the Dead Sea Scrolls. See Morag 1954.

[6]  In the Dead Sea Scrolls. See Morag 1954.

[7]  In the Dead Sea Scrolls. See Morag 1954.

[8]  Four occurrences in the Bible (Gen. 31.6; Ezek. 13.11,20; 3417).

[9]  This form occurs in BH only when preceded by prepositions.

[10] See Blau 2010 §4.4.4.

[11] Cf. Classical and Modern Standard Arabic Haywood and Nahmad 1965 chapt. 9.

[12] Cf. Classical and Modern Standard Arabic Haywood and Nahmad 1965 chapt. 4.

[13] Cf. Classical and Modern Standard Arabic Haywood and Nahmad 1965 chapt. 5.

[14] See Blau 2010 §4.4.5.8.

[15] See Blau 2010 §4.4.5.2.

[16] Unless otherwise noted source for JEH is Gogel ch.3.

[18] Note, in reconstructed [EBHP] transliterations and sound files -

1.there is no spirantization of the bgdkpt consonants - http://www.houseofdavid.ca/anc_heb_tequ.htm#bgdpt;

2. vowel qualities are outlined here - http://www.houseofdavid.ca/anc_heb_6.htm#ebhp_vow_qual;

3. I use the most probable form. Where no one form stands out as most probable, I select the one closest to the MT vocalization.

4. when multiple forms are possible, the form used is underlined.

[19] See Harris 1939 p. 74 for אני displacing אנכי.

[20] According to Hendel-Lambdin-Huehnergard p. 19 ’ănî (BH).

[21] Blau 2010 §3.5.12.2.11.

[22] See Blau 2010 §3.5.13.

[23] Proposed by Pardee (nk[y], L 6:8) but not proven - Gogel p. 153.

[24] According to Hendel-Lambdin-Huehnergard p. 19 ʾānōk(BH).

[25] See Harris 1939 p. 75.

[26] Blau 2010 §3.5.1.1.3.

[27] See Gogel p. 153 footnote 179. QH uses the longer forms. Morag 1988 (pp. 156-157) states -

Not much is known about the history of hw'h and hy'h in Hebrew prior to the Qumran period. One may only surmise that at an earlier period there was a dialectal variation as to the distribution of the short forms hw', hy', hm, hn (possibly also 'tm, 'tn) and the long ones hw'h, hy'h, hmh, hnh ('tmh, 'tnh). Needless to say, the long forms hw'h, hy'h, unattested outside QH, are in no way to be regarded as a continuation of LBH. They definitely constitute a particularly interesting feature of GQH, which, as proposed above, may be traced back to the morphological structure of some old dialects.

[28] According to Hendel-Lambdin-Huehnergard p. 19 ʾantum(ũ).

[29] Hendel-Lambdin-Huehnergard p. 19 would have ʾattin(nã).

[30] Unless otherwise noted source for JEH is Gogel ch.3.

[31] Dual oblique form which formed the basis for BH form.

[32] See also Beyer p.40.

[33] “When ו and י are not used as mater lectionis, they are pronounced. This is true in the following cases where the preceding vowel is heterogeneous …. In these combinations the ו and י probably have a consonantal value, e.g. ַי =ay, and not ai, ָו  = åw and not åu.”. From Joϋon-Muraoka 1991 § 7d.

[34] Accusative form which formed the basis for BH form due to affect of vowel harmony.

[35] N.b. there are no special final letter forms in Paleo-Hebrew script.

[36] From Blau 2010 §4.4.3.2n.

The “heavy” suffixes are invariably stressed. The suffix ךָ- attached to singular nouns (as in יׇדְךָ) bears the stress as well, but this stress is secondary (see §3.5.12.2.8, p. 147). The original penultimate stress has also been preserved in pause (יׇדֶךָ) in plural nouns (יׇדֶיךָ).

Swee also Blau 2010 §3.5.7.3.1, 4.2.3.3.

[37] From Blau 2010

4.2.3.3.4. Pronominal suffixes added to a noun in the dual/plural are preceded by *-ay (the former dual ending): יָדֶיךָ, יָדַיִךְ. The feminine suffix is -k after dual/plural as well: *yadaykĩ > *yadayk > (by opening of the final cluster) יָדַיִךְ.

4.2.3.3.4n. Because of the frequency of pronominal suffixes after nouns denoting double body parts (יָדֶיךָ ‘your hands’, עֵינֶיךָ ‘your eyes’), the Proto-Semitic dual ending *-ay superseded 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 feminine pronominal suffix was elided (*yadaykĩ > *yadayk > (by opening of the final cluster) יָדַיִךְ;).

[38] Gogel p. 155.

[39] For long vowel ā see Gogel pp. 59 footnote 94.

[40] Genitive form which formed the basis for BH form due to affect of vowel harmony.

[41] So Blau 2010 §4.2.3.3.1. The last vowel that was lost displaced the original case vowel. However, Beyer p.40 favors /ákiː/.

[42] See Harris 1939 p. 75.

[43] See Harris 1939 pp. 55-56.

[44] Only probable case is <bw> in Ketef Hinnom inscription - Barkay et. al. 2003 p. 70.

[45] Cf. Gen 1:11(למינו) to vs. 12 (למינהו).

[46] Anderson 1999 p. 21 "... the adding of a (silent!) yod to -āw, "his" on plural noun stems, apparently a purely scribal marker with no phonetic value." Sarfatti 1982 p. 65 -

Third m.s. suffix added to plural endings, -w : ʾnšw  "his men" (Lachish 3:18); ʾlw "unto him" (Yavneh-Yam 13). According to Gordis ... there are 158 words in the Bible in which the 3 m.s. pronominal suffix appears in the ketib with the defective spelling -w, while the Qere is -yw.... The purpose of the Qere is not to correct the text (i.e. yādāw instead of yādô ), but to point out the vocalization tradition followed by the Masoretes (read yādāw !).... Since the historical development of this suffix is *-ayhu > *-āhu  > *-āu (e.g. *-yādayhu > *-yādāhu  > *-yādāu ), the defective spelling (= MT ָו  ) is phonetic, while the plene spelling (= MT ָיו  )  retains the etymological yod.

[47] Blau 2010 §4.2.3.4.2.

[48] Blau 2010 §3.3.5.3.4.

[49] the restoration of the [h] could be due to the influence of Aramaic where it is retained in 2ms and 2fs pronominal suffixes.

[50] See Beyer p.40.

[51] See Harris 1939 p. 51.

[52] See Harris 1939 p. 51.

[53] Probably pronounced [әˈxem].

[54] Probably pronounced [ɐ̆ˈheːm].

[55] For the מו ending see Robertson 1972 pp. 65-69.

[56] Probably pronounced [ɐ̆ˈheːm].

[57] See any standard grammar e.g. van der Merwe et al. §17.

[58] Note, in reconstructed [EBHP] transliterations and sound files -

1.there is no spirantization of the bgdkpt consonants;

2. vowel qualities are outlined here;

3. I use the most probable form. Where no one form stands out as most probable, I select the one closest to the MT vocalization.

4. when multiple forms are possible, the form used is underlined.

[59] These forms were originally appended to the imperfect, later spreading to other SC forms (see Rainey 1985 pp. 10-12). In the MT these forms should be considered to carry no semantic value. (See Joϋon-Muraoka 1991 §61f; Greenstein 1988 p. 8 ff..)

[60] See Blau 2010 §4.4.4.3n.

[61] Blau 1998 p. 151.

[62] For development see Harris 1939 p. 67-68.

[63] For loss of mimation see Harris 1939 pp. 32-33.

[64] See Blau 2010 §4.2.3.5.2n.

[65] the restoration of the [h] could be due to the influence of Aramaic where it is retained in 2ms and 2fs pronominal suffixes.

[66] See Blau 2010 §4.4.6.9.

[67] From Blau 2010 §4.4.5.5.

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 the singular noun (יָד - יָדַיִם). The feminine ending is preserved before the dual ending (ֹשְנָתַיִם). In construct and status pronominalis the -n is omitted....

[68] See Blau 2010 §4.4.6.8.

[69] See Blau 2010 §4.4.6.9.

[70] Joϋon-Muraoka 1991 §93c; Blau 2010 § 3.3.5.1.5, 3.3.5.2.4, 3.3.5.3.3.4, 3.3.5.3.3.4n, 3.5.7.2.3, 3.5.12.2.8n, 3.5.12.2.12, 4.4.4.13.; Blau 1981 §5.1; Manuel 1995 p. 57. For the possible origin and history of this form see The Terminative-Adverbial in Canaanite-Ugaritic and Akkadian by E. A. Speiser, Israel Exploration Journal Vol 4, No. 2, 1954.