Verbal Morphology in the Karaite Treatise on Hebrew Grammar Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud f¯ı Tas. a¯r¯ıf al-Lu˙ga al-#Ibr¯aniyya
...
129 downloads
768 Views
1MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
Verbal Morphology in the Karaite Treatise on Hebrew Grammar Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud f¯ı Tas. a¯r¯ıf al-Lu˙ga al-#Ibr¯aniyya
Études sur le Judaïsme Médiéval Fondées par
Georges Vajda Dirigées par
Paul B. Fenton
TOME LI
Cambridge Genizah Studies Series Edited by
Siam Bhayro, University of Exeter Geoffrey Khan, University of Cambridge Ben Outhwaite, Cambridge University Library
VOLUME 2
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.nl/ejm.
Verbal Morphology in the Karaite Treatise on Hebrew Grammar Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud f¯ı Tas. a¯r¯ıf al-Lu˙ga al-#Ibr¯aniyya By
Nadia Vidro
LEIDEN • BOSTON 2011
This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Vidro, Nadia. Verbal morphology in the Karaite treatise on Hebrew grammar Kitab al-'Uqud fi tasarif al-luga al-'Ibraniyya / by Nadia Vidro. p. cm. – (Etudes sur le Judaisme medieval, ISSN 0169-815X ; t. 51) (Cambridge genizah studies series ; v. 2) Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. ISBN 978-90-04-21424-8 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Abu al-Faraj Harun ibn al-Faraj, 11th cent. 'Uqud fi tasarif al-lughah al-'Ibraniyah. 2. Hebrew language–Study and teaching–Karaim speakers–Early works to 1500. 3. Hebrew language–Grammar. 4. Hebrew language–Verb. 5. Hebrew language–Morphology. I. Title. II. Series. PJ4912.H373V57 2011 492.4'5–dc23 2011025084
ISSN 0169-815X ISBN 978 90 04 21424 8 Copyright 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.
To my family
CONTENTS
List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transcription Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
xi xiii xvii
Chapter One. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. History of the Karaite Grammatical Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Aims of the Present Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 1 3
Chapter Two. Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud f¯ı Tas. a¯r¯ıf al-Lu˙ga al-#Ibr¯aniyya . . . . . . . . .. Reconstruction of the Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Author and Title of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Contents of the Treatise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Nature of the Treatise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Sources of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Reception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 5 7 10 14 14 22
Chapter Three. The Method of Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. The Concept of Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Development of the Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Division of Symbols into Conjugational Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Symbols Based on the Initial Vowels of the Imperative and the Past . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Symbols Based on the Final Vowels of the Imperative and the Past . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Arrangement of Symbols and Conjugational Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. The Extension of the System of Symbols in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud and Me"or #Ayin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Widening of the Range of Forms Accounted for within the System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Modification of the Approach to Verbal Derivation ... Principles of Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Conjugational Patterns Introduced for a Combination of Reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Morphological Value of Symbols and Conjugational Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27 27 28 32 33 36 37 38 39 39 40 47 48
viii
contents
Chapter Four. Description of a Conjugational Pattern in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Sets of Forms of Sample Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Lists of Structurally Identical Imperatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Tables of Forms with Object Suffixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter Five. Symbols and Conjugational Patterns in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Symbols Based on the Initial Vowels of the Imperative and the Past . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Symbol à á ä . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Symbol épb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Symbol úT"t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Symbol ì òeÖ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Symbol ïðÇk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Symbol äTé!Ö . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Symbol ä ì Ö . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Symbol Çøé!Ö . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Symbol ä k î . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Symbol ä á à . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Symbol é!ì ò . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Symbol _U a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Symbols Based on the Final Vowels of the Imperative and the Past . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Symbol á ñ î . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Symbol ä@ ò . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Symbol éD ò . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Symbol òK a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Symbol éX t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter Six. Morphological Theories in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Status of Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Radicals vs. Non-radicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Root, Auxiliary, Built-in and Affixed Letters . . . . . . . . . .. Principles of Verbal Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Analysis of Individual Verb Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Hiph#il Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Hitpa#el Verbs with the Assimilation of the Prefix Taw into the First Radical. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
53 53 56 57
65 65 65 68 74 76 76 77 80 81 82 85 86 87 88 88 95 99 101 101 103 103 103 106 110 114 114 117
contents ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
ix
Final Heh Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Third Guttural Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Middle Weak Verbs in Pa#al . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Passive Imperative Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pausal Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instances of Babylonian Type Vocalization . . . . . . . . . . Final Aleph Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . First Nun, First Yod (Original First Waw) and Similar Verbs in Pa#al (‘Imperatives Which Do not Have a Past Form’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Forms of Pronominal Suffixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
119 122 124 126 129 131 136
Chapter Seven. Rules of Derivational Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Definition and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Corpus of Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. The Structure of Rules of Derivational Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Rules of Derivational Relations vs. Other Remarks on Verbal Morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Rules of Derivational Relations and the System of Symbols .. Rules of Derivational Relations and Binyanim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Function of Rules of Derivational Relations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Relationship between the Material in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud and Me"or #Ayin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
143 143 144 149
Chapter Eight. Pedagogical Strategies in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Lucidity of Conjugational Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Choice of Verbs Included in the Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Didactic Elements in Pattern Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Capturing Regularities in Verb Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Mnemonics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Mnemonics Based on Consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Mnemonics Based on Vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Mnemonics Based on Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Classification of Sample Imperatives by Mnemonics .. Algorithms of Parsing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Algorithms for Establishing Imperative Bases . . . . . . . ... Algorithms for Determining Nuclear Components of Complex Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Model Analyses of Biblical Passages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
137 138
150 152 154 155 156 165 166 166 167 169 170 170 171 172 172 173 173 175 175
x
contents
Chapter Nine. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Index of Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Classmark Abbreviations: II Firk. FEA T-S Mosseri JTS ENA BL Bodl.
the second Firkovitch Collection in the National Library of Russia, St. Petersburg II Firk. Evr.-Arab. Taylor-Schechter Genizah Collection in the Cambridge University Library, Cambridge, UK Jacques Mosseri Genizah Collection, presently in the Cambridge University Library, Cambridge, UK Genizah Collection of the Jewish Theological Seminary, New York, USA British Library Genizah Collection, London, UK The Bodleian Library Genizah Collection, Oxford, UK
TRANSCRIPTION GUIDE
. Judaeo-Arabic Consonants
Arabic
JudaeoArabic à á ú ®
ú ®
â ç ®
ë ã ®
ã ø æ ñ ù ö
Transcription
JudaeoArabic
Arabic
®
U
"* b t t ¯ j h. h ˘ d d ¯ r z s ˇs s.
ö è ®
è ò â ô ÷ ë ì î ð ä å é
* (initial alif is not represented)
Long Vowels
Arabic
JudaeoArabic à å é
Transcription a¯ u¯ ¯ı
Transcription d. t. z. # g˙ f q k l m n h w y
xiv
transcription guide Short Vowels fatha . kasra damma .
a i u
. Hebrew Consonants à a á â ã ä å æ ç è é k ë
"* b b ¯ g d h w z h. t. y k k ¯
ì î ð ñ ò t ô ö ÷ ø Ö × ú
l m n s # p p¯ s. q r ˇs s t
* (initial aleph is not represented)
Only the fricative bkp of the bgd kpt set are distinguished with diacritics. Hebrew grammatical terms commonly used in English are given in their usual form, e.g. dagesh rather than dageˇs, aleph rather than alep¯, samekh rather than samek. ¯
transcription guide
xv
Vowels Vowel length is not represented. The transcription of hateph vowels is . identical with that of their full counterparts and is not given in the table below. qamas. , patah. s. ere, segol holam . qamas. qat. an
a e o o
hireq . shuruq, qubbus. vocalic shewa
i u e
PREFACE
The present volume is dedicated to an anonymous medieval Karaite treatise on Hebrew grammar Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud f¯ı Tas. a¯r¯ıf al-Lu˙ga al-#Ibr¯aniyya composed in the middle of the th century. This hitherto unpublished work includes one of the most complete Karaite accounts of the verbal system of Biblical Hebrew. It is, furthermore, an important source for the study of didactic strategies applied by medieval Karaites in teaching grammar. The present volume is restricted to the reconstruction of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud from unpublished manuscripts and a study of grammatical theories and didactic tools as they are reflected in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud and other Karaite works on verbal morphology. A critical edition and translation of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud will be published separately. This book is based on my PhD thesis written at the University of Cambridge, St. Edmund’s College. I am indebted to the Cambridge Overseas Trust and the Hanadiv Charitable Foundation for sponsoring my studies and making this research possible. My heartfelt thanks goes to my supervisor Professor Geoffrey Khan who introduced me into the world of Karaite grammarians and whose continuous support, encouragement and interest in my work were invaluable. I also owe gratitude to my thesis examiners Professor Judith Olszowy-Schlanger and Dr. Ben Outhwaite for their comments and advice regarding the possible lines of extension of my research. I thank the staff of the manuscript collections I have consulted: the second Firkovitch Collection in the National Library of Russia, St. Petersburg; Taylor-Schechter Genizah Collection in the Cambridge University Library, Cambridge, UK; Genizah Collection of the Jewish Theological Seminary, New York, USA; British Library Genizah Collection, London, UK; The Bodleian Library Genizah Collection, Oxford, UK; and the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts, Jerusalem, Israel. Nadia Vidro Cambridge
chapter one INTRODUCTION1
.. History of the Karaite Grammatical Tradition2 The discipline of Hebrew grammar was considered by Karaite thinkers to be of great importance for the study of the Bible, the main source of authority of the Karaites. The Karaite lexicographer David ben Abraham al-F¯as¯ı (first half of the th century) wrote in the introduction to his dictionary Kit¯ab J¯ami# al-Alf¯az. : … anyone contemplating to write some commentary on the Books of the Scriptures should not be rash in his interpretations, but master first the grammatical rules, inflections, the causes for change of accents, and the syntax of the language, as well as its correct use in speech. This would stimulate thinking, enhance knowledge, do away with indolence, awaken the soul, and inspire one to the search of knowledge. [Skoss (–:I, LXXVIII); translated in Olszowy-Schlanger (:)]
It is, thus, not surprising that an independent linguistic tradition developed early in the history of the Karaite movement with its adherents producing works in the areas of grammar, lexicography and phonetics. Karaite grammatical thought appears to have originated in the th or even the th century in Iraq and Iran and reached the peak of its development in the th century in Jerusalem. It had its roots in Masoretic and Rabbinic literature, as well as in the Arabic tradition of grammar. The Karaite tradition of Hebrew grammar can be divided into two periods, namely the ‘early period’ (till the end of the th–the beginning of the th century) and the ‘classical period’ (th century) with one of the most important differences between the two periods being in the 1 This book has been prepared thanks to a project grant from the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (FFI–: ‘Lengua y literatura judeo-árabe de la Edad Media a la Edad Moderna’). 2 This chapter draws heavily on the following recent accounts of the history of development and scholarly study of the Karaite grammatical tradition: Khan (a:– , b); Khan, Gallego, Olszowy-Schlanger (:xi–xxxii); Maman (:–).
chapter one
general approach to the discipline of grammar: works extant from the early period deal with separate difficult issues in the text of the Bible, a trait that brings them closer to the Masoretic tradition, whereas works composed in the classical period provide a general description of the Hebrew language per se. A number of works have survived from the early period, among them a grammatical Bible commentary entitled Diqduq (Grammar) or Nukat Diqduq (Points of Grammar) composed by Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub Y¯usuf Ibn N¯uh. (second half of the th–beginning of the th century),3 anonymous treatises on the Hebrew verbs and nouns,4 as well as a grammatical Bible commentary in Judaeo-Persian.5 The classical period is best represented by the works of a pupil of Ibn N¯uh, . Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un ibn Faraj (first half of the th century) who composed a series of grammatical treatises. These are a detailed analysis of Hebrew morphology and syntax al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil #al¯a al-Us. u¯ l wal-Fus. u¯ l f¯ı al-Lu˙ga al-#Ibr¯aniyya (The Comprehensive Book of General Principles and Particular Rules of the Hebrew Language, henceforth, al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil)6 and its epitome al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı f¯ı al-Lu˙ga al-#Ibr¯aniyya (The Sufficient Book on the Hebrew Language, henceforth, al-Kit¯ab alK¯af¯ı),7 as well as an introductory treatise on grammar entitled Kit¯ab alMadhal il¯a #Ilm al-Diqduq f¯ı Turuq al-Lu˙ga al-#Ibr¯aniyya (Book of Intro. ˘ into the Discipline of Careful Investigation of the Ways of the duction Hebrew Language) and a lexico-grammatical commentary on the Bible Tafs¯ır al-Alf¯az. al-S. a#ba f¯ı al-Miqra (The Explanation of the Difficult Words in the Bible).8 Al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı was epitomized twice by an anonymous contemporary of Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un.9 The first of these abridgments is known simply as al-Muhtas. ar (The Abridgment)10 and the second as ˘ 3
Edited in Khan (a). Edited in Khan (b, ). 5 Edited in Khan (b). 6 Short fragments of al-Kit¯ ab al-Muˇstamil have been recently published by N. Basal (, , ). For studies of various aspects of al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil see Basal (, , ); Maman (b, , , ). A critical edition of al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil is being prepared by A. Maman, see Maman (:–). 7 Edited in Khan et al. (). 8 On this work see Olszowy-Schlanger (); Poznanski (:–). 9 Traditionally, these abridgments were attributed to Ab¯ u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un himself (see, for example, Basal (:); Khan et al. (:xii)). As will be demonstrated in ., this opinion is not corroborated by textual evidence. 10 A fragment of al-Muhtasar was published by N. Basal (). The passages pub. ˘ as ‘un abrégé du Mouschtamil’ belong neither to al-Kit¯ab lished by S. Poznanski (a) al-K¯af¯ı nor to Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud and must be a part of al-Muhtas. ar. ˘ 4
introduction
Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud f¯ı Tas. a¯r¯ıf al-Lu˙ga al-#Ibr¯aniyya (Book of Rules regarding the Grammatical Inflections of the Hebrew Language, henceforth, Kit¯ab al#Uq¯ud).11 Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud together with the treatise on the Hebrew nouns became the basis of Me"or #Ayin (Light of the Eye),12 a grammar book in Hebrew composed in the second half of the th century, presumably in Byzantium. Evidence suggests that both Karaite and Rabbanite grammarians were not ignorant of the teachings of the other school. Thus, Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un cites in his works some opinions of Yehudah Hayy¯ uj, while he . himself is mentioned in the works of four Rabbanite authors, namely Abraham ibn Ezra, Moshe ibn Ezra, Yehudah ibn Bal#am, and Yonah ibn Jan¯ah. as ‘the grammarian from Jerusalem.’13 As a result of this contact as well as following the breakdown of the Karaite creativity in the closing decades of the th century before the destruction of the Jerusalem centre by the Crusaders14 the Karaite grammatical tradition was supplanted by the teachings of the Rabbanites by the th century. Although copies of Karaite grammatical works continued to circulate in the East these writings appear not to have had much impact on the further development of the grammatical thought among the Karaites.15 .. Aims of the Present Study The aim of my research is to reconstruct the second abridgment of al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı entitled Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud f¯ı Tas. a¯r¯ıf al-Lu˙ga al-#Ibr¯aniyya (Book of Rules regarding the Grammatical Inflections of the Hebrew Language) and to study the most original part of the treatise constituted by chapters on the verbal morphology of Biblical Hebrew. Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud is interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly, it introduces views of a new author whose ideas are not found in other texts thus diversifying our knowledge of Karaite grammarians. Secondly, this treatise contains one of the most complete Karaite accounts of the verbal system of Biblical Hebrew based on a characteristically Karaite method of classification known as ‘the method of symbols.’ The treatise comprises ample material 11 Fragments of Kit¯ ab al-#Uq¯ud were edited in Hirschfeld (–); Vidro (b:–). 12 Edited in Zislin (). 13 Bacher (a:–, –). 14 See Ben-Sasson (:); Ben Shammai (:); Erder (:). 15 See Khan (b:); Maman (a:–); Zislin (:).
chapter one
on this method and allows us to answer questions left by less clear expositions in Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un’s grammars and Me"or #Ayin.16 Numerous annotated verbal paradigms supply information to study details of the author’s morphological theories in comparison with earlier Karaite morphological texts such as the Diqduq, the treatise on the Hebrew verbs and al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı. Thirdly, the book is highly pedagogical in nature and represents a source of knowledge on didactic strategies applied by medieval Karaites in teaching grammar. Fourthly, Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud is important on account of its relationship with other Karaite grammatical treatises for it occupies an intermediate position between the early grammars and the works of Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un on the one hand and Me"or #Ayin on the other hand so that comparing these books can contribute to identifying lines of development and transmission of the Karaite grammatical tradition.
16
See Becker (); Maman (a).
chapter two ˙ AL-#IBRANIYYA ¯ AL-#UQUD ¯ FI¯ TAS. AR ¯ I¯F AL-LUGA ¯ KITAB
.. Reconstruction of the Text In his article ‘An unknown grammatical work by Abul-Faraj Harun’ H. Hirschfeld published the only hitherto identified fragment of Kit¯ab al#Uq¯ud f¯ı Tas. a¯r¯ıf al-Lu˙ga al-#Ibr¯aniyya,1 a Karaite treatise on the grammar of Biblical Hebrew written in Judaeo-Arabic described by its author as a second and a particularly concise abridgment of al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı by Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un ibn Faraj: ®
®
®
àåñ äðî ãàùìà àìà äáàåáà ìîùé àøàöúëà äâììà éô éôàëìà úøöúëà úðë ã÷ ® ® ® ® øëà øöúëî øöúëà ïà ìéàñ ìàñå éôàëìà äðîöúé íì àî úàãàéæìà ïî äéô ìöç àî ® ® ® ® ® ïåëú àäðî àìîâ äéô ìîâéå óéøàöúìà éô ãå÷ò äéô ã÷òé øåëãîìà øöúëîìà ïî æâåà ® ® àîî øàöúëàìà éìò íæàò àðààäå ïàîæìà ïî øéñéìà éô áòåúñú àäéìà òâøé àìåöà ® ® ® ® àãá äðî àì àîéô òñúàå àøéúë äôãç êá ìëé íì äúôãç åì
I had prepared an abridgment of al-K¯af¯ı f¯ı al-Lu˙ga which comprised all its chapters, with a few exceptions, as well as some additions not included in al-K¯af¯ı. Then someone asked me to write another abridgment even more concise than the one mentioned above in which the rules pertaining to conjugations would be established and all conjugations would be brought together as a basis to which one could refer and which could be studied in a short time. So I am resolved to compose an abridgment such that if you wanted to shorten it there will not be much to shorten but I shall discuss what is absolutely necessary. [BL Or. E, fol. r]
The fragment discovered by H. Hirschfeld in the British Library Genizah Collection consists of folios and of BL Or. E and contains the following parts of the treatise: () the title (fol. r); () the beginning of the introduction (fol. v); () the end of the chapter on words belonging to one or more parts of speech (fol. r); () the beginning of the chapter on the conditions for forming morphological patterns (fol. r–v). Until now it was believed that the above-mentioned fragment was all that survived of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud. However, when working on an
1
Hirschfeld (–:–).
chapter two
anonymous Karaite grammatical treatise copied in Jerusalem and named in the colophon al-Muhtas. ar I was able to prove its identity with Kit¯ab ˘ of al-Muhtas. ar are II Firk. Evr.-Arab. al-#Uq¯ud.2 The main manuscripts ˘ Evr.-Arab. I (henceI (henceforth FEA I ),3 and II Firk. forth FEA I ) preserved in the second Firkovitch Collection in the National Library of Russia, St. Petersburg. These manuscripts clearly belong together, FEA I being the continuation of FEA I . Together they contain the text of al-Muhtas. ar from some place in the beginning of the treatise to its end (with a˘few lacunae). A comparison of these manuscripts with BL Or. E reveals that the last six lines of BL Or. E, fol. v are nearly identical with the first seven lines of FEA I , fol. r. Moreover, the text of BL Or. E, fol. r–v is contained in FEA I , fol. v–v with minor variations in wording and orthography. These two overlaps indicate that BL Or. E, fol. – and FEA I and FEA I are fragments of one and the same grammatical work. This leads to the conclusion that Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud, which was previously considered lost except for the fragment published by H. Hirschfeld, has in fact survived almost entirely and can now be restored. The fact that BL Or. E, fol. – is entitled Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud f¯ı Tas. a¯r¯ıf al-Lu˙ga al#Ibr¯aniyya whereas the text in FEA I and FEA I is referred to as al-Muhtas. ar in the body of the treatise as well as in the colophon of FEA I ˘ should not be regarded as an obstacle to the identification. Indeed, Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud was intended as an abridgment of al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı so that the term muhtas. ar should be regarded here as a genre label rather than ˘ treatise.4 the title of the Manuscripts BL Or. E on the one hand and FEA I and FEA I on the other hand represent two different copies of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud. Two more copies, both incomplete, have survived in the second Firkovitch Collection and in the Cairo Genizah. The inventory of currently identified copies is as follows. Copy The first copy of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud is represented by BL Or. E, fol. – .
2 This treatise was first discovered by M.N. Zislin (c:–, :); see also Khan (b:); Khan et al. (:xxx). 3 The phrase II Firk. Evr.-Arab. will in the following be replaced by FEA. 4 On the genre of muhtasar see Arazi, Ben Shammai (). . ˘
kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud f¯ı tas. a¯ r¯ıf al-lu˙ga al-#ibr¯aniyya
Copy The second copy of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud consists of FEA I ( folios), and FEA I ( folios). The manuscripts join directly and FEA I constitutes a part of the first quire of the copy. Copy The third copy of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud is fragmentary and is represented by the following five units: FEA I ( folios); FEA I ( folio); JTS ENA . ( folio); T-S Ar. . ( folios in a bifolio); T-S NS . ( folio). Copy The fourth copy is fragmentarily preserved in T-S Ar. . (two folios in a bifolio); T-S Ar. . (two folios in a bifolio); JTS ENA .– (two folios). The table below shows the reconstruction of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud on the basis of BL Or. E, FEA I and FEA I with parallel texts in other copies given in brackets: Title and beginning of the Introduction
BL Or. E, fol. , (JTS ENA .)
End of the Introduction and Chapters One to the middle of Chapter Three
FEA I (T-S Ar. ., fol. )
Middle of Chapter Three to the end of the treatise
FEA I (FEA I ; FEA I ; BL Or. E, fol. ; T-S Ar. ., fol. , T-S NS .; T-S Ar. ., T-S Ar. ., JTS ENA .–)
.. Author and Title of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud The text of the newly reconstructed Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud shows that important information pertaining to the author and the title of the work can be found in the body of the treatise. H. Hirschfeld believed that Kit¯ab al#Uq¯ud was composed by Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un.5 Following H. Hirschfeld’s 5
Hirschfeld (–:).
chapter two
opinion, Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud is generally included in the list of works written by this Karaite master grammarian.6 Moreover, the first abridgment of al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı mentioned in the introduction to Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud also appears on such lists under the title al-Muhtas. ar.7 However, Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un’s authorship of these books must ˘now be questioned. Indeed, it was already shown that the treatise contained in FEA I cannot have been written by Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un, for this grammarian is mentioned in its text as a contemporary of the author:8 ®
®
®
®
®
®
äñøç âøôìà ïá ïåøä âøôìà éáà êéùìà åäå àãä àððàîæ éô äãåâåî äáúë ïî øëã ã÷å ®®® äììà
Someone whose books are present in our time, namely the master Ab¯u alFaraj H¯ar¯un ibn Faraj, may God protect him, mentioned … [FEA I , fol. v]
Inasmuch as it has now been established that this treatise is a part of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud both al-Muhtas. ar and Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud must be considered anonymous until further ˘evidence is discovered. It can, however, be ascertained that the author of these books was a Karaite who worked in the middle of the th century. Indeed, Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud must have been composed after al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı and, as is demonstrated by the honorific ‘may God protect him’ in the quotation above, within the life time of Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un. The earliest known manuscript of al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı, probably an autograph, was composed in 9 and it appears that Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un was still alive in .10 Thus, Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud can be dated to the middle of the th century.11 The provenance of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud is less certain. As is attested by the colophon of FEA I , this copy of the book was prepared in Jerusalem: ®
®äìñ íìåò ãò äððëé íéäìà ùã÷ä øéò íìùåøé éô øöúëîìà êñð íú
The copy of the abridgment was completed in the holy city of Jerusalem, may God preserve it forever! Selah. (Ps. :) [FEA I , fol. r]
On the basis of this evidence M.N. Zislin referred to the anonymous author of the treatise as ‘the second grammarian from Jerusalem’ (the first
6 7 8 9 10 11
See, for example, Basal (:); Khan et al. (:xii). This al-Muhtas. ar is to be distinguished from the text in FEA I . ˘ Khan (b:); Khan et al. (:xxx); Zislin (c:, :). Khan et al. (:xlix–l). Gil (:–). See also Zislin (:).
kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud f¯ı tas. a¯ r¯ıf al-lu˙ga al-#ibr¯aniyya
being Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un).12 This supposition is plausible considering that Jerusalem was the main centre of Karaite grammatical activity in the th century.13 With a certain amount of certainty it is possible to say that the author was of Babylonian descent, though probably not a first generation immigrant. Indeed, the vocalization of some Hebrew forms in the text of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud bears traces of Babylonian pronunciation clearly attributable to the author.14 Yet when mentioning the Persians the author always used the phrase wa-qad q¯ıla inna al-#ajam … (‘it has been said that the Persians …’)15 thus distancing himself from the Persians and transmitting their opinions on the authority of others. Presumably, this would not have been the case had the author spent a part of his life in Babylonia. The meaning of the title Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud f¯ı Tas. a¯r¯ıf al-Lu˙ga al-#Ibr¯aniyya should also be reconsidered. H. Hirschfeld translated the book’s title as Pearl-Strings on the Grammatical Inflections of the Hebrew Language deriving the plural form #uq¯ud from the singular #iqd (‘pearl-string’). He concluded that the intention of the author in writing this book was to compose ‘a vade mecum in which the bare grammatical facts were strung together.’16 However, the Judaeo-Arabic ã÷ò must probably be read #aqd (literally ‘knot’) and not #iqd and translated in the technical sense of ‘link, connection, relation, rule.’ Indeed, the term #uq¯ud and its singular form #aqd are frequently used in the newly identified sections of the book to describe implicational rules concerning derivational relations between different forms of a verb, referred to as #uq¯ud l¯a tanhall, literally ‘knots . 17 e.g.: that cannot be untied’ (sg. #aqd l¯a yanhall), . ®
®
®
àî ïéúè÷ð àãáà øîàìà êìã êåìî øëà ïåëé éìöà øéâ à ä äøëà øîà ìë ïà íìòàå ® ® éô ìçðé àì ã÷ò àãäô ®äàöå êàáö ä áU ®êùôðì äîëç ä òE ïë àîäå ïéòöåî àåñ ® ® ® ® ® ® óøç äøëà éô éãìà øîàìà êìã éô éúìà ïéúè÷ðìà ïà åä ïàú ã÷òå ®òöåîìà àãä ® ® øîà ìë ïà åä úìàú ã÷òå ºäöîà÷ éìà àãáà ãéçéìà ø á ò éô áì÷ðú éìöà øéâ à ä ® ® ® ® ìçðú àì ãå÷ò äãäå åúá àãáà úðåîìà øáò øëà ïåëé éìöà øéâ àä äøëà
Take note that the last vowel of each imperative ending in a non-root heh is always a s. ere except in two passages, i.e. ^ Ö"ôð"ì ä î"ë ç ä ò"c ï k (Prov. :) 12
See Zislin (c:–, :). Khan (b:). On the Jerusalem academy see Mann (:–); Margoliouth (:–, –). 14 See ... ® ® ® 15 ä÷éøèìà äã ä øéâ åëìñ íâòìà ïà ìé÷ ã÷å [FEA I , fol. v]; øéâ åìà÷ íâòìà ïà ìé÷ ã÷å ® êìã [FEA I , fol. v]. 16 Hirschfeld (–:). 17 On rules of derivational relations see . 13
chapter two and ä à öå ^#à á"ö ä aU (Judg. :). This is a rule without exceptions regarding this matter. The second rule is that the s. ere in the end of such imperatives ending in a non-root heh always turns into a qamas. in the m.sg. past verb form. The third rule is that every f.sg. past verb form derived from an imperative ending in a non-root heh always ends in a taw. These are rules without exceptions. [FEA I , fol. v]
Similar implicational statements in Me"or #Ayin are referred to by the Hebrew term qeˇser (literally, ‘knot’)18 confirming the reading #aqd for the grapheme ã÷ò. If this meaning of the term #uq¯ud is established, the title of our treatise must be translated as Book of Rules regarding the Grammatical Inflections of the Hebrew Language rather than Pearl-Strings on the Grammatical Inflections of the Hebrew Language. It is, however, not impossible that the title was intentionally ambiguous for rhetorical effect. .. Contents of the Treatise Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud is divided into thirty-nine chapters and sections19 dealing with morphological and syntactical matters. The structure of the treatise is as follows: I. Introductory chapters . [‘The purpose of the discipline of grammar’]20 (BL Or. E, fol. r–v; FEA I , fol. r).21 The treatise begins by explaining that the need to study language is related to ‘the duty of knowing the true meaning of the words of the Lawgiver the Sublime’22 and expounding on the mistakes in the interpretation of the Biblical text which a person ignorant of the rules of grammar is liable to make. . The chapter ‘On establishing root letters and other related matters’ (FEA I , fol. r–v) deals with the structure of the Hebrew root. It incorporates a section [‘On the origins of language’] (FEA I , fol. r–v) which describes the stages of language creation based on the Aristotelian premises that linguistic expression is arbitrary and a result of human agreement.23 18
See Zislin (:–). The hierarchy of chapters and sections is not very strict in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud so that chapters sometimes include sections on deviant topics. 20 Titles of sections given in square brackets ([ ]) are mine, not the author’s. 21 The classmarks in brackets refer to the reconstruction of the text on the basis of copies and . 22 éìòú òøùîìà úàøàáò ÷éà÷ç íìò áåâ®å [BL Or. E, fol. r]. 23 On the Karaite ideas on the origins of language see Olszowy-Schlanger (). 19
kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud f¯ı tas. a¯ r¯ıf al-lu˙ga al-#ibr¯aniyya
.
The chapter ‘On the categories of words used in natural speech’ (FEA I , fol. v–v; FEA I , fol. r–v) introduces the tripartite division of words into nouns, verbs and particles. . The chapter ‘On masculine and feminine letters’24 (FEA I , fol. v– r) and the section [‘On four types of letters, namely root letters, auxiliary letters, built-in letters and affixed letters’]25 (FEA I , fol. r–r) describes two classifications of letters. . The section [‘On words belonging to one or more parts of speech’] (FEA I , fol. r–r) is on the classification of word forms based on the number of parts of speech they can belong to. . The chapter ‘On the conditions for forming morphological patterns’ (FEA I , fol. r–v) formulates criteria for attributing word forms to morphological patterns. This chapter provides the theoretical background for the ensuing discussion of verbal conjugations. II. Verbal morphology II.. Conjugation The largest portion of the treatise (FEA I , fol. v–v) is devoted to Hebrew verbal conjugations which are discussed following the method of symbols.26 The idea of this method is to divide Hebrew verbs into groups such that all verbs in a group have one particular vowel in the first syllable of their imperatives and one particular vowel in the first syllable of their past forms, which is different from that of the imperative. If the first vowels of the imperative and the past are identical, vowels in the last syllables of these two forms are used instead. These classes of verbs are then assigned mnemonic symbols, i.e. disyllabic Hebrew words such that the first vowel of the symbol word corresponds to the vowel common to all imperatives and the last vowel of the symbol word corresponds to the vowel common to all past forms in the group. Thus, the symbol äTé!Ö represents verbs in which the first vowel of the imperative is a hireq and the first . vowel of the past form is a qamas. , e.g. íé!×–í ×. The material on verbal conjugation is divided into six chapters and sections. The section [‘On types of Hebrew imperatives’] (FEA I , fol. v–r) divides verbs into four groups depending on the possibility of including them into symbols as well as on the characteristic vowel of the imperative and past form encoded in a symbol. The four chapters that follow describe conjugational paradigms of various verb types in these groups. . The chapter ‘On imperatives which differ in their first vowel from the past verb forms derived from them and other related matters’ (FEA I , fol. r–r) describes symbols based on the initial vowel of the imperative and the past.
.
24 25 26
On the concept of masculine and feminine letters see ... On these concepts see ... On this method see .
chapter two
. The chapter ‘On imperatives which coincide in their first vowel but differ in their last vowel [from the past verb forms derived from them] and on other related matters’ (FEA I , fol. v–v) describes symbols based on the final vowel of the imperative and the past. . The chapter ‘On imperatives which differ neither in their first vowel nor in their last vowel from the past verb forms derived from them’ (FEA I , fol. v–v) deals with verbs which cannot be included into a symbol because their imperative and past forms have identical vowels both in the initial and in the final syllable. . The chapter ‘On imperatives which have no past form’ (FEA I , fol. v– r) is devoted to verbs which cannot be included into a symbol because they do not have past forms.27 . The chapter ‘On conjugational patterns belonging to mnemonics í ä ä, ïð"ä, or ú î ä ä’28 (FEA I , fol. r–v) classifies imperatives beginning in a nonroot heh according to the prefixes of their past and active participle forms. II.. Other matters related to verbal morphology The ensuing chapters contain material on verbal morphology presented outside of the reference frame of the system of symbols. These are: . the chapter ‘On establishing the form of an imperative in difficult cases’ (FEA I , fol. v–v); . the chapter ‘On types of active participles’ (FEA I , fol. r–v); . the chapter ‘On passive participles which belong to a conjugational pattern’ (FEA I , fol. v–v); . the chapter ‘On the infinitive’ (FEA I , fol. r–r) with its sections ‘On the differences between verbal nouns and nouns called infinitives’ (FEA I , fol. v–v) and [‘On true and pseudo-infinitives’] (FEA I , fol. v–r); . the chapter ‘On stripping words of added letters in order for a word to return to its basic form without additions’ (FEA I , fol. v–v); . the chapter ‘On transitive and intransitive verbs’29 (FEA I , fol. v–r); . the chapter ‘On the first and the second imperative’ (FEA I , fol. r– v); . the chapter ‘On infi#¯al and ifti#¯al’ (FEA I , fol. v–v); . the chapter ‘On forms of active and passive verbs’ (FEA I , fol. v).
27 28 29
See ... On these mnemonics see ... This chapter contains morphological as well as syntactic material.
kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud f¯ı tas. a¯ r¯ıf al-lu˙ga al-#ibr¯aniyya
III. Nouns The chapter ‘On types of nouns’ (FEA I , fol. v–r) is devoted to the classification of nouns and has a special section ‘On pronouns’ (FEA I , fol. r–r) expounding on independent and suffixed forms of subject and object pronouns. IV. Syntactic and semantic chapters . . . . .
.
. . . .
The chapter ‘On conjoining’ (FEA I , fol. r–r) is devoted to the genitive construction. The chapter ‘On the connective’ (FEA I , fol. r–r) describes various uses of the conjunction we-. The chapter ‘On the attribute’ (FEA I , fol. r–v) deals with attributive constructions. The chapter ‘On the emphatic and the permutative elements’ (FEA I , fol. v–r) gives definitions of these notions. The chapter ‘On the initial item and the predicate’ (FEA I , fol. r– r) describes the distribution of definiteness in nominal sentences and links this to what is now known as the topic-comment dichotomy. It also compares genitive constructions, attributive constructions and nominal sentences from the point of view of definiteness of their constituents. The chapter ‘On true and pseudo-verbs’ (FEA I , fol. r–v) divides verbs into those in which the person denoted by their active participle is the agent of the action (‘true verbs,’ e.g. á Öé) and those in which the person denoted by their active participle is not the agent of the action (‘pseudoverbs,’ e.g. ú î).30 The section ‘On the attribute resembling the active participle’ (FEA I , fol. v–v) establishes differences and similarities between verbal adjectives and active participles. The section [‘On the order of the verb, the agent and the patient’] (FEA I , fol. v–r) deals with the question of the word order in Hebrew. The chapter ‘On legitimate combinations of the three parts of speech into meaningful [utterances]’ (FEA I , fol. r–v) describes what sequences of nouns, verbs and particles make meaningful phrases. The chapter ‘On the division of objects’ (FEA I , fol. v–v) defines five types of objects, namely, the absolute object, the direct object, the circumstance, the reason object and the accompaniment object.
V. Miscellaneous The last three chapters of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud are of mixed character. .
The chapter ‘On some of the functions of masculine letters’ (FEA I , fol. v–r) enlists morphological and syntactic functions of the eleven ® ®®® ® ®® ®® ® ® servile letters úùðî ìëé åä áà when these are used as affixes. 30
On this classification see Becker ().
chapter two
. The section [‘On the lexicon’] (FEA I , fol. r–r) deals with () contextual meaning; () contextual gender; () the division of one lexical class into a number of conjugations. . The chapter [‘On particles’] (FEA I , fol. r) enumerates Hebrew particles and establishes criteria for distinguishing them from defective nouns.
.. Nature of the Treatise Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud is a pedagogical grammar intended primarily for beginners who, having acquired knowledge of the text of the Bible, were embarking on a systematic study of the Hebrew grammar striving to achieve understanding and active mastery of Hebrew forms. Remarks such as ‘this can often be obscure for beginners’31 or ‘I considered it necessary to mention this because I noticed that beginners mix up one with the other’32 seem to indicate that the author had first-hand knowledge of problems encountered by beginners when learning Hebrew. With this target audience in mind the author used an array of didactic technics in the attempt to facilitate the acquisition of Hebrew forms. These include mnemonics, rules of derivational relations, sample verbal paradigms and examples in which whole passages of Biblical text are linguistically analyzed.33 .. Sources of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud The obvious source of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud is al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı by Ab¯u alFaraj H¯ar¯un. According to the author’s own words, Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud was intended as an especially concise abridgment of this work. However, a comparison of the contents of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud and al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı shows that the relation between these two books is more complicated. Indeed, of the thirty-nine chapters and sections of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud only twenty closely follow and summarize the text in the respective chapters of alKit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı. These are the following: . the chapter ‘On the categories of words used in natural speech’; . the section [‘On words belonging to one or more parts of speech’]; . the chapter ‘On the infinitive’; ® ® 31 ïééãúáîìà éìò êìã ìëùé àî øéúëå [FEA I , fol. v]. ® ® ® ® ® 32 õ òáá õòá íäéìò ñáúìé ïééãúáîìà úéàø àîì êìã øëã éìà úâúçàå [FEA I , fol. v].
33
See .
kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud f¯ı tas. a¯ r¯ıf al-lu˙ga al-#ibr¯aniyya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
the section ‘On the differences between verbal nouns and nouns called infinitives’; the section [‘On true and pseudo-infinitives’]; the chapter ‘On transitive and intransitive verbs’; the chapter ‘On the first and second imperative’; the chapter ‘On types of nouns’ apart from its sections ‘On pronouns’ and [‘On suffixed object pronouns’]; the chapter ‘On conjoining’; the chapter ‘On the connective’; the chapter ‘On the attribute’; the chapter ‘On the emphatic and the permutative elements’; the chapter ‘On the initial item and the predicate’; the chapter ‘On true and pseudo-verbs’; the section ‘On the attribute resembling the active participle’; the section [‘On the order of the verb, the agent and the patient’]; the chapter ‘On legitimate combinations of the three parts of speech into meaningful [utterances]’; the chapter ‘On the division of objects’; the chapter ‘On some of the functions of masculine letters’; the section [‘On the lexicon.’]
It can easily be seen that most chapters in this group are dedicated to syntactical issues. Another nine chapters and sections address topics discussed in alKit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı but deal with them in a different way. .
[‘The purpose of the discipline of grammar’] narrows down the range of purposes of studying grammar.34 . The chapter ‘On masculine and feminine letters’ divides the letters of the alphabet into root and functional letters and calls them ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ respectively, a terminology not found in al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı. . The section [‘On four types of letters, namely root letters, auxiliary letters, built-in letters and affixed letters’] introduces a new notion of auxiliary letters. . The chapter ‘On the conditions for forming morphological patterns’ shows a significantly different arrangement of the material. . The chapters () ‘On imperatives which differ in their first vowel from the past verb forms derived from them and other related matters’; () ‘On imperatives which coincide in their first vowel but differ in their last vowel [from the past verb forms derived from them] and on other related matters’; and () ‘On imperatives which have no past form’ not only decisively expand the contents of a single chapter on verbal conjugations in al-Kit¯a b al-K¯af¯ı but also introduce the notion of #uq¯ud, i.e. implicational rules of derivational relations between different forms of verbs.
34
See page .
chapter two
. The chapter ‘On types of active participles’ discusses the matter from a different, morphological rather than comparative and semantic point of view. . The section ‘On pronouns’ suggests a different definition of the term ‘pronoun’ denoting only pronominal suffixes as pronouns (dam¯ . a"ir) and calling independent pronouns ‘nouns’ (asm¯a" z. a¯ hira).
Contrary to the previous group, these chapters and sections are mainly morphological. Still another ten chapters and sections of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud have no parallels in al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı. These are: . . . . . . . . . .
the chapter ‘On establishing root letters and other related matters’; the section [‘On the origins of language’];35 the section [‘On types of Hebrew imperatives’]; the chapter ‘On imperatives which differ neither in their first vowel nor in their last vowel from the past verb forms derived from them’; the chapter ‘On conjugational patterns belonging to mnemonics í ä ä, ïð"ä, or ú î ä ä’; the chapter ‘On establishing the form of an imperative in difficult cases’; the chapter ‘On passive participles which belong to a conjugational pattern’; the chapter ‘On stripping words of added letters in order for a word to return to its basic form without additions’; the chapter ‘On infi#¯al and ifti#¯al’; the chapter ‘On forms of active and passive verbs.’
Again, the majority of chapters and sections in this group deal with morphological matters and often aim to teach methods of morphological analysis to beginners. A pattern emerges from this breakdown of the contents of Kit¯ab al#Uq¯ud reflecting the nature of revisions undertaken by its author in the attempt to make the material contained in al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı more easily accessible to learners of Biblical Hebrew. He summarized the chapters on syntax, considerably expanded or modified chapters on verbal morphology and added a number of new pedagogically orientated morphological chapters. By doing this he produced a treatise heavily relying upon al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı in its syntactical part but largely independent from it in its account of the verbal morphology of Hebrew. Considering that the
35 This section exhibits some parallels with the chapter ‘On the definition and the true meaning of speech’ in al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil (FEA I , fol. r–v) and the beginning of the chapter on the consonants in Hid¯ayat al-Q¯ari" (FEA I , fol. r–v; see Eldar (:)) by Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un. Yet on the whole the section in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud differs significantly from the material in either work.
kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud f¯ı tas. a¯ r¯ıf al-lu˙ga al-#ibr¯aniyya
morphological chapters constitute the central part of the book (ca. folios out of the total of ) it can be stated that even though Kit¯ab al#Uq¯ud is described by its author as an especially concise abridgment of al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı it must, in fact, be regarded as a treatise in its own right closely related to rather than dependent upon the book of Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un. The author’s focus on morphology clearly comes through in the way he abridged the first chapter of al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı ‘On the purpose of the study of grammar and the ways of the Hebrew language.’36 In this chapter Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un points out three reasons to study grammar. Firstly, grammatical knowledge helps to avoid errors in interpreting commandments by allowing one to correctly parse Biblical phrases. For example, a person with a good knowledge of grammar would interpret úà h ç é!z"ì ë àå ® éé éðé ò"a á èéi ä íÇi ä (Lev. :) as ‘I have eaten of the sin offering today a quantity that is good’ instead of the incorrect ‘If I were to eat the sin offering today would it be good?’ by virtue of knowing that é!z"ì ë àå with non-final stress is a past verb and the heh followed by a dagesh in á èéi ä has the meaning of ø Ö#à.37 Secondly, grammatical knowledge aids to interpret correctly individual words and avoid mistakes such as translating é!úÇlb in Josh. : as ‘I have uncovered,’ which corresponds to the Hebrew é!úé!lb, instead of ‘I have rolled.’38 Thirdly, grammar is necessary to ensure correct reading. Indeed, a person untrained in grammar might make a mistake of stressing é!à&a in Çn!ò é!á"ë!Ö é!à&áe (Gen. :) on the ultima instead of the penultima thus corrupting the meaning of the verse.39 Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud gives up this tripartite division of the purposes of the discipline of grammar. Instead it links the need of studying language to ‘the duty of knowing the true meaning of the words of the Lawgiver the Sublime.’40 All examples of errors provided here involve mistakes in morphological analysis and represent a subset of examples given in al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı in the section on the use of grammar for interpreting individual words. That none of the examples of errors in syntactic analysis or reading cited in al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı found their way into the abridgment indicates that these areas of grammatical knowledge were of lesser importance for the author of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud.
36 37 38 39
See Khan et al. (:–, I..). Khan et al. (:–, I...). Khan et al. (:, I...). Khan et al. (:, I...).
40 éìòú òøùîìà úàøàáò ÷éà÷ç íìò áåâ®å
[BL Or. E, fol. r].
chapter two
Evidence suggests that apart from al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı the author was familiar with Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un’s treatise on pronunciation Hid¯ayat alQ¯ari".41 In one passage in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud the author demonstrates his acquaintance with the Hayy¯ ujian theory that quiescent aleph, yod and . waw stand behind long Hebrew vowels: úéèìà ãòá óìà éìò úðëñ ã÷ ø ä h!ä éô êðà
Indeed, in ø ä h!ä there is a quiescent aleph after the t. et. [FEA I , fol. r]
Of all Karaite grammars predating Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud this theory is found only in Hid¯ayat al-Q¯ari" 42 whence it must have made its way into our treatise. G. Khan observed that the text in FEA I , which has now been identified as Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud, is ‘dependent on Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un to a large extent, though the author had access also to earlier Karaite sources.’43 Earlier grammarians mentioned in the treatise are the Per45 ˇ ır¯an.46 The Persians are referred to on two sians,44 Ibn N¯uh, . and Sa#¯ıd S¯ occasions. Firstly, the author ascertains that these grammarians did not pattern words with gutturals together with non-guttural words: ® ® ® ®
®
®
äé÷á ïî àäøéâá òçäà óåøç åðæé àì ïà åäå ä÷éøèìà äãä øéâ åëìñ íâòìà ïà ìé÷ ã÷å óåøçìà
It has been said that the Persians chose a different way in that they did not ® ® ® ® [FEA I , fol. v] pattern òçäà with the rest of the letters.
Secondly, the author quotes the opinion of the Persians on the derivation of bi-radical47 imperatives in hiph#il, such as ø ô ä, íL ä, òU ä and øé!ñ ä.48 He reports that according to them the vocalization of derivative forms of such verbs differed from the vocalization of the relevant imperatives only in the vowel of the prefix, whereas the vowel of the second syllable remained unchanged, e.g. ø ô ä, ø ô ä, ø ô î, ø ôé and by analogy íL ä, íL ä, íL î, íLé; øé!ñ ä, øé!ñ ä, øé!ñ î, øé!ñé and by analogy áé!Ö ä, áé!Ö ä, áé!Ö î, áé!Öé:
41
On this treatise see Eldar (, , ). Eldar (:–). 43 Khan et al. (:xxx). 44 FEA I , fol. v, v–r. 45 FEA I , fol. r. 46 FEA I , fol. r. 47 On Karaite ideas regarding the structure of Hebrew verbal roots see ... 48 The irregular imperatives øé!ñ ä and íéX ä in Ezek. : must have been analyzed by the Persians as one of the types of bi-radical hiph#il imperatives. 42
kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud f¯ı tas. a¯ r¯ıf al-lu˙ga al-#ibr¯aniyya ®
®
®
êàãå ®êìã øéâ åìà÷ íâòìà ïà ìé÷ ã÷å áé!Ö ä á Ö ä øáò ïà åä ìåàãúîìà ïà íìòàå ® ® ïéúè÷ð äøëàå äöî÷ øîàìà ìåà ®êúéøá ø ô ä êì å÷ë øîà ø ô ä ïà åìà÷ íäðà ® ® ® øîàìà øëà àì óìúëé íìå øáòìà ìåàå øîàìà ìåà éô à á ä êåìî àâô ø ô ä øáòìàå ® ® ® äúà óà ÷ë ø ô ú ìá÷úñîìàå íéãá úåúåà ø ô î ÷ë ø ô î ìòàôìàå ®øáòìà øëà àìå ® ® ® ® øîà òV ä äìúîå ®êéøáã úà éé íLé ÷ë íLé íL î íL ä íL ä ø ô ä ìúîå ®äàøé ø ô ú ® ® òV ä íàå å÷ë òV ú ìá÷úñîìàå òV î ìòàôìàå ®äîçìîá åòV äå ÷ë òV ä øáòìàå ® ® ® ® àãäô äîçìîä éìë úà á ñ î éððä ÷ë ø ô î ìúî á ñ î ìòàôìàå á ñ ä á ñ ä äìúîå eòV ú ® ® äîàìòìà ìâàì øáòìà ìåàå øîàìà ìåà éåñ äðî øééâú àî ãçàå óðö äìúàî àîå ® ® ñðâ ®ìá÷úñîìàå ìòàôìàå øáòìàå øîàìà éô éðàúìà óøçìà ïî ìæú íì ïéúè÷ðìàå ® ® ® ìòàôìàå øáòìàå øîàìà éô äúáàú äçúàôá éðàúìà êìîìà ïåëé ïà åìà÷ ïàú ® ® òU î ìòàôìàå ùã÷á áéåà òU ä ìë ÷ë òU ä øáòìàå øîà òU ä ÷ë ìá÷úñîìàå ® ® ® ® åìà÷ úìàú ñðâ ºíëì òU à àìå ÷ë òU à ìá÷úñîìàå ïåà úôù ìò áéù÷î òU î ÷ë ® ® ® íéX ä äìúîå øîà úôðöîä øé!ñ ä ìúî ìôñà ïî äè÷ð øîàìà éô éðàúìà êìîìà ïåëé ® éìò àñàé÷ áé!Ö ä äìúîå ®øé!ñ à ìá÷úñîìàå øé!ñ î ìòàôìàå øé!ñ ä øáòìàå äøèòä ® ® ®êìã ìúàî àîå áé!Ö à ìá÷úñîìàå áé!Ö î ìòàôìàå áé!Ö ä øáòìàå øé!ñ ä
Take note that the prevailing opinion is that the past of á Ö ä is áé!Ö ä. But it was said that the Persians maintained something different. Namely, they said that ø ô ä is an imperative, as in ^"úéX"a ø ô ä _ ì (Chron. :), the first vowel of the imperative is a qamas. and the last vowel is a s. ere. The past form is ø ô ä. Thus, the vowels of à á ä49 occur in the beginning of the imperative and in the beginning of the past form, whereas the last vowels of the imperative and the past are identical. The active participle is ø ô î, as in íé!c a úÇúÇà ø ô î (Isa. :), and the future is ø ô z, as in ä àYé ø ô z ä z à ó à ® (Job :). Similar to ø ô ä is íL ä, íL ä, íL î, íLé, as in ^éW á"c ú à éé íLé (Jer. :). Similarly, òV ä is an imperative, and the past form is òV ä, as in eòV äå ä î ç"ì!n a (Sam. :). The active participle is òV î and the future is òV z, as in eòV z òV ä í!àå (Sam. :). Similar to it is á ñ ä, á ñ ä with the active participle á ñ î as ø ô î, as in ä î ç"ì!n ä é ì"k ú à á ñ î éðð!ä (Jer. :). These and similar [verbs] belong to the first class in which only the beginnings of the imperative and the past are distinct in accordance with the symbol and the s. ere remains unchanged in the second syllable of the imperative, the past, the active participle and the future. They said that in the second class the second vowel is a patah. which is stable in the imperative, the past, the active participle and the future. For example, òU ä is an imperative and the past form is òU ä, as in ì k ÖC&w a áéÇà òU ä (Ps. :), the active participle is òU î, as in áé!ÖO î òU î ïå à ú ô"× ì ò (Prov. :), and the future is òU à, as in í ë ì òU à àÀå (Jer. :). They said that in the third type the second vowel of the imperative is a hireq. For example, ú ôð"ö!n ä øé!ñ ä (Ezek. :) is an imperative and similar . to it is äT è#ò ä íéX ä (Ezek. :). The past verb form is øé!ñ ä, the active
49 à á ä is the first symbol in the system of symbols. It comprises verbs in which the first vowel of the imperative is a qamas. and the first vowel of the past form is a s. ere.
chapter two participle is øé!ñ î, and the future verb form is øé!ñ à. Similar to it is áé!Ö ä formed by analogy with øé!ñ ä, with the past áé!Ö ä, the active participle áé!Ö î, and the future áé!Ö à, and other such cases. [FEA I , fol. v–r]
Like the Persians, Ibn N¯uh. is mentioned in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud with regard to patterning gutturals: ®
®
®
ïà åäå ä÷éøè êìñ ã÷ íìòìà àãä êéàùî ïî àãä àððàîæ éô äàðãäàù ïî ïà íìòàå ® ® ® äãä äììà äîçø çåð ïá áå÷òé åáà êéùìà àöéàå ä ù#òéå äð"áé ïéá ïæåìà éô ÷øôé àì ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ®òçäà ìâàì àãä ïî àøééâî àãä àâ àîðà ìå÷é úéçá äáúë éô äøåúàîìà äú÷éøè
Take note that one of the masters of this discipline whom I witnessed in our times had pursued a course of making no distinction between the patterns of äð"áé and ä ×#òé. This was also the way of the master Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub ibn N¯uh, . may God have mercy upon him, which is reflected in his books in that he ® ® ® ® said that only on the account of òçäà one [word] was changed from the other. [FEA I , fol. r]
Although this quotation could not be traced to any particular passage in the published part of the Diqduq, it is clear that the described method of patterning was, indeed, characteristic of Ibn N¯uh. . Consider the following examples: ‘note that the imperative of this is ä ×ð with the pattern of ä ×#ò’ (Ps. :), ‘its imperative is ä ôé with the pattern of äð"a, ä ×#ò’ (Ps. :), ‘from äð"a is derived äð"áé and from ä ×#ò is derived ä ×#òé which is similar to it’ (Job :).50 ˇır¯an, a Another earlier grammarian mentioned by the author is Sa#¯ıd S¯ 51 pupil of Ibn N¯uh. . His name appears in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud in the following passage: ®
®
ïò éëç äðà øéâ øáòìà øëà éô äöîà÷á ò ÖÇð ò Öå!ä øáò ïà ìå÷ìà àãä ìéà÷ ãðòå ® ® ® ÷ë äçúôá òAÇð òAå!ä øáò ïà ìà÷ äðà ïàøéù ãéòñ äðò ìà÷é éãìà äðèàå ãéòñ éàø ® ® íéäìà äãåäéá ò@åð ÷ë ò@Çð íñàìà ïàå äùò èôùî éé òAåð
The author of this statement asserts also that the past of ò Öe!ä is ò ÖÇð with a qamas. at the end, even though he reports on the authority of the opinion ˇ ır¯an, that the past of of Sa#¯ıd, and I think that he is the one called Sa#¯ıd S¯ ® òAe!ä is òAÇð with a patah, . as in ä × ò è t"Ö!î éé òAÇð (Ps. :), whereas the noun is ò@Çð, as in íé!äÀ$à ä@eäé!a ò@Çð (Ps. :). [FEA I , fol. r]
Clearly, the author of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud knew Sa#¯ıd’s grammatical teachings not from the latter’s own books but from a secondary source. The most probable source is the treatise on the Hebrew verbs composed by an
50 51
Khan (a:, , ). ˇ ır¯an see Poznanski (b:–). On Sa#¯ıd S¯
kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud f¯ı tas. a¯ r¯ıf al-lu˙ga al-#ibr¯aniyya
anonymous author who presented himself as a commentator explaining and elaborating upon grammatical opinions of somebody called Sa#¯ıd. In the published text of this treatise past forms of first waw niph#al verbs are, indeed, vocalized with a qamas. , ã ìÇð, ò ÖÇð, ò@Çð.52 Moreover, the following statement is quoted in the name of Sa#¯ıd: The statement of Sa#¯ıd: He has said that the five categories that apply to [verbs derived from a base such as] ø î à ä,53 apply likewise to [verbs derived from the base] ã ìe!ä. For, when you find a form such as ã ìÇð that is conjoined in meaning, it is a noun referring to an entity, e.g. ä@eäé!a ò@Çð ® (Ps. :). A case such as ä × ò è t"Ö!î éé òAÇð (Ps. :) is unequivocally a past verbal form. If a form such as ò ÖÇð or ã ìÇð is disjoined in meaning, it may be either a noun or a past verbal form. [Khan (b:)]
In all likelihood, this is exactly the statement alluded to in Kit¯ab al#Uq¯ud. Two conclusions can be drawn from this. Firstly, the treatise on the Hebrew verbs must be regarded as one of the sources of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud. As will be demonstrated later, it exerted particular influence upon the way verbal paradigms were described in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud.54 Secondly and most importantly, this passage clearly corroborates G. Khan’s conjecture ˇ ır¯an is the grammarian referred to as Sa#¯ıd by the author of that Sa#¯ıd S¯ the treatise on the Hebrew verbs.55 The author’s acquaintance with teachings of earlier grammarians is, furthermore, reflected is his use of their grammatical terminology alongside the terminology of Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un. One of the most conspicuous examples are the terms for transitive and intransitive verbs. Ibn N¯uh. used fi#l f¯ı al-˙gayr and fi#l f¯ı al-nafs or fi#l f¯ı nafsih to refer to transitive and intransitive verbs respectively.56 The terms used by Ab¯u alFaraj H¯ar¯un are muta#addin for transitive and g˙ayr muta#addin or l¯azim for intransitive.57 In Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud the terminology is mixed. One finds muta#addin for transitive verbs and g˙ayr muta#addin or f¯ı al-nafs for intransitive verbs (at times a combined term f¯ı al-nafs g˙ayr muta#addin is used). Ibn N¯uh’s . term fi#l f¯ı al-˙gayr and Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un’s term l¯azim
52
Khan (b:). This refers to possible vocalizations of m.sg. past and m.sg. active participle forms of niph#al verbs which can have a patah. or a qamas. in the final syllable depending on their syntactic position (see Khan (b:–)). 54 See . 55 Khan (b:). 56 Khan (a:, a:). 57 Khan (a:); Khan et al. (:xliii). 53
chapter two
never occur.58 The terms for intransitive verbs are distributed in a manner that f¯ı al-nafs and f¯ı al-nafs g˙ayr muta#addin appear more frequently in the original chapters on verbal morphology whereas g˙ayr muta#addin alone is found mainly in those chapters of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud which closely abridge al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı. In addition to the above-mentioned grammarians, reference is made in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud to anonymous sources. Apart from the vaguest ‘they said’ and ‘it was said,’ one finds ‘one of the masters of this discipline whom I witnessed in our times,’ ‘one grammarian,’ ‘scholars in this discipline’ and ‘linguists.’59 .. Reception The text in FEA I , now identified as Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud, was recognized by M.N. Zislin as one of the sources of Me"or #Ayin.60 M.N. Zislin drew this conclusion by comparing the chapters on the Hebrew verbal conjugations in the two works and establishing their close resemblance. Now that the complete text of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud is available, it became possible to determine the nature of Me"or #Ayin’s dependence on this grammar. A comparison between the books reveals that the structure and contents of Me"or #Ayin and Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud are very close but not identical. Some chapters of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud are not represented in Me"or #Ayin and, in turn, some chapters of the latter are not based on the former. The books are closest in the part on verbal paradigms where Me"or #Ayin follows and condenses Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud. In those chapters which the grammars have in common the material in Me"or #Ayin is, in general, not a direct translation from Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud. Although some passages are translated verbatim, the text is mainly paraphrased and adapted, at times shortened, and at times expanded or supplied with personal comments. Yet Me"or #Ayin never gets far enough from its source to be regarded as an independent work.
58
Neither does f¯ı nafsih used by Ibn N¯uh. as an alternative to f¯ı al-nafs. ® The respective Judaeo-Arabic expressions are åìà÷; ìé÷; ïî àãä àððàîæ éô äàðãäàù ïî ® ® ® ® r íìòìà àãä êéàùî [FEA I , fol. ]; ïé÷åã÷ãìà õòá [FEA I , fol. v] and àîìò õòá ® ÷åã÷ãìà [FEA I , fol. r]; íìòìà àãä ìäà [FEA I , fol. r]; ïééåâì [FEA I , fol. r]. 60 Zislin (c:, :–). 59
kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud f¯ı tas. a¯ r¯ıf al-lu˙ga al-#ibr¯aniyya
Another previously identified source of Me"or #Ayin is the treatise on the Hebrew nouns.61 This treatise constitutes an integral work with the treatise on the Hebrew verbs62 and as such is one of the sources of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud. However, the author of Me"or #Ayin clearly accessed the text of the treatise directly since the material he borrowed from it is not included in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud.63 The sources of Me"or #Ayin exerted influence upon its terminology. As has been pointed out in the literature, many grammatical terms in Me"or #Ayin are translated from Arabic.64 Among them are Hebrew cognates of terms characteristic for Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud which, to the best of my knowledge, are not found in other grammars. Examples include: Me"or #Ayin
Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud
Meaning of term
ot ne#ebad ¯
harf musta#mal .
auxiliary letter (in modern terms, the first radical of first nun, first yod and related roots in pa#al)
qeˇser
#aqd
implicational rule describing derivational relations between verb forms
has. -s. iwwuy lah
al-amr lah¯a
f.sg. imperative
he-#abar lah65 ¯ he-#abar lahem66 ¯
al-#abar lah¯a ¯ al-#abar lahum ¯
f.sg. and f.sg. past m.pl. past
Some terminology of earlier grammarians not attested in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud appears in Me"or #Ayin. As discussed in the foregoing, early terms for transitive and intransitive verbs were fi#l f¯ı al-˙gayr and fi#l f¯ı al-nafs or fi#l f¯ı nafsih respectively. Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud uses fi#l f¯ı al-nafs but not fi#l f¯ı al-˙gayr.
61
Khan (b:). Khan (:). 63 See chapter ‘On morphological patterns of tri-consonant nouns’ (Zislin (:– )). 64 See Khan (a:–); Maman (:); Zislin (:). 65 In two cases the surviving manuscript has äì øáòä instead of åì øáòä for m.sg. past (see Zislin (:); compare Zislin (:, f.n. , )). This could potentially be a mistake not for the Hebrew f.sg. lah but for the Arabic substrate lahu. 66 The last three examples deserve a comment. In Kit¯ ab al-#Uq¯ud the four terms al-amr lah¯a, al-#abar lah¯a, al-amr lahum and al-#abar lahum are the standard terms for f.sg. and ¯ ¯ forms. Al-#abar lah¯a is also used for f.sg. m.pl. imperatives and f.sg. and m.pl. past ¯ are common whereas haspast. In Me"or #Ayin the terms he-#abar lah and he-#abar lahem . ¯ (:, )) ¯ and has-siwwuy lahem does not s. iwwuy lah is used only twice (Zislin . . occur. Instead, has. -s. iwwuy le-neqeba and has. -s. iwwuy le-zekarim are used. ¯ ¯ 62
chapter two
On the contrary, in Me"or #Ayin one finds both ma#ase be-nep¯eˇs and ma#ase be-zulat han-nep¯eˇs or ma#ase be-zulato. This data strengthens the evidence of Me"or #Ayin’s independent access to early sources. The provenance of Me"or #Ayin is not explicit in the book and has to be established on the basis of circumstantial evidence. M.N. Zislin observed that whereas Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek were mentioned in the text, Arabic was not. He explained this situation by suggesting that Me"or #Ayin was composed in a Christian land where bringing up Arabic was dangerous.67 A. Maman pointed out that the reference to Greek was certainly not incidental as a large Karaite community existed in that period in Byzantium.68 However, it is possible to offer a different, linguistic rather than political, explanation for the fact that the author named Greek but omitted mentioning Arabic in his book. Indeed, the reference to the various languages is made in the context of conditions for forming morphological patterns where the author warned that only words from the same language be patterned: íéãùë ïåùìî úàæ äéäú íàå ®ùã÷ä úôùî úøçàä äéäú ïë ùã÷ä úôùî úàæ äéäú íàå ®íéðåé ïåùìî úøçàä äéäú íâ íéðåé ïåùìî úàæ äéäú íàå ®íéãùë ïåùìî úøçàä äéäú íâ ®øçà ïåùìì àåä àìå ïå÷ú ïåùì ìëì éë ïòîì åðåùì ìò àìà ïåùì ìë ìå÷ùú àìå
If one is a Hebrew [word], the other should also be Hebrew. If one is an Aramaic [word], the other should also be Aramaic. If one is a Greek [word], the other should also be Greek. Do not pattern [a word in] any language with anything but [words] in the same language because each language has rules which do not pertain to another language. [Zislin (:)]
As a grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Me"or #Ayin is concerned primarily with the linguistic reality of the Bible, not with any words in any language. The Bible consists of books in Hebrew and Aramaic and, according to medieval authors, uses some Greek vocabulary.69 On the other hand, Arabic is not a Biblical language. It is not unlikely that when discussing morphological patterning the author specifically mentioned languages pertinent for the Hebrew Bible while omitting the irrelevant ones. This is not to say, however, that Me"or #Ayin was not composed in a Christian land. A. Maman analyzed the language of Me"or #Ayin and concluded that it is consistent with writings emanating from the school of
67 68 69
Zislin (:). Maman (:–). See Derenbourg (:).
kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud f¯ı tas. a¯ r¯ıf al-lu˙ga al-#ibr¯aniyya
Toviyyah ben Moshe in its morphological, syntactic and lexical features . as well as in its Arabicized style.70 Known texts composed in this type of Hebrew were produced by Byzantine Karaites from the second half of the th century on, either as translations of a single Arabic source or alternatively as compilations produced originally in Hebrew but based on a number of sources in Arabic and on private class-notes taken by Byzantine students at the Jerusalem academy.71 A comparison of Me"or #Ayin with grammatical works predating it proves that the book is a compilation adapted from various sources.72 In all likelihood, it was composed in Hebrew but could have originated in the author’s notebooks compiled when studying Judaeo-Arabic sources which would account for some untranslated Arabic terms, Arabicized spellings and verbatim translated phrases in the text of the treatise.73
70 Maman (:–). On Karaite Hebrew see Maman () and the literature cited there. 71 See Ankory (:–); Maman (:). 72 See also Zislin (:). 73 See Maman (:).
chapter three THE METHOD OF SYMBOLS
.. The Concept of Symbols The main focus of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud is on the verbal morphology of Biblical Hebrew. In particular, the purpose of the book was to bring together all conjugational patterns of Biblical Hebrew ‘as a basis to which one could refer and which could be studied in a short time.’1 This was achieved following the so-called ‘method of symbols’ common in Karaite linguistics before the th century, at which time it was replaced in Yehudah Hadassi’s work Eˇskol hak-Kop¯er by the system of binyanim and gezarot developed by Rabbanite grammarians.2 The idea of this method is to divide Hebrew verbs into groups such that all verbs in a group have one particular vowel in the first syllable of their imperatives and one particular vowel in the first syllable of their past forms, which is different from that of the imperative. If the first vowels of the imperative and the past are identical, vowels in the last syllables of these two forms are used instead. These classes of verbs are then assigned mnemonic symbols (Arabic #al¯ama or rib¯at. ; Hebrew siman). Symbols are disyllabic Hebrew words such that the first vowel of the symbol word corresponds to the vowel common to all imperatives and the last vowel of the symbol word corresponds to the vowel common to all past forms in the group. For example, the imperatives ä k ä and ø a c belong to a group designated with the symbol word épb. The patah. in the first syllable of épb corresponds to the patah. of the imperatives ä k ä and ø a c and the hireq in the second syl. lable of épb corresponds to the hireq in the past forms ä k!ä and ø a!c. It is . clear that defined this way, symbols can comprise verbs of many different types. For this reason, the symbols are further divided into conjugational patterns (Arabic tas. r¯ıf, Hebrew derek) in order to group together verbs ¯ 1 ïàîæìà ïî øéñéìà éô áòåúñú àäéìà òâ®øé àìåöà ïåëú [BL Or. 2 On this method see Basal (:–); Becker
E, fol. r]. (:–); Maman (a:–); Zislin (b, :–, ). Inasmuch as these reports were based on incomplete textual evidence, it is here deemed necessary to take up the subject anew and present a fuller description of the method.
chapter three
with a similar structure. For instance, imperatives ä k ä, ø a c, _ ì"Ö ä, and ì k"ì k represent different conjugational patterns within the symbol épb. .. Development of the Method The system of symbols is currently known from four Karaite grammatical works, namely al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil,3 al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı,4 Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud5 and Me"or #Ayin6 as well as from a Karaite grammatical work partially preserved in JTS ENA . and JTS ENA .–. A short fragment identified by N. Basal as coming from al-Muhtas. ar, the first abridgment ˘ of al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı, also contains a few lines from the end of the chapter 7 on the system of symbols. These texts represent different stages in the development of the system. According to Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un the system of symbols was devised by one of the earlier grammarians who created the symbols à á ä, épb, úT"t and ì òeÖ. Later somebody created the symbol ïðÇk.8 These symbols are based on the initial vowels of the imperative and the past. In al-Kit¯ab alMuˇstamil Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un introduced two new symbols of the same type, namely äTé!Ö and Çøé!Ö and arrived at the following set of symbols for imperatives and past forms differing in the initial vowel: à á ä, épb, úT"t, ì òeÖ, ïðÇk, äTé!Ö and Çøé!Ö. He remarked that if the imperative and the past have identical vowels in the first syllable, a symbol cannot be created.9 The same restriction is mentioned in JTS ENA .r. This restriction is probably grounded in the fact that a symbol was intended to grasp distinctive features of the imperative (#al¯amat 10 al-amr) and the past (#al¯amat al-#abar) not found in the other form:11 ¯ 3
FEA I , fol. v–v; FEA I , fol. r–r, r–r; II Firk. Arab.-Evr. . See Khan et al. (:–, I.). 5 FEA I , fol. r–r. 6 See Zislin (:–). 7 See Basal (). 8 FEA I , fol. v; Khan et al. (:, I..). The idea that a fixed relationship holds between the vowel of the imperative and that of the past form (albeit not the symbol words themselves) is registered in the Diqduq by Ibn N¯uh. (Khan (a:–)) and Kutub al-Lu˙ga by Sa#adya Gaon (Dotan (:I, ); Goldenberg (:–, esp. )). 9 FEA I , fol. r. 10 The term #al¯ ama is used in this sense only in the JTS ENA fragment and in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud. In Harunian grammars #al¯ama always refers to a symbol word as a whole. 11 The use of mnemonics (Hebrew simanim) to capture distinctions is known from Masoretic literature. In the Masorah Magna mnemonic catchphrases are sometimes used in order to pinpoint differences between parallel passages. Thus, to help remember the 4
the method of symbols
®
®
®
øîàìà ñàø éô ïåëé äîàìòìà ìåà éô éãìà êìîìà ïà åä úàîàìòìà äãäá õøâìà ® ® øáòìì äîàìò øáòìà ñàø éô ïåëé äîàìòìà øëà éô éãìà êìîìàå øîàìì äîàìò
The purpose of these symbols is that the first vowel of the symbol occurs in the beginning of the imperative as a sign of the imperative, and the last vowel of the symbol occurs in the beginning of the past form as a sign of the past. [FEA I , fol. r] äîìëìà ìåàô ®®® àá ä äèàáøå ïéúè÷ðá äøáò õî÷á øîà ìë åä ìåàìà ìöàìàå ® øáòìà äîàìò àäøëàå øîàìà äîàìò
The first principle is that each imperative in a qamas. has a past form in s. ere. Its mnemonic is à á ä … The beginning of the word is the sign of the imperative and its end is the sign of the past. [JTS ENA .r]
If the imperative and the past had the same vowel in the initial syllable, this vowel could no longer be considered a distinctive feature of either form and consequently could not be used as a basis for a symbol. Then a different vowel had to be taken: ®
®
øàöô ®®® äìàçá à÷áé ìá øáòìà éô äôåøç ìåà êìî øéâúé àì àî åä çìà áøöìàå ® äîìëìà øëà éô øáòìà äîàìò
The eighth type is when the vowel of the first consonant does not change in the past but rather stays the same … Then the sign of the past is in the end of the word. [JTS ENA .r–v]
The first grammar to include symbols based on the final vowel is al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı where Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un added three symbols á ñ î, ä@ ò and éD ò for imperatives and past forms with identical first vowels but different final vowels, while preserving the same set of symbols of the first type. Some categories of verbs were deliberately excluded from the system of symbols by Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un. These are ‘imperatives which have no past forms’ (bi-consonant pa#al imperatives, e.g. á Ö, ò c),12 passive verbs, exceptional forms (e.g. eèet"Öé in Ex. :) and rarely attested verbs with many root letters (e.g. ä ìé!à"î"× àå in Gen. :).13 difference between the near-identical verses eàTJ àÀ ^"î!Ö"a ø Ö#à úÇç t"Ö!î ì òå (Jer. :) and eàTJ àÀ ^"î!Ö"a ø Ö#à úÇë ì"î î ì òå (Ps. :) the Masorah Magna to Codex Leningradensis comments: úÇë"ì"î î úÇç"t"Ö!î ì ë"ì àVS éðð!ä é!k ïåäðîéñå úÇë ì"î î ì òå íéìäú úÇç t"Ö!î ì òå äéîøé. The verse úÇë"ì"î î úÇç"t"Ö!î ì ë"ì àVS éðð!ä é!k (Jer. :) is employed as a mnemonic for Jer. : and Ps. : since it contains the distinguishing words úÇç"t"Ö!î and úÇë"ì"î î and the words occur in the same order as in the Biblical text (i.e. úÇç"t"Ö!î before úÇë"ì"î î as Jer. before Ps.). See Yeivin (:–). 12 On ‘imperatives which have no past forms’ see ... 13 For these restrictions in al-Kit¯ ab al-Muˇstamil see FEA I , fol. r–v; FEA I , fol. r–v, r. For al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı see Khan et al. (:–, I..–).
chapter three
A further development of the system can be seen in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud and Me"or #Ayin. In these books the inventory of conjugational patterns in the existing symbols was enlarged, new symbols coined and the order of some symbols and conjugational patterns rearranged. In both works the same set of new symbols based on the initial vowels of the imperative and the past appears, namely ä ì Ö, ä k î, ä á à, é!ì ò, and _U a. As to the symbols based on the final vowels of these forms, Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud mentions one new symbol òK a in the body of the text. Another symbol éX t appears in the surviving manuscript in a marginal comment written in the same hand as the rest of the text. The symbol is introduced not in the chapter ‘On imperatives which coincide in their first vowel but differ in their last vowel [from the past verb forms derived from them] and on other related matters’ but in the chapter ‘On í ä ä, ïð"ä and ú î ä ä’ where conjugational patterns are classified on the basis of the prefixes of their imperative, past and active participle forms.14 For this reason it is not included in the summarizing list of symbols and conjugational patterns at the end of the former chapter.15 In Me"or #Ayin both patterns form an integral part of the discussion of the system of symbols. The author of Me"or #Ayin stated that the new symbols ä ì Ö, ä k î, ä á à, é!ì ò, _U a, òK a and éX t were his invention.16 More probable is, however, that they were introduced by the author of a Vorlage of Me"or #Ayin, namely Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud. Apart from new symbols, Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud and Me"or #Ayin present modified conditions for excluding verbs from the system. While still barring ‘imperatives which have no past,’ they create conjugational patterns for certain types of passive verbs as well as for rare forms.17 Moreover, Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud and Me"or #Ayin apply a new restriction that imperatives which differ from their past neither in the initial nor in the final vowel cannot be classified in the frame of the system of symbols. These are hitpa#el and niph#al imperatives inferred from imperfect forms with a patah. in the final syllable, e.g. imperfect âp ò"ú!z (Isa. :), imperative âp ò"ú!ä, past âp ò"ú!ä; imperfect ø á g!z (Ezek. :), imperative ø á g!ä, past ø a"Öð. Me"or #Ayin explains that such imperatives have to be excluded because ‘symbols can only be created in
14
On these mnemonics see .. and ... FEA I , fol. r–v. 16 The employed expressions are ïîéñ éúúð for new symbols vs. ïîéñ åðúð for symbols attested in al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı (Zislin (:–)); see also Becker (:) and Maman (:). 17 See ... 15
the method of symbols
the place of a change,’18 i.e. only based on that vowel of the past which is different from the vowel of the imperative. This restriction is a logical consequence of prohibiting symbols with two identical vowels. It is interesting to note that the changes in the system introduced in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud are not found in al-Muhtas. ar, the first abridgment of alKit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı produced by the author.˘ Indeed, the few surviving lines show that the last symbol in al-Muhtas. ar is éD ò as in al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı ˘ab al-#Uq¯ud.19 Furthermore, among and not the new symbol òK a as in Kit¯ the anomalous verbs excluded from the system al-Muhtas. ar mentions ˘ ä ìé!à"î"× àå in Gen. :. This verb is excluded from the system in alKit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı as a form with many root letters. In Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud it is accounted for in the conjugational pattern ì à"î"× ä in the symbol épb. This demonstrates that Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud is a more innovative work compared to al-Muhtas. ar, at least, as far as the system of symbols is concerned. ˘ A somewhat different tradition of the system of symbols seems to have been preserved in the Cairo Genizah fragments JTS ENA . and JTS ENA .–. These fragments belong to an otherwise unknown Karaite grammatical work and deal with the system of symbols and the division of consonants into root and non-root letters.20 Here the following set of symbols is presented: à á ä, épb, úT"t, ì òeÖ, äTé!Ö and ïðÇk. As is demonstrated by the use of the symbol äTé!Ö but not Çøé!Ö, the author was familiar with Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un’s system but did not fully adopt it. Instead of Çøé!Ö used in Harunian and related grammars to describe first waw verbs in niph#al, the fragment introduces a monosyllabic(!) symbol ïé!ä encompassing all niph#al verbs. This symbol word reflects the prefixes of the imperative and the past of niph#al verbs as well as the joint vowel of the first syllables of these forms. The author of the fragment singled out verbs in the symbol ïé!ä by saying that in ïé!ä the forms of the imperative and the past are distinguished by their first consonants, i.e. the heh vs. the nun, while the first vowels are the same whereas in the rest of the symbols the difference is in the first vowels and the first consonants are the same. Regarding verbs in which neither the first consonant 18 óåìç íå÷îá àìà ïúåé àì ïîéñä éë ïòîì 19 See Basal (:).
[Zislin (:)].
20 A. Maman (:–, ) conjectured that JTS ENA . and JTS ENA .– might belong to al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil. This is unlikely as the fragments contain a different set of symbols, use different terminology, posit passive imperatives which were dismissed as logically impossible by Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un (Khan et al. (:, I..)), and classify shin as a root letter, an opinion discussed and refuted in al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil (FEA I , fol. v–r) and al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı (Khan et al. (:, I..)).
chapter three
nor the first vowel can mark the difference, the author states that the ‘sign of the past’ (#al¯amat al-#abar) is to be found in the end of a verb. ¯ group he lists po#el, hoph#al and pu#al Among verbs belonging to this verbs, and, as a different category, hitpa#el verbs and hitpa#el verbs with assimilation of the prefix taw into the first letter of the root. The following table summarizes the development of the system of symbols: Grammatical work
Term used for symbols
pre-Ab¯u al-Faraj ? H¯ar¯un
Symbols based on the Symbols based on the initial vowels of the final vowels of the imperative and the past imperative and the past à á ä, épb, úT"t, ì òeÖ; ïðÇk
later none
al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil
#al¯ama
à á ä, épb, úT"t, ì òeÖ, ïðÇk, äTé!Ö, Çøé!Ö
none
al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı
#al¯ama
à á ä, épb, úT"t, ì òeÖ, ïðÇk, äTé!Ö, Çøé!Ö
á ñ î, ä@ ò, éD ò
Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud
#al¯ama, rib¯at.
à á ä, épb, úT"t, ì òeÖ, ïðÇk, äTé!Ö, ä ì Ö, Çøé!Ö, ä k î, ä á à, é!ì ò, _U a
á ñ î, ä@ ò, éD ò, òK a, (éX t)
Me"or #Ayin
siman
à á ä, épb, úT"t, ì òeÖ, ïðÇk, äTé!Ö, ä ì Ö, Çøé!Ö, ä k î, ä á à, é!ì ò, _U a
á ñ î, ä@ ò, éD ò, òK a, éX t
JTS ENA . and .–
rib¯at.
à á ä, épb, úT"t, ì òeÖ, äTé!Ö, ïðÇk; ïé!ä
none
.. Division of Symbols into Conjugational Patterns By definition symbols can be heterogenous and subsume verbs of any type as long as their imperative/past vowel combination fits the mnemonic. For purposes of morphological description, symbols had to be divided into homogeneous conjugational patterns. Such division is a feature of Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un’s and related grammars and does not seem to have existed in earlier works. Below I present a synoptical inventory of conjugational patterns in the four known grammars dividing symbols into conjugational patterns.21 21 M.N. Zislin (:) presented an incomplete summary table on the four works giving the symbols and the number of patterns in each symbol, though not the patterns themselves. D. Becker (:–) compiled an equally incomplete list of symbols and conjugational patterns in al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı and Me"or #Ayin but presented them
the method of symbols
... Symbols Based on the Initial Vowels of the Imperative and the Past Symbol à á ä al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil ()22
á Ö ä, äVæ, á Ö ä, _V a
al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı ()
á Ö ä, äVæ, á Ö ä, _V a
Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud ()
áé Ö ä, ø ô ä, á Ö ä, çéð ä, äVæ, _V a
Me"or #Ayin
áé Ö ä, á Ö ä, á Ö ä, çéð ä, äVæ, _V a
()23
Symbol épb al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil ()
ä k ä, ì v ä, äe ö, ä àY ä, ø a c, _ ì"Ö ä, ì k"ì k
al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı ()
ä k ä, ì v ä, äe ö, ä àY ä, ø a c, _ ì"Ö ä, ì k"ì k
Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud ()
ä k ä, ìé v ä, ì v ä, Öb ä, çép ä, ä lb, ä ìâ ä, ø a c, ò l a, ç aæ, í çU, _é ì"Ö ä, _ ì"Ö ä, ø ö"ô ä, ò a"Ö ä, ä ÖO a, ä ëYE ä, ì aY k, ò z"ò z, ì à"î"× ä
Me"or #Ayin ()
ä k ä, ìé v ä, ì v ä, Öb ä, conjugational patterns are lost, ç aæ, í çð, _é ì"Ö ä, _ ì"Ö ä, ø ö"ô ä, ò a"Ö ä, ä ÖO a, ä ëYE ä, ì aY k, çð"ò t, ì à"î"× ä
–
Symbol úT"t al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil ()
ä ×#ò, ø&î"Ö, ç ì"Ö
al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı ()
ä ×#ò, ø&î"Ö, ç ì"Ö
Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud ()
äð"a, ø&î"Ö, ò î"Ö, àTO
Me"or #Ayin ()
äð"a, ø&î"Ö, ò î"Ö, àTO
combined rather then comparatively as if the inventory of symbols and conjugational patterns in these works were the same. Such mode of presentation clearly masks the differences between the two grammars. 22 The material on al-Kit¯ ab al-Muˇstamil is taken from FEA I , fol. v–v. In FEA I , fol. r–r, r–r different sample verbs are used in some conjugational patterns. Some vocalizations in FEA I are lacking or seem to be corrupt. In such cases, inasmuch as sample verbs in FEA I are unvocalized, sample imperatives in al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil are vocalized here according to al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı. 23 In the surviving manuscript of Me"or #Ayin some vocalizations seem to be corrupt (see Zislin (:)). In such cases sample imperatives in Me"or #Ayin are vocalized here according to Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud.
chapter three
Symbol ì òeÖ al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil ()
áeÖ
al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı ()
áeÖ
Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud ()
áeÖ, òeð
Me"or #Ayin ()
áeÖ, òeð
Symbol ïðÇk al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil ()
á&ñ
al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı ()
á&ñ
Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud ()
á&ñ, òð
Me"or #Ayin ()
á&ñ, òð
Symbol äTé!Ö al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil ()
íé!×, ÷ n!ä, ïÇk!ä, _ea!ä
al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı ()
íé!×, ÷ n!ä, ïÇk!ä, _ea!ä
Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud ()
íé!×, çé!×, ïÇk!ä, òÇp!ä, ÷ n!ä, _ea!ä
Me"or #Ayin ()
íé!×, çé!×, ïÇk!ä, òÇp!ä, ÷ n!ä, _ea!ä
Symbol ä ì Ö al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil
–
al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı
–
Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud ()
ÖÇá ä, òÇø ä
Me"or #Ayin ()
ÖÇá ä, òÇø ä
Symbol Çøé!ù al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil ()
òAe!ä
al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı ()
òAe!ä
Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud ()
ÖLe!ä, õ òe!ä, òBe!ä
Me"or #Ayin ()
ÖLe!ä, òAe!ä, ò Öe!ä
the method of symbols Symbol ä k î al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil
–
al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı
–
Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud ()
ä ì#ò ä, ãé î#ò ä, ã î#ò ä, äV#ç z, äVæ"ò ä, ì àâ à
Me"or #Ayin ()
ä ì#ò ä, ãé î#ò ä, ã î#ò ä, äV#ç z, äVæ"ò ä, ì àâ à
Symbol ä á à al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil
–
al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı
–
Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud ()
ã î ç ä, Öð à ä, ó ñ à ä
Me"or #Ayin ()
ã î ç ä, Öð à ä, ó ñ à ä
Symbol é!ì ò al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil
–
al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı
–
Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud ()
íAT ä, à ôT ä, ä àT ä
Me"or #Ayin ()
ä àT ä, íAT ä, à ôT ä
Symbol _U a al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil
–
al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı
–
Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud ()
ä × ò ä
Me"or #Ayin ()
ä ì ò ä
chapter three ... Symbols Based on the Final Vowels of the Imperative and the Past
Symbol á ñ î al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil
–
al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı ()
è ì n!ä, _ l ä"ú!ä, _V a"ú!ä, ø ä h!ä, Ö ÖÇ÷"ú!ä, ïðÇk!ä, ø òY ò"ú!ä, ïðÇk
Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud ()
è ì n!ä, òð k!ä, ø ä h!ä, ø t k!ä, ïðÇk!ä, ïðÇk, ç çÇ×, ã äé"ú!ä, _ l ä"ú!ä, ç t z"ñ!ä, ì a z"ñ!ä, _V a"ú!ä, òV z"×!ä, øV z"×!ä, Ö ÖÇ÷"ú!ä, ò òÇø"ú!ä, ì ìÇz"Ö!ä, ø òY ò"ú!ä, d ì"ä ì"ú!ä
Me"or #Ayin ()
è ì n!ä, òð k!ä, ø ä h!ä, ø t k!ä, ïðÇk!ä, ïðÇk, ç çÇ×, _ l ä"ú!ä, ã äé"ú!ä, ì a z"ñ!ä, ç t z"ñ!ä, _V a"ú!ä, øV z"×!ä, òV z"×!ä, Ö ÖÇ÷"ú!ä, ì ìÇz"Ö!ä, ò òÇø"ú!ä, ø òY ò"ú!ä, d ì"ä ì"ú!ä
Symbol ä@ ò al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil
–
al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı ()
äð a!ä, äp ò"ú!ä, ä àT"ú!ä, äVÇä, äVÇæ
Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud ()
äp ò"ú!ä, ä àT"ú!ä, äð a!ä, ä kf!ä, äð"ô ä, äVÇä, äVÇæ, ä l k, ä ë"Ö î, äV(à z, ä èeô"Ö
Me"or #Ayin (?)
äp ò"ú!ä,
conjugational patterns – are lost
Symbol éD ò al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil
–
al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı ()
ì ìé ä, ãVÇä
Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud ()
áé èé ä, á ÖÇä, òBÇä
Me"or #Ayin (?)
all conjugational patterns are lost
Symbol òK a al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil
–
al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı
–
Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud ()
ø î g!ä
Me"or #Ayin (?)
all conjugational patterns are lost
the method of symbols
Symbol éX t al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil
–
al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı
–
Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud ()
ãWÇä
Me"or #Ayin (?)
all conjugational patterns are lost
... Arrangement of Symbols and Conjugational Patterns The table shows that newer symbols are generally placed after the symbols registered in earlier works. An exception is ä ì Ö which is inserted in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud and Me"or #Ayin between äTé!Ö and Çøé!Ö. Conjugational patterns within a symbol are arranged by increasing number of root letters. For each number of radicals the general order of patterns is: () patterns without the formative heh; () patterns with initial heh; () patterns with final heh; () patterns with initial and final heh. In Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud for each number of root letters and position of the heh non-guttural imperatives are given first followed where relevant by imperatives with gutturals and later by imperatives with metathesis of taw due to sibilants. In Me"or #Ayin imperatives with metathesis precede those with gutturals. Another criterion of pattern arrangement is the morphological affinity of sample imperatives. This is particularly obvious in the symbol á ñ î. In al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı the order of patterns in this symbol is: () è ì n!ä (infi#¯ al); () _ l ä"ú!ä, _V a"ú!ä, ø ä h!ä, Ö ÖÇ÷"ú!ä, ïðÇk!ä, ø òY ò"ú!ä (ifti#¯al); 24 () ïðÇk. The patterns ø ä h!ä and ïðÇk!ä are understood by Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un as related to ifti#¯al and grouped together with other hitpa#el conjugations. In Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud these and similar verbs were construed as infi#¯al25 and consequently grouped with other niph#al verbs so that the reorganized symbol displays the following order of patterns: () è ì n!ä, òð k!ä, ø ä h!ä, ø t k!ä, ïðÇk!ä (infi#¯ al); () ïðÇk, ç çÇ×; () ã äé"ú!ä, _ l ä"ú!ä, ç t z"ñ!ä, ì a z"ñ!ä, _V a"ú!ä, òV z"×!ä, øV ú"×!ä, Ö ÖÇ÷"ú!ä, ò òÇø"ú!ä, ì ìÇz"Ö!ä, ø òY ò"ú!ä, d ì"ä ì"ú!ä (ifti#¯al).
24 25
The separation of patterns into groups is mine. See ...
chapter three .. The Extension of the System of Symbols in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud and Me"or #Ayin
It is obvious that the works fall into two groups with regard to the sets of included symbols and conjugational patterns: () al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil and al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı; and () Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud and Me"or #Ayin. In the first group works contain identical sets of symbols based on the first vowel of the imperative and the past and the inventory of conjugational patterns in these symbols is the same (as was mentioned above al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil does not have symbols based on the final vowels of the imperative and the past). In the second group the sets of symbols and conjugational patterns are nearly identical in both chapters the only difference being that Me"or #Ayin announces twelve instead of eleven conjugational patterns in the symbol ä@ ò (all but one of them are lost in the surviving manuscript).26 Importantly, the inventory of symbols and conjugational patterns in the second group is much larger than in the first group. To explain the extension of the system in works of the second group it will suffice to compare the inventory of conjugations in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud with that in alKit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı, due to the identity of works in each group as regards the set of included patterns. Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud presents twelve symbols comprising fifty-eight conjugational patterns built on the basis of the first vowels of the imperative and the past as opposed to seven symbols and twenty-one conjugations found in al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı. It also mentions five symbols with thirty-five conjugational patterns built on the basis of the last vowels of the imperative and the past as opposed to three symbols with fifteen conjugations found in al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı. An analysis of paradigms presented in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud reveals that new conjugational patterns were introduced due to: () widening of the range of forms accounted for within the system; () modification of the approach to verbal derivation; () modification of the principle of grouping.27
26 In a number of cases sample verbs in Me"or #Ayin differ from those in Kit¯ ab al-#Uq¯ud which is hardly significant as sample verbs are sometimes changed within Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud itself. 27 On the pedagogical rationale behind this extension of the system of symbols see ., ..
the method of symbols
... Widening of the Range of Forms Accounted for within the System Some of the newly introduced conjugational patterns and symbols account for the widening of the range of forms for which symbols can be created. As was mentioned above, Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un excluded from the system of symbols ‘imperatives which have no past forms,’ passive verbs, exceptional forms and rarely attested verbs with many root letters.28 In Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud only the first of these restrictions was maintained and symbols were not created for ‘imperatives which have no past.’ Verbs of other types were included in the system and conjugations were created for forms with many root letters (e.g. ì à"î"× ä in the symbol épb for ä ìé!à"î"× àå in Gen. :), exceptional forms (e.g. ä èeô"Ö for eèet"Öé in Ex. :, ä ë"Ö î for ä úÇà eë"Ö î in Ezek. :, both in the symbol ä@ ò) and some passive verbs (e.g. äð"ô ä in the symbol ä@ ò for eð"ô ä in Jer. :). ... Modification of the Approach to Verbal Derivation A number of conjugational patterns newly introduced in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud reflect a difference in the approach to verbal derivation. Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un proposed imperative bases of a regular pattern and explained irregularities in derivative forms by phonetic processes operating between imperatives and their derivatives. On the contrary, the author of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud accepted the view of earlier grammarians that an imperative base must be maximally close to occurring forms and retain key features of their structure even at the cost of being hypothetical and anomalous.29 A number of such hypothetical imperatives, some inherited from the early tradition, others newly proposed, were integrated in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud into the system of symbols. Among the hypothetical conjugational patterns are ä ÖO a (symbol épb) created for pi#el forms lacking dagesh in a non-guttural; ø î g!ä (symbol òK a) for niph#al imperfect forms with retraction of the stress, and such pairs as _é ì"Ö ä with yod vs. _ ì"Ö ä without yod (symbol épb) introduced to explain structural differences between indicative and jussive imperfect forms in hiph#il. Such patterns are not found in al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı where a lesser degree of structural equivalence was required eliminating the need for hypothetical imperatives.
28 29
Khan et al. (:–, I..–). On the principles of verbal derivation in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud and al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı see ..
chapter three ... Principles of Classification
In all works the grouping of attested verbs into conjugational patterns is based on the notion of the morphological pattern (wazn).30 In alKit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı the following conditions are formulated for two verbs to belong to one morphological pattern: () the verbs must have the same morphological form (s.¯ıg˙a), i.e. produce the same impression on the sense of hearing. Examples of verbs with identical morphological form are ä × ò and ä ì ò, ä ×#òé and ä ì#òé, ø î Ö and ø ëæ, ø&î"Öé and ø&kæé. () Both words must be verbs; () the verbs have to be in the same tense and mood; () the verbs must have the same number of root letters;31 () a letter liable to elision must be either elided or retained in both verbs; () if the verbs have an elided letter, it must be in the same position; () the paradigms of both words must be the same to their full extent.32 In Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud the conditions are similar: () the verbs must have the same number of root letters; () the root letters have to be in the same position within the verbs; () the verbs must have the same number of vowels and these vowels need to be identical; () gutturals may not be patterned with non-gutturals in order not to violate the principle of identity of morphological form in a pattern; () the paradigms of both verbs must be the same to their full extent; () the verbs must be in the same tense and mood; () if a letter was elided from one of the forms, the second form must also have a letter elided from it.33 It is the general principle of the system of symbols that verbs with congruent morphological patterns are attributed to one conjugational pattern. It should be noted that equivalence of morphological pattern does not presuppose equivalent root structure in the modern understanding of the concept so that many conjugational patterns include verbs which for us belong to different gezarot and/or binyanim. In al-Kit¯ab alK¯af¯ı the conjugational pattern á Ö ä in the symbol à á ä includes a middle weak imperative á Ö ä from dT"ò z ì à á Ö ä (Ezek. :) and geminated imperatives ø ô ä34 and òU ä. In Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud the conjugational 30 This principle of presentation in Me"or #Ayin was pointed out by M.N. Zislin (:). A. Maman’s (a:) disputation of M.N. Zislin’s views relays on the assumption that M.N. Zislin construed symbols rather than conjugational patterns as based on morphological patterns of included verbs. 31 On the Karaite concept of the root see ... 32 Khan et al. (: –, I..–). 33 FEA I , fol. r–v. 34 On the Babylonian type vocalization of geminated verbs in hiph#il with a patah . instead of a s. ere in the final syllable see ...
the method of symbols
pattern çép ä in the symbol épb has a sample verb which is a middle weak third guttural verb with aramaising gemination of the first radical and includes first nun third guttural verbs, e.g. eòébé (Ps. :) alongside first yod second s. ade third guttural verbs, e.g. òé!vé (Isa. :). Across the grammars, a different degree of structural affinity is required between verbs in a pattern. Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un’s strategy was to attribute verbs which have morphological patterns connected through a regular phonetic process, such as the influence of gutturals, to one conjugational pattern. He then relied on the readers’ ability to modify sample verb forms in accordance with phonetic rules of Biblical Hebrew. This is most clearly demonstrated by the fact that the sample verb of the fourth conjugational pattern in the symbol épb in al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı is ä àY ä which does not fit the definition of the symbol, the first vowel of its m.sg. 35 This sample verb is considered past being a segol instead of a hireq. . admissible by Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un inasmuch as the vowel change is regular.36 Similarly, in the chapter on the vowel of the future prefix in alKit¯ab al-Muˇstamil, first strong ïÇké and first aleph øÇàé are attributed to the same conjugational pattern.37 A new conjugational pattern is created only when the difference in form cannot be explained by a phonetic process, as is the case with conjugational patterns _ea!ä with a shuruq for forms such as é!úÇðeáð (Isa. :) or íé!ëeáð (Ex. :) and ïÇk!ä with a holam . for ïÇáð (Gen. :) and similar forms.38 Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un’s principle of establishing conjugational patterns is reminiscent of the notion of ‘imperative in its primary form’ (amr bi-ra"sih) used by Ibn N¯uh. and other early grammarians to refer to ‘a form of imperative base that is not derivative from another by a phonetic process.’39 Using this terminology one could say that Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un posited conjugational patterns only for ‘imperatives in their primary form.’ In Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud the classification is much stricter and the emphasis is put on the morphological form of verbs in a conjugational pattern. A rigid one-to-one correspondence between the morphological form 35
See Khan et al. (:, I. .). See also Becker (:). 37 FEA I , fol. r. A similar principle of classification served the author of the treatise on the Hebrew verbs (Khan (b:)) and the author of JTS ENA . and JTS ENA .–. In the latter it is evident from the fact that the imperatives ø î g!ä and ä àT ä are both attributed to the symbol ïé!ä where the hireq represents the joint vowel of . the imperative and the past (JTS ENA .r). 38 See Khan et al. (:, I.., ). 39 Khan (a:, b:). 36
chapter three
and the conjugational pattern of a verb is required so that verbs of non-identical morphological forms are invariably attributed to different conjugational patterns. This principle is explicitly mentioned with regard to the introduction of the conjugational pattern ø ä h!ä as opposed to ø t k!ä: ®
®
äôìàëî äâéöìà ïàì äì ìé÷ ®ïéôéøöú ø ô ë!äå ø ä è!ä úìòâ íì ìà÷ ïàô
If one says: ‘Why did you attribute ø ä h!ä and ø t k!ä to two [different] conjugational patterns?’ it should be said to him: ‘Because the morphological form is not the same’. [FEA I , fol. r]
Importantly, identity of morphological form can sometimes be more significant for establishing conjugational patterns than the identity of morphological pattern so that verbs are grouped together which belong to different morphological patterns. This happens when guttural and nonguttural imperatives have the same morphological form. According to the definition of morphological pattern given in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud, guttural verbs cannot be patterned with non-guttural ones. On the other hand, the morphological form of a verb is not necessarily influenced by the presence of gutturals. Thus, in the conjugational pattern á Ö ä in the symbol à á ä the author conjugated two sample verbs, a non-guttural verb á Ö ä and a final guttural òU ä. These verbs have the same morphological form (the prefix heh followed by two radicals with the vocalic pattern qamas.–patah) . but cannot be attributed to one morphological pattern because òU ä is a guttural verb and á Ö ä is not. Similarly, in the conjugational pattern äVæ in the same symbol the second sample imperative is a non-guttural ä á ä.40 In both cases the sample verbs are said to belong to the same conjugational but to a different morphological pattern.41 Only the morphological form of m.sg. imperative and m.sg. past is taken into account when grouping verbs into conjugational patterns whereas differences in morphological form apparent in derivative forms but hidden in m.sg. imperative and/or m.sg. past are disregarded. This is shown among other things by the classification of first guttural verbs in pa#al. In this binyan the difference between strong and first guttural verbs is evident in the forms of the future but not in the imperative and the past.42 This difference was acknowledged by the author:
40
This imperative is hypothetical.
41 äðæå éô àì äôéøöú éô [FEA I , fol. v, r]. 42 In the imperative the difference between äð"a and ä ×#ò
is purely notational because in the Tiberian reading tradition the vocalic shewa was pronounced as a short /a/, same as the hataph patah. (Khan (:); Morag (:–)). .
the method of symbols
®
àãçàå àãøåî òîñìà äñàç éìò àîäãøåî ñéì ãà äãçàå äâéöá ñéì äð"áéå ä ×#òé ä ×#òé
and äð"áé do not have the same form because the impression they produce on the sense of hearing is not the same. [FEA I , fol. r]
Yet among the structurally identical imperatives in the conjugational pattern äð"a in the symbol úT"t one finds the first guttural imperative ä ì"à.43 Another prominent manifestation of this principle is the classification of geminated verbs. On the one hand, conjugational patterns with geminate sample verbs include imperatives inferred from attested forms without dagesh in which strong geminated verbs normally would have one. Thus, the list of structurally identical imperatives in the conjugational pattern á&ñ in the symbol ïðÇk includes imperatives Ö&a, ø&à and ø&ò inferred from the middle weak f.sg. imperatives é!ÖÇa (Isa. :) and éXÇà (Isa. :) and the aramaizing f.pl. imperative form äT&òå (Isa. :) of the geminated root #.r.r. which does not have the dagesh on the account of the resh.44 Likewise, a number of imperatives on the list of structurally identical verbs in the conjugational pattern ÷ n!ä in the symbol äTé!Ö are inferred from forms which clearly lack the dagesh in the final radical before a suffix. These are Öb!ä from eÖb!z (Ezek. :), ì v!ä from äð"ì v!z (Jer. :) and ò z!ä from eò zð (Job :). In the conjugational patterns ø ô ä and á Ö ä in the symbol à á ä middle weak and geminated verbs are also grouped together despite the dagesh in some of the attested forms of geminated verbs. On the other hand, imperatives inferred from geminated verb forms are attributed to middle weak conjugations. For example, imperatives ìÇb!ä from elâðå (Isa. :) and ìÇf!ä from elÇæð (Isa. :, :) are listed among the imperatives structurally identical with ïÇk!ä. One can conclude that elements of morphological form of derivative verb forms not reflected in their m.sg. imperative and/or m.sg. past were, indeed, seen as non-core structural elements and disregarded for the purposes of classification. To satisfy the principle of attributing verbs with non-identical morphological forms of m.sg. imperative and m.sg. past to different conjugational patterns, the author introduced separate paradigms for verbs with gutturals or resh as one of their radicals and hitpa#el verbs with metathesis of taw before a sibilant.
43 44
On the use of a simple shewa instead of a hataph vowel see .... . Gesenius (§i).
chapter three
.... Guttural Verbs Separate conjugational patterns were established for verbs with gutturals only under the condition that the guttural influences the vocalism of m.sg. imperative and/or m.sg. past. Wherever this is not the case, guttural and non-guttural verbs were deemed to have the same morphological form and were patterned together. . First Guttural Verbs Separate conjugational patterns were introduced for first guttural verbs in hiph#il (e.g. ä ì#ò ä, ãé î#ò ä, ã î#ò ä) and first guttural and first resh verbs in niph#al (e.g. òÇø ä, ã î ç ä, ä × ò ä, à ôT ä). Inasmuch as the gutturals here affect the first vowel of the imperative and/or the past, new symbols had to be coined to reflect them. These are ä k î for hiph#il verbs and ä ì Ö, ä á à, é!ì ò and _U a for niph#al’s. . Second Guttural Verbs Separate conjugational patterns were proposed for second guttural pi#el and hitpa#el forms with virtual gemination (e.g. í çU in the symbol épb, ã äé"ú!ä in the symbol á ñ î). In such conjugations the vowel sign in the first syllable is the same as in middle strong verbs but the vowel itself is lengthened (in medieval terms, the verb contains a quiescent aleph): ®
®êìãë ñéì ø ñe!äå ø ô k!äå úéèìà ãòá óìà éìò úðëñ ã÷ ø ä h!ä éô êðà
Indeed, in ø ä h!ä there is a quiescent aleph after the t. et and in ø t k!ä and ø qe!ä this is not the case. [FEA I , fol. r]
Conjugational patterns for second guttural pi#el and hitpa#el forms with compensatory lengthening (e.g. _V a in the symbol à á ä vs. ø a c in épb, _V a"ú!ä vs. _ l ä"ú!ä in the symbol á ñ î) are also registered but these were included already by Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un.45 Considering that this grammarian established separate conjugational patterns only for ‘imperatives in their primary form’ their presence in al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı clearly indicates that Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un was not familiar with the concept of compensatory lengthening.46 . Third Guttural Verbs Third guttural conjugations constitute the largest subset of patterns newly introduced in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud. In the derivational theory of the author,
45 46
See Khan et al. (:, , , I.., , , ). See also Becker (:).
the method of symbols
third guttural imperatives can be vocalized with either s. ere and furtive patah. or with a patah. in the final syllable depending on the vocalic pattern of their attested derivative forms.47 In symbols based on the initial vowel of the imperative and the past, third guttural conjugational patterns of both types were proposed, e.g. ç aæ in the symbol épb, çéð ä in the symbol à á ä, òBe!ä in the symbol Çøé!Ö vs. ò l a and ø ö"ô ä in the symbol épb. In symbols based on the final vowel of the imperative and the past conjugational patterns were added only for imperatives ending in s. ere and furtive patah, . e.g. ç t z"ñ!ä, òð k!ä in the symbol á ñ î, òBÇä in the symbol éD ò.48 Indeed, related third guttural imperatives in a patah. are identical with their past forms in both the initial and the final vowel and as such cannot be classified in the frame of the system of symbols. It must be noted that sample verbs with gutturals are found in alKit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı as well as in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud, e.g. ä àY ä in the symbol épb and ø ä h!ä in the symbol á ñ î. However, as these are never contrasted with non-guttural imperatives (apart from second guttural verbs with compensatory lengthening), guttural sample verbs in al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı have to be understood as representing the conjugation of all verbs of the relevant type. The only case where a guttural vs. non-guttural contraposition could be suspected are the conjugational patterns ø&î"Ö and ç ì"Ö in the symbol úT"t. Yet ç ì"Ö is probably best interpreted here as exemplifying forms of all pa#al verbs with a patah. in the imperfect rather than of guttural verbs alone. .... Hitpa#el Verbs with Metathesis of Taw A number of hitpa#el conjugations with metathesis of the prefix taw were created in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud for first sibilant verbs, all in the symbol á ñ î, e.g. ì a z"ñ!ä as opposed to _ l ä"ú!ä, øV z"×!ä as opposed to _V a"ú!ä, ì ìÇz"Ö!ä as opposed to Ö ÖÇ÷"ú!ä. Only first shin, first sin and first samekh verbs are mentioned. No first s. ade conjugations can be found and it seems that the change of taw to t. et after the s. ade was one of the few phonetic processes recognized by the author:
47
See ... That imperatives such as ç t z"ñ!ä and òBÇä are included in the symbols á ñ î and éD ò respectively shows that the s. ere was regarded as their last vowel and the furtive patah. was not taken into account for the purposes of establishing symbols. 48
chapter three ®
éãöìà ãòá åúìà ïî àöåò úéèìàá åúà äâììà ìäà ïà åìà÷ ïàô éãöìà àîàô ® íàìëìì àôàôëúñà
As for s. ade, they said that the people of the language49 pronounced t. et instead of taw after s. ade in order to ease pronunciation. [FEA I , fol. v]
.... Imperatives Identical with Their Past Forms in Both the Initial and the Final Vowel Apart from causing new conjugational patterns and symbols to be created, the modification of patterning principles described above led to the exclusion of imperatives identical with their past forms in both the initial and the final vowel from the system of symbols.50 These include hitpa#el, niph#al and first yod hiph#il imperatives inferred from imperfect forms with a patah. in the final syllable, e.g. âp ò"ú!ä from âp ò"ú!z (Isa. :), çbð"ú!ä from çbð"úé (Dan. :), ø á g!ä from ø á g!z (Ezek. :), øKé ä from øKééå (Ps. :).51 It is obvious that such verbs have identical initial vowels of the imperative and the past. As to the final vowels, niph#al verbs have a patah. in the final syllable of their past forms producing form pairs such as m.sg. imperative ø á g!ä–m.sg. past ø a"Öð. Hitpa#el verbs were vocalized by the author in the Babylonian manner with a patah. in the final syllable of m.sg. past52 which produces such pairs as m.sg. imperative âp ò"ú!ä–m.sg. past âp ò"ú!ä. Hiph#il imperatives with a patah. in the final syllable are usually inferred from jussive and imperfect consecutive forms with a patah. and the vocalization of the jussive is preserved in the entire conjugation,53 e.g. imperative ø ö"ô ä in the symbol épb has the past ø ö"ô!ä and the active participle ø ö"ô î. For a first yod jussive form with a final patah. this would result in an imperative and past form identical in both the initial and the final vowel, as in jussive òAé (Num. :), m.sg. imperative òAÇä–m.sg. past òAÇä.
49 In adherence to the Aristotelian-Mu#tazilite understanding of the origins of language, Karaites saw Hebrew as created by a group of primary speakers, the so-called ‘people of the language’ (ahl al-lu˙ga). See Gallego (), Olszowy-Schlanger (:– ). 50 FEA I , fol. r–v, r–r. 51 øKéé is construed by modern grammarians as imperfect pa#al of y.q.r. with a deviant vocalization of the future prefix (see BDB (); Gesenius (§b, f.n. )). 52 See ... 53 See ...
the method of symbols
Although the fundamental prohibition of establishing symbols with two identical vowels was adhered to by Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un, the rule that imperatives identical with their past forms in both the initial and the final vowel must be excluded from the system of symbols is not found in his grammars. This is because such imperatives do not play any significant role in the system of Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un. In his classification, conjugational patterns were created only for ‘imperatives in their primary form’ and all other related imperatives had to be traced back to them. Imperatives identical with their past forms both in the initial and the final vowel clearly do not belong to the group of ‘imperatives in their primary form’ and as such did not deserve a special mention. On the contrary, in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud all verbs with distinct morphological forms were integrated into symbols so that the need arose to deal with such cases. Imperatives identical with their past forms in both the initial and the final vowel are described in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud as secondary (far#). To conjugate a secondary form it is necessary to establish its primary form (as. l), i.e. the form with a s. ere in the final syllable, and to follow the conjugational pattern given for it: ®
®
éìò àððà äì ìé÷ ®äøåëãîìà øîàåàìà äãä óéøàöú êìñî óøòð óéëå ìà÷ ïàô ® ® éìòå äâììà óéøàöú ïåã ïî êìäúä óéøöú éìà äìúàî àîå âp ò"ú!ä ãøð äìîâìà ÷éøè ® ® ® àãàå øáòìàå øîàìà ïéá ÷øô íìòð íì àãà äìöà éìà òøô ìë ãøð ä÷éøèìà äãä éùá äéô íëçð íì ìöà äì íìòð íì
If somebody says: ‘How can we know the course of the paradigm of these above-mentioned imperatives?’ it should be said to him: ‘In short, we should refer âp ò"ú!ä and similar cases to the conjugational pattern _ l ä"ú!ä rather than other conjugational patterns in the language. This way we refer each secondary form to its primary form if we cannot see the difference between the imperative and the past. But if we do not know the primary form, we have no basis to judge about it’. [FEA I , fol. r]
... Conjugational Patterns Introduced for a Combination of Reasons Some conjugational patterns were introduced for a combination of reasons. Thus, one finds patterns with metathesis and final guttural (both classificational reasons), such as ç t z"ñ!ä as opposed to _ l ä"ú!ä and ì a z"ñ!ä in the symbol á ñ î, or with a guttural and a deviant position of the tone (a classificational and a derivational reason), such as ó ñ à ä in the symbol ä á à as opposed to è ì n!ä in the symbol á ñ î, ã î ç ä in the symbol ä á à and ø î g!ä in the symbol òK a.
chapter three .. Morphological Value of Symbols and Conjugational Patterns
The question of the nature of symbols caused some disagreement among the researchers who studied the system. D. Becker believed that Hebrew verbs were in the first place divided into conjugational patterns which were then classified on the basis of symbols.54 He regarded the symbols as pure mnemonics offered as memory props to those already familiar with verbal paradigms. This opinion was challenged by A. Maman who sought to see in the system of symbols a theoretical framework of verbal conjugation.55 A. Maman considered that the underlying idea of this system was that all forms in a verbal paradigm somehow depended on the first or the last vowels of the imperative and the past and described conjugational patterns as secondary formations within symbols. A comparative analysis of works using the system of symbols together with the clues contained in comments on the system provided in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud for beginning students can contribute to determining the morphological value of symbols and their relation to conjugational patterns. Historically symbols seem to pre-date conjugational patterns. Indeed, when writing about the beginnings of the system Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un does not report on earlier grammarians dividing symbols into conjugational patterns. Moreover, the JTS ENA fragment does not make use of this division. Consider this: ®
®
äè÷ðá äøáò äçúàôá éãìà øîàìà ïà [®®®] àðì÷ àîë éðâ äèàáø éðàúìà ìöàìàå äe!ö äe ö ø á!Ö ø á Ö ø áD ø áA êìå÷ë
The mnemonic for the second type is épb as we said … that the imperative in a patah. has a past in a hireq, e.g. ø a c–ø a!c, ø a Ö–ø a!Ö, äe ö–äe!ö. . [JTS ENA .v ]
Here the author mentions two types of verbs encompassed by the symbol épb, namely ø a c and äe ö, but does not separate them into different conjugational patterns. One can conclude that symbols were not originally introduced to classify pre-existing patterns. Instead they were probably used for establishing unattested past and imperative forms much in the manner presented in the Diqduq by Ibn N¯uh. in the course of the discussion on the most probable imperative form of the past éð"ú î$çé (Ps. :):
54 55
Becker (:, , ). Maman (a:–).
the method of symbols
Some people have … said that éð"ú î$çé cannot be derived from ä î#çé and that, if it were derived from ä î#çé, it would be éð"ú î#çé. This is because, whenever an imperative that has patah. on the first letter becomes a past form, there is hireq under the first letter, unless the first letter of the past form is one of . the letters òçäà, in which case the first letter does not have hireq but rather . segol … [Khan (a:–)]
Here a relation between the imperative and the past form identical to that encoded in the symbol épb is described and used to determine whether ä î#çé could legitimately be posited as the imperative of éð"ú î$çé. It is not impossible that symbol words were invented to grasp such stable relations and make them more manifest to a grammarian’s mind. This mnemotechnical property of symbols is reflected in the Judaeo-Arabic technical term rib¯at. used for them in the JTS ENA fragment and in a few cases in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud. The literal meaning of rib¯at. is ‘bond’ but the term was applied in some Karaite works to signify ‘mnemonic.’56 That symbols were intended to hint at the past form of a verb is, furthermore, confirmed by some statements in later grammars. In Me"or #Ayin one reads: éååö ìë ïëå ®úT"ô õî÷á åìù øáòä ùàø éë òãú àåù åùàø úçú àöîú øùà éååö ìë ®éðâ ïîéñäå ®úçúî äãå÷ð åìù øáòä ùàø úçú äéäé äçúô åùàøá äéäé
Whenever you find a shewa in the beginning of an imperative, know that in the beginning of its past is a qamas. , úT"t. Whenever there is a patah. in the beginning of an imperative, in the beginning of its past form will be a hireq. The symbol is épb. [Zislin (:)] .
In Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud predicting the past is pointed out as the sole purpose of symbols: ®
®
®
íåìòî êìã ïàë åìå øîà ìë ïî øáòìà íìòéì úìòâ àîðà úàîàìòìà äãä ïà íìòàå ® ®äîàìò éìà âàúçé íì àäðåã ïî éãúáîìì
Take note that these symbols were created only to make the past form of every imperative known. If a beginner knew the past without them, he would not need the symbols. [FEA I , fol. r]
Two conclusions can be drawn from these passages. Firstly, they clearly show the supposition that symbols determine entire verbal paradigms to be erroneous. Secondly, they imply that the vowel of the imperative encoded in the first vowel of the symbol be predictive of the vowel 56
® ®
®
In Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud one reads: áà éäå íéøëæ àäðî øùò éãçà àôøç ïåøùòå ïàðúà óåøçìà ® ®®® ® ®® ®® ab äðéá åúëàìîù àäèàáøå úùðî ìëé åä [FEA I , fol. r–v]. For a similar usage in al-Kit¯ al-K¯af¯ı see Khan et al. (:, I..).
chapter three
of the past encoded in the last vowel of the symbol. This is possible only if none of the symbols in the system have the same first vowel but different second vowels. This seems to have been the case with symbols proposed before Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un. Indeed, in the set à á ä, épb, úT"t, ì òeÖ, ïðÇk the correspondences of the vowels are unambiguous. The same holds for the JTS ENA fragment where the symbols à á ä, épb, úT"t, ì òeÖ, äTé!Ö, ïðÇk are listed. This principle was given up by Ab¯ u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un who was the first to widen the range of verbs described in the frame of the system at the cost of the predictive power of symbols. Al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil contains one ambiguous pair of symbols, namely äTé!Ö and Çøé!Ö. At each subsequent development stage more ambiguous symbols entered the system, i.e. á ñ î, ä@ ò and éD ò in al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı and later ä ì Ö, ä k î, ä á à and êU a in Kit¯ ab al-#Uq¯ud and Me"or #Ayin.57 In the end there remained only a few symbols with strong prognostic value.58 The confusion resulting from the loss of the predictive power of symbols is discussed in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud in the introduction to the chapter on symbols based on the final vowels of the imperative and the past: ®
®
®
õìëúé óéëô ïéúè÷ðá àäìë éD òå ä@ òå á ñ î éô øîàåàìà øëàåà ïàë àãà ìà÷ ïàô ® ® ® ® äöîà÷ øáòìà éô äçúàôìà òöåî ìòâéô êìã äéìò ñáúìé ã÷ ãà áìàèìì øáòìà ® ® ® ® íì ïàô äöîà÷ äè÷ðìà òöåî åà äè÷ð äöîà÷ìà òöåî ìòâé åà êìã ïî ñëòìàá åà ® ®ñàáúìàìà ìæé íì äèáöé øîà äì ïëé
Someone may say: ‘If the imperatives of the symbols á ñ î, ä@ ò and éD ò all end in a s. ere, how can the past become clear to the student? Is not it that this could confound him and he will form the past with a patah. instead of a qamas. , or vice versa, or will use a hireq instead of a qamas. , or a qamas. . instead of a hireq? So, if the imperative does not establish it, there will be . no end to the confusion’. [FEA I , fol. v]
The loss of the predictive power of symbols appears to have coincided with the introduction of conjugational patterns into the system. The division of symbols into conjugational patterns was first implemented by Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un and is a characteristic feature of his and related grammars. Presumably, this was done for purposes of morphological description. Indeed, since al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil the system of symbols was applied in grammars as a framework for presenting material on
57 Hence, the above-discussed passages in Kit¯ ab al-#Uq¯ud and Me"or #Ayin concerning the use of symbols to predict the past must relate to the original situation when the symbols were still unambiguous. 58 A. Maman (a:) concluded that symbols differ in their predictive power. It is now clear that this was not the original situation.
the method of symbols
particular aspects of verbal morphology. Grammatical phenomena were considered in every conjugational pattern in the order of the symbols which was perceived as the most systematical way of dealing with them. For example, ®
®
úàîàìòìà éìà ãøé ïà âàúçé òîâà óéøàöúìà éô ìàá÷úñàìà àé è÷ð çøùå ® àäîàîúå éðâ à á ä éðòà ìàòôàìà ïî øáòìàå øîàìì äòåöåîìà
To explain the vocalization of the [prefix] yod of the future in all conjugational patterns it is necessary to turn to symbols established for imperative and past forms of verbs, i.e. à á ä, épb and the rest of them. [al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil, FEA I , fol. r–v]
In al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil the system is used three times to present () forms of the active and passive participles; () vocalization of future prefixes; and () differences between conjoined and disjoined forms of various verb types. In al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı the symbols form the framework for discussing active and passive participles. In Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud and Me"or #Ayin the system serves to lay out verbal paradigms before a learner of Hebrew grammar. Using it as a means of organizing morphological material, it was apparently more important for grammarians to extend the system so that it would describe as many verbs as possible for which a discussed morphological phenomenon was relevant than to preserve the predictive power of symbols. To produce morphological descriptions in this framework, verbs within symbols had to be divided into conjugational patterns based on their morphological patterns. Thus formed, patterns represented morphologically valid entities with all verbs within a pattern behaving in a similar way. Unlike conjugational patterns the symbols are based not on a morphological characteristic but rather on an external property of verbs, namely their imperative/past vowel combination, which led to their becoming secondary in morphological discourse. This can be seen from the fact that the set of symbols used in a grammatical work depended among other things on the principles of grouping verbs into conjugational patterns. Thus, symbols such as ä k î, ä ì Ö, ä á à, é!ì ò and _U a had to be newly introduced in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud when the author decided to establish conjugational patterns for all imperatives rather than just for ‘imperatives in their primary form.’ In this case conjugational patterns were grouped into symbols instead of the latter being divided into conjugational patterns as was originally done by Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un. Although the predictive value of symbols was severely diminished by the extension of the system, their use to classify sample imperatives
chapter three
allowed their mnemonic properties to still be employed. In Kit¯ab al#Uq¯ud both chapters on verbal conjugation are concluded with a list of sample imperatives belonging to each symbol. By memorizing these lists a student was put in a position to tell to which symbol a particular imperative belongs. He could then deduce the vowel of the past form as it was coded in the symbol and did not have to remember it separately.59 In sum, the following picture emerges. Symbols were initially introduced as mnemonics capturing regular correspondences between the vocalization of the imperative and the past. The original symbols were unambiguous and served to establish past forms. Starting from Harunian grammars symbols were divided into conjugational patterns based on morphological criteria and the system took on the role of a frame of reference for morphological descriptions with symbols as labels in the classification of conjugational patterns. As new verb types were integrated into the system the inventory of symbols enlarged and their predictive power was significantly compromised. Although the symbols lost their importance in morphological reasoning, their mnemotechnical properties continued to be used for pedagogical purposes.
59
See ...
chapter four DESCRIPTION OF A ¯ AL-#UQUD ¯ CONJUGATIONAL PATTERN IN KITAB
The description of a conjugational pattern in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud consists of three components: () a set of forms of the sample verb; () a list of imperatives structurally identical with the sample imperative given with their source verses; () a set of tables of forms of the sample verb with object suffixes (only in transitive conjugational patterns). Apart from Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud, all three elements are found in paradigm descriptions in the treatise on the Hebrew verbs and Me"or #Ayin. In the Harunian grammars only the uninflected forms of sample verbs are given. .. Sets of Forms of Sample Verbs All known treatises using the system of symbols describe conjugational patterns by citing certain forms of representative verbs. The set of forms given in a particular work depends on the grammatical phenomenon described in the frame of the system of symbols but necessarily includes m.sg. imperative and m.sg. past.1 Thus, in al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı the system of symbols is used to discuss active and passive participles of various verbs so that the set of forms used in each conjugational pattern consists of m.sg. imperative, m.sg. past, active participle m.sg. and passive participle m.sg. When in al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil the system is used to pinpoint differences between conjoined and disjoined verb forms, basic finite verb forms, i.e. m.sg. imperative, m.sg. past, m.sg. future are cited. In Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud the system is used to lay out verbal paradigms before a learner of Hebrew grammar. To achieve this, conjugational patterns are characterized by extensive sets of forms. The long set of forms includes eighteen forms: m.sg. imperative, m.sg. past, active participle in both genders and numbers, passive participle in both genders and numbers (transitive conjugations only), f.sg. imperative, f.sg. past, m.pl. imperative, m.pl.
1
See also Becker (:–).
chapter four ® ®® ®
past and four forms of the future in the order of the prefix letters úðéà. The short set of forms includes seven forms: m.sg. imperative, m.sg. past, active participle m.sg. and four forms of the future in the order ® ®® ® of the prefix letters úðéà. The general tendency of the author was to use the short set in final guttural conjugations and conjugations of hiph#il imperatives without yod.2 The author remarked that in the two abovementioned sorts of patterns the only distinctive forms are those of the short set. Consider the following: . Regarding the conjugational pattern òÇp!ä in the symbol äTé!Ö it is stated: ®
®
è÷ô ìá÷úñîìàå ìòàôìàå øáòìàå øîàìà éô ïÇk!ä óéøöúì óìàëé óéøöúìà àãäå
This conjugational pattern differs from the conjugational pattern ïÇk!ä only in the imperative, the past, the active participle m.sg. and the future. [FEA I , fol. v]
. On the patterns ì v ä without yod, Öb ä3 and çép ä the author wrote: ®
®
®
àîäîã÷úéå ïééìöà ïéôøç ïî éä éãìà äøåëãîìà óéøàöúìà äãä äé÷á ïà áø÷éå ® éôå ìá÷úñîìàå ìòàôìàå øáòìàå øîàìà éô àìà ãåéá ìé ö ä óéøöú óìàëú àì à ä ® ® ®íìòà äììàå äôéøöú éìà òâøú óéøöúìà òéîâ
It is likely that all the above-mentioned conjugational patterns consisting of two root letters preceded by heh differ from the conjugational pattern ìé v ä with yod only in the imperative, the past, the active participle m.sg., and the future, but are identical with it in the rest of the paradigm, but God knows. [FEA I , fol. v–r]
For conjugations of other types, the long set is normally used even if it is stated that the pattern has only a few distinctive forms.4 For instance, the conjugational pattern ÖÇá ä containing first guttural middle weak niph#al verbs is characterized through a long set of forms but said to be different from the conjugational pattern ïÇk!ä only in the imperative and the future. It will be noted that even the long set is far from including all possible forms of a sample verb. It omits first and second person forms of the suffix conjugation as well as all forms of the prefix conjugation which require a suffix as well as a prefix. Some of the forms omitted in lists of uninflected forms later appear in tables of verb forms with object suffixes but not a single conjugational pattern presents a complete inventory of forms of 2
On hiph#il imperatives with and without yod see ...
3 Öb ä mainly contains final guttural verbs (see ...). 4 An exception are conjugations in the symbol ä á à all of which are described through
a short set of forms.
a conjugational pattern in kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud
the suffix or the prefix conjugation. Fuller paradigms can be found in the treatise on the Hebrew verbs.5 In Me"or #Ayin sets of forms used to characterize a paradigm are similar to those in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud. Apart from the forms themselves the author sometimes supplied grammatical explanations for certain forms of a set, compared forms and linked between conjugational patterns. For example, in the conjugational pattern àTO in the symbol úT"t the author provided an explanation of imperative forms of pa#al verbs: ®
éðàøáòìà óéøàöú øéàñ óìëú àTO óéøöúå ò î"ù óéøöúå øî"ù óéøöú ïà íìòàå ® ïéùìà úçú øî"ù ãçàåìì øîàìà ïà êàãå íéáøìì øîàìà éôå äãçàåìì øîàìà éô ® éô äè÷ðìà úàâ åø"î!ù íéáøììå éX"î!Ö ÷ë øîàìà éô äè÷ð äãçàåìì ïéùìà úçúå àåù ® ® ® ® ® ® éøî!ù ìá êìãë âé íìå éXåî"ù äúðåîìà øîà éâé ïà áâé ïàë ã÷å àåùìà òöåî ïéøîàìà ® ® ® ® ® äãâé àìå íéáøìà øîàå äúðåîìà øîà éô àåùìà áìè àãà øééçú àãä èáöé íì ïîå ® ø&î"ù åäå ãçàåìà øîà éô äãâå àîë
Take note that the conjugational pattern ø&î"Ö and the conjugational pattern ò î"Ö and the conjugational pattern àTO differ from the rest of Hebrew conjugations in the f.sg. imperative and the m.pl. imperative. Indeed, the m.sg. imperative is ø&î"Ö with a shewa under the shin. But the f.sg. imperative in the two has a hireq under the shin, e.g. éX"î!Ö, and in m.pl. eø"î!Ö. The hireq . . imperatives replaces the shewa. The feminine imperative should have been éXÇî"Ö, but it occurs not in this form but rather éX"î!Ö. He who does not learn it will be perplexed when looking for the shewa in the f.sg. imperative and the m.pl. imperative and not finding it as he finds it in the m.sg. imperative ø&î"Ö. [JTS ENA .r]
Elsewhere, the pattern ä ì#ò ä in the symbol ä k î is said to be related to the pattern äL"Ö ä inépb:! ®
øáò ìë éô ìòâú êðà øéâ ä ì#ò ä óéøöú äéìò ñé÷ú àî éðâ éô äL"Ö ä óéøöú éô øî ã÷å ® ® :è÷ð äúìú ä ì#ò ä ïî
You should treat the conjugational pattern ä ì#ò ä by analogy with what was mentioned in the conjugational pattern äL"Ö ä inépb!. However, you should vocalize the past forms of ä ì#ò ä with a segol. [FEA I , fol. v]
Headings of most patterns contain grammatical information on the number of root letters and the position of the affix heh compared to the radicals, e.g.: à ä àîäîã÷úéå ïééìöà ïéôøç ïî éðâ éô òáàø óéøöú
The fourth conjugational pattern of épb has two root letters preceded by a heh. [FEA I , fol. v]
5
On the verbal paradigms included in the treatise see Khan (b:–).
chapter four
In the symbol á ñ î headings of hitpa#el conjugations contain additional information on the morphological pattern of the verbs included, such as the position of the taw compared to the first radical, the gemination of the second radical or the differences between various patterns: ®
ìàòúôàìà åúå äìë óéøöúìà éô úáàú ùâãìàå ìàòúôà å úá á ñ î éô øùàò óéøöú ìòôìà àô ãòá
The tenth conjugational pattern in á ñ î contains the taw of ifti#¯a l, the dagesh is stable in the entire conjugation and the taw of ifti#¯al is after the first radical. [FEA I , fol. v] ®
óéøöúìì ÷ôàåî åäå äúáàú äöîà÷ äéôå ìàòúôà å úá á ñ î éô øùò òáàø óéøöú ® ®äçúàôìà éôðì äâéöìà éô äì óìàëî ïéùìà ãòá ìàòúôàìà å ú ïåë éô íã÷úîìà
The fourteenth conjugational pattern in á ñ î has a taw of ifti#¯al and a stable qamas. ; it agrees with the preceding conjugational pattern in the position of the taw after the shin and differs from it in morphological form because it does not have a [furtive] patah. [FEA I , fol. v] .
In Me"or #Ayin headings of conjugational patterns contain the same information (in á ñ î the headings mention only the presence of the taw) but grammatical notes are reduced to a minimum. In the treatise on the Hebrew verbs grammatical notes constitute a considerable part of the text. .. Lists of Structurally Identical Imperatives In each conjugational pattern the set of forms of the sample imperative is supplemented by a list of structurally identical imperatives given with their source verses. Below is the beginning of a list in the conjugational pattern íé!× in the symbol äTé!Ö: íëîàá åáéø ïî áéX ®äìéìä éðéì ïî ïé!ì áìç õéî éë ïî õé!î ®®®
íé!× éìò ñ÷å ® ùî ø÷áì åðéã ïî ïéD øéð íëì åøéð ïî øéð íëáì åúéù ïî úé!Ö ®®®
Conjugate by analogy with íé!× áéX from í ë"n!à"á eáéX (Hos. :) ïé!ì from ä ìé l ä éðé!ì (Ruth :) õé!î from á ì ç õé!î é!k (Prov. :) ®®®
ïé!c from è t"Ö!î øM&a ì eðé!c (Jer. :) øéð from øéð í ë ì eøéð (Jer. :) úé!Ö from í ë"a!ì eúé!Ö (Ps. :)
[FEA I , fol. v–r]
a conjugational pattern in kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud
Similar but shorter lists are included in conjugational patterns in Me"or #Ayin. In the treatise on the Hebrew verbs lists are longer and generally include all verbs mentioned in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud as a subset. .. Tables of Forms with Object Suffixes In many transitive conjugational patterns the set of uninflected forms and the list of structurally identical imperatives are followed by a number of sections on various forms of the sample verb with object suffixes. Such sections are never found in guttural conjugational patterns and in conjugational patterns of hiph#il imperatives without yod. For no apparent reason, forms with object suffixes are not provided in conjugational patterns äVÇä in the symbol ä@ ò and á ÖÇä in the symbol éD ò. Moreover, passive participles are excluded from the sets of forms given for these two sample verbs. Forms with object suffixes are arranged in tables and are supplied with an Arabic translation or a corresponding form of the verb ìòô (‘do’). The tables are introduced with indented headings ‘Section on so-and-so’6 and consist of four clear cut columns.7 One finds tables of two kinds. In single tables pronominal suffixes are added to one form of a representative verb producing the following layout: Hebrew form + suffix
Judaeo-Arabic form + suffix
Hebrew form + suffix
Judaeo-Arabic form + suffix
6 E.g. øîàìà éô ìöô. In the treatise on the Hebrew verbs paradigms are divided into ® sections separated by an abbreviation ô which was analyzed by G. Khan (b:) as coming from the word äçåúô used in Biblical manuscripts to signal the beginning of certain paragraphs. A comparison with Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud makes it possible to understand ® the ô as an abbreviation of the Judaeo-Arabic ìöô. 7 In her work on Latin grammatical manuscripts V. Law coined the term ‘controlled tables’ for this layout of verbal paradigms in tables which are ‘planned from the outset and usually introduced with headings in a different grade of script, and sometimes red as well’ (Law (:–)). In her interpretation, controlled tables represent a high level of visualization of language and imply that the text was supposed to be read in silence rather than aloud. A similar tabular layout of sections on forms with object suffixes can be observed in the manuscript FEA I of Sa#adya Gaon’s Kutub al-Lu˙ga (see Dotan (, plate )), however, the tables consist of two instead of four columns:
Hebrew form Arabic translation
Hebrew form Arabic translation
chapter four
For example, ®äìòôà eð k ä
eä k ä
do (m.sg.) us!
®àðìòôà eä k ä
eð k ä
[FEA I , fol. r]
do (m.sg.) him!
In double tables two forms are inflected in parallel and the layout is slightly different: Hebrew form + suffix
Judaeo-Arabic form + suffix
Hebrew form + suffix
Judaeo-Arabic form + suffix
Hebrew form + suffix
Judaeo-Arabic form + suffix
Hebrew form + suffix
Judaeo-Arabic form + suffix
For example, ®éðúìòô ®àðúìòô éð ëé!ì"Ö ä eð ëé!ì"Ö ä
do (m.sg.) me! do (m.sg.) us!
éð ú"ë ì"ù!ä eð ú"ë ì"ù!ä éð z"ë ì"Ö!ä eð ú"ë ì"ù!ä
éðìòôà ®àðìòôà
éð ëé!ì"ù ä eð ëé!ì"Ö ä
you (m.sg.) did me you (m.sg.) did us [FEA I , fol. v]
Inflected forms found in tables follow a certain order. As is obvious from the following scheme, the structure varies slightly across the manuscripts:8
8 The schemes here are for a single table; the order of forms in a double table is the same.
a conjugational pattern in kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud copy form9
uninflected sg. pl. m.sg. m.pl. m.sg. m.pl. f.sg. f.pl. f.sg. f.pl.
copies and uninflected form sg. pl. m.sg. m.pl. f.sg. f.pl. m.sg. m.pl. f.sg. f.pl.
An example of a complete table in FEA I is: äL"ù ä ïî ìòàôìà éô ìöô ®éìòàô ®êìòàô ®äìòàô ®êìòàô ®àäìòàô
éN"ù î ^O"ù î Ç÷"Ö î _L"Ö î !äJ"ù î
®ìòàô ®àðìòàô ®íëìòàô íäìòàô ïëìòàô ®ïäìòàô
äM"ù î eðL"ù î í ëO"ù î íJ"Ö î ï ëO"Ö î ïJ"Ö î
Section on active participle m.sg. of äL"Ö ä äM"Ö î eðL"Ö î í ëO"Ö î íJ"Ö î ï ëO"Ö î ïJ"Ö î
the one (m.) doing the one (m.) doing us the one (m.) doing you (m.pl.) the one (m.) doing them (m.) the one (m.) doing you (f.pl.) the one (m.) doing them (f.)
éN"Ö î ^O"Ö î Ç÷"Ö î _L"Ö î !äJ"Ö î
the one (m.) doing me the one (m.) doing you (m.sg.) the one (m.) doing him the one (m.) doing you (f.sg.) the one (m.) doing her [FEA I , fol. v–r]
As mentioned above, two other Karaite grammars contain paradigms of verbs with object suffixes. Firstly, in the treatise on the Hebrew verbs transitive verb forms are presented first in their uninflected form and then with all grammatically admissible pronominal suffixes. Forms with suffixes are presented in continuous text rather then columns, the order of forms corresponding to that in copy of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud. Arabic translations of Hebrew forms are found only sporadically and mainly for imperative bases. However, in the very first paradigm ò î"Ö many forms with suffixes are translated into Judaeo-Arabic with corresponding forms of ïî òîñ (‘hear from, listen to’), e.g.: 9 In the manuscripts the uninflected form is placed in the first row together with the first form with a pronominal suffix. For this reason forms with pronominal suffixes for singular and plural of the same person and gender appear in different rows which obscures the structure of the table. This arrangement is, perhaps, indicative of the fact that the tables originated in lists which were tabulated either by the author or by copists. In the schemes tables are slightly rearranged by putting the uninflected form on a separate line.
chapter four êðî àðòîñ ^eð#ò î"Ö ®®® éðî òîñà éð ò î"Ö éð ò î"Ö hear
me! … ^eð#ò î"Ö we heard you.
[Khan (b:–)]
Secondly, in Me"or #Ayin verb forms with pronominal suffixes are found in the conjugational pattern áé Ö ä in the symbol à á ä and in the conjugational pattern í îÇø in the symbol á ñ î.10 Inflected forms are given in lists (with the order of forms of copies and of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud) and are either fully explained or parsed through úà äùò or ì äùò (‘do to somebody’),11 e.g.: ®
ï ëáéùî îàú êéðôì ïä øùà úåá÷ðì äùåò äéäé íàå
If one is acting towards females in front of you, say ï ë"áé!Ö"î’. [Zislin (:)] äúåà åùò äeî"îÇø äeî"îÇø
do (m.pl.) her!
[Zislin (:)]
A comparison of the three grammars seems to indicate that although first attempts to provide translations for Hebrew forms with pronominal suffixes were made in the treatise on the Hebrew verbs, the practice of systematically adding translations was introduced in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud, presumably, for the need of students, and was later adopted in Me"or #Ayin. In any given conjugational pattern in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud tables represent the inflection of some but not all forms of a sample verb. Most regularly included forms are active participles in both genders and numbers; m.sg., m.pl. and f.sg. imperative; m.sg., m.pl. and f.sg. past; sg. future. Occasionally, tables are provided of first and third person past forms in both numbers as well as pl., m.sg., f.sg., and m.sg. future forms. The disproportion between the number of tables on sg. future and the rest of the future forms is explained by the fact that they are analogical so that no need was felt to include all four in every conjugational pattern. The author instructed his readers to form future verbs by analogy with sg.12 Final weak conjugational patterns (and the conjugational pattern áeÖ in the symbol ì òeÖ) include a section on the infinitive construct with
10
See Zislin (:–, –). Similar paraphrases, albeit in Judaeo-Arabic, are found in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud in the ® section on the infinitive úÇ÷"Ö ä in the conjugational pattern ä ìâ ä: éìà øãöîìà úãø àãàå v é!úÇ÷"ù ä úì÷ àîìëúî úðëå éñôð (FEA I , fol. ). 12 ìàá÷úñàìà óåøç äé÷á óìàìà éìò ñ÷å [FEA I , fol. r]. 11
a conjugational pattern in kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud
pronominal suffixes. No conjugational pattern in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud contains tables for all these forms. Tables are never given for f.pl. imperative; m.pl., f.pl., m.pl., f.pl. future; and f.pl. past forms. The author has, in fact, admitted not supplying all possible verb forms but limiting himself to those from which others can be worked out: ®
®
®
àäéìò ñà÷éì äèôì ìë ò÷åî úøëã àðà éðëéì éøéâ äéô òñúà ã÷ àîî êìã øéâ éìà àäàåñ
… and other [forms] which were expanded upon by others. But I have mentioned the occurrences of each word form so that similar [forms] can be handled by analogy. [FEA I , fol. r]
In contrast, in the treatise on the Hebrew verbs all imperative, past, future and participle forms are present in roughly the same number, including f.pl. imperative; m.pl., f.pl., m.pl. and f.pl. future; and f.pl. past forms absent from Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud (f.pl. forms are found to a lesser extent than the rest of the forms). In certain lists, the form common to m.sg. and f.sg. future appears twice (in transitive conjugations with a different range of pronominal suffixes) and the same is true of f.pl. and f.pl. future.13 Infinitive forms are given for final weak verbs only, just as in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud. One could speculate that the distribution of the given forms reflects the authors’ intentions in providing them. Whereas in the treatise on the Hebrew verbs completeness of the paradigm seems to have been the aim, in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud tables were probably seen as didactic tools so that just enough forms were given to master the conjugation and the verbal suffixes, leaving the rest to the student to recover by analogy. In Me"or #Ayin too few forms with object suffixes are given to analyze the distribution of verbal categories. Interestingly, passive participles with suffixes are included in both conjugational patterns, e.g.: é!áùeî îàú áùåîä äúà áéùú íàå
If you return the returned one, say é!á ùeî.
[Zislin (:)] é úÇî îÇø"î øîàú êì úåéåùò ïä íàå
If they (fem.) are done by you, say é úÇî îÇø"î.
[Zislin (:)]
Such forms are found neither in the treatise on the Hebrew verbs nor in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud.
13
See Khan (b:, –; ,, , passim).
chapter four
The order of tables in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud differs from conjugational pattern to conjugational pattern. However, some trends are discernible with regard to what forms are discussed as a group, be it in two consecutive single tables or in a double table. Firstly, imperatives are usually placed together with second person past forms of the same gender and number. Secondly, singular and plural participles of the same gender are grouped together. Thirdly, sg. future is treated together with sg. past. Fourthly, if more than one future form is discussed, the order of tables follows the ® ®® ® alphabetical order of future prefixes úðéà. Similar principles of arrangement of verb forms are found in the treatise on the Hebrew verbs.14 Most tables contain all grammatically possible form-suffix combinations, whereas ungrammatical forms are not registered. Active participles and third person forms are registered with pronominal suffixes for all person-gender-number combinations. Imperatives and second person forms are combined with first and third person suffixes. First person forms are given with second and third person suffixes. A remark explaining that not all forms can combine with any suffix is found in the conjugational pattern í îÇø in the symbol á ñ î: ®
®
øáòìà éô ïà øéâ äðéø÷ìàá àãä ïî àãä æééîúé àîðàå ãçàå øáòìàå íäì øîàìà ® êìã ìå÷ú êðëîé àìå êeî"îÇø ìå÷úô óàëìàá ìáà÷é ïîì äá ìáà÷ú ïà ïëîé íäì ®øîàìà éô
The m.pl. imperative has the same form as the m.pl. past and they can only be distinguished through context. However, you can address your interlocutor with the m.pl. past form [by connecting it] with a kaph, e.g. ^eî"îÇø, but you cannot do it in the imperative. [FEA I , fol. v]
In some tables grammatically possible forms are omitted for no apparent reason. Considering that different forms are missing in different manuscripts they must have been omitted by scribes rather than the author.15 In the conjugational pattern ø a c in the symbol épb tables seem to include grammatical but semantically unsound combinations. One finds forms of ø a c with first and second person pronominal suffixes, such as imperative éðV"a c, past eð zY a!c, active participle m.sg. ^Y aA"î (sic!), sg. future í ëY aA"à, and others. Given that the accusative on ø a c normally refers to inanimate objects,16 such forms are problematic. However, the 14
See Khan (b:). Tables in which not all forms are possible or not all grammatically admissible forms are included follow the order of personal suffixes described in the schemes above. 16 BDB (–). 15
a conjugational pattern in kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud ®
imperative ø a c is translated into Judaeo-Arabic with áèàë, ‘speak to, with s.o.’ This implies that pronominal suffixes on ø a c are understood in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud as referring to the person spoken to rather than things said, i.e. éðV"a c is to be translated ‘speak to me,’ í ëY aA"à ‘I will speak to you.’ One case of such usage is, indeed, attested in the Bible in Gen. : where íÀ Ö"ì Çø"aA eì"ëé is interpreted by modern lexicographers as ‘they could [not] speak unto him peaceably.’17 At present I am aware of two other texts translating the Hebrew d.b.r., both times in pa#al, with the Arabic ® ® h.t..b.: () al-F¯as¯ı translates ø%á c ø á c (Prov. :) as áèàëî áàèë;18 () ˘a JTS Genizah fragment ENA .– has the translation áèàë® î for ø áÇc.19 Similar combinations of ø a c with pronominal suffixes for the first and second person are found in the treatise on the Hebrew verbs.20 Yet here ø a c is translated with ìå÷ ‘say’ which makes forms such as éðV"a c semantically impossible.21 To sum up, the treatise on the Hebrew verbs, which was identified as one of the sources of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud, seems to have served our author as a model for describing verbal paradigms. In this treatise a paradigm begins with a list of the verbs of the discussed pattern which is followed by a grammatical discussion and a near exhaustive list of forms of a sample verb in which uninflected forms and forms with pronominal suffixes are given together. All these elements of pattern description were absorbed in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud, however, in a modified way. The author rearranged the order of the components, separated uninflected forms from forms with pronominal suffixes and added systematic Arabic translations to the latter. Besides, he cut down on explanations and structurally identical imperatives and provided reduced sets of sample forms sufficiently extensive for students to master verbal conjugations but not cluttered with forms which can be worked out by analogy. The author of Me"or #Ayin adopted the system of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud while further reducing the descriptions.
17 18 19 20 21
BDB (). See Skoss (–:I, ). See Maman (:). See Khan (b:–). Khan (b:).
chapter five SYMBOLS AND ¯ AL-#UQUD ¯ CONJUGATIONAL PATTERNS IN KITAB
In this chapter I will describe the stock of verbs in all conjugational patterns registered in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud. In each conjugational pattern only the m.sg. imperative, m.sg. past, active participle m.sg., passive participle m.sg. and sg. future will be cited. Although more forms are given in the original, these five are enough to characterize a pattern. References to relevant derivational and classificational phenomena are given below the pattern descriptions. .. Symbols Based on the Initial Vowels of the Imperative and the Past ... Symbol à á ä The symbol à á ä was created for verbs with a qamas. in the initial syllable of their imperatives and a s. ere in the initial syllable of their past forms. It contains six conjugations, namely áé Ö ä, ø ô ä, á Ö ä, çéð ä, äVæ and _V a. .... Conjugational Pattern áé Ö ä with Yod imperative áé Ö ä, past form áé!Ö ä, active participle áé!Ö î, passive participle future áé!Ö à
á Öeî,
Verbs listed under this category are middle weak hiph#il imperatives which either occur in scriptio plena, e.g. áé Ö ä (Kings :), or are inferred from forms of middle weak hiph#il verbs containing a yod, e.g. øé ò ä inferred from øé!òé (Isa. :). Apart from that, imperatives inferred from idiosyncratic verb forms assimilated to corresponding forms of middle weak hiph#il verbs are also included, such as øé ô ä inferred from m.sg. past form øé!ô ä (Ps. :) of the root p.r.r. in hiph#il1 1
Gesenuis (§v).
chapter five
and ïéæ ä from the sg. future ïéæ à (Job :) of the root ".z.n. in hiph#il.2 On hiph#il imperatives with yod see ... .... Conjugational Pattern ø ô ä without Yod imperative ø ô ä, past ø ô ä, active participle ø ô î, future ø ô à Verbs listed under this category include a geminated second resh hiph#il imperative ø ô ä and imperatives inferred from jussive forms of middle weak hiph#il verbs such as íL ä from íLé (Jer. :). On hiph#il imperatives without yod see ..; on patterning together middle weak and geminated verbs see ... .... Conjugational Pattern á Ö ä imperative á Ö ä, past á Ö ä, active participle á Ö î, future á Ö à The imperative á Ö ä occurs in Ezek. : and is a variant vocalization for á Ö ä.3 Other verbs attributed to this category are hiph#il imperatives of geminated roots vocalized with a patah. in the second syllable,4 e.g. ÷A ä, ø ô ä, or imperatives inferred, presumably, from jussives of middle weak final guttural hiph#il forms such as çU ä. Source verses are not given in this conjugational pattern. On hiph#il imperatives without yod see ..; on patterning together middle weak and geminated verbs see ..; on final guttural verbs see ..., ... .... Conjugational Pattern çéð ä with Yod imperative çéð ä, past çéð ä, active participle çéð î, future çéð à Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are, presumably, inferred from middle weak final guttural hiph#il verb forms containing a yod, e.g. çé ô ä, çéâ ä. Source verses are not given in this conjugational pattern. On hiph#il imperatives with yod see ..; on patterning together middle weak and geminated verbs see ..; on final guttural verbs see ..., ... 2 3 4
Gesenuis (§i). Gesenius (§y). Gesenius (§v).
symbols and conjugational patterns in kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud
.... Conjugational Pattern äVæ imperative äVæ, past äTæ, active participle future äWæ"à
äVæ"î,
passive participle
äWÇæ"î,
Imperatives in this conjugational pattern are inferred from second guttural third weak verbs in pi#el with compensatory lengthening of the vowel preceding the guttural, e.g. ä à z from eà ú"z (Num. :). To the same conjugational pattern although to a different morphological pattern is attributed the imperative ä á ä where the initial heh is construed as a root letter. An entire paradigm is proposed for this verb, with forms such as the imperative ä á ä, the past ä á ä, the active participle ä á ä"î and the passive participle ä áÇä"î. The imperative ä á ä with the meaning ‘bring!’ was suggested by Ibn N¯uh. as one of the possible bases of é!á ä (Ruth :) which was analyzed as a f.sg. imperative form.5 Alternatively, é!á ä is explained in the Diqduq either as an infinitive àé!á ä with the elision of the aleph or as a f.sg. form of the imperative ä á ä attested in Gen. :.6 In Me"or #Ayin a paradigm is given which is similar to that in Kit¯ab al#Uq¯ud but the imperative and m.sg. past form are spelled with an aleph (à á ä, à á ä) whereas the rest of the forms are final heh. The reference form in Me"or #Ayin is eá ä (Sam. :). The active participle form äVæ"î exhibits the interchange of segol and s. ere characteristic for the non-standard Tiberian vocalization.7 In the manuscripts of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud this phenomenon is attested in some forms of final heh verbs. The future prefix aleph is vocalized with a simple shewa instead of the hataph patah, . . . i.e. äWæ"à. The use of a simple shewa instead of a hataph patah. is very common in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud and is a feature of the archaic Tiberian vocalization.8 It has no bearing on the pronunciation and is connected with the fact that both the vocalic shewa and the hataph patah. . were pronounced as a short /a/ in the Tiberian reading tradition.9
5
See Khan (a:, on Ruth :). These two explanations are also found in a grammatical commentary on the Bible in Judaeo-Persian (see Khan (b:, –)). 7 On the non-standard Tiberian vocalization see, for example, Diez-Macho (:); Dotan (:–); Eldar (:–); Morag (, :–); Sáenz-Badillios (:–). The manuscripts of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud exhibit a number of elements of this vocalization, most of which are sporadic and none can be shown to be authorial. 8 Diez-Macho (:); Dotan (:). 9 Morag (:–). 6
chapter five
On compensatory lengthening see ...; on attributing verbs of different morphological patterns to one conjugational pattern see ..; .... Conjugational Pattern _V a imperative _V a, past _U a, active participle _V á"î, passive participle _TÇá"î, future not given All imperatives in this conjugational pattern are inferred from second guttural verbs in pi#el with compensatory lengthening of the vowel preceding the guttural, e.g. ÖV à from ÖV à"z (Deut. :). On compensatory lengthening see ...; on the vocalization of m.sg. past forms of pi#el verbs with a patah. in the final syllable see ... .. Symbol épb. The symbol épb was created for verbs with a patah. in the initial syllable of their imperatives and a hireq in the initial syllable of their past forms. . This symbol contains twenty conjugational patterns, namely ä k ä, ìé v ä, ì v ä, Öb ä, çép ä, ä lb, ä ìâ ä, ø a c, ò l a, ç aæ, í çU, _é ì"Ö ä, _ ì"Ö ä, ø ö"ô ä, ò a"Ö ä, ä ÖO a, ä ëYE ä, ì aY k, ò z"ò z and ì à"î"× ä. .... Conjugational Pattern ä k ä imperative future ä k à
ä k ä,
past
ä k!ä,
active participle
ä k î,
passive participle
ä k%î,
Most imperatives attributed to the conjugational pattern ä k ä are inferred from hiph#il forms of first nun third weak verbs, e.g. ä v ä from ev!ä (Num. :). The imperative äb ä inferred from äbiå in Lament. :, now interpreted as an imperfect consecutive form of the root y.g.h. in pi#el with the elision of the first radical yod10 also belongs to ä k ä. An identical 11 analysis of the form äbiå can be found in the Diqduq by Ibn N¯uh. . .... Conjugational Pattern ìé v ä with Yod imperative ìé v ä, past ìé!v!ä, active participle ìé!v î, passive participle ì veî, future ìé!v à
10 11
Gesenius (§u); BDB (). See Khan (a:, on Lament. :).
symbols and conjugational patterns in kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud
Verbs listed under this category are imperatives inferred from first nun hiph#il forms which occur with a yod, e.g. ãéb ä from ãéb î (Isa. :). To the same conjugational pattern is attributed the imperative úé q ä inferred from a middle weak participle úé!q î (Jer. :) with aramaising gemination of the first radical. On hiph#il imperatives with yod see ..; on patterning together verbs of different binyanim and gezarot see ... .... Conjugational Pattern ì v ä without Yod imperative ì v ä, past ì v!ä, active participle ì v î, future ì v z Imperatives attributed to the conjugational pattern ì v ä are inferred from hiph#il jussive forms of first nun verbs, e.g. ì v ä from ì v z (Ps. :). The imperative õ t ä is inferred from a first nun noun of instrument õ t î in Jer. : which is interpreted in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud as an active participle. On hiph#il imperatives without yod see ... .... Conjugational Pattern Öb ä imperative Öb ä, past Öb!ä, active participle Öb î, future Öb à Imperatives listed under this category are inferred from: . hiph#il imperfect consecutive forms of first nun third guttural verbs, e.g. òb ä from òb zå (Ex. :); . hiph#il imperfect consecutive forms of middle weak third guttural verbs with aramaising gemination of the first radical, e.g. çp ä from çpiå (Kings :); . the imperative Öb ä is inferred from a pausal hiph#il imperfect consecutive form Öbiå (Judg. :) of the root n.g.ˇs.; . the imperative ú v ä is inferred from a hiph#il imperfect consecutive form ú viå (Lament. :) of the root y.s. .t. which is vocalized in the Babylonian manner in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud.12 On hiph#il imperatives without yod see ..; on final guttural verbs see ..., ..; on the vocalization of ú viå see ..; on patterning together verbs of different binyanim and gezarot see ..; on patterning pausal forms see ...
12
The Tiberian vocalization of this form is ú viå.
chapter five
.... Conjugational Pattern çép ä imperative çép ä, past çép!ä, active participle çép î, future çép à Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from hiph#il forms containing a yod of: . first nun third guttural verbs, e.g. òéb ä from eòébé (Ps. :); . first yod second s. ade third guttural verbs, e.g. òé v ä from òé!vé (Isa. :); . middle weak third guttural verbs with aramaising gemination of the first radical, e.g. the sample imperative çép ä (source verse not given). On hiph#il imperatives with yod see ..; on final guttural verbs see ..., ..; on patterning together verbs of different binyanim and gezarot see ... .... Conjugational Pattern ä lb imperative ä lb, past future ä lâ"à
ä lb,
active participle
ä lâ"î,
passive participle
ä lâ"î,
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from pi#el forms of third weak verbs, e.g. ä k a from ä k á"î (Jer. :). On the non-standard Tiberian vocalization of the future prefix aleph with a simple shewa instead of a hataph patah. see .... . .... Conjugational Pattern ä ìâ ä imperative ä ìâ ä, past ä ìâ!ä, active participle ä ìâ î, passive participle ä ìâ%î, future ä ìâ à Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from hiph#il forms of third weak verbs, e.g. äV"á ä from éðV"á úå (Sam. :). .... Conjugational Pattern ø a c imperative ø a c, past ø a!c, active participle ø aA"î, passive participle ø aH"î, future ø aA"à Imperatives in this conjugational pattern are inferred from pi#el forms of strong and final aleph verbs, e.g. ápb from é ápâ"î (Jer. :) and à tU from à tU"î (Jer. :) respectively. In FEA I the imperative á gé is inferred from á gé (Ps. :) which is a hiph#il jussive form of the root n.ˇs.b. In FEA I á gé is inferred from eá"yéå (Ezek. :) which is a pi#el future form of y.ˇs.b.
symbols and conjugational patterns in kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud
On the vocalization of m.sg. past forms of pi#el verbs with a patah. in the final syllable see ..; on the patterning of final aleph verbs see ..; on patterning together verbs of different binyanim and gezarot see ..; on the non-standard Tiberian vocalization of the future prefix aleph with a simple shewa instead of a hataph patah. see .... . .... Conjugational Pattern ò l a .... Conjugational Pattern ç aæ .... Conjugational Pattern í çU Descriptions of conjugational patterns ()–() in the symbol épb have not survived. In the list of symbols and conjugational patterns at the end of the chapter ‘On the imperatives which differ in their first vowel from the past verb forms derived from them and on related matters’ these conjugations are represented by sample imperatives ò l a, ç aæ, and í çU. In Me"or #Ayin conjugational patterns ç aæ and í çð have been preserved. Imperatives attributed to ç aæ are inferred from active participles of third guttural pi#el verbs with a furtive patah, . e.g. ç t ñ from ç t ñ"î (Hab. :). Imperatives attributed to í çð are inferred from second guttural pi#el forms with virtual gemination, e.g. ø ä è from ø ä è (Ezek. :). In all probability these conjugational patterns were defined in the same way in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud. It can also be conjectured that imperatives attributed to the conjugational pattern ò l a were inferred from pi#el forms of third guttural verbs with a patah. on the second radical. On patterning verbs with virtual gemination see ...; on final guttural verbs see ..., ... .... Conjugational Pattern _é ì"Ö ä with Yod13 imperative _é ì"Ö ä, past _é!ì"Ö!ä, active participle _ ì"Ö%î, future _é!ì"Ö à
_é!ì"Ö î,
passive participle
Most imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are attested hiph#il imperatives of strong verbs, e.g. ì aâ ä (Ex. :). One imperative is inferred from a strong hiph#il participle form, namely ìé câ ä inferred from ìé!câ î (Ps. :). On hiph#il imperatives with yod see ...
13 In the surviving manuscripts, all imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are spelled without the yod. The yod is added here for the sake of clarity.
chapter five
.... Conjugational Pattern â ì"Ö ä without Yod imperative â ì"Ö ä, past _ ì"Ö!ä, active participle _ ì"Ö î, future â ì"Ö à14 Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from jussive forms of strong verbs in hiph#il, e.g. _ ì"Ö ä from _ ì"Ö úå (Dan. :). On hiph#il imperatives without yod see ... .... Conjugational Pattern ø ö"ô ä imperative ø ö"ô ä, past ø ö"ô!ä, active participle ø ö"ô î, future ø ö"ô à Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern either occur with a patah. in the final syllable, e.g. ø ö"ô ä (Sam. :), ø Öé ä (Ps. :), or are inferred from jussive forms of third guttural verbs in hiph#il, e.g. ò a"Ö ä from ò a"Öiå (Gen. :). On hiph#il imperatives without yod see ..; on final guttural verbs see ..., ... .... Conjugational Pattern òé a"Ö ä [with Yod]15 imperative òé a"Ö ä, past òé!a"Ö!ä, active participle òé!a"Ö î, future òé!a"Ö à Imperatives listed under this category are inferred from forms of third guttural hiph#il verbs which contain a yod, e.g. çé zY ä from çé!zYé (Job :). On hiph#il imperatives with yod see ..; on final guttural verbs see ..., ... .... Conjugational Pattern ä ëYE ä imperative ä ëYE ä, past ä ëYE!ä, active participle ä ëYE î, passive participle and future not given The conjugational pattern ä ëYE ä contains imperatives inferred from exceptional hiph#il forms with a shewa instead of a hireq on the second . radical, e.g. ä ëYE ä from eëYEiå (Jer. :), and äL"aE ä from e÷"aEiå (Sam. :). The shewa was preserved in the entire paradigm by adding a final vowel with the mater lectionis heh to the end of forms.
14
In this paradigm forms of â ì"Ö ä and _ ì"Ö ä are mixed. In the surviving manuscripts, all imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are spelled without the yod. The yod is added here for the sake of clarity. 15
symbols and conjugational patterns in kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud
On hypothetical final heh verbs see ..; on proposing imperative bases structurally identical with attested forms see .. .... Conjugational Pattern ä ÖO a imperative ä ÖO a, past ä ÖO%á"î, future ä ÖO á"à
ä ÖO!a,
active participle
ä ÖO á"î,
passive participle
This conjugational pattern was created to include imperatives inferred from forms of strong pi#el verbs in which gemination is reduced when the following vowel is a vocalic shewa, e.g. ä ÖO a from é ÖO á"î (Ps. :), ä ç"ì Ö from eç"ì!ù (Ps. :), ä à"ì î from íeà"ì îéå (Sam. :). The imperative äV"ô Ö attributed to this pattern is inferred from äT"ô!Ö íé î Ö Ççeø"a (Job :). Although today äT"ô!Ö is interpreted as a noun meaning ‘fairness, clearness of sky,’16 most medieval Karaite grammarians understood it as a verb with the sense of ‘He made beautiful.’17 The shewa on the second radical of the attested forms was preserved in the entire paradigm by adding a final vowel with the mater lectionis heh to the end of forms. On hypothetical final heh verbs see ..; on proposing imperative bases structurally identical with attested forms see .; on the nonstandard Tiberian vocalization of the future prefix aleph with a simple shewa instead of a hataph patah. see .... . .... Conjugational Pattern ì aY k imperative ì aY k, past ì aY%ë"î, future ì aY ë"à
ì aY!k,
active participle
ì aY ë"î,
passive participle
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from pi#el forms of strong quadriliteral verbs, such as ì aY k from ì aY%ë"î (Chron. :). æ ÖY t (Job :), now analyzed as pi#lel,18 was considered quadriliteral by medieval grammarians19 and is also attributed here. Additionally, ø a"Öð is inferred from the dubious é!zY a"Öð (Ezek. :). A pilpel verb ìb"ìb is also discussed under the conjugational pattern ì aY k. On the vocalization on the m.sg. past form of quadriliteral verbs with a patah. in the final syllable see ..; on the root structure of 16 17 18 19
BDB (). See Khan (a:, on Job : and b:); Zislin (:). Gesenius (§). See Neubauer (:); Skoss (–:I, ).
chapter five
pilpel verbs see ..; on the non-standard Tiberian vocalization of the future prefix aleph with a simple shewa instead of a hataph patah. see . .... .... Conjugational Pattern ò z"ò z imperative ò z"ò z, past missing, future ò z"ò ú"à
ò z"ò!z,
active participle
ò z"ò ú"î,
passive participle
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from quadriliteral and pilpel forms ending in a guttural, e.g. ò z"ò z from ò z"ò ú"î!k (Gen. :). One of the imperatives on the list is çð"ò t inferred from çð"ò t úð"ô ö (Gen. :), now commonly understood as a Egyptian proper name meaning ‘the god speaks and he lives.’20 In the Middle Ages, çð"ò t was analyzed as a verb meaning ‘to reveal, to elucidate.’21 On final guttural verbs see ..., ..; on the root structure of pilpel verbs see ..; on the non-standard Tiberian vocalization of the future prefix aleph with a simple shewa instead of a hataph patah. see . .... .... Conjugational Pattern ì à"î"× ä imperative ì à"î"× ä, past ìé!à"î"×!ä, active participle ìé!à"î"× î, future ìé!à"î"× à ì à"î"× ä inferred from the quadriliteral hiph#il ä ìé!à"î"× àå (Gen. :) is the only imperative attributed to this conjugational pattern. The author states that no other Hebrew verbs with this morphological pattern are known to him.
... Symbol úT"t The symbol úT"t includes four conjugational patterns for verbs with a shewa in the initial syllable of their imperatives and a qamas. in the initial syllable of their past forms: äð"a, ø&î"Ö, ò î"Ö, and àTO. The description of this symbol is only partially preserved.
20
BDB (). See Khan (b:–); Neubauer (:–); Skoss (–:II, ). See also Ben Yehuda (, n. ). 21
symbols and conjugational patterns in kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud
.... Conjugational Pattern äð"a imperative äð"a, past future äð"á à
äð a,
active participle
äðÇa,
passive participle
éeð a,
This conjugational pattern includes third weak imperatives in pa#al, e.g. ä ì"à from úé!ì à (Judg. :). On patterning first aleph verbs in pa#al together with first strong see ... .... Conjugational Pattern ø&î"Ö .... Conjugational Pattern ò î"Ö Of the sections on the conjugational patterns ø&î"Ö and ò î"ù only the discussion of the f.sg. participle is preserved. The sample verbs of these conjugational patterns can be found in the list of conjugations in the end of the chapter ‘On the imperatives which differ in their first vowel from the past verb forms derived from them and on related matters.’ Due to the lack of lists of imperatives belonging to these conjugational patterns, it is not possible to know how non-guttural verbs for which neither imperatives nor future forms are attested in the Bible were distributed between the patterns ø&î"Ö and ò î"Ö. Elsewhere in the text ìâY with a patah. and ï&úð with a holam are registered.22 In Me"or #Ayin the patterns are . preserved but only one hypothetical imperative is quoted, namely ñ&úð from eñ"úð (Job :). In the treatise on the Hebrew verbs all hypothetical imperatives have an /a/ in the second syllable which suggests that the patah. was regarded as the default vowel.23 In the Diqduq and in alKit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı pa#al imperatives with a holam and a patah. are sometimes . presented as alternatives.24 .... Conjugational Pattern àTO This conjugational pattern was created to account for third aleph verbs in pa#al, e.g. à ì"z from íé!àeì"z (Deut. :). It is noteworthy, that stative imperatives (à î"ö, àð"×, à ì"î, àTé) are included in the pattern together with the active ones. It is not clear whether the author proposed for such imperatives past forms of the type of pa#al or pa#el.
22 23 24
FEA I , fol. r–v. Khan (b:). See Khan (a:); Khan et al. (:, I..).
chapter five ... Symbol ì òeÖ
The symbol ì òeÖ includes verbs with a shuruq in the initial syllable of their imperatives and a qamas. in the initial syllable of their past forms. It consists of two conjugational patterns, namely áeÖ and òeð. .... Conjugational Pattern áeÖ imperative áeÖ, past á Ö, active participle á Ö, future áeÖ à Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from the following pa#al forms: . future, imperfect consecutive, past and participle forms of middle waw verbs, e.g. õec from õeã z (Job :), ìeî from ì îiå (Gen. :), Öeî from é!z"Ö îe (Zech. :) and ìeæ from íé!ìf ä (Isa. :); . past forms of middle yod verbs, e.g. õe÷ from õJå (Isa. :);25 . the imperative íez is inferred from the metaplastic past form eð"î z (Ps. :) of the geminated root t.m.m. On deriving imperative bases from a particular attested form disregarding other instances of the same verb see .; on middle weak verbs, including the attribution of attested forms to middle waw vs. middle yod bases, passive participles, and jussive and imperfect consecutive forms of middle weak verbs see ... .... Conjugational Pattern òeð imperative òeð, past òð, active participle òð, future òeð à Imperatives in this conjugational pattern are inferred from middle waw third guttural verb forms in pa#al, e.g. çeð from çeðé (Ex. :). On middle weak verbs, including the attribution of attested forms to middle waw vs. middle yod bases, passive participles, and jussive and imperfect consecutive forms of middle weak verbs see ... ... Symbol ïðÇk The symbol ïðÇk includes two conjugational patterns for verbs with a holam in the initial syllable of the imperative and a patah. in the initial . syllable of the past form, namely á&ñ and òð. 25 õJ is now analyzed as having the root q.y.s. ‘spend the summer’ rather than q.w.s. . . ‘feel a loathing’ (BDB (–, )).
symbols and conjugational patterns in kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud
.... Conjugational Pattern á&ñ imperative á&ñ, past á ñ, active participle á ñ, future á&ñ à Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from the following verbs in pa#al: . forms of geminated verbs, e.g. ìS from é!ú`K (Job. :); . f.sg. imperative forms of middle weak verbs with long /o/, e.g. Ö&a from é!ÖÇa (Isa. :); . jussive forms of middle waw verbs, e.g. ãð from ãð z (Jer. :). On patterning together middle weak and geminated verbs see ..; on imperative bases of jussive forms of middle weak verbs see ... .... Conjugational Pattern òð imperative òð, past òð, active participle not given, future òÇð à The imperative òð must have been inferred from the infinitive absolute form òð of the middle weak root n.w.#. in pa#al attested in Isa. : and Ps. : (cf. imperative òeð in the conjugational pattern òeð in the symbol ì òeÖ). Other imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from forms of geminated guttural verbs in pa#al, e.g. ç&ö from eç ö (Lament. :). On patterning together middle weak and geminated verbs see ..; on deriving imperative bases from a particular attested form disregarding other instances of the same verb see .. ... Symbol äTé!Ö The symbol äTé!Ö includes verbs with a hireq in the initial syllable of the . imperative and a qamas. in the initial syllable of the past. It contains six conjugational patterns: íé!×, çé!×, ïÇk!ä, òÇp!ä, ÷ n!ä, _ea!ä. .... Conjugational Pattern íé!× imperative íé!×, past í ×, active participle í ×, future íé!× à Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are derived from pa#al forms of middle weak verbs with explicit yod, e.g. áéX from eáéX (Hos. :), ïé!ì from éðé!ì (Ruth :). Furthermore, the imperative ïé!ä is inferred from eðé!ä zå (Deut. :) which today is construed as a hiph#il
chapter five
‘regard as easy, make light’26 rather then a pa#al. The analysis of the author of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud correlates with al-F¯as¯ı’s interpretation of eðé!ä zå as íúòîè ‘wish, strive.’27 On middle weak verbs, including the attribution of attested forms to middle waw vs. middle yod bases and passive participles of middle weak verbs see ... .... Conjugational Pattern çé!× imperative çé!×, past ç ×, active participle ç ×, future çé!× à Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are derived from pa#al forms of middle weak third guttural verbs with explicit yod, e.g. çé!× from eçé!× (Judg. :). On middle weak verbs, including the attribution of attested forms to middle waw vs. middle yod bases and passive participles of middle weak verbs see ... .... Conjugational Pattern ïÇk!ä imperative ïÇk!ä, past ïÇëð or ïÇkð, active participle ïÇëð, future ïÇk à Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from: . niph#al forms of middle weak verbs, e.g. ïÇa!ä from ïÇáð (Gen. :); . niph#al forms of geminated verbs with holam, e.g. ìÇb!ä from elâðå (Isa. . :); . imperfect and imperfect consecutive forms of geminated verbs in pa#al with aramaising gemination of the first radical, e.g. íÇz!ä from í&z!zå (Gen. :), íÇg!ä from íÇgé (Jer. :, :, :). The active participle f.sg. is vocalized in the extant manuscript in the Babylonian manner äðÇëð with a qamas. . On patterning middle weak and geminated verbs together see ..; on the vocalization of f.sg. participle forms of middle weak and geminated niph#al verbs see ..; on the auxiliary vowel status of the h. olam see ...
26 27
BDB (). See Skoss (–:I, ).
symbols and conjugational patterns in kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud
.... Conjugational Pattern òÇp!ä imperative òÇp!ä, past òÇðð, active participle òÇðð, future òÇp!à Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from niph#al forms of middle weak third guttural roots, e.g. òÇp!ä from òÇpé (Amos :), çÇh!ä from çÇh!ä (Lev. :). On the auxiliary vowel status of the holam see ..; on the Babylonian . type vocalization of sg. future prefixes of niph#al verbs see ... .... Conjugational Pattern ÷ n!ä imperative ÷ n!ä, past ÷ îð or í cð, active participle ÷ îð, future ÷ n!à Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from: . geminated niph#al verbs, e.g. á q!ä from ea qé (Ezek. :); . metaplastic middle weak niph#al forms, namely ø n!ä from the pausal past ø îð (Jer. :) and â q!ä from the future â qé (Micah :); . first nun pa#al verb forms, e.g. ì g!ä from ì gé (Deut. :); . the imperative ò z!ä is inferred from a first nun pausal niph#al past form eò zð (Job :). The active participles m.sg. and f.sg. are vocalized in the Babylonian manner: ÷ îð with a patah. instead of a qamas. and ä w îð without the reduction of the first qamas. respectively. This vocalization of the m.sg. participle led the author to construe the patah. on the first radical as an auxiliary vowel stable in the entire conjugation.28 On patterning middle weak and geminated verbs together see ..; on patterning together verbs of different binyanim and gezarot see ..; on patterning passive forms see ..; on the concept of the auxiliary vowel see ..; on the Babylonian type vocalization of f.sg. participles and the sg. future prefixes of niph#al verbs see ..; on the Babylonian type vocalization of the m.sg. participle ÷ îð see ...
® ® 28 äðàæåà øéàñ éôå óéøöúìà äéàäð éìà íàîìà úçú úáú ú äçúàôìà éãìà ÷ î!ä
fol. r].
[FEA I ,
chapter five
.... Conjugational Pattern _ea!ä imperative _ea!ä, past _eáð, active participle _eáð, future _ea!à Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from: . middle weak niph#al forms with shuruq, namely sg. past, e.g. ïea!ä from é!úÇðeáð (Isa. :), active participle plural, e.g _ea!ä from íé!ëeáð (Ex. :) and infinitive construct, e.g. ×ec!ä from ×ec!ä"k (Isa. :); . the imperative íez!ä is inferred from a deviant imperfect pa#al form í%z!z (Ezek. :) of the root t.m.m. with aramaising gemination of the first radical; . the imperative _ez!ä is inferred from a noun _ez!ä"k (Ezek. :) with the root n.t.k. _ez!ä was most probably interpreted as an infinitive construct analogous to ×ec!ä. Indeed, al-F¯as¯ı translated _ez!ä with an infinitive of the VII form áàáöðà.29 The /u/ on the first radical of the attested forms was understood by the author as an auxiliary vowel stable in the entire paradigm30 so that the rest of the forms in the conjugational pattern are reconstructed to have the same vowel. Forms with a holam on the first radical are . attributed to the conjugational pattern ïÇk!ä. The active participle f.sg. is vocalized in the Babylonian manner ä ëeáð with an unreduced qamas. . On deriving imperative bases from a particular attested form disregarding other instances of the same verb see .; on patterning together verbs of different binyanim and gezarot see ..; on the concept of the auxiliary vowel see ..; on the Babylonian type vocalization of f.sg. participles and the sg. future prefix of niph#al verbs see ... ... Symbol ä ì Ö The newly created symbol ä ì Ö includes verbs with a s. ere in the initial syllable of the imperative and a qamas. in the initial syllable of the past and contains two conjugational patterns: ÖÇá ä and òÇø ä.
29
See Skoss (–:II, ).
® ® ® 30 äðàæåà øéàñ éôå äúéàäð éìà óéøöúìà éô úáú ú åàåìà áì÷ éô äè÷ðìà åà âæìà éãìà _eá!ä [FEA I , fol. r].
symbols and conjugational patterns in kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud
.... Conjugational Pattern ÖÇá ä imperative ÖÇá ä, past ÖÇáð, active participle ÖÇáð, future ÖÇá à Imperatives attributed to the conjugational pattern from:
ÖÇá ä
are inferred
. future forms in /o/ of stative middle weak verbs in pa#al, e.g. ÖÇá ä from eÖ&áé, ä ÖÇá à (Jer. :); . first guttural middle weak verbs in niph#al, e.g. íÇä ä from íÇä zå (Ruth :); . geminated first guttural niph#al verbs with holam, e.g. õÇø ä from õÇøðå . (Eccl. :). The active participle f.sg. is vocalized in the Babylonian manner ä ÖÇáð with a qamas. . On patterning together verbs of different binyanim and gezarot see ..; on patterning middle weak and geminated verbs see ..; on the Babylonian vocalization of f.sg. participles of middle weak and geminated niph#al verbs see ... .... Conjugational Pattern òÇø ä imperative òÇø ä, past òÇøð, active participle òÇøð, future òÇø à The imperative òÇø ä was most probably inferred from the geminated first guttural niph#al future òÇøé (Prov. :, :) of the root r.#.#. No other imperatives are listed under this conjugational pattern. According the Me"or #Ayin òÇø ä is the only verb of its kind.31 On patterning gutturals see .... ... Symbol Çøé!Ö The symbol Çøé!Ö includes verbs with a hireq in the initial syllable of their . imperatives and a holam in the initial syllable of their past forms. It . contains three conjugational patterns: ÖLe!ä, õ òe!ä, and òBe!ä.
31
See Zislin (:).
chapter five
.... Conjugational Pattern ÖLe!ä imperative ÖLe!ä, past ÖKÇð, active participle ÖJÇð, future ÖLe!à All imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from niph#al forms of first yod (originally first waw) verbs, e.g. ø öe!ä from ø öÇð (Isa. :). On the Babylonian type vocalization of the sg. future prefix of niph#al verbs see ... .... Conjugational Pattern õ òe!ä imperative õ òe!ä, past õ òÇð, active participle õ òÇð, future õ òe!à Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern include the second guttural niph#al imperative õ òe!ä inferred from the imperfect consecutive õ òeiå (Kings :, passim) and third guttural niph#al imperatives vocalized with patah, . e.g. òAe!ä (source verse not given). On verbs with gutturals see ..., ...; on the Babylonian type vocalization of the sg. future prefix of niph#al verbs see ... .... Conjugational Pattern òBe!ä imperative òBe!ä, past òAÇð, active participle ò@Çð, future òBe!à Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from pausal third guttural niph#al forms vocalized with s. ere and furtive patah, . e.g. òBe!ä from òBe!z (Prov. :). On patterning pausal forms see ..; on verbs with gutturals see ..., ..; on the Babylonian type vocalization of the sg. future prefix of niph#al verbs see ... ... Symbol ä k î The symbol ä k î was newly created by the author of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud for verbs with a patah. in the initial syllable of the imperative and a segol in the initial syllable of the past. It contains six conjugational patterns, namely ä ì#ò ä, ã î#ò ä without yod, ãé î#ò ä with yod, äV#ç z, äVæ"ò ä and ì àâ à.
symbols and conjugational patterns in kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud
.... Conjugational Pattern ä ì#ò ä imperative ä ì#ò ä, past ä ì#ò ä, active participle ä ì#ò î, future ä ì#ò à Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from first guttural third weak verbs in hiph#il, e.g. ä ì#ç ä from eì$ç ä (Hos. :). The patah. instead of the vocalization of the past form ä ì#ò ä with a hataph . hataph segol is a feature of non-standard Tiberian vocalization. Such use . of a wrong hataph or of a simple shewa instead of a hataph vowel is found . . in some Genizah Bible fragments with otherwise Tiberian vocalization and in some Karaite Bible manuscripts in Arabic script.32 On patterning verbs with gutturals see .... .... Conjugational Pattern ã î#ò ä without Yod imperative ã î#ò ä, past ã î#ò ä, active participle ã î#ò î, future ã î#ò à Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from jussive forms of first guttural verbs in hiph#il, e.g. ã î#ò ä from ã î#òiå (Ps. :). On hiph#il imperatives without yod see ..; on patterning verbs with gutturals see ...; on the non-standard Tiberian vocalization of ã î#ò ä with a hataph patah. instead of a hataph segol see .... . . .... Conjugational Pattern ãé î#ò ä with Yod imperative ãé î#ò ä, past ãé!î#ò ä, active participle ãé!î#ò î, future ãé!î#ò à Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from forms of first guttural verbs in hiph#il which contain a yod, e.g. ÷é ì#ç ä from ÷é!ì#ç î (Prov. :). On hiph#il imperatives with yod see ..; on patterning verbs with gutturals see ...; on the non-standard Tiberian vocalization of ãé!î#ò ä with a hataph patah. instead of a patah. segol see .... . .... Conjugational Pattern äV#ç z imperative äV#ç z, past äT#ç z, active participle äW#ç ú"î, future äW#ç ú"à The imperative äV#ç z is inferred from äW#ç ú"z (Jer. :) which is a rare 33 or as form explained by modern scholars either as a tiph#el form of h.r.h. . 32 33
Khan (:–). Gesenius (§:).
chapter five
a denominative verb derived from äT#ç z.34 Other imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from second guttural pi#el forms with deviant vocalization, i.e. äV#ç à from eø$ç à (Judg. :) and ä î#çé from éð"ú î$çé (Ps. :). On hypothetical final heh verbs see ..; on the non-standard Tiberipatah. instead of a hataph segol see an vocalization of äT#ç z with a hataph . . ...; on the non-standard Tiberian vocalization of the future prefix aleph with a shewa instead of a hataph patah. see .... . .... Conjugational Pattern äVæ"ò ä imperative äVæ"ò ä, past äTæ"ò ä, active participle äWæ"ò î, future äVæ"ò à The conjugational pattern äVæ"ò ä was created to account for first guttural hiph#il forms with a shewa instead of a hireq under the second radical, . e.g. íéXæ"ò î (Chron. :). Similar to ä ëYE ä in the symbol épb, all forms proposed for äVæ"ò ä preserve the shewa under the second radical which is achieved by adding a mater lectionis heh in the end of the forms in the manner of final weak verbs. The approximation to final weak verbs is equally obvious in the f.sg. past form äúøæòä with taw. The form is vocalized ä úYæ"ò ä in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud35 but should probably be read ä úUæ"ò ä (cf. the vocalization of the attested ä ú à"a"ç ä in Josh. :).36 On hypothetical final heh verbs see ..; on the non-standard Tiberian use of a simple shewa instead of a hataph vowel see ...; on the . interchange of segol and s. ere in forms of final heh verbs see .... .... Conjugational Pattern ì àâ à imperative ì àâ à, past ì àâ à, other forms not given The imperative ì àâ à is the only verb in this conjugational pattern. The past form ì àâ à is inferred from é!z"ì àâ à (Isa. :). In Me"or #Ayin the active participle ì àâ à"î and the future ì àâ à#à are derived from the imperative ì àâ à.37 This shows that the verb was interpreted as a quadriliteral with the aleph as its initial radical. The same follows from T-S K.r where ì àâ à is included in the chapter on verbs with four radicals alongside such imperatives as ìb"ìb, ì k"ì k, ìbY z. 34 35 36 37
Joüon-Muraoka (§:). FEA I , fol. r. Me"or #Ayin has ä úTæ"ò ä (Zislin (:)). See Zislin (:).
symbols and conjugational patterns in kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud
Hiph#il and hitpa#el verbs in which the prefix is aleph instead of heh caused some debate among Karaite grammarians. According to Ibn N¯uh. one scholar maintained that in eì"ìÇz"Ö à (Ps. :), ø a ç"ú à (Chron. :), ä ì"ì"î%à (Isa. :) and é!z"ì àâ à (Isa. :) the aleph has taken the place of the heh.38 Another scholar has said that in all these cases the aleph belongs to the base. The first opinion is registered in al-Kit¯ab alK¯af¯ı where Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un stated that the aleph’s in ø a ç"ú à, é!z"ì àâ à and eì"ìÇz"Ö à substitute for the heh, since these are past forms and the aleph does not belong to the root of these verbs.39 On the contrary, our author clearly adhered to the second view. On patterning guttural verbs see .... ... Symbol ä á à The symbol ä á à was newly created by the author of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud to account for first guttural niph#al forms with a s. ere in the initial syllable of the imperative and a segol in the initial syllable of the past. It contains three conjugational patterns, namely ã î ç ä, Öð à ä and ó ñ à ä. .... Conjugational Pattern ã î ç ä imperative ã î ç ä, past ã î"çð, active participle ã î"çð, future ã î ç à Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from future and imperfect consecutive forms of first guttural niph#al verbs, e.g. á ö ò ä from á ö òé (Eccl. :). On patterning guttural verbs see .... .... Conjugational Pattern Öð à ä imperative Öð à ä, past Öð#àð, active participle Öð#àð, future Öð à à Verbs attributed to this conjugational pattern are first guttural niph#al imperatives Öð à ä and ø ö ò ä with a patah. in the final syllable. Source verses are not given in this pattern. Presumably, Öð à ä was inferred from the pausal imperfect consecutive form Öð àiå (Sam. :) and ø ö ò ä from the third resh imperfect form ø ö ò z (Sam. :). On patterning guttural verbs see ...; on the non-standard Tiberian use of a hataph patah. instead of a hataph segol see .... . . 38 39
See Khan (a:, on Ps. :). Khan et al. (:, I..).
chapter five
.... Conjugational Pattern ó ñ à ä imperative ó ñ à ä, past ó ñ#àð, active participle ó ñ#àð, future ó ñ à à The imperative ó ñ à ä is the only verb mentioned under this conjugational pattern. It must have been inferred from the imperfect consecutive form ó ñ àiå (Gen. :, passim) exhibiting stress recession. On patterning guttural verbs see ...; on the non-standard Tiberian use of a hataph patah. instead of a hataph segol see .... . . The author created conjugational patterns ã î ç ä, Öð à ä and ó ñ à ä to explain why attested imperfect consecutive niph#al forms have different final vowels. This problem is also addressed in the treatise on the Hebrew verbs. Here the difference between forms with segol vs. s. ere in the final syllable is explained by the position of the stress rather than a different imperative base.40 Regarding the forms with patah. vs. s. ere two opinions ˇ ır¯an maintained that the vowel becomes patah. on are reported. Sa#¯ıd S¯ the account of the form being conjoined. Yet the author of the treatise considered the possibility that forms with patah. have a homologous imperative base with final /a/.41 ... Symbol é!ì ò The symbol é!ì ò was newly created by the author of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud to account for first resh niph#al forms with a s. ere in the initial syllable of their imperatives and a hireq in the initial syllable of their past forms. It . contains three conjugational patterns which differ in the last vowel of the imperative or the past, namely íAT ä, à ôT ä and ä àT ä. .... Conjugational Pattern íAT ä imperative íAT ä, past íAYð, active participle í@Yð, future íAT à The imperative íAT ä is inferred from the pausal imperfect consecutive form íATiå (Jonah :). The final patah. in the attested form is regarded as a primary vowel of this conjugation and is carried over to the imperative and the rest of the forms of the future. No other verbs are attributed to this pattern. On patterning guttural verbs see ...; on patterning pausal forms see ... 40 41
See Khan (b:–). See Khan (b:–).
symbols and conjugational patterns in kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud
.... Conjugational Pattern à ôT ä imperative à ôT ä, past à tYð, active participle à tYð, future à ôT à This conjugational pattern is intended for first resh niph#al forms with final s. ere. The imperative à ôT ä inferred from à ôT z (Jer. :) is the only verb mentioned in this conjugational pattern and it is stated that no other verbs with this morphological pattern are attested.42 The past form is vocalized à tYð with a patah. instead of the expected qamas. . On patterning guttural verbs see ...; on final aleph verbs see ... .... Conjugational Pattern ä àT ä imperative ä àT ä, past ä àYð, active participle ä àYð, future not given The conjugational pattern ä àT ä is intended for first resh third weak niph#al forms, e.g. ä öT ä from eöTé (Lev. :). On patterning guttural verbs see .... ... Symbol _U a The symbol _U a newly introduced in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud for verbs with a s. ere in the initial syllable of their imperatives and a patah. in the initial syllable of their past forms contains one conjugational pattern ä × ò ä. .... Conjugational Pattern ä × ò ä imperative ä × ò ä, past ä ×#òð, active participle ä ×#òð, future ä × ò à This conjugational pattern is created for those first guttural third weak niph#al forms in which the prefix nun is vocalized with patah, . e.g. imperative ä × ò ä–m.sg. past ä ×#òð (source verb not given). Apart from the sample verb ä × ò ä, two imperatives are listed under this pattern. These are äV ç ä inferred from íéX$çp ä (Isa. :) and ä ö ç ä from õ ç úå (Dan. :). The attribution of these first het . imperatives to the symbol _U a rather than ä á à is noteworthy and must be due to the Babylonian substitution of a segol by a patah. in the pronunciation of the author. On patterning guttural verbs see ...; on features of the Babylonian pronunciation attributable to the author see ...
42 ïæå äì ñéì [FEA I , fol. r]. It is, indeed, the only final aleph niph#al in the Bible (see Lambert (:–)).
chapter five .. Symbols Based on the Final Vowels of the Imperative and the Past
Symbols in this chapter are established only for verbs which cannot be subsumed under any symbol based on the initial vowels of the imperative and the past. If a verb’s imperative and past forms differ in two vowels, e.g. imperative _V a–m.sg. past _U a, it is always the first vowel that is used to establish the symbol. This rule is necessary to disambiguate the procedure of attributing verbs to symbols. ... Symbol á ñ î The symbol á ñ î includes verbs with a s. ere in the final syllable of the imperative and a patah. in the final syllable of the past. It is divided into nineteen conjugational patterns, namely è ì n!ä, òð k!ä, ø ä h!ä, ø t k!ä, ïðÇk!ä, ïðÇk, ç çÇ×, ã äé"ú!ä, _ l ä"ú!ä, ç t z"ñ!ä, ì a z"ñ!ä, _V a"ú!ä, òV z"×!ä, øV z"×!ä, Ö ÖÇ÷"ú!ä, ò òÇø"ú!ä, ì ìÇz"Ö!ä, ø òY ò"ú!ä, d ì"ä ì"ú!ä. .... Conjugational Pattern è ì n!ä imperative è ì n!ä, past è ì"îð, active participle è ì"îð, future è ì n!à This conjugational pattern includes strong and second guttural verbs in niph#al, e.g. ø ö a!ä from ø ö aé (Job :), â ò l!ä from â ò"ìð (Isa. :). On patterning gutturals see ...; on the Babylonian vocalization of the future prefix aleph with a hireq see ... . .... Conjugational Pattern òð k!ä imperative òð k!ä, past òð"ëð, active participle òð"ëð, future òð k!à Imperatives attributed to the conjugational pattern òð k!ä are inferred from pausal future forms of third guttural niph#al’s, e.g. ç ú t!ä from ç ú té (Job :). On guttural verbs see ..., ..; on patterning pausal forms see ..; on the Babylonian vocalization of the future prefix aleph with a hireq see ... .
symbols and conjugational patterns in kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud
.... Conjugational Pattern ø ä h!ä imperative ø ä h!ä, past ø ä hð or ø ä h!ä, active participle that the past is ø ä h!ä), future ø ä h!à
ø ä h!î
(in the case
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from second guttural hitpa#el verbs with virtual gemination in which the prefix taw is assimilated into the first radical, i.e. í çp!ä from the pausal é!ú"î çp!äå (Ezek. :). For each past form two variants are given, one beginning in a heh, the other in a nun, i.e. m.sg. past ø ä h!ä or ø ä hð, f.sg. past äT#ä h!ä or äT#ä hð, m.pl. past eø#ä h!ä or eø#ä hð. On patterning guttural verbs see ...; on patterning pausal forms see ..; on the author’s analysis of hitpa#el forms with full assimilation of the prefix taw as infi#¯al see ..; on the Babylonian vocalization of the future prefix aleph with a hireq see ... . .... Conjugational Pattern ø t k!ä imperative ø t k!ä, past ø t kð, active participle not given, future ø t k!à Attributed to the conjugational pattern ø t k!ä are strong and third aleph hitpa#el verbs with the prefix taw assimilated into the first radical, e.g. ø qe!ä from eø"qeðå (Ezek. :) and à ap!ä from eà"ap!ä (Jer. :). Contrary to ø ä h!ä, only the nun past form ø t kð is given for ø t k!ä. That ø t k!ä does not have a second past form in a heh is supported by the fact that the author listed the pattern ø t k!ä among conjugational patterns in the group ïð"ä43 while excluding ø ä h!ä from this classification because it can have two past forms. In the light of the above, it is noteworthy that the imperative à ap!ä is attributed to the pattern ø t k!ä. Indeed, it is inferred from a heh past form eà"ap!ä (Jer. :) not allowed in ø t k!ä. Additionally, its inclusion in ø t k!ä and in the symbol á ñ î in general implies that its m.sg. past form has to be vocalized with a patah. on the bet whereas the expected vowel in a third aleph verb is a qamas. . On the author’s analysis of hitpa#el forms with full assimilation of the prefix taw as infi#¯al see ..; on final aleph verbs see ..; on the Babylonian vocalization of the future prefix aleph with a hireq see . ...
43 The mnemonic ïð"ä describes prefixes of niph#al verbs where the heh stands for the imperative, the first nun for the past and the second nun for the participle (see ..).
chapter five
.... Conjugational Pattern ïðÇk!ä imperative ïðÇk!ä, past and active participle uncertain, future ïðÇk!à Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from middle weak and geminated verbs in hitpo#el with full assimilation of the prefix taw into the first radical, e.g. ïðÇk!ä from the pausal éððÇk!z (Isa. :), í îÇg!ä from í îÇg!z (Eccl. :). The author maintained that only the imperative and the forms of the future of ïðÇk!ä can be given with any certainty. He reports to have initially quoted al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı that the past is ïðÇk!ä and the active participle is ïðÇk!î.44 Later he decided that it was more probable that the past begins in a nun as is usual in intransitive conjugations of the type of infi#¯al. On patterning together middle weak and geminated verbs see ..; on patterning pausal forms see ..; on the author’s analysis of hitpa#el forms with full assimilation of the prefix taw as infi#¯al see ..; on the Babylonian vocalization of the future prefix aleph with a hireq see . ... .... Conjugational Pattern ïðÇk imperative ïðÇk, past future ïðÇë"à
ïðÇk,
active participle
ïðÇë"î,
passive participle
ïðÇë"î,
Two types of verbs are attributed to this conjugational pattern: () verbs with equivalent second and third radicals; () verbs with different second and third radicals. . Imperatives with equivalent second and third radicals are inferred from po#el forms of middle weak and geminated verbs, e.g. ú úÇî from ú úÇî"î (Sam. :) and á áÇñ from éð á"áÇñ"z (Ps. :) respectively. . Imperatives with different second and third radicals are inferred from: a. strong po#el verbs such as è ô&Ö from é!è"ô&Ö"î!ì (Job :); b. second guttural pu#al forms, e.g. _ òI from eë#òI (Ps. :); c. pa#al forms such as ã á&à from the construct state of the active participle m.sg. ã á&à (Deut. :), í òæ from the lengthened imperative ä î#òæ (Num. :) and ñVS from the active participle m.sg. ñVS (Isa. :);
44
See Khan et al. (:, I..).
symbols and conjugational patterns in kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud
d. imperative _ ìÇä is inferred from the hiph#il imperative _ ìÇäå (Num. :); e. imperative ø ò&ò is inferred from the idiosyncratic form eø ò&òé (Isa. :) of the root #.w.r.45 The attribution of pa#al participles (see c) to the pattern ïðÇk deserves a comment. The author warned against mixing up imperatives belonging to the conjugational pattern ïðÇk with participles belonging to the pattern ø&î"Ö (i.e. pa#al participles): ®
®
ø&î"Ö óéøöú ïî ïéìòàôìàá ñàðìà éìò ñáúìé àîî øéúëå áéøâ åä óéøöúìà àãäå ® ® ® ® ãçàå éèôùîì ïî ãåëàî øîà åä éãìà è ôÇÖ äâéöå ø&î"Ö ìòàô åä éãìà ø îÇÖ äâéö ïàì ® ® ® êìåäå äìå÷ åäå _ ìÇä øîà äìúîå ®íãàä êìåä éë ÷ë _ ìÇä _ì"ä ïî ìòàôìà êìãëå ®äîìòàô äøäî
This conjugation is unusual and people often confound it with active participles of the conjugation ø&î"Ö. The reason for it is that ø îÇÖ which is the active participle of ø&î"Ö and è ôÇÖ which is the imperative inferred from é!è"ô&Ö"î!ì (Job :) have the same morphological form. Likewise, the active participle of _À"ä is _ ìÇä, as in í@ à ä _ ìÇä é!k (Eccl. :) and similar to it is the imperative _ ìÇä in äT ä"î _ ìÇäå (Num. :). Take note of that! [FEA I , fol. r]
Hence, pa#al participles ã á&à and ñVS attributed to ïðÇk must have been perceived by the author as having a different grammatical function. Given the paradigm of ïðÇk, ã á&à could have been construed as a past form and ñVS as an imperative. The passive participle of ïðÇk is said to be identical in form with that of the pattern _V a. The principle of establishing to which pattern a particular occurring participle should be assigned is not explained. On patterning middle weak and geminated verbs together see ..; on patterning together verbs of different binyanim and gezarot see ..; on imperatives inferred from passive forms see ..; on the vocalization of the m.sg. past form of po#el verbs with a patah. see ..; on the non-standard Tiberian vocalization of the future prefix aleph with a simple shewa instead of a hataph patah. see .... .
45
Gesenius (§cc).
chapter five
.... Conjugational Pattern ç çÇ× imperative ç çÇ×, past ç çÇ×, active participle ç çÇ×"î, passive participle not given, future ç çÇ×"à Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are a denominative middle weak imperative ç çÇ× (source verse not given) and the imperative òVæ inferred from a pausal second resh third guttural pu#al past eòTæ (Isa. :). On patterning together verbs of different binyanim and gezarot see ..; on imperatives inferred from passive forms see ..; on patterning pausal forms see ..; on guttural verbs see ..., ..; on the vocalization of the m.sg. past form of po#el verbs with a patah. see ..; on the non-standard Tiberian vocalization of the future prefix aleph with a simple shewa instead of a hataph patah. see .... . .... Conjugational Pattern ã äé"ú!ä imperative ã äé"ú!ä, past ã äé"ú!ä, active participle ã äé"ú!î, future ã äé"ú à Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from second guttural verbs in hitpa#el exhibiting virtual gemination, e.g. ã ç à"ú!ä from éD#ç à"ú!ä (Ezek. :). On patterning guttural verbs see ...; on the vocalization of the m.sg. past of hitpa#el verbs with a patah. in the final syllable see ... .... Conjugational Pattern _ l ä"ú!ä imperative _ l ä"ú!ä, past _ l ä"ú!ä, active participle _ l ä"ú!î, future _ l ä"ú à Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from forms of strong verbs in hitpa#el, e.g. õ n à"ú!ä from ú ö n à"ú!î (Ruth :). On the vocalization of the m.sg. past of hitpa#el verbs with a patah. in the final syllable see ... .... Conjugational Pattern ç t z"ñ!ä imperative ç t z"ñ!ä, past ç t z"ñ!ä, active participle ç t z"ñ!î, future ç t z"ñ à Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from first sibilant third guttural verbs in hitpa#el, e.g. òb z"Ö!ä from òb z"Ö!ä"ì (Sam. :).
symbols and conjugational patterns in kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud
On the vocalization of the m.sg. past of hitpa#el verbs with a patah. in the final syllable see ..; on patterning verbs with the metathesis of taw see ...; on third guttural verbs see ..., ... .... Conjugational Pattern ì a z"ñ!ä imperative ì a z"ñ!ä, past ì a z"ñ!ä, active participle ì a z"ñ!î, future ì a z"ñ à Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from strong first sibilant verbs in hitpa#el, e.g. ø k z"Ö!ä from ïéX k z"Ö!z (Sam. :). On the vocalization of the m.sg. past of hitpa#el verbs with a patah. in the final syllable see ..; on patterning verbs with the metathesis of taw see .... .... Conjugational Pattern _V a"ú!ä imperative _V a"ú!ä, past _U a"ú!ä, active participle _V a"ú!î, future _V a"ú à Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from second resh and second aleph verbs in hitpa#el, e.g. ãVb"ú!ä from ãVb"ú!ä"ì (Job :). On the vocalization of the m.sg. past of hitpa#el verbs with a patah. in the final syllable see ..; on second guttural verbs see .... .... Conjugational Pattern òV z"×!ä imperative òV z"×!ä, past òU z"×!ä, active participle òV z"×!î, future òV z"× à The first sibilant second resh third guttural imperative òV z"×!ä is the only verb attributed to this conjugational pattern. The author expressed legitimate doubts that more verbs of this type can be found in the Bible.46 On the vocalization of the m.sg. past of hitpa#el verbs with a patah. in the final syllable see ..; on patterning verbs with the metathesis of taw see ...; on second and third guttural verbs see ..., ...
46
According to Lambert (:–), òø× is the only root of this type.
chapter five
.... Conjugational Pattern øV z"×!ä imperative øV z"×!ä, past øU z"×!ä, active participle øV z"×!î, future øV z"× à Imperatives included in this conjugational pattern are inferred from first sibilant second resh verbs in hitpa#el, e.g. âV z"×!ä from eâY z"×é (Lament. :). On the vocalization of the m.sg. past of hitpa#el verbs with a patah. in the final syllable see ..; on patterning verbs with the metathesis of taw see ...; on second guttural verbs see .... .... Conjugational Pattern Ö ÖÇ÷"ú!ä imperative Ö ÖÇ÷"ú!ä, past Ö ÖÇ÷"ú!ä, active participle Ö ÖÇ÷ú!î, future Ö ÖÇ÷"ú à Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from hitpo#el forms of middle weak and geminated verbs, e.g. ïðÇa"ú!ä from eðð&a"ú!ä (Jer. :) and ïðÇø"ú!ä from ïðÇø"ú!î (Ps. :) respectively. On the vocalization of the m.sg. past of hitpo#el verbs with a patah. in the final syllable see ..; on patterning together middle weak and geminated verbs see ... .... Conjugational Pattern ò òÇø"ú!ä imperative ò òÇø"ú!ä, past ò òÇø"ú!ä, active participle ò òÇø"ú!î, future ò òÇø"ú à The pattern ò òÇø"ú!ä was created to account for third guttural hitpo#el forms. The only imperative attributed to this pattern in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud is the sample verb ò òÇø"ú!ä (source verse not given). The author expressed doubts that more verbs of this kind can be found in the Bible. On the vocalization of the m.sg. past of hitpo#el verbs with a patah. in the final syllable see ..; on third guttural verbs see ..., ... .... Conjugational Pattern ì ìÇz"Ö!ä imperative ì ìÇz"Ö!ä, past ì ìÇz"Ö!ä, active participle ì ìÇz"Ö!î, future ì ìÇz"Ö à Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from first sibilant hitpo#el forms, e.g. ì ìÇz"ñ!ä from ì ìÇz"ñ!î (Ex. :). On the vocalization of the m.sg. past of hitpo#el verbs with a patah. in the final syllable see ..; on patterning verbs with the metathesis of taw see ....
symbols and conjugational patterns in kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud
.... Conjugational Pattern ø òY ò"ú!ä imperative
ø òY ò"ú!ä,
past
ø òY ò"ú!ä,
active participle
ø òY ò"ú!î,
future
ø òY ò"ú à
The pattern ø òY ò"ú!ä accounts for hitpalpel verbs with a non-guttural final consonant. ø òY ò"ú!ä (source verse not given) is the only verb in this category. The author expressed doubts that more verbs of this pattern are attested in the Bible. On the vocalization of the m.sg. past of hitpalpel verbs with a patah. in the final syllable see ... .... Conjugational Pattern d ì"ä ì"ú!ä imperative
d ì"ä ì"ú!ä,
past
d ì"ä ì"ú!ä,
active participle
d ì"ä ì"ú!î,
future
d ì"ä ì"ú à
The pattern d ì"ä ì"ú!ä includes final guttural hitpalpel verbs, e.g. d î"ä î"ú!ä from eä"î"ä î"úiå (Judg. :).47 On the vocalization of the m.sg. past of hitpalpel verbs with a patah. in the final syllable see ..; on third guttural verbs see ..., ... ... Symbol ä@ ò The symbol ä@ ò includes verbs with a s. ere in the final syllable of their imperatives and a patah. in the final syllable of their past forms. It contains eleven conjugational patterns for final weak verbs, namely äp ò"ú!ä, ä àT"ú!ä, äð a!ä, ä kf!ä, äð"ô ä, äVÇä, äVÇæ, ä l k, ä ë"Ö î, äV(à z, and ä èeô"Ö. .... Conjugational Pattern äp ò"ú!ä imperative äp ò"ú!ä, past äp ò"ú!ä, active participle äp ò"ú!î, future äp ò"ú à This conjugational pattern accounts for third weak hitpa#el verbs, e.g. äp à"ú!ä from äp à"ú!î (Kings :). On the interchange of segol and s. ere in active participles of final heh verbs see ....
47
MT: eä"î"ä î"ú!äå.
chapter five
.... Conjugational Pattern ä àT"ú!ä imperative ä àT"ú!ä, past ä àT"ú!ä, active participle ä àT"ú!î, future ä àT"ú à This conjugational pattern includes second aleph or resh third weak hitpa#el verbs with compensatory lengthening of the vowel of the first radical, e.g. äVb"ú!ä from äWb"úéå (Dan. :).48 On the interchange of segol and s. ere in active participles of final heh verbs see ...; on second guttural verbs see .... .... Conjugational Pattern äð a!ä imperative äð a!ä, past äð"áð, active participle äð"áð, future äð a!à Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from third weak niph#al verbs, e.g. ä ìb!ä from eìbiå (Sam. :). On the Babylonian vocalization of the future prefix aleph with a hireq . see ... .... Conjugational Pattern ä kf!ä imperative ä kf!ä, past can be in a nun or in a heh, active participle not given, future ä kf à Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from third weak hitpa#el verbs with full assimilation of the prefix taw into the first radical, e.g. ä kf!ä from ekf!ä (Isa. :). The author suggested that similar to ø ä h!ä, ä kf!ä can have two alternative past forms, one in a nun and the other in a heh, but did not explicitly cite the past. On the author’s analysis of hitpa#el forms with full assimilation of the prefix taw as infi#¯al see ... .... Conjugational Pattern äð"ô ä imperative äð"ô ä, past äð"ô ä, active participle äð"ô î, passive participle äð"ô%î or äð"ô î, future äð"ô à Imperatives attributed to the conjugational pattern äð"ô ä are inferred from third weak hoph#al verbs, e.g. ä àY ä from ä àY î (Ex. :). The m.pl. imperative eð"ô ä in Jer. : is one of the two imperatives of passive conju-
48
Cited according to qere, MT åWb"úéå.
symbols and conjugational patterns in kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud
gations attested in the Bible.49 The rest of the imperatives in this pattern (ä àY ä, ä c"ô ä, ä ìâ ä) are hypothetical and semantically questionable. Two forms of the passive participle are proposed in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud: () äð"ô%î same as the passive participle of äð"ô ä and () äð"ô î by analogy with ä àY î (Ex. :) same as the active participle of äð"ô ä. It seems that the latter form was preferred by our author who cited feminine and plural passive participle forms with qamas. . The reason this form was chosen seems to be that it ensures the stability of the short qamas. in the entire paradigm. On passive imperatives see ... .... Conjugational Pattern äVÇä imperative äVÇä, past äTÇä, active participle äWÇî, passive participle not given, future äWÇà Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are derived from first yod third weak verb forms, e.g. äBÇä from eãÇé (Ps. :, passim). Despite the transitivity of the pattern, the passive participle is not included in the set of given forms. In al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı the passive participle äWeî is cited.50 .... Conjugational Pattern äVÇæ imperative äVÇæ, past äTÇæ, active participle äWÇæ"î, passive participle äWeæ"î, future äWÇæ"à This conjugational pattern includes: . imperative äVÇæ inferred from a second resh pu#al future äWæé (Job :); . imperative äVb inferred from the geminated pa#al future eäVâé (Hab. :) with virtual gemination; . imperative ä ñ&Ö inferred from the third weak po#el past form é!ú ×ÇÖ (Isa. :). The author establishes the connection between the patterns äVÇæ and äVæ by saying that the active participle äWÇæ"î of the pattern äVÇæ is the same as the passive participle of the pattern äVæ. It is not clear on what grounds attested participle forms of this type were assigned to one conjugational pattern rather than the other. 49 50
Joüon-Muraoka (§§a, ). Khan et al. (:, I..).
chapter five
On passive imperatives see ..; on patterning together verbs of different binyanim and gezarot see ..; on the non-standard Tiberian vocalization of the sg. future prefix with a simple shewa instead of a hataph patah. see .... . .... Conjugational Pattern ä q k imperative ä q k, past ä q k, active participle ä q ë"î, future ä q ë"à Imperatives attributed to the conjugational pattern ä q k are inferred from: . third weak pu#al forms, e.g. ä q k from eq k (Ps. :); . geminated pa#al forms with short qamas. , e.g. äb ç from :).
éb ç
(Nahum
In the second category the form of the imperative with a final heh ensures the preservation of the short qamas. throughout the paradigm. On passive imperatives see ..; on hypothetical final heh imperatives see ..; on participle forms of hypothetical final heh imperatives see .; on the non-standard Tiberian vocalization of the sg. future prefix with a simple shewa instead of a hataph patah. see .... . .... Conjugational Pattern ä ë"Ö î imperative ä ë"Ö î, past ä ë"Ö î, active participle not mentioned, future ä ë"Ö î"à
ä ë"Ö î"î,
passive participle
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are derived from m.pl. and f.sg. imperative forms of pa#al verbs with a short qamas. instead of a hireq under the first radical, i.e. ä ë"Ö î from eë"Ö î (Ezek. :), as . well as from idiosyncratic pa#al imperfects with pronominal suffixes, i.e. ä ì"ë à from eä ì"ë à"z (Job :) and äV"á ç from ^Y"á çé ä (Ps. :). The short qamas. under the first radical of attested forms is preserved in the proposed hypothetical forms by means of adding a final heh. On hypothetical final heh imperatives see ..; on participle forms of hypothetical final heh imperatives see .; on the non-standard Tiberian vocalization of the sg. future prefix with a simple shewa instead of a hataph patah. and on the interchange of s. ere and segol in participle forms . of final heh verbs see ....
symbols and conjugational patterns in kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud
.... Conjugational Pattern äV(à z imperative äV(à z, past äT(à z, active participle not mentioned, future äW(à ú"à
äV(à ú"î,
passive participle
Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from two idiosyncratic forms with short qamas. under the first radical and hataph . qamas. under the second radical, i.e. äV(à z from eäV(à úé (Isa. :) and ä î(ñJ from é!î(ñJ (Sam. :). The heh at the end of the forms serves to preserve the syllable structure of the attested forms and to ensure the stability of the short qamas. and hataph qamas. in all forms. . On hypothetical final heh imperatives see ..; on participle forms of hypothetical final heh imperatives see .; on the non-standard Tiberian vocalization of the sg. future prefix with a simple shewa instead of a hataph patah. and on the interchange of s. ere and segol in participle forms . of final heh verbs see .... .... Conjugational Pattern ä èeô"Ö imperative ä èeô"Ö, past ä èeô"Ö, the rest of the forms not given Imperatives ä èeô"Ö and äVeî"Ö attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from idiosyncratic pausal forms eèet"Öé (Ex. :) and íVeî"Ö!z (Prov. :) with ultimate stress. The shuruq in the attested forms is preserved in the hypothetical forms. According to G. Khan’s analysis the final heh was posited in the hypothetical imperatives to account for the ultimate stress of eèet"Öé, íVeî"Ö!z as opposed to the regular penultimate stress in the third person plural and second person singular imperfect of middle weak verbs.51 On hypothetical final heh imperatives see ... ... Symbol éD ò The symbol éD ò describes the conjugation of verbs with a s. ere in the final syllable of the imperative and a hireq in the final syllable of the past . and consists of three conjugational patterns for first yod verbs in hiph#il, namely áé èé ä, á ÖÇä and òBÇä.
51
Khan (b:).
chapter five
.... Conjugational Pattern áé èé ä imperative áé èé ä, past áé!èé ä, active participle áé!èé î, passive participle not given, future áé!èé à Verbs listed under this category are imperatives inferred from hiph#il forms of originally first yod verbs which occur with a yod between the second and the third radical, e.g. ÷éðé ä from ÷éðé úå (Ex. :). The imperative _é ìé ä is inferred from the idiosyncratic form é!ëé!ìé ä (Ex. :). Contrary to the modern analysis of such roots as first yod, the author did not regard the yod as a radical and characterized the pattern as ‘consisting of two root letters preceded by a heh.’52 On hiph#il imperatives with yod see ..; on the structure of verbal roots see ... .... Conjugational Pattern á ÖÇä imperative á ÖÇä, past áé!ÖÇä, active participle áé!ÖÇî, passive participle not given, future áé!ÖÇà Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from first yod (originally first waw) verbs in hiph#il which occur with a yod, e.g. ãVÇä from eãéXÇé (Kings :). Despite the transitivity of the pattern, the passive participle is not included in the set of mentioned forms. In alKit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı the passive participle á Öeî same as the passive participle of the pattern á Ö ä is proposed.53 On hiph#il imperatives with yod see ... .... Conjugational Pattern òBÇä imperative òBÇä, past òéDÇä, active participle òéDÇî, future òéDÇà Imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from first yod (originally first waw) third guttural verbs in hiph#il, e.g. ç ëÇä from çé!ëÇz ç ëÇä (Lev. :). On hiph#il imperatives with yod see ..; on final guttural verbs see ..., ...
52 à ä àîäîã÷úéå ïééìöà ïéôøç ïî [FEA I 53 See Khan et al. (:, I..).
, fol. v].
symbols and conjugational patterns in kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud ... Symbol òK a The newly created symbol òK a includes verbs with a segol in the final syllable of the imperative and a patah. in the final syllable of the past and contains one conjugational pattern ø î g!ä. .... Conjugational Pattern ø î g!ä imperative ø î g!ä, past ø î"Öð, active participle ø î"Öð, future ø î g!à The imperative ø î g!ä with retraction of the tone from the ultima to the penultima and the subsequent shortening of s. ere to segol is attested in the Bible (Job :). Other imperatives attributed to this conjugational pattern are inferred from niph#al imperfect forms exhibiting this retraction of tone, e.g. ã î v!ä from ã î viå (Num. :). In the treatise on the Hebrew verbs niph#al imperfects with retraction of tone are listed but separate imperatives are not proposed for them.54 On the contrary, al-F¯as¯ı considered imperfects with and without the retraction of tone to be derived from two different imperative bases and posited for the occurring form í çpiå a hypothetical imperative í çp!ä.55 ... Symbol éX t The symbol éX t includes verbs with a segol in the final syllable of the imperative and a hireq in the final syllable of the past. It is not listed in . the chapter ‘On imperatives which coincide in their first vowel but differ in their last vowel [from the past verb forms derived from them] and on other related matters.’ Instead, it is introduced in the section on the mnemonic í ä ä: ®
ãéøåä øáòìà ïåëéå íéî úåøäðë ãøåéå ïî ãWÇä íää éô éðàúìà áàáìà éô ãàæé ã÷å ® ® ® äøîà øëà éX ô äîàìò äì èáöéå ®úëìì ì àéå ãåã ãåò ó ñåéå äìúîå ®ãéøåî ìòàôìàå ® ® ® ® ®äè÷ðá äì éãìà øáòìà øëàå è÷ð äúìúá
In the second chapter (i.e. chapter ‘On imperatives which coincide in their first vowel but differ in their last vowel [from the past verb forms derived from them] and on other related matters’) to í ä ä can be added ãWÇä from íé î úÇø äp k ãWÇiå (Ps. :) with the past ãéXÇä and the active participle ãéXÇî. Similar to it is ãå c ãÇò ó ñÇiå (Sam. :) and ú ë ì ì ì àiå (Sam. :). One can establish for it the symbol éX t: the end of its imperative is [vocalized] with a segol and the end of its past form with a hireq. . [FEA I , fol. v] 54 55
See Khan (b:, ). See Skoss (–:II, ).
chapter five
.... Conjugational Pattern ãWÇä imperative ãWÇä, past presumably ãWÇà
ãéXÇä,
active participle
ãéXÇî,
future not given,
It follows from the quotation above that the symbol éX t consisting of a single conjugational pattern ãWÇä was introduced to account for imperatives inferred from hiph#il imperfect consecutive forms of first yod (originally first waw) verbs with the retraction of tone from the ultima to the penultima and the subsequent shortening of the vowel of the ultima from s. ere to segol, e.g. ãWÇä from ãWÇiå (Ps. :).
chapter six ¯ AL-#UQUD ¯ MORPHOLOGICAL THEORIES IN KITAB
This chapter explores approaches to verbal derivation as they are reflected in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud and other Karaite works containing material on the verbal morphology of Biblical Hebrew, such as the Diqduq, Kit¯ab J¯ami# al-Alf¯az, . the treatise on the Hebrew verbs, al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil, al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı, Me"or #Ayin, and a number of grammatical Genizah fragments of Karaite origin. .. Status of Letters In Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud the letters of the alphabet are classified in two different ways. With regard to their function in the language in general, letters are divided into radicals and non-radicals.1 With regard to their status within a given word, letters are separated into root, auxiliary, built-in and affixed letters.2 ... Radicals vs. Non-radicals It is well known that Karaite grammarians considered only those letters that occur in all forms of a lexical class (lu˙ga)3 to belong to its root and accepted roots consisting of one to four radicals.4 This concept is also found in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud: ®
®
øéâ íà äéåàñúî äøéàâúîìà úàâììà äãä éô äéøäåâìà óåøçìà ìäå ìà÷ ïàô éìò øåãé àî àäéô äì ìé÷ ®àäøéàâú óéëå ìà÷ ïàô ®äéåàñúî øéâ äì ìé÷ ºäéåàñúî ® ® ® àäéôå ®äúìú éìò øåãé àî àäéôå ®ïéôøç éìò øåãé àî àäéôå ®øéâ àì éøäåâ ãçàå óøç ® êìã ïî ãéæà àìå äòáøà øåãé àî
1
FEA I , fol. v–r. FEA I , fol. r–r. 3 A lexical class is ‘an abstract entity that includes linguistic forms sharing a common kernel of meaning and common letters’ (Khan (a:)). 4 See Khan (a:–, –); Maman (a:); Olszowy-Schlanger (: –) and the literature cited there. 2
chapter six If somebody asks if the root letters in these different lexical classes are similar or not, it should be said to him that they are not similar. If he asks how they are different, it should be said to him that some lexical classes have as their core only one root letter,5 others have two, others have three, others still have four, but it cannot be more than that. [FEA I , fol. v]
Headings of most conjugational patterns in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud contain information on the number of root letters in imperative bases of each pattern. Patterns with one root letter include ä k ä and äVÇä. Patterns with two root letters are, for instance, ìé v ä, ä lb, íé!×, ÷ n!ä, ÖLe!ä,6 áé èé ä. These examples demonstrate that the initial nun, waw and yod; the middle waw and yod; the third radical of geminated verbs and the final heh were not regarded by the author as root letters. Conjugational patterns with four radicals such as ì aY k include pilpel verbs alongside quadriliterals.7 Hence, pilpel’s were considered by the author to have four root letters. A statement to this effect is found in the chapter ‘On establishing root letters and other related matters:’ ®
®
ìåæé àì óåøç äòáøàìà äãä ïî óøç ìë ãà ì áY ë åçðô äòáøà ïî øåãé àî àîàå ® ® ® ì ë"ì ë ñ ô"ñ ç õ ô"ö ô êìãëå õåá ìéòîá ì áY%ë"î ãåãå ïî ãåëàî åäå äâììà ãñôðúå àìà æ ÖY ô
An example of a lexical class with four root letters is ì aY k, since none of the four letters can be lacking without the word becoming corrupt. It is taken from õea ìé!ò"î!a ì aY%ë"î ãå@å (Chron. :). Similar to it are õ t"ö t, ñ t"ñ ç, ì k"ì k, and æ ÖY t. [FEA I , fol. r]
Not all Karaite grammarians shared this opinion as some held that repeated letters do not belong to the root: ®
®
éãöìàå àôìà óãàøúì ì áY ë ìúî úñéì õ ô"ö ô ïà éøé ïé÷åã÷ãìà õòá ïà íìòàå ® àäôåøç äìàúîàå õ ô"ö ô ïà ìå÷é ïî íäðîå ®éìöà øéâ óãøúîìà óøçìà ïà ìå÷éô ® ® ® ® ® ïéîéä íàå ïî ãåëàîìà ì à"î"× ä éøâî àäåøâéå óéøöúìà øéàñ éô àäúåáúì äééìöà ® ®äøéàâúî àäéô óåøç äòáøàìà éãìà äìéàîùàå
Take note that one grammarian thinks that õ t"ö t is different from ì aY k because the letters peh and s. ade are repeated and says that repeated letters do not belong to the root. Others say that all letters of õ t"ö t and similar
5
Literally: ‘turn on only one root letter.’ In first waw niph#al verbs the waw is said to replace a root letter (óøçìà ïò àáéàð éìöàìà [FEA I , fol. v]). 7 The same mode of patterning is found in al-Kit¯ ab al-K¯af¯ı (see Khan et al. (:, I..)). 6
morphological theories in kit¯ab al-#uqu¯ d
verbs belong to the root because they are present in the rest of the conjugation. They treat it in the same way as ì à"î"× ä derived from ä ìé!à"î"× àå ïé!îi ä í!àå (Gen. :) which has four different radicals. [FEA I , fol. v]
Indeed, al-F¯as¯ı differentiated between quadriliterals (arba# hur¯ . uf as. liyya) such as Ö t"è\ (Job :) and verbs with repeated consonants (arba# mukarrara) such as ì k"ì ëéå (Gen. :).8 To facilitate the decision of whether a letter does or does not belong to a root, all letters of the alphabet are divided in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud into the so-called ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ letters. Feminine letters (al-hur¯ . uf ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ®®® al-neqebot), namely ø÷ õôò ñèç æãâ, arranged into a mnemonic ø t ñ è ç ¯ ÷C ö òæb, are said to be always root letters. Masculine letters (al-hur¯ . uf al® ®®® ® ®®®® ® ® zekarim), i.e. úùðî ìëé åä áà, arranged into a mnemonic äðé!á Çz"ëà ì"î Ö, can be¯ either root or non-root letters.9 The division of letters into radicals and servile letters is a common tool in grammatical works, Karaite as well as Rabbanite.10 Whereas the division given in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud is the most common, alternatives can be found in the sources. Thus, Dunaˇs ben Labrat. classified dalet and t. et as servile letters.11 The author of an anonymous Karaite work fragmentarily preserved in JTS ENA .– counted shin among the root letters saying that - Ö is equivalent to ø Ö#à and as such differs from other servile letters.12 A similar opinion was mentioned and refuted by Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un in al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı.13 The terms ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ are rare and seem to occur only in Karaite treatises.14 Two different anthropomorphic explanations of the terms are offered by medieval grammarians. On the one hand, it is suggested that masculine letters were called so for their ability to attach themselves to feminine letters.15 This explanation refers to the situation when masculine letters function as affixes added to root letters. On the other hand, it is said that feminine letters are like women, who always stay
8
See Skoss (–:I, ). On these mnemonics see ... 10 See Allony (:, , :); Bacher (b:); Derenbourg (:– , , :); Dotan (:); Khan et al. (:, I. .–); Maman (a:– ); Zislin (:–). 11 Sáenz-Badillos (:*). 12 JTS ENA .r –v. 13 See Khan et al. (:, I..). 14 For other works on grammar using this terminology see Allony (:–). 15 Kit¯ ab al-#Uq¯ud: íéøëæ àäåîñ àäàåñ éìò àäáåëø äìòìå [FEA I , fol. r]; see also Manuel du Lecteur (Derenbourg (:)). 9
chapter six
at home, and masculine letters are like men, who are at times at home and at times outside.16 This explanation reflects the fact that feminine letters are always radicals and masculine letters can be either radicals or non-radicals. ... Root, Auxiliary, Built-in and Affixed Letters The division of letters into root, auxiliary, built-in and affixed letters takes into account the contribution of each letter to the meaning of a lexeme containing it. Root letters (hur¯ . uf as. liyya or hur¯ . uf jawhariyya) are defined as those constituents of a word that carry its general meaning and hence determine to which lexical class a word belongs: ®
åà ïéòìà ã&î#ò ïî ìàæ àãà ïàì äâììà êéú úãñôðà äâììà ïî ìàæ éúî éìöàìàô ® ® ® :éìöà óøç ìë éô ãç àãäå óå÷åìà äâì ïî úâøë ìàãìà åà íàîìà
If a root letter is removed from a word, the word will become corrupt. Indeed, if the #ayin, or the mem, or the dalet disappear from ã&î#ò, it will no longer belong to the lexical class of ‘standing.’ This is the definition of all root letters. [FEA I , fol. v]
Consider also this: ®
ìòôìà äâì íìòú ïéùìàå ïéòìà òåîâîá øàöô
One can recognize the lexical class of ‘doing’ by the presence of the letters #ayin and shin together. [FEA I , fol. r]
Whereas radicals establish the basic semantic content of a word, nonroot letters contribute to its specific meaning (ma#n¯a). Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud discusses three categories of non-root letters. Affixed letters (hur¯ . uf r¯akiba) are attached to words which already have an established specific meaning.17 They serve to transform one existing linguistic form into a different form of the same lexical class. Examples of an affixed letter are the prefix mem in the active participle ø aA"î or the future prefix yod in ø aAé. Indeed, if these prefixes are removed, a meaningful imperative form ø a c will result. Contrary to affixed letters, built-in letters (hur¯ . uf mabniyya) cannot be removed without a word loosing any specific meaning and retaining only
16
#Adat Deborim, II Firk. Evr. C , fol. r: ¯
àìå ®ïäéìòá éúáì ãåñé ïäå úåáùåé úéáá ïúåéäì íà éë ®ïéà ïúøàôúù úåá÷ðì ïåéîã úåá÷ð úåàø÷ðå õåçá íòôå úéáá íòô íäù íéøëæì ïåéîã íéøëæ íéàåø÷å ®®® õåçá êìäúäì ïäá ïëúé ® ® ® 17 äáåëø ïàë àäéìò áëø àã àô àäéìò äáåëø ìá÷ úáàú éðòî àäì äèôì éìò áëøé áëàøìàå ãéàæ éðòîì [FEA I , fol. r].
morphological theories in kit¯ab al-#uqu¯ d
its basic semantic content.18 This is exemplified by the prefix mem in the participle ìé!câ î or by the future prefix yod in ìé!câé. Here, if the mem or the yod are removed, the remaining constituent ìéDb is not a meaningful utterance. Although the notions of built-in and affixed letters are known from Harunian grammars,19 the concepts were applied differently and predominantly with respect to nouns by Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un. The term r¯akib was used for a prefix with a syntactical function and the term mabn¯ı for a prefix which is an integral part of a morphological pattern.20 Thus, Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un classified the contracted form of the preposition ï!î as the affixed mem and all cases of the prefix mem required by nominal morphological patterns as built-in.21 On one occasion in al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı he applied the terminology of affixed and built-in letters to verbs characterizing the future prefix yod as affixed in ø&î"Öé, ä ×#òé, ø aAé. Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un stated that this prefix (and presumably other future prefixes as well) can never be built-in in verbs.22 On the contrary, the author of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud applied the dichotomy to verbal morphology and spoke of builtin and affixed future prefixes: áëàøå éðáî ïéîñ÷ íñ÷ðú ìàá÷úñàìà óåøç ïà íìòàå
Take note that future prefixes can be divided into two groups, i.e. built-in and affixed. [FEA I , fol. v]
The system of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud is also found in Me"or #Ayin.23 A novel concept not found in the books of Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un and presumably first introduced in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud are auxiliary letters (hur¯ . uf musta#mala).24 Auxiliary letters are similar to built-in letters in that their removal destroys the specific meaning of a word but differ crucially in that built-in letters occur only in some forms of a verb whereas auxiliary letters are present in the entire paradigm.25 In modern terms auxiliary letters are first radicals of first nun and first yod verbs explicitly present ® ® ® ® 18 ø÷úñî éðòî äè ôììà éô äìàåæ ãòá à÷áé àì ìàæ àãà äðàì äìàåæ æåâé àì éãìà åäô éðáîìàå ® v r éðòî øéâ ïî äúáàú äâììà óåøç ìá ®®® [FEA I , fol. – ].
19
See Khan et al. (:, I..). Maman (:–). 21 See Khan et al. (:, I..). 22 See Khan et al. (:, I..). 23 See Zislin (:). 24 The introduction of this concept was previously attributed to Me"or #Ayin (see Maman (a:–, :); Zislin (:)). 20
®
®
®
®
25 éðòî øéâ ïî äúáàú äâììà óåøç úé÷á ìàæ àãàå äìë óéøöúìà éô úáúé éãìà åä ìîòúñîìàå àäéô ø÷úñî [FEA I , fol. v].
chapter six
in a verb form. As was mentioned above, only letters stable in all forms of a lexical class were counted as radicals by the author of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud. Consequently first nun and first yod verbs were considered to have only two radicals, e.g. the quph and h. et in çK ì, the samekh and #ayin in ò ñð. The forms ò ñ and ò ñð were not regarded as an imperative and a past form of one verb but rather as forms of two different verbs belonging to the same lexical class of ‘going away.’ According to Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud, the nun in ò ñð is an auxiliary letter and is present in all forms of the verb, including the imperative ò ñð.26 On the other hand, the imperative ò ñ is counted among ‘imperatives which do not have past forms.’27 Even though the categories of letters are defined semantically by the author of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud, the information on the status of a particular letter was used for grammatical purposes, namely for forming morphological patterns and for establishing rules of derivational relations between verb forms.28 According to Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud nine conditions must be satisfied for two words to have the same morphological pattern.29 Two of them involve root letters: ®
®
ïÇæ ç ìúî äééìöàìà óåøçìà ããò àäðî èåøù ïàæåàìà éô àòàøé éãìà ïà ìé÷ ã÷å ® ® ® :êìã ìàúîàå ïééìöà ïåøç éô ùéøìàå úéçìàå ïééìöà ïåæç éô éàæìàå úéçìà ãà ïÇø ç
It had been said before that some conditions must be observed regarding grammatical patterns. One of them is the number of root letters. Examples are ïÇæ ç and ïÇø ç because the het . and zayin are the two root letters in ïÇæ ç and the het . and resh are the two root letters in ïÇø ç, and similar cases. [FEA I , fol. v] ®
®
®
éãìà ïÇì î ñÇð î ìúî àãçàå àáéúøú ïéúèôììà éô äéìöàìà óåøçìà áéúøú àòàøéå ® ® éìöà äèôììà ñàø éô ùéøìà ãà ïÇöTá àðæåé àìô äééìöà øéâ àîäñåø éô ïéîàîìà ® ® :êìã ìàúîàå
It should be observed that the root letters in both words are equally arranged. For example, ñÇð î and ïÇì î, the mem in the beginning of which is not a root letter, should not be considered to have the same pattern as ïÇöT where the resh at the beginning is a root letter, and similar cases. [FEA I , fol. v]
26 Hypothetical first nun imperatives of this type were regularly proposed by early Karaite grammarians (see Khan (a:)). To the best of my knowledge hypothetical future forms of the type of ò ñðé are not registered in any sources including Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud. 27 See ... 28 This points out that in Kit¯ ab al-#Uq¯ud the verbal root plays a more important role in grammatical description then was evident from other sources, such as those analyzed by J. Olszowy-Schlanger (:). 29 See ...
morphological theories in kit¯ab al-#uqu¯ d
As to the rules of derivational relations, i.e. implicational statements establishing links between different verb forms,30 they refer not only to radicals but to all four categories of letters. Consider these: ®
äðéòá óøçìà êìã àìà øáòìà ìåà ïåëé àì ìîòúñî åà éìöà óøç äìåà øîà ìë ® ìçðé àì ã÷ò äâììà éô äøéñ äãäå
If an imperative begins in a root letter or an auxiliary letter, the past form will always begin with that same letter. This is the way of the language and a rule which can never be broken. [FEA I , fol. r] ®
®
®
®éðáî øëàìàå áëàø ãçàåìà ïéäâå éìò øîàìà éìò ìëãé ã÷ ìòàôìà íàî ïà íìòàå ® ® ® ® ® ® ® àãà éðáî ïàë àãàå ®äãàéæ éìà øîàìà êìã âàúçé àì äúôãç àãà áëàø ïàë àãàô ® ® ® ® ® äìîâå äâììà éô ìçðé àì ã÷ò àãäå ®®® à ä äãàéæ éìà øîàìà êìã âàúçà äúôãç ìöôúú àì
Take note that the mem of the active participle can be added to an imperative in two fashions, namely as an affixed or a built-in [prefix]. If it is affixed, the imperative will not require any additions after you remove it. If it is built-in, the imperative will need an added heh after the mem is removed … This is a rule which can never be broken in the language and a general statement without exceptions. [FEA I , fol. r–v]
In the first rule the form of the past is inferred from the fact that the imperative begins in a radical or an auxiliary letter. In the second, the form of the imperative is related to the built-in or affixed status of its active participle prefix mem. These examples demonstrate that the status of letters within a word was, indeed, an important tool of morphological analysis for the author of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud. Parallel to root and auxiliary consonants the author speaks of root and auxiliary vowels.31 In his definition, root vowels (mul¯uk as. liyya) are vowels which occur in some nouns in all their forms, such as the hireq . in Öé!à or the shuruq in ñeñ. Auxiliary vowels (mul¯uk musta#mala), on the other hand, are a feature of verbal morphology. These are vowels which are stable in all verb forms in some conjugational patterns, for instance, the holam in the forms of ïÇk!ä or the patah. in the forms of ÷ n!ä. . Auxiliary vowels are called thus by analogy with auxiliary letters which do not belong to the root but are nevertheless present in all forms of a verb containing them. If an auxiliary vowel is removed and substituted by another vowel, the verb can still sometimes be understood but acquires a different meaning, as in ïÇk!ä vs. ï ë ä. 30 31
See . FEA I , fol. v–r.
chapter six
The concept of root and auxiliary vowels is reminiscent of Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un’s idea that some vowels ‘have the status of a radical’ (ka-l-as. l¯ı).32 Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un extended this notion to verbs and nouns alike and the term ‘auxiliary vowel’ does not appear in al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı. Examples of radical-like vowels in nouns are the first qamas. in forms of ÖT ç and the s. ere in forms of õ ô ç or ã ò both of which do not undergo reduction in the process of inflection. In verbs radical-like vowels are represented by the holam in forms of ïðÇk, ãVÇä or ïÇk!ä and the qubbus. in pu#al and . hoph#al verbs. .. Principles of Verbal Derivation In Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud the derivational base and the citation form of a verb is its m.sg. imperative. All verbal paradigms begin with a m.sg. imperative and it is also the form in which structurally identical verbs are listed in each conjugational pattern. This primacy of the imperative is in full accord with the morphological teachings of the Karaites.33 G. Khan described two different methodological approaches to establishing imperative bases of attested verbal forms.34 Some grammarians proposed imperative bases of a regular pattern and explained irregularities in derivative forms by phonetic processes, such as the addition, elision, substitution and quiescence of letters.35 Others held the view that an imperative base must necessarily reflect all key structural elements of its occurring derivative even at the cost of being hypothetical and anomalous. The author of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud clearly followed the latter approach. All imperatives proposed in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud exhibit close structural affinity to their derivative forms and a one-to-one correspondence between
32
See Khan et al. (:–, II..–). See Khan (:–, a:, b:); Maman (a:–) and the literature there. As is well known the idea of the primacy of the imperative was refuted by Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un who argued that the primary verb form was the infinitive. While objecting to the tradition that the imperative is the base of the verbal inflection on semantic grounds, Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un continued proposing imperative bases for verbal forms (Khan (:–)). In line with Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un, our author maintained that semantically the infinitive was the primary verb form and referred to infinitives as ‘bases of lexical classes’ (úàâììà ìåöà [FEA I , fol. v]) and ‘something from which verbs are lexically derived’ (ìàòôàìà äðî ú÷úùà àî [FEA I , fol. v]). For the sake of verbal conjugation, the imperative is the only base form considered in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud. 34 See Khan (a:). 35 On these phonetic processes see Khan (a:–). 33
morphological theories in kit¯ab al-#uqu¯ d
an imperative and its derivatives is expected. Hence, structural variation in attested forms is always explained through differences in their imperatives. For instance, the morphological pattern of the jussive form ì v z is explained by proposing a separate imperative ì v ä without yod as opposed to ìé v ä with yod underlying the future indicative ìé!v z.36 It appears that the author preferred such hypothetical derivative bases to ad hoc phonetic processes affecting only certain forms which were proposed by some other grammarians. In his view, a phonetic process is valid if it operates in all structurally identical forms. An example demonstrating this opinion is found in the symbol épb. When dealing with pi#el forms with reduced gemination of the second radical, such as íeà"ì îéå (Sam. :), eÖO a (Ezra :, passim), eç"ì Ö (Ps. :, passim) the author argued against the idea that the dagesh, although present in the imperative base, was elided in the process of derivation. His objections were based on the observation that pairs like eç"l!ù with dagesh and eç"ì!ù with raphe were attested in the Bible: ®
®
®
®
®
®
®
åä éãìà ìîòúñîìà ãåâåîìàá äôàìë àððè ã÷å øöúëî ùâãìà ïà øáëð ïà æåâé àìå ® àãäå äV#ç ú éìò ñà÷îìà ä ç"ì Ö ïî êùã÷î ùàá eç"ì!ùå ®ç l Ö ïî ùàá eç"l!ù øéòä úàå ® ®õìëàå íìñà éãðò
If we consider differences in existing forms, namely ù à á eç"l!Ö øé!ò ä ú àå (Judg. :) derived from ç l Ö, and ^ Ö cO!î ù à á eç"ì!Ö (Ps. :) derived from ä ç"ì Ö, which is analogous to äV#ç z, it becomes impossible to claim that the dagesh is elided. In my opinion, this is correct and final. [FEA I , fol. r]
The argument here is to the effect that if dagesh were elided in eç"ì!Ö the process would affect all such forms and eç"l!Ö would not occur. Since this is not the case, separate morphological bases should be proposed to reflect the structure of attested derivatives. Apart from retaining key structural elements of its occurring derivative forms, a proposed imperative has to comply with other attested or easily inferable derivational bases. Such derivational bases are referred to by the term ‘base of analogy’ (as. l yuq¯as #alayh). The existence of a base of analogy legitimates a hypothetical imperative. Thus, when establishing the imperative base of éð"ú î$çé (Ps. :) the author rejected the option ä î$çé but accepted ä î#çé on the grounds that the former does not have a base of analogy whereas the latter is supported by an analogous imperative äV#ç z: 36
On imperatives with and without yod see ...
chapter six ®
àìå øáò àìå øîà àì äéìò ñà÷é ìöà äì ñéì ïàì ä î$çé äøîà ïåëé ïà æåâé àìå ® ® ìúî ä î#çé àäøîà ïåëé ïà àìà éðúîçé éô íàñ÷àìà äãä ãòá é÷á àîô ®®® ìá÷úñî ® ® àäìúàî àî àäéìò ñà÷é ìöà úøàöô øîà óìë øéâá éä éúìà äV#ç ú
The imperative cannot be ä î$çé because there is no base of analogy either for the imperative, or for the past, or for the future … Thus, there remains only one possible imperative for éð"ú î$çé, namely ä î#çé. It is similar to äV#ç z, which is indisputably an imperative and serves as a base of analogy for similar forms … [FEA I , fol. v–r]
The author considered the following ways of establishing an imperative. . An imperative can be handed down by oral tradition (yu" had. sam¯a #an). This is the case with bi-radical hiph#il imperatives of the˘ type of øé!ñ ä attested in Ezek. :. The author maintained that the occurrence of yod in imperatives of this type is rare and can only be justified by oral tradition: ®
® ®
®
®
®
®
æåâéô àòàîñ ãëåé êìã ïàë ïàô àãàù àìà ãåéá ñðâìà àãä ïî øîàåà áéöú ïà ì÷å ®íìòà äììàå
You rarely find imperatives of this type to take yod apart in exceptional cases. But if it is handed down by oral tradition, it is possible, and God knows. [FEA I , fol. r–v]
In Arabic the term sam¯a # can have two different meanings. In Islamic education it means ‘audition’ and describes ‘a method of transmission in which a pupil listens to (“audits”) a text recited by a teacher.’37 In grammar and lexicology it means ‘what has been received by hearsay, what is established by received usage.’38 In Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud yu" had. sam¯a#an seems ˘ two examples: to be used in the second sense. Consider the following ®ê ì"Ö!ä _ ì"Ö ä øáò ïåëé ïà úøëðà àîå _é!ì"Ö!ä ê ì"Ö ä øáò ïà íìòà ïéà ïîå ìà÷ ïàô ® ® ® äâììà ìäà ïî àòàîñ ãëåé êìã ïà äì ìé÷
Somebody might ask: ‘How do I know that the past of _ ì"Ö ä is _é!ì"Ö!ä denying that the past of _ ì"Ö ä is _ ì"Ö!ä?’ It should be told to him that this is handed down by oral tradition from the people of the language. [FEA I , fol. v] ® ®
ìàîòúñàìà ìéì÷ äðàì àòàîñ ãëåé àîî åä àìå
It is not handed down by oral tradition because it is rarely used. [FEA I , fol. r]
37 38
Schoeler (:). Lane (I:).
morphological theories in kit¯ab al-#uqu¯ d
Here the oral tradition from the people of the language, i.e. the group of primary speakers responsible for the creation of Hebrew, is characterized as a source of simple facts of the linguistic reality of Hebrew (e.g. the past of _ ì"Ö ä being _é!ì"Ö!ä) but not of rare forms. In this case it seems probable that yu" had. sam¯a #an refers to the common native like language ˘ knowledge, to hearsay linguistic evidence rather than to the authority of a teacher. . An imperative can be inferred from an active participle or a form of the future. The idea behind this procedure is that futures and active participles with the prefix mem originate directly in imperative forms: ®
íàîå ®äìòàô àîñé àîî øîàåàìà éìò àìà àãáà ìëãú àì ìàá÷úñàìà óåøç ® íñà àîà ãö÷à øîàìà úãøà éúîô øîàìà éìò àìà àãáà ìëãé àì ìòàôìà ® ® ìàá÷úñàìà óøç àîàå ìòàôìà íéî àîà óãçà ìàá÷úñàìà èôì àîàå ìòàôìà ® ® ®øîàìà ãëå
Future prefixes are always attached to imperatives of active verbs. Likewise, the mem of the active participle is always attached to the imperative. So, when you need [to establish] an imperative, look for an active participle or a future form, elide either the mem of the active participle or the future prefix and take the imperative. [FEA I , fol. v–r]
It should be noted that jussive and imperfect consecutive forms were considered a legitimate source of imperatives. For example, the imperative ãWÇä with a final segol is inferred from the imperfect consecutive ãWÇiå (Ps. :) and the imperative ãð from the jussive ãð z (Jer. :).39 . An imperative can be established by probing different possible forms and choosing the most probable one by elimination. When establishing an imperative for éð"ú î$çé (Ps. :) the author considered five imperative bases ä î#ç, í çé, í çé, ä î$çé and ä î#çé, eliminated the first four on various grounds and concluded that ä î#çé is the only admissible base.40 In a similar line of reasoning the author established that the imperative of ò qé was ò ñ.41 He listed four possible imperative bases, namely () ò q!ä; () ò ñð; () ä ò"ñ; and () ò ñ, and compared future forms derived from them with the attested ò qé (Isa. :), eò"ñé (Ex. :, passim), ò qiå (Gen. :, passim). Since the forms of imperatives ()–() differ from those attested, the author decided that ò ñ was the only possible imperative for ò qé. 39 40 41
See also on imperatives with and without yod (..). FEA I , fol. v–r. FEA I , fol. v–v.
chapter six
It has to be stressed that an imperative base is always inferred from a particular occurring form not taking into account other instances of the same verb.42 The imperative _Ça!ä is proposed as the base of the form ä ëÇáð (Esth. :) whereas _ea!ä is posited for íé!ëeáð (Ex. :) (conjugational patterns ïÇk!ä and _ea!ä in the symbol äTé!Ö). From the past form é!z"ì ç (Isa. :) the author inferred the imperative ìeç (conjugational pattern áeÖ in the symbol ì òeÖ) and from the m.pl. imperative eìé!ç (Ps. :) the m.sg. imperative ìé!ç (conjugational pattern íé!× in the pattern äTé!Ö). Among the sample imperatives one finds the pair òeð (in the symbol ì òeÖ) inferred from the active participle òð (Gen. :, ) vs. òÇð (in the symbol ïðÇk), presumably inferred from the infinitive form òÇð of the same root attested in Isa. :, passim. In addition to establishing imperative bases of occurring forms, the author attempted to restitute their paradigms. The rules for reconstructing derivative forms are similar to those applied when inferring imperatives: all forms in a paradigm have to conform to the structure of the imperative and exhibit morphological analogy with attested forms of other verbs. Analogy with attested verbs can sometimes involve not whole words but certain structural units within them so that hypothetical forms are based on attested forms of a slightly different morphological pattern. In the following example forms of a tri-radical imperative â ì"Ö ä are derived by analogy with forms of the bi-radical ø ô ä because their final syllables are deemed to be structurally identical: ®
ê ì"Ö!ä _ ì"Ö ä éâé ø ô î ø ô ä ø ô ä éô äâììà ñàé÷ éìò øáòìàå ®ãåé øéâá øîà â ì"Ö ä _ ì"Ö î â ì"Ö ä is an imperative without yod. ø ô î, the past is _ ì"Ö ä, _ ì"Ö!ä, _ ì"Ö î.
By linguistic analogy with ø ô ä, ø ô ä, [FEA I , fol. r]
.. Analysis of Individual Verb Types ... Hiph#il Verbs Two different types of imperative bases are proposed in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud for attested hiph#il verbs. Firstly, imperatives with yod (amr bi-yod) are inferred from future, past and active participle forms, e.g. ãéb ä from ãéb î
42 This principle was listed by D. Becker (:–) among the problematic aspects of the system.
morphological theories in kit¯ab al-#uqu¯ d
(Isa. :), èé a ä from eèé!a!ä (Ps. :), øé k ä from íéXé!k î (Ezra :). It appears that attested hiph#il imperatives, even though they are mainly spelled defectively in the Bible, are also classified as imperatives with yod. Indeed, attested imperatives are listed among imperatives structurally identical with _é ì"Ö ä with yod: ®
®
ã á"ë ä ï î"Ö ä ®÷ä ìò êãé áëøä ïî á ëø ä ®øää úà ìáâä ÷ë ì áâ ä ãåéá _ ì"Ö ä éìò ñ÷å ® ® ®êìã ìàúîàå úåòåùé ìéãâî ïî ìBâ ä ®ãáëä åéðæàå äæä íòä áì ïîùä ïî
Handle by analogy with _ ì"Ö ä with yod43 ì aâ ä from ø ä ä ú à ì aâ ä (Ex. :), á kY ä from ú Ö w ä ì ò ^Eé á kY ä (Kings :), ï î"Ö ä and ã a"ë ä from ã a"ë ä åéðæ àå äf ä í ò ä á ì ï î"Ö ä (Isa. :), ì câ ä from úÇòeÖé ìé!câ î (Ps. :), and similar cases. [FEA I , fol. r]
Secondly, imperatives without yod (amr bi-˙gayr yod) are proposed for jussive and imperfect consecutive forms, e.g. è î"Ö ä from è î"Ö z (Deut. :), ì v ä from ì v z (Ps. :). They serve to explain the morphological pattern of such forms: ®
®
ïî êìã øéâ éìà úàèçä øô úà ùâéå ®éì äúà õ ô î ®éôî ì ö ú ìàå àðãâå ã÷ ïà íìòà ® ® ® ® ® øéâá ì ö ä ïî ì ö ú ïåëé ïà áø÷éô êìã ïëé íì ãàå õé!ô î ìé!ö ú éâé ä÷ç ïàëå ®ñðâìà àãä ãåé
Take note that we have found é!t!î ì v z ì àå (Ps. :), é!ì ä z à õ t î (Jer. :),44 úà h ç ä ø t ú à Öbiå (Lev. :) and similar examples of this kind. The forms should be ìé!v z and õé!t î, but since it is not so, it is probable that ì v z is derived from ì v ä without yod. [FEA I , fol. r]
The need to propose separate imperative bases for jussive forms clearly demonstrates that the jussive was not interpreted by the author as having a grammatical function of its own but rather as a form identical in function to the future indicative. Contrasting imperative bases with and without yod could be found in the Diqduq45 and in a Karaite grammatical fragment T-S NS .46 but only for bi-radical verbs. The dichotomy could not be detected in the treatise on the Hebrew verbs or al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı. In Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud the yod 43 The spelling of imperatives in conjugations explicitly characterized as ‘with yod’ is somewhat inconsistent, some of them spelled plene, others defectively. The spelling also differs across the manuscripts and, thus, must be attributed to scribes rather than the author. 44 The form õ t î is interpreted here as an active participle rather than a noun of instrument. 45 See Khan (a:). 46 N. Allony’s (:) attribution of this fragment to al-Kit¯ ab al-K¯af¯ı is mistaken (Khan et al. (:xii, f.n. )).
chapter six
is regarded as t¯abit,47 i.e. stable, present in all forms of the conjugational ¯ as a root letter. Indeed, the author characterized both pattern, but not ìé v ä and ì v ä as having two radicals.48 This is the same in the Diqduq where the yod is stated to belong to the underlying substance (jawhar) of an imperative but not, it would appear, to the root of its lexical class.49 The presence or absence of yod in the imperative influences the vocalization of its derivatives: ®
®
éìöà óøç äøëàå ìéàåàìà äôìúëîìà øîàåàìà ïî éðáî äìåà øîà ìë ïà íìòàå ® ® àãà äè÷ð éìà óéøöúìà äé÷á éô ïéúè÷ðìà úáì÷ðà ïéúè÷ð øîàìà øëà éô ïàëå ® ®äøéâå ìòàôìà íñàå ìá÷úñîìàå øáòìàå øîàìà éô éðòà ãåé óéøöúìà éô úáú ® ® éô àäìàçá ïéúè÷ðìà úé÷á ãåé óéøöúìà äé÷áå øáòìàå øîàìà éô úáúé íì àãàå äìë óéøöúìà
Take note that with regard to each imperative which differs [from its past form] in the first vowel that begins in a built-in letter and ends in a root letter vocalized with a s. ere holds, if a yod is established in the conjugational pattern, i.e. in the imperative, past, future, active participle, etc., the s. ere will turn into a hireq. If the imperative, the past and the rest of the forms . in the conjugational pattern do not contain a yod, the s. ere will remain unchanged in the entire conjugational pattern. [FEA I , fol. r]
Following this rule, all verb forms in conjugational patterns with yod have regular hiph#il vowels in the final syllable, i.e. a s. ere in the imperative and a hireq in the rest of active forms, as in _é ì"Ö ä, _é!ì"Ö!ä, _é!ì"Ö î, . _é!ì"Öé. In conjugational patterns without yod the basic forms of the imperative, past, active participle, and the future have a s. ere in the final syllable by analogy with geminated hiph#il verbs, such as _ ì"Ö ä, _ ì"Ö!ä, _ ì"Ö î, _ ì"Öé. Feminine and plural forms in conjugations without yod are deemed to be the same as those in the conjugational patterns with yod (i.e. to have regular hiph#il vowels) and are never explicitly cited. The differentiation between derivative forms of imperatives with and without yod is also characteristic of Ibn N¯uh’s . thinking who linked à öÇî in Ps. : to the imperative à öÇä without yod, and àé!öÇî in Isa. : to the imperative àé öÇä with yod.50 On the contrary, in a Karaite work on conjugation fragmentarily preserved in Bodl. MS Hebr. d., fol. –* 47
FEA I , fol. r. FEA I , fol. v–r. 49 See Khan (a:–, ). In Ibn N¯ uh’s . theory the jawhar is defined as ‘a series of letters that are regarded as the core of the word’ (ibid, ). In contrast, the root of the lexical class consists of letters common to all morphological bases of a lexical class (ibid, ). 50 See Khan (a:–, on Ps. :). 48
morphological theories in kit¯ab al-#uqu¯ d
and ïæ#à î are listed as alternative active participle forms of the same unfortunately unpreserved imperative.51 Although consistent in symbols based on the initial vowel of the imperative and the past, the dichotomy between conjugations with and without yod is not found in symbols based on the final vowel. The reason for that surely is that in such symbols imperative and past forms without yod would coincide both in the initial and the final vowel, e.g. imperative á ùÇä, past á ùÇä. Such verbs cannot be described within the system of symbols. ïéæ#à î
... Hitpa#el Verbs with the Assimilation of the Prefix Taw into the First Radical A number of conjugational patterns in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud deal with hitpa#el verbs with the assimilation of the prefix taw into the first radical. These are ø ä h!ä, ø t k!ä, ïðÇk!ä in the symbol á ñ î and ä kf!ä in the symbol ä@ ò. In all patterns except ø t k!ä two past forms are said to be possible: one in a nun and one in a heh, e.g. ø ä h!ä or ø ä hð. For ø t k!ä only the past form ø t kð is suggested. Similar passages are found in the Diqduq on Chron. : and in the treatise on the Hebrew verbs.52 In the Bible both alternatives are attested for verbs of the type of ø ä h!ä, ø t k!ä, e.g. eðY ä h!ä (Josh. :) vs. eø"qeðå (Ezek. :), ø t kðå (Deut. :). Of the two possible past forms the author of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud considered the form in a nun to be more probable: ®
®
® ®
äøéñ ïàì ïåðá äðà ïåðèîìàå à äá ïåëé æåâé øáòìàå éððåëú ä÷ãöá ïî ãåëàî øîà ïðÇk!ä ® äì øáòìà éðáî à ä äìåà éô ìàòôðàìà óéøàöú ïî ñôðìà éô øîà ïàë àãà äâììà ® ® ® ® øáòìà àî äôéøöú áøà÷é àîéô àâ ã÷å ø ä è!ä êìã ïò ãù éãìà ìá ïåðá ìòàôìàå ïåðá ® ø ô ë!ä ìúî ïåðá äðî
is an imperative inferred from éððÇk!z äJ@"ö!a (Isa. :). The past can be in a heh but most likely it is in a nun. Indeed, it is the way of the language that an intransitive infi#¯al imperative begins in a built-in heh and has the past form and the active participle beginning in a nun. An exception is ø ä h!ä, yet in similar conjugational patterns there are verbs with past forms [FEA I , fol. v–r] in a nun, for example, ø t k!ä. ïðÇk!ä
This passage demonstrates that the author analyzed hitpa#el verbs with assimilation of the prefix taw as infi#¯al rather than ifti#¯al. The same is confirmed by the fact that in the division of conjugations into the 51 52
Bodl. MS Hebr. d., fol. v. See Khan (a:, b:, , ).
chapter six
conjugations of í ä ä (hiph#il verbs), ïð"ä (niph#al verbs) and ú î ä ä (hitpa#el verbs) hitpa#el verbs with the assimilation of the prefix taw are discussed in the section on ïð"ä. The pattern ø t k!ä is properly attributed to ïð"ä whereas ø ä h!ä, ïðÇk!ä and ä kf!ä are mentioned but not counted as members of the group because they can have two alternative past forms: ®ïð"ä ìöô ®
ìåà àâ éìöà øéâ à ä øîàìà ìåà ïàëå ®®® ìàòôðàìì ñôðìà äâéö äúâéö øîà ìë ® ïð"ä óåøçìà äãäì èàáøìàå éìöà øéâ ïåð ìòàôìà íñà ìåàå éìöà øéâ ïåð øáòìà ® ® ® äñîë øëàåàìà óìúëîìà ìéàåàìà ÷ôúîìà áàáìà ïîå ®®® óéøàöú äãò ìîùú éäå ® ® ® æåâé ä ëæ!äå ïðÇëäå ø ä è!ä éäå äúìúå ®ø î Ö!äå ®äð á!äå ®ø ô ë!äå ®òð ë!äå ®è ì î!ä éäå óéøàöú ® ® äìîâìà éô àäúããò íì êìãìô à äáå ïåðá øáòìà ïåëé
Section on ïð"ä Each imperative which has an intransitive morphological form of an infi#¯al … and an imperative beginning in a non-root heh, has a past form beginning in a non-root nun and an active participle beginning in a non-root nun. The mnemonic for these letters is ïð"ä and it contains a number of conjugational patterns … From the chapter ‘On identical first vowels [of the imperative and the past] but different final vowels [of the imperative and the past]’ are five conjugational patterns, namely, è ì n!ä, òð k!ä, ø t k!ä, äð a!ä, ø î g!ä. Three [patterns], namely ø ä h!ä, ïðÇk!ä and ä kf!ä can have a past in a nun and in a heh. For this reason I did not include them in the total. [FEA I , fol. v–r]
Furthermore, the arrangement of conjugational patterns within the symbols á ñ î and ä@ ò testifies that hitpa#el verbs with the assimilation of taw were related by the author to infi#¯al. Indeed, in each case they are grouped with other niph#al verbs and separated from hitpa#el’s.53 The reason that the conjugational patterns under analysis are not construed as ifti#¯al is that, in the opinion of the author, the prefix taw is never elided from ifti#¯al conjugations. Intransitive conjugations which lack the taw belong to infi#¯al: ®
ìàòúôàìà óéøöúå ®äð á!ä è ç Ö!ä è ì î!ä ÷ë å ú àäéô ïåëé àì ìàòôðàìà óéøàöúô õ î à"ú!ä ø ë î"ú!ä äìå÷ë ä÷øàôé àì å ú äéô ïåëé
Conjugational patterns of the type of infi#¯al do not have a taw, e.g. è ì n!ä, è ç g!ä, äð a!ä. A conjugational pattern of the type of ifti#¯ al has a taw which never disappears, as in ø k î"ú!ä, õ n à"ú!ä. [FEA I , fol. v]
53
See ...
morphological theories in kit¯ab al-#uqu¯ d
On the contrary, Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un classified such forms as ‘conjugation that is connected with the ifti#¯al conjugation … despite the fact that taw does not occur in it.’54 He hypothesized that ‘the taw of the ifti#¯al conjugation has been elided from such forms and has been substituted by a dagesh, which may indicate the elision of letters.’55 In accordance with this opinion, he grouped conjugations ø ä h!ä and ïðÇk!ä with other hitpa#el conjugations and suggested past and participle forms in a heh and a mem respectively, i.e. past ø ä h!ä, active participle m.sg. ø ä h!î; past ïðÇk!ä, active participle m.sg. ïðÇk!î, while mentioning that the past form ø ä hð in a nun was also possible.56 According to a Karaite grammatical fragment JTS ENA .–, fol. r–v ø ä h!ä has the pattern taf¯a #ul and ø t k!ä the pattern tafa##ul whereas regular hitpa#el verbs are construed as tafa#lal, the pattern of the Arabic II form of quadriliteral verbs. ... Final Heh Verbs A number of hypothetical final heh57 imperatives with morphological patterns not directly attested in the text of the Bible are posited in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud: . Hypothetical imperatives of the type of ä ÖO a (conjugational pattern ä ÖO a in the symbol épb) are proposed for strong pi#el verbs in which gemination is reduced when the following vowel is a vocalic shewa, e.g. é ÖO á"î (Ps. :). As is reflected in the sources, verbs of this type caused a great deal of disagreement among Karaite grammarians.58 According to one opinion, the dagesh in forms such as é ÖO á"î and íeà"ì îéå was elided, their imperatives being Ö w a and à l î. According to the other opinion, these forms should not be mixed up with geminated ones but rather separate imperatives ä ÖO a and ä à"ì î should be posited. Among the proponents of the latter view were the author of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud and the author of the treatise on the Hebrew verbs. Their main argument
54
Khan et al. (:, II..). Khan et al. (:, II..). 56 Khan et al. (:, , I.., ). 57 I use the term final heh rather than final weak to distinguish hypothetical conjugations with a heh in the end of imperatives of some final strong verbs from attested verbs with a weak third radical. 58 See al-Kit¯ ab al-K¯af¯ı (Khan et al. (:, II..)); the treatise on the Hebrew verbs (Khan (b:, ff.)); the Diqduq on Ps. :, Job :, Eccl. : (Khan (a: , , , )); Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud (FEA I , fol. r). 55
chapter six
in favor of imperatives of the type of ä ÖO a was that this conjugational pattern was actually attested in the Bible in the future äW#ç ú"z (Jer. :) from which an imperative äV#ç z was deemed to be deducible by the straightforward elision of the future prefix, as well as in the past forms äT"ô!Ö (Job :) and éð"ú î$çé (Ps. :) with reconstructed imperatives äV"ô Ö and ä î#çé respectively. These imperatives together with pairs such as eç"ì!Ö (Ps. :) with raphe and eç"l!Ö (Judg. :) with dagesh proved that ‘each form with a dagesh has [an imperative base with] a dagesh, and each form with a raphe has [an imperative base with] a raphe.’59 . Imperatives of the type of ä ëYE ä (conjugational patterns ä ëYE ä in the symbol épb and äVæ"ò ä in the symbol ä k î) are created for hiph#il forms with a shewa instead of a hireq under the second radical, e.g. . eëYEiå (Jer. :), íéXæ"ò î (Chron. :). According to the author, the imperative ä ëYE ä had been proposed by other grammarians who argued that ‘if the imperative were _VE ä, the form would have been eëéXEiå, like _ ì"Ö ä–eëé!ì"Öiå.’60 The source of this statement could not be established as none of the Karaite grammars currently known to me contain any such imperatives. . Imperatives of the type of äb ç (conjugational pattern ä q k in the symbol are inferred from geminated pa#al forms stressed on the ultima with a resultant short qamas. in the pretonic syllable, e.g. éb ç (Nahum :), íef áé (Zeph. :). Earlier Karaite grammarians sought to provide an explanation for the difference between forms of geminated pa#al verbs such as ép] (Lament. :) with penultimate stress and épT (Zeph. :) with the stress on the ultima. Ibn N¯uh. offered two alternative opinions on the issue: firstly, that ép] was derived from ï] and épT from a hypothetical final heh imperative äpT; secondly, that ép] and épT were both derived from ï] since Çà may sometimes become short (à.61 The author of an early Karaite grammatical work in Judaeo-Persian supported the latter view and maintained that the difference in the morphological form resulted from the fact that ép] was disjoined and épT conjoined.62 ä@ ò)
59 éôøìà ïî éôøî ìëå ùâãìà ïî ùåâãî ìë [FEA I , fol. r]. See also ® ® 60 eëé!ì"ùéå ê ì"ù ä ìú î eëéXEéå àâ ã÷ ïàë _VE ä àäøîà ïàë åì [FEA I , 61 62
.. fol. v]. See Khan (a:, , on Ps. : and Lament. : respectively). See Khan (b:–, –).
morphological theories in kit¯ab al-#uqu¯ d
. Imperatives of the type of ä ë"Ö î (conjugational pattern ä ë"Ö î in the symbol ä@ ò) are inferred from m.pl. and f.sg. imperative forms of pa#al verbs with a short qamas. instead of a hireq under the first radical, e.g. eë"Ö î . (Ezek. :). Hypothetical imperatives of the type of ä ë"Ö î are registered in the sources. According to Ibn N¯uh. one scholar posited ä ÖY c for eÖY@å (Ps. :) by analogy with äBE Ö (presumably from eãE Öå in Jer. :).63 It seems, however, that according to Ibn N¯uh. himself such forms have two levels of derivation: forms like eë"Ö î (Ezek :), eãE Öå (Jer. :) are derived from imperatives with the suffix -ah, i.e. ä ë"Ö î, ä@E Ö, which are, in turn, derived from regular pa#al imperatives with a holam, i.e. . 64 _&Ö"î. In al-Kit¯ ab al-K¯af¯ı both äBE Ö and ä@E Ö are mentioned as possible derivational bases of eãE Öå.65 . Imperatives of the type of äV(à z (conjugational pattern äV(à z in the symbol ä@ ò) are proposed for idiosyncratic forms with short qamas. under the first radical and hataph qamas. under the second radical, . i.e. eäV(à úé (Isa. :) and é!î(ñJ (Sam. :). These imperatives are also found in T-S NS .r and Mosseri I..r which belong to a fragmentarily preserved Karaite work on verbal conjugations. . Imperatives of the type of ä èeô"Ö (conjugational pattern ä èeô"Ö in the symbol ä@ ò) are inferred from idiosyncratic pausal forms eèet"Öé (Ex. :) and íVeî"Ö!z (Prov. :) with ultimate stress. The tradition of positing imperatives of the type of ä èeô"Ö is attested in earlier sources.66 Alternative bases proposed in the sources for eèet"Öé and íVeî"Ö!z are nouns with the form èeô"Ö, øeî"Ö. In all cases, adding a final vowel with a mater lectionis heh permitted the production of imperative bases which retain the vocalic and prosodic patterns of the attested forms while having a regular syllabic structure of Biblical Hebrew. In ä ÖO a, ä ëYE ä, äb ç and ä ë"Ö î the final vowel serves to break up clusters of vowelless consonants or avoid a geminated consonant at the end of the imperative. In äb ç and ä ë"Ö î the resulting shift of tone to the final syllable is, furthermore, essential for the preservation
63
See Khan (a:, on Ps. :). See Khan (a:, , on Ps. :). 65 See Khan et al. (:, II..). 66 See the treatise on the Hebrew verbs (Khan (b:–)); the Diqduq on Prov. :, Ruth : (Khan (a:–, )); al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı (Khan et al. (:, I..)). 64
chapter six
of the short qamas. . In ä èeô"Ö the final vowel probably serves to preserve the ultimate stress.67 The procedure of adding a final heh could not have felt completely ad hoc to Karaite grammarians. Indeed, hypothetical final heh imperatives are described in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud as ‘consisting of two root letters followed by a heh,’68 ‘consisting of three root letters followed by a heh’69 and ‘consisting of three root letters preceded and followed by a heh’70 respectively. On the other hand, attested final weak imperatives are described as ‘consisting of two root letters followed by a heh,’71 and ‘consisting of two root letters preceded and followed by a heh.’72 It is obvious that these descriptions differ only in the number of radicals. Given the fact that the length of a verbal root was deemed variable and the final heh did not count as a root letter, hypothetical final heh imperative bases must have been perceived as legitimate members of the final heh group. The same is confirmed by the proposed derivative forms of hypothetical final heh imperatives. Among the given forms are: () imperative ä ÖO a, past ä ÖO!a, active participle m.sg. ä ÖO á"î, passive participle m.sg. ä ÖO%á"î, future ä ÖO áé, f.sg. past ä ú"ÖO!a; () imperative ä ëYE ä, past ä ëYE!ä, active participle m.sg. ä ëYE î; () imperative ä ë"Ö î, past ä ë"Ö î, future ä ë"Ö î"à, f.sg. past ä ú"ë"Ö î. It is clear that these forms mimic the paradigm of final weak verbs in that their final vowel is s. ere in the imperative, qamas. in the past and segol in the active participle, and the f.sg. past form ends in a characteristic -tah.73 ... Third Guttural Verbs Third guttural imperatives in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud are vocalized with: () s. ere and furtive patah. in the final syllable; () patah. in the final syllable. The vocalic pattern of an imperative repeats that of the derivative form it is inferred from. Imperatives in -ea are inferred from attested forms with a furtive patah, . e.g. ç zY ä from çé!zYé (Job :; conjugational pattern ò a"Ö ä in the symbol épb), òBe!ä from òBe!z (Prov. :; conjugational pattern òBe!ä in the symbol Çøé!Ö), òb z"Ö!ä from òb z"Ö!ä"ì (Sam. :; conjugational 67
Khan (b:).
® 68 à ä àîäðò øë àúéå ïééìöà ïéôøç ïî [FEA I , fol. v]. ® ® ® 69 à ä àäðò øë àúéå äééìöà óåøç äúìú ïî [FEA I , fol. v, passim]. ® ® ® 70 à ä íäðò øë àúéå à ä íäîã÷úéå äééìöà óåøç äúìú ïî [FEA I , fol. v]. ® 71 à ä àîäðò øë àúéå ïééìöà ïéôøç ïî [FEA I , fol. r, passim]. ® 72 à ä àîäðò øë àúéå à ä àîäîã÷úéå ïééìöà ïéôøç ïî [FEA I , fol. 73 See also Khan (a:).
r, passim].
morphological theories in kit¯ab al-#uqu¯ d
pattern ç t z"ñ!ä in the symbol á ñ î).74 Imperatives in -a are proposed for attested forms with a patah. on the second radical, e.g. ò a"Ö ä from ò a"Öiå (Gen. :; conjugational pattern ø ö"ô ä in the symbol épb), çbð"ú!ä from çbð"úé (Dan. :).75 In hiph#il, imperatives in -ea are found in conjugational patterns with yod whereas imperatives in -a belong to patterns based on jussive forms without yod, e.g. òb ä from eòébé (Ps. :; conjugational pattern çép ä in the symbol épb) vs. òb ä from òb zå (Ex. :; conjugational pattern Öb ä in the symbol épb). Imperatives in -ea appear to have been regarded as the default form by the author of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud. Indeed, imperatives òVæ and d î"ä î"ú!ä are inferred from plural forms in which the final vowel is not directly evident, namely a pausal past eòTæ (Isa. :; conjugational pattern ç çÇ× in the symbol á ñ î) and an imperfect consecutive eä"î"ä î"úiå76 (Judg. :; conjugational pattern d ì"ä ì"ú!ä in the symbol á ñ î). The vocalization of the imperative is always retained in the future and where possible in other derivative forms as well. Thus, in hiph#il, the imperative ò a"Ö ä has the past òé!a"Ö!ä and the active participle òé!a"Ö î, whereas the imperative ø ö"ô ä has the past ø ö"ô!ä and the active participle ø ö"ô î (conjugational patterns ø ö"ô ä and ò a"Ö ä in the symbol épb). Third guttural imperatives in s. ere and furtive patah. are extremely rare in the text of the Bible and occur only in pause.77 Yet they were regularly proposed by Karaite authors alongside the imperatives with a patah, . presumably by analogy with final strong verbs. Apart from Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud, they are found in the treatise on the Hebrew verbs,78 in the Diqduq (on Ps. :; Job :, :, :, :, passim)79 and in Me"or #Ayin (conjugational pattern ò Öe!ä).80 Examples in the Diqduq show that when the attested derivative does not give a clear clue at the vocalic structure of its imperative, Ibn N¯uh. presented imperatives in -ea and in -a as alternatives. For instance, the imperative of ç ì$àð is inferred to be ç ì à ä or ç ì à ä (the Diqduq on Job :), that of éð ç"g ôéå either ç g t or ç g t (the Diqduq on Lament. :), the imperative of ò òÇø"ú!ä is ò òÇø"ú!ä or ò òÇø"ú!ä
74 Additional examples are ç aæ (conjugational pattern ç aæ in the symbol épb) and ç çÇ× (conjugational pattern ç çÇ× in the pattern á ñ î) for which no source verses are quoted. 75 FEA I , fol. r. 76 MT: eä"î"ä î"ú!äå. 77 Gesenius (§). The only such imperative I am aware of is ç n × in Ps. :. 78 See Khan (b:). 79 See Khan (a:, , , , , passim). 80 See Zislin (:).
chapter six
(the Diqduq on Ps. :).81 No examples of alternative imperatives are found in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud where the vocalic structure of the imperative is in strict concord with the attested derivative form. ... Middle Weak Verbs in Pa#al In Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud the default middle weak consonant in pa#al is waw. Middle yod imperatives are derived only from verb forms with an explicit yod. For example, from the ambiguous past form é!z"ì ç (Isa. :) our author inferred the imperative ìeç (conjugational pattern áeÖ in the symbol ì òeÖ) and from the clear-cut m.pl. imperative eìé!ç (Ps. :) the m.sg. imperative ìé!ç (conjugational pattern íé!× in the symbol äTé!Ö). Moreover, only middle waw imperatives were posited for verbs with no attested future, imperative or nominal forms, e.g. õeà from é!z"ö à (Jer. :), ìeæ from íé!ìf ä (Isa. :), íez from eð"î z (Ps. :),82 òeì from eò ì (Job :) (conjugational patterns áeÖ, òeð in the symbol ì òeÖ). Along the same lines, a hypothetical imperative çe÷ but not çéN was proposed by the author as a derivational base for the past form çJ:83 ®
úîòæ àîë øáò çJ ïàë åì äì ìé÷ ®íéáø íéî ìò çJ å÷ë çJ çK øáò ïà ìà÷ ïàô ® ® ®á Ö áeÖ ïîå íJ íe÷ ïîå òð òeð ïî øáòìà éâé àîë çe÷ àâ ã÷ ïàëì
If somebody says that the past form of çK is çJ, as in íé!aU íé î ì ò çJ (Ezek. :), it should be said to him that if çJ were the past form as you claimed, [the imperative] would be çe÷ as the past of òeð is òð, the past of íe÷ is íJ and the past of áeÖ is á Ö. [FEA I , fol. r]
In contrast, Ibn N¯uh. sometimes suggested middle waw and middle yod imperatives as alternatives, e.g. _e× or _é!× for z"ë × (Job :) and íé!× or íe× for éð"ú î × (Cant. :).84 Jussive and imperfect consecutive forms of middle waw verbs in pa#al were treated in different ways in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud. Jussive forms such as ãð z (Jer. :) were derived from imperatives of the type of ãð and attributed to the conjugational pattern á&ñ in the symbol ïðÇk. On the contrary, imperfect consecutive forms were seen as conjoined (mud¯ . af ) and derived from middle weak imperatives:
81
See Khan (a:, , ). is a deviant form of the root t.m.m. in pa#al in which the separating vowel between the stem and the pl. afformative is lacking (Gesenius (§dd)). 83 çJ is nowadays seen as a textual error (Gesenius (§g); BDB ()). 84 See Khan (a:, ). 82 eð"î z
morphological theories in kit¯ab al-#uqu¯ d ®
®
äøîà ïàå óàöî äðà í äéå á Öéå í÷éå àâ ã÷ ìá÷úñîìà úéàø éúî åìà÷ íäðà íìòàå ® ® ® ® ® ® âøë äôàöàìà ìâàì åà äåì÷úúñà íäìòìå áeÖéå íe÷éå éâé ïà ä÷ç ïàëå íeä áeÖ íe÷ ®á Öéå íJéå õî÷á
Take note that they have said that when you encounter such future forms as íJiå, á Öiå, í äiå, these are conjoined. The imperatives are íe÷, áeÖ, íeä, and [the forms] should be, by rule, áeÖiå, íe÷iå. Maybe they have found [the latter] difficult or else pronounced them with a qamas. , i.e. íJiå, á Öiå, for the reason of conjoining. [FEA I , fol. v]
Passive participles of middle weak verbs in pa#al, e.g. ä îe× (Sam. :), íé!ìeî (Josh. :), é áeÖ (Micah :), were not recognized as such by the author. According to him, the people of the language avoided passive participles which have only one vowel. As a result passive participles of middle weak verbs in pa#al which would consist of two consonants and thus have a single vowel were not created in the language. Instead the people of the language used passive participles of corresponding hiph#il forms. In the conjugational pattern íé!× in the symbol äTé!Ö the author ascertains: ®
®
áø÷éå í × ä óéøöú ïî ìåòôî àðãâå ìá íé!× óéøöú ïî ìîòúñî ìåòôî äì àðãâå àîå ïî ìåòôî åìîòúñé íäàðéàø àî ïàì äôéøöú ïî ìåòôî íé!×ì åìîòúñé íì íäðà ® ® êàãå ãåéå åàå ä×ò ìåòôî éô åðá àî ìúî óåøç åà óøç äòî åðáé ïà àìà è÷ô ïéôøç ® êìîìà äéô àâ àîì ïéôøçá ìåòôîìà ïàë åìå ãçàå êìî äàôëé àî ìåòôîìà ïà ® ® ®äåâàúçà éúî í × ä ìåòôî åìîòúñà êìãìô ãçàå
We could not find a passive participle belonging to the conjugation íé!×, yet we have found a passive participle belonging to the conjugation í × ä. It is quite probable that they did not use for íé!× a passive participle belonging to its conjugation because we have never seen them use a passive participle consisting of only two letters. Rather they built into it a letter or two, as they built into the passive participle of ä ×#ò a waw and yod. This is because one vowel is not sufficient for a passive participle yet a passive participle consisting of two letters would have only one vowel. This is why when they needed a passive participle they used one belonging to í × ä. [FEA I , fol. v]
Not all grammarians shared this opinion. Thus, al-F¯as¯ı translated ä úé ä ® ® ä îe× (Sam. :) with äìåòâî úðàë85 and íé!ìeî (Josh. :) with ïéðåúëî86 showing that he recognized the forms as passive participles. Ibn N¯uh. maintained that the form áeÖ in ä î ç"ì!î é áeÖ (Micah :) was a passive participle.87 On the contrary, Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un stated in al-Kit¯ab 85 86 87
See Skoss (–:II, ). See Skoss (–:II, ). See Khan (a:, on Prov. :).
chapter six
al-K¯af¯ı that the imperative íé!× does not have a passive participle of its own so that í ×eî derived from í × ä is used.88 The theory that passive participles with a single vowel are impossible in Hebrew forced the author to seek alternative explanations for attested passive participle forms of middle weak verbs. When discussing íé!ìeî é!k ® eé ä (Josh. :) the author stated that íé!ìeî should be translated as ïéð!úúëî ® 89 rather then ïéðåúëî. Both forms mean ‘circumcised’ in Arabic and the ® choice is based on purely grammatical considerations that ïéðåúëî is a ® passive participle whereas ïéð!úúëî is an active participle.90 The author argued that inasmuch as other verbs of this conjugational pattern do not have passive participles, íé!ìeî should not be analyzed and translated as a passive participle either. Instead it should be seen as analogous to such forms as ä î ç"ì!î é áeÖ (Micah :), ï ôb ä éVeñ (Jer. :), á ì âeñ (Prov. :), which the author construed as ‘nouns of agent not belonging to a conjugational pattern’ (ism f¯a #il allad¯ . ı l¯a min tas. r¯ıf ), i.e. words which have the grammatical function but not the form of active participles.91 ... Passive Imperative Bases Some imperatives in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud are inferred from passive verbs. Examples include ÖVb from eÖTâé (Job :), _ ò&c from eë#ò&c (Ps. :), äVÇæ from äWæé (Job :), ä l k from el k (Ps. :), ä q k from eq k (Ps. :), äð"ô ä from eð"ô ä (Jer. :), ä àY ä from ä àY î (Ex. :), ä ìâ ä from ä ìâ ä (Esth. :), etc. 88 See Khan et al. (:, I..). D. Becker (:) included this statement by Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un in his list of problematic issues of the system of symbols. 89 FEA I , fol. v. 90 A close correspondence between a word’s translation and its morphological structure was a prominent feature of the grammatical thinking of Ibn N¯uh. (see Khan (a:–)). 91 FEA I , fol. v–r. Other ‘nouns of agent not belonging to a conjugational pattern’ are á ö ç, á ä à, õ ô ç, èé!l Ö, õé!n à (FEA I , fol. r). In al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı forms such as ÷é!c ö, èé!l Ö, õé!n à are characterized as ‘another form of word [which] may take the place of the noun of agent in a certain respect’ (Khan et al. (:, I..)). According to Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un the noun of agent ‘is derived by inflection according to the pattern that is required by analogy’ (Khan et al. (:, I..)), whereas ÷é!c ö, èé!l Ö, õé!n à are ‘not formed according to the requirements of the analogy (verbal inflection)’ (Khan et al. (:, I..)). The latter forms are referred to in al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı with the Arabic term for verbal adjectives al-s. ifa al-muˇsabbiha bi-ism al-f¯a #il (see Wright (§–)). In al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil the distinction is made between ism f¯a #il ma" h¯ud. min al-amr wa˘ l-tas. r¯ıf (‘noun of agent derived from an imperative and a conjugational pattern’), e.g. ÷ ÖÇò, and ism f¯ a #il laysa ma" h¯ud. min al-tas. r¯ıf (‘noun of agent which is not derived from a conjugational pattern’), e.g.˘ ÷ÇÖ ò (FEA I , fol. r–v).
morphological theories in kit¯ab al-#uqu¯ d
Passive imperatives are a prominent feature of the early Karaite grammatical tradition.92 They were proposed as derivational bases for passive verb forms, e.g. í w\ for é!z"î w\ in Ps. : or ì aY%k for ì aY%ë"î in Chron. : and are found, for instance, in the Diqduq,93 in a grammatical commentary on the Bible in Judaeo-Persian94 and in a Genizah fragment JTS ENA .–, fol. r, v. According to Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud, the rationale behind passive imperatives consisted in the preservation of the passive vocalic pattern throughout the paradigm: ®
®
®
óéøöúìà òéîâ éô âæìà åúáúé ïà åãàøà íäðà
They wanted to establish the qubbus. in the entire conjugational pattern. [FEA I , fol. v]
The concept of passive imperatives was refuted by Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un on logical grounds.95 In line with Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un, our author argues against them: ®
®
®
åùã÷î ïåëî êìù%äå å÷ë äìòàô íñé íì ìòô éN"ì%à äøéñôú àâ ã÷ âæìà òöåîì ê ì"Ö%äå ® ® äìòàô íñé íì ìòô øáòìà ñðâ ïî øîàìà ïåëé ïà éâáðéô øáò é÷"ì%à ê ì"Ö%ä ïàë àãàå ® ®íåäôî øéâ íàìë àãäå àK"ì%à _ ì"ù%ä äì ìå÷úå äøîàú ïî ìáà÷ú ïàá åäå
On the account of the qubbus. , the translation of _ ì"Ö%ä is ‘was thrown,’ which is a passive verb, as in ÇÖ cO!î ïÇë"î _ ì"Ö%äå (Dan. :). If the past is _ ì"Ö%ä, ‘was thrown,’ then the imperative must belong to the same kind as the past, i.e. be a passive verb. It [means] that you would command somebody by saying _ ì"Ö%ä ‘be thrown!’ This utterance is incomprehensible. [FEA I , fol. r]
To explain why the above-mentioned passive imperatives were nevertheless proposed in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud it is useful to pay attention to their morphological form. In the Diqduq imperative bases were proposed for passive verbs of all types. In Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud imperatives are never inferred from attested passive verbs vocalized with a qubbus. but only from certain types of pu#al and hoph#al verbs with a holam or a short qamas. . It appears . that passive imperatives were proposed in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud only for those passive verbs which have structurally identical active counterparts. Thus, second guttural pu#al forms with a holam such as eë#ò&c (Ps. :) and . äWæé (Job :) have the same vocalic structure as active po#el verbs, e.g. eîYæ (Ps. :) and é!ú ×ÇÖ (Isa. :) respectively (see the conjugational 92 93 94 95
Khan (a:). See Khan (a:, –, ). See Khan (b:–). Khan et al. (:, I..).
chapter six
pattern ïðÇk in the symbol á ñ î and the conjugational pattern äVÇæ in the symbol ä@ ò). Third weak pu#al forms with a short qamas. such as eq k (Ps. :) are analogical to geminated pa#al forms with short qamas. of the kind of éb ç (Nahum :) for which a hypothetical imperative äb ç was proposed in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud (see conjugational pattern ä q k in the symbol ä@ ò). As for third weak hoph#al verbs with a short qamas. , no active pattern is structurally identical with them but a m.pl. imperative eð"ô ä is actually attested in Jer. :. Presumably, it was the view of the author that once a vocalic pattern is attested in an active verb or a recorded imperative, all verbs with this pattern regardless of their meaning can have imperative bases. On the other hand, if a vocalic pattern does not occur in active verbs, imperatives should not be inferred from passive verbs so vocalized. This points out that the author’s approach to derivation was structural rather than semantic and underlines his tendency to regularize grammatical features of verbs. This tendency was less characteristic of Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un’s thought. Thus, he regarded eð"ô ä (Jer. :) as exceptional and avoided proposing imperatives for other verbs with short qamas. that stands in place of a qubbus. .96 The hypothetical passive imperatives are vocalized with s. ere in the final syllable, which is the same as the active imperatives they are patterned with. This vocalization of all passive imperative bases is also found in Ibn 97 N¯uh’s . Diqduq. In conjugational patterns äVÇæ and äð"ô ä two participle forms are derived from each passive imperative, i.e. active participle äWÇæ"î and passive participle äWeæ"î from äVÇæ; and active participle äð"ô î and passive participle äð"ô%î or äð"ô î from äð"ô ä. Identical participle forms are cited by Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un in al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı.98 These forms are semantically problematic and the author’s interpretation of the distinction in meaning between the two participles is left to conjecture. It is possible that the author translated äVÇæ and äð"ô ä with Arabic VIII form verbs which, although formally active have a passive component to their meaning and from which an active and a passive participle can be formed. An example of this strategy is found in the analysis of eé ä íé!ìeî é!k (Josh. :) translated ® by the author with the VIII form active participle ïéð!úúëî instead of the I ® form passive participle ïéðåúëî in order to stress his view that íé!ìeî here is not a passive participle.99 96 97 98 99
See Khan et al. (:, I..). See Khan (a:). See Khan et al. (:, , I.., ). See ...
morphological theories in kit¯ab al-#uqu¯ d
... Pausal Forms Three phonetic processes linked to pause are mentioned in Kit¯ab al#Uq¯ud: . The lengthening of a patah. to a qamas. : äöîà÷ äçúàôìì úøëîìà ïà äì ìé÷
It should be said to him that the pausal equivalent of a patah. is a qamas. . [FEA I , fol. r]
. The shift of stress from the penultima to the ultima in f.sg. past forms of niph#al verbs: ®
óàöî øáò ä è ֥ "ì"îðå úøëî øáò ä è ì֥ "îð ïà íìòàå
Take note that ä è ì֥ "îð is the disjoined past form and ä è֥ "ì"îð is the conjoined past form. [FEA I , fol. v]
. The lengthening of a segol to a s. ere in imperfect indicative forms of third weak pi#el verbs: ®
®
®
®
®
®
úøëî ïéúè÷ðá éãìàå óàöî è÷ð äúìúá éãìà ïàô äå ö"ú äå ö"ú úéàø àãà ïà íìòàå
Take note that when you encounter äe ö"z and äe ö"z the form with a segol is conjoined and the form with a s. ere is disjoined. [FEA I , fol. v]
The lengthening of a patah. to a qamas. is always taken into account when attributing attested forms to conjugational patterns.100 Examples include: . The pausal forms ø îð (Jer. :) and eò zð (Job :) are attributed to the conjugational pattern ÷ n!ä the distinctive feature of which is the vocalization of the second radical with a patah. in all forms (conjugational pattern ÷ n!ä in the symbol äTé!Ö). . The m.sg. form of é!z"ì àâ à (Isa. :) is said to be ì àâ à (conjugational pattern ì àâ à in the symbol ä k î). . Pausal past forms eáT&ç (Judg. :), óT&× (Lev. :) are attributed to the conjugational pattern ïðÇk with the past form ïðÇk (conjugational pattern ïðÇk in the symbol á ñ î). Notably, qamas. was regarded as the pausal equivalent only of patah. but not of s. ere. Indeed, the pausal imperfect form _ l ä"úé (Job :) was not attributed to the conjugational pattern _ l ä"ú!ä in the symbol á ñ î.
100
The other two processes are less relevant in this regard.
chapter six
Rather, an imperative _ l ä"ú!ä with a final patah. was inferred from it.101 The same principle was applied by Ibn N¯uh. in the Diqduq.102 Pausal forms other then those discussed above were regarded by the author as independent verb forms and structurally akin imperative bases were proposed for them. . From pausal imperfect consecutive forms Öbiå (Judg. :), Öð àiå (Sam. :) and íATiå (Jonah :) the author inferred imperatives Öb ä, Öð à ä and íAT ä (conjugational pattern Öb ä in the symbol épb, conjugational pattern Öð à ä in the symbol ä á à and conjugational pattern íAT ä in the symbol é!ì ò). This leads to the conclusion that the shift of a context s. ere to a pausal patah. was not recognized by the author. . Hypothetical imperatives were inferred from third guttural niph#al verbs vocalized in pause with s. ere and furtive patah, . e.g. òBe!ä from òBe!z (Prov. :), ç ú t!ä from ç ú té (Job :) (conjugational pattern òBe!ä in the symbol Çøé!Ö and conjugational pattern òð k!ä in the symbol á ñ î). This demonstrates that the author was not familiar with the shift of a final patah. in context forms to a final s. ere and furtive patah. in pausal forms of third guttural niph#al verbs. It is conceivable that whether the vocalization of a particular attested form is recognized as influenced by pause depends upon the presence of non-pausal forms with the same vocalic pattern. Indeed, forms with qamas. treated in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud as pausal do not have context parallels. On the contrary, pausal imperfects of the type of Öbiå, Öð àiå, etc., on the one hand, and òBe!z and ç ú té, on the other hand, are analogous to attested non-pausal forms of third guttural and resh verbs. For Öbiå and Öð àiå the analogy is straightforward and the verbs are, indeed, given in respective conjugational patterns, i.e. òb zå (Ex. :), ø ö ò úå (Sam. :). As for òBe!z and ç ú té, this vocalic pattern might have been legitimized by context infinitive forms with s. ere and furtive patah, . e.g. ò á g!ä attested in Jer. :, :. It is, in fact, not impossible that such forms were regarded as imperatives with the function of infinitives. Indeed, the author believed that every imperative can be used as an infinitive:103
101 102 103
FEA I , fol. r–v. See Khan (a:). The distinction between inf. abs. and inf. cstr. was not made in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud.
morphological theories in kit¯ab al-#uqu¯ d ®
®
®
êìã èáöàô àøãöî ìòâéå äúâéö éìò åäå øàòúñé ïà çìöé øîà ìëô
Each imperative in its own form (i.e. without change in form) can by extension be used as an infinitive. Learn it well! [FEA I , fol. v]
Taking into consideration that niph#al infinitive constructs of strong verbs are identical with their respective m.sg. imperatives, all ì è w!ä forms were probably regarded by the author as imperatives, some with the function of infinitives. In the case of final guttural verbs this would mean that context niph#al imperatives in -ea could have been considered attested and could have served as the base of analogy for inferring further imperatives from pausal forms. ... Instances of Babylonian Type Vocalization Some vocalizations in the manuscripts of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud betray Babylonian pronunciation.104 In a number of such cases it is possible to prove that these vocalizations are authorial because they are supported by inner textual evidence. . Vocalization of the second radical in m.sg. past form of pi#el, po#el, hitpa#el, hitpo#el and quadriliteral verbs In all pi#el, po#el, hitpa#el, hitpo#el and quadriliteral verbs the second radical of m.sg. past form is vocalized with a patah, . e.g. _U a, ïðÇk, ç çÇ×, _ l ä"ú!ä, ç t z"ñ!ä, Ö ÖÇ÷"ú!ä, ò òÇø"ú!ä, ì aY!k, ø òY ò"ú!ä, d ì"ä ì"ú!ä (see respective conjugational patterns). This holds even when the m.sg. past is attested and vocalized with a s. ere in MT. Thus, ø t kð is vocalized with a patah. (conjugational pattern ø t k!ä in the symbol á ñ î) even though the attested form has a s. ere, ø t kðå (Deut. :). The vocalization of such forms with a patah. and patah. only is a feature of the Babylonian reading tradition.105 Internal evidence suggests that this vocalization should be attributed to the author rather than the scribe. Thus, all conjugational patterns containing po#el, hitpa#el and hitpo#el verbs belong to the symbol á ñ î 104
On the Babylonian vocalization see Yeivin () and the literature cited there. See Yeivin (:, , , , ). In the Tiberian reading tradition the distribution of s. ere and patah. in the final syllable of the verbs under discussion is more complex (see Gesenius (§§a, k); Joüon-Muraoka (§§c, b)). It is worth noting that in Babylonian Hebrew the vocalization with the patah. is found in the imperative and the future as well as the past, at least for hitpa#el verbs (Yevin (:)) whereas in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud it is only posited for past forms. 105
chapter six
where the s. ere in the symbol word stands for the final vowel of the imperative and the patah. for the final vowel of the past, e.g. imperative _ l ä"ú!ä–past _ l ä"ú!ä. The possibility for the vowel of the second radical to be a s. ere was not even considered, at least for hitpa#el verbs. Indeed, the chapter ‘On imperatives which differ from their past forms neither in the first nor in the last vowel’ discusses only hitpa#el imperatives inferred from future forms with a patah, . such as âp ò"ú!ä inferred from âp ò"ú!z (Isa. :), which are said to be identical with their past forms: ®
®
ò lâ"ú!ä óp à"ú!ä ÷ ô à"ú!ä çbð"ú!ä âp ò"ú!ä ì ôð"ú!ä ïp ç"ú!ä øëàåàìà äçåúôî øîàåà àäìë úâ ® àäôìàëé àì àäì øáòìàå
All these imperatives come out with a final patah, . [namely] ïp ç"ú!ä, ì tð"ú!ä, âp ò"ú!ä, çbð"ú!ä, ÷ t à"ú!ä, óp à"ú!ä, ò lb"ú!ä, and their past does not differ from them. [FEA I , fol. r]
Verbs with both the imperative and the past with a s. ere on the second radical are not mentioned. In other Karaite grammatical works the vocalization of m.sg. past forms of pi#el and hitpa#el verbs is less rigid. Forms with a s. ere and a patah. are sometimes presented as variants, e.g. ø ä h!ä and ø ä h!ä in the treatise on the Hebrew verbs;106 _U a and _V a in al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı;107 ø a!Ö and ø a!Ö in the Diqduq on Chron. :.108 Some grammarians construed such forms as derived from different imperative bases, i.e. ø a!Ö from ø a Ö and ø a!Ö from ø a Ö.109 According to the Diqduq on Ps. : ø a!c is in origin ø a!c which is a conjoined form of m.sg. past, whereas ø a!c is disjoined.110 In works using the system of symbols past forms of po#el, hitpa#el, hitpo#el and quadriliteral verbs in the symbol á ñ î are invariably vocalized with a patah, . this vocalization being confirmed by explicit statements of the authors.111 . Vocalization of m.sg. participles of geminated niph#al verbs In the conjugational pattern ÷ n!ä the author wrote that the form of the m.sg. participle of this verb is identical with that of m.sg. past: 106
See Khan (b:). See Khan et al. (:, I..); see also Khan et al. (:, I..). 108 See Khan (a:). 109 See Khan (a:, on Chron. :). 110 See Khan (a:–). 111 See Khan et al. (:–); Zislin (:). D. Becker (:) noted this vocalization as one of the problematic issues in the system of Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un. 107
morphological theories in kit¯ab al-#uqu¯ d
®
®øáòìà ìúî ÷ îð ìòàôìàå ®÷ îð øáòìàå ®øîà ÷ î!ä ÷ n!ä is an imperative. The past is ÷ îð. The active participle m.sg. is ÷ îð same as the past. [FEA I , fol. v]
In the standard Masoretic vocalization niph#al participles of geminated roots have a qamas. under the first radical, in our case ÷ îð.112 On the contrary, in the Babylonian reading tradition a patah. is possible under the first radical of such forms,113 suggesting that the vocalization ÷ îð is Babylonian. . Substitution of a segol by a patah. The substitution of a patah. for a segol is a well-known phenomenon of the Babylonian vocalization.114 The following cases of this substitution in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud are attributable to the author. Firstly, the list of structurally identical imperative bases in the conjugational pattern Öb ä includes imperatives òb ä, çp ä, ò q ä and ú v ä. All these imperatives are inferred from hiph#il imperfect consecutive forms with a patah. in the final syllable, e.g. Öbiå (Judg. :), òb zå (Ex. :), çpiå (Kings :). ú v ä is inferred from ú viå (Lament. :) which is vocalized ú öéå in FEA I , fol. v and ú öéå in FEA I , fol. v. Considering the author’s propensity for establishing imperative bases which conform to the structure of their attested derivative forms, it is clear that the original vocalization of the author must have been ú viå with a patah, . in deviation from the MT ú viå with a segol. Secondly, the symbol _U a, designed for first guttural niph#al verbs with a patah. under the prefix nun, consists of a single conjugational pattern ä × ò ä (past ä ×#òð, active participle ä ×#òð) and includes the imperative äV ç ä inferred from íéX$çp ä (Isa. :). The form íéX$çp ä should have been attributed to the symbol ä á à which describes first guttural niph#al verbs with a segol under the prefix nun (e.g. past ã î"çð, active participle ã î"çð; past Öð#àð, active participle Öð#àð). The attribution of íéX$çp ä to _U a is best explained by the Babylonian substitution of a segol by a patah. which would have led to the vocalization íéX#çp ä instead of íéX$çp ä and hence to the past form äT#çð. 112
See Gesenius (paradigm G). To the best of my knowledge the only attested form is :, Ps. :). 113 Yeivin (:, ); compare Yeivin (:) on the vocalization of some strong niph#al participles with a patah. in the ultima. 114 See Yeivin (:–). ø áð (Sam.
chapter six
Apart from the above elements of vocalization which are clearly attributable to the author, manuscripts of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud present a number of other cases of Babylonian vocalism. . In FEA I (copy )115 f.sg. participles of all middle weak and geminated niph#al verbs are vocalized with a qamas. on the prefix nun instead of a shewa: äðÇëð fol. r, ä w îð fol. v, ä ëeáð fol. v, ä ÖÇáð fol. r.116 Such lack of vowel reduction is found in f.sg. and m.pl. participles of middle weak niph#al verbs in manuscripts reflecting Babylonian pronunciation.117 . In the vast majority of niph#al verbs the future prefix aleph is vocalized 118 e.g.: in copies and with a hireq, . – FEA I (copy ): òÇp!à fol. v, ÖLe!à fol. r, äð a!à fol. v; – FEA I (copy ): è ì n!à fol. v; – FEA I (copy ): òð k!à fol. r. In the Tiberian reading tradition !à alternates with à in this position, both vocalizations being equally frequent.119 On the contrary, in the Babylonian tradition !à is the only possible form of the prefix.120 The absolute prevalence of !à in copies and points in the direction of Babylonian influence. It must, however, be noted that in the manuscripts the sg. future prefix on pa#al and hitpa#el verbs is invariably vocalized à in the Tiberian way whereas in the Babylonian tradition only !à is admissible.121 . Some forms with pronominal suffixes given in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud exhibit Babylonian type vocalization, e.g. í ë"ëU á"î (FEA I , fol. v; FEA I not preserved), ^Y aA"î (FEA I , fol. r; FEA I ,
115
In other copies this material did not survive. hypothetical.
116 ä ëeáð and ä ÖÇáð are 117 Yeivin (:).
118 In other copies this material did not survive. Such vocalization extends also to hitpa#el verbs with full assimilation of the prefix taw which were construed in Kit¯ab al#Uq¯ud as infi#¯al, e.g. ø ä h!à (FEA I , fol. v; FEA I , fol. v), ø t k!à (FEA I , fol. v), ïðÇk!à (FEA I , fol. r) but ïðÇk à (FEA I , fol. r), ä kf à (FEA I , fol. v). 119 Gesenius (§); Joüon-Muraoka (§b). 120 Yeivin (:). 121 Yeivin (:).
morphological theories in kit¯ab al-#uqu¯ d
fol. v) with the substitution of the expected segol (í ë"ëW á"î, ^Y aA"î) by a 122 patah. . To conclude, Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud presents a number of instances of Babylonian type vocalization. Most elements of the Babylonian vocalization are systematic and some can be proven to have originated with the author. On the basis of this evidence it can be conjectured that all instances of the Babylonian vocalism detected in the manuscripts are authorial. It was the norm in Hebrew linguistics to base grammatical works on the Tiberian vocalization so that the above-mentioned authorial Babylonisms in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud must be unconscious slips originating in the native substrate pronunciation of the author. Babylonisms are perhaps not surprising in a Karaite text composed in Jerusalem. Considering that the Karaite community of Jerusalem originated with immigrants from Persia and Iraq123 and the Persian language was still spoken in this city in the end of the th century,124 it is not unlikely that elements of the Babylonian pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew were preserved in the community. Traces of the Babylonian substrate are also found in other Karaite grammars. As mentioned above in all grammatical works using the system of symbols m.sg. past forms of pi#el, hitpa#el and related binyanim are vocalized with a patah. in the ultima. In al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı the geminated imperative ø ô ä and the past form ø ô ä are vocalized with a patah. in the final syllable and attributed to the conjugational pattern á Ö ä in the symbol à á ä.125 The past ø ô ä is taken from the verse ø ô ä é!úéX"a ú àå (Gen. :) where the form is pausal. However, in al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un ascertained that verbs in this conjugational pattern do not change their form in pause.126 This means that the vocalization ø ô ä with a patah. was understood by him as context as well as pausal. Inasmuch as á Ö ä is the only conjugational pattern to include geminated verbs in hiph#il one can conclude that patah. rather than s. ere was regarded as the primary vowel of such verbs which corresponds to the Babylonian tradition of pronunciation.127 An additional piece of evidence pointing in the 122 On the standard Tiberian vocalization of pi#el future and participle forms with pronominal suffixes, see Gesenius (§§f., h); Joüon-Muraoka (§d, esp. p. ). 123 Mann (:). 124 Khan (a:). 125 See Khan et al. (:, I..).
® ® ® 126 äúðé àî øéàñ éìà áùé äìá÷úñîå áùä äéö àîå áùä äøîà àî åäå àäðî úìàúìà óéøöúìàå ® ìöôðîìà ïéáå äéô éðòîìà ìöúî ïéá ÷øô øäèé àì äôéøöú éô äéìà [FEA I , fol. r].
127
See Yeivin (:–).
chapter six
direction of the Babylonian pronunciation amidst Karaite grammarians is found in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud itself in the discussion of the correct imperative base of the form éð"ú î$çé (Ps. :). The author reports that somebody 128 The claimed that the initial yod in éð"ú î$çé was vocalized with a patah. . discrepancy between this claim and the attested vocalization of the form is explainable only as the Babylonian substitution of a segol by a patah. . ... Final Aleph Verbs With the exception of final aleph verbs in pa#al described in the conjugational pattern àTO in the symbol úT"t, final aleph verbs are patterned together with final strong and exhibit final strong vocalization. The data are as follows: . The imperatives à tU and à n è are attributed to the pattern ø a c in the symbol épb. The past form of ø a c is vocalized ø a!c with a patah. in the final syllable. As verbs in a conjugational pattern are expected to be structurally identical in all their forms, such attribution implies that the author vocalized m.sg. past forms of these imperatives à tX and à n!è with a patah. . . The imperatives à ì t!ä (conjugational pattern è ì n!ä), à ap!ä (conjugational pattern ø t k!ä), and àVS (conjugational pattern ïðÇk) are attributed to the symbol á ñ î. It follows from the definition of this symbol that the past forms of these imperatives are to be vocalized with a patah: . à ì"ôð, à ap!ä and àUS. The author explicitly states in the introduction to the chapter ‘On imperatives which coincide in their first vowel but differ in their last vowel [from the past verb forms derived from them] and on other related matters’ that all imperatives with three stable consonants included in this chapter have past forms in a final patah. . Past forms with a qamas. are reserved for imperatives ending in a final heh:129 ®
®
®
®
ìîòúñî àäöòá åà äééìöà àäìë ïåëú ïà àù óåøç äúìú óéøöúìà éô úáú àîìë ® ® ® øéâ à ä øîàìà øëà éô úáú àî ìëå ®äçúàôá óéøöúìà êìã øáò ïàë óãàøúîå ®äöîà÷á äðî øáòìà éìöà
128 ãåéìà äçåúôî éäô ìà÷ ïàô [FEA I , fol. r]. 129 Along the same lines, the author of Me"or #Ayin
states that the symbol ä@ ò based on the final vowels of the imperative and the past contains final heh verbs but does not mention final aleph verbs in this context (see Zislin (:)). D. Becker (:) listed this as one of the problematic aspects of the system.
morphological theories in kit¯ab al-#uqu¯ d
Each conjugation with three stable letters, be all of them root letters, or some of them auxiliary or geminated, has a past form ending in a patah. . Whenever an imperative ends in a non-root heh, the past form ends in a qamas. . [FEA I , fol. r]
At present I cannot suggest a feasible explanation for these findings, since lack of vowel lengthening in final aleph verbs is not a feature of any known reading tradition of Hebrew. However, one could perhaps point out a parallel with Aramaic. In the Aramaic dialect of Targum Onqelos final aleph verbs merged with final weak and the group normally follows the final weak paradigm. Yet, in some fragments of Targum Onqelos with supralinear Babylonian vocalization preserved in the Cairo Genizah one finds special forms of the passive and reflexive stems which are spelled with a final aleph and vocalized with a patah. on the second radical.130 ... First Nun, First Yod (Original First Waw) and Similar Verbs in Pa#al (‘Imperatives Which Do not Have a Past Form’) According to Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud first nun, first yod and similar pa#al imperatives, i.e. monosyllabic imperatives such as çK, ò c, ò ñ, do not have past forms.131 The author conjectured that the past of such imperatives might have existed in the speech of the people of the language but was not recorded in the Scripture. To prove that none of the registered patterns of the past form have an imperative of the type of çK, he considered two possible forms, namely çK ì and çJ. He argued that the past cannot be çK ì because Hebrew has a rule that if an imperative begins in a root letter or an auxiliary letter, the past form will begin in the same letter.132 This is demonstrated by such pairs as imperative ä lb–past ä lb, imperative áeÖ–past á Ö but also by hypothetical pairs with an auxiliary first consonant such as imperative çK"ì–past çK ì, imperative ò ñð–past ò ñð. The past cannot be çJ either, since the imperative of çJ would be çe÷, as in imperative òeð–past òð, imperative íe÷–past íJ. Having dismissed both alternatives as unacceptable, the author claimed that a past form and, as a result, a symbol cannot be established for çK and similar imperatives.
130 See Dodi (:, ). See also Dalman (:); Sperber (:I, , to Lev. :); Stevenson (:–). 131 FEA I , fol. r, v–r. 132 See Rule in ..
chapter six
The author warned against attributing imperatives å ö attested in Lev. :, passim and åK, ì k, ñ k, presumably inferred from åKéå (Isa. :, ), ì ëéå (Gen. :), ñ ëéå (Ex. :, passim) respectively, to the same category. He argued that their future prefixes are vocalized with a shewa, whereas future prefixes of ‘imperatives which have no past’ can have either a hireq . with a dagesh, e.g. ç wé, or a s. ere, e.g. òAé. He concluded that the original forms of å ö, åK, ì k, ñ k were äe ö, äeK, ä l k and ä q k and the final heh was elided from them. ... Forms of Pronominal Suffixes133 Pronominal suffixes registered in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud agree with suffix forms attested in the Bible134 with a few exceptions. Most significantly, Kit¯ab al#Uq¯ud employs suffix forms ï ë (f.pl.) and ï (f.pl.) which do not occur in the Biblical text.135 Examples of ï ë include past forms136 ï ë"áé!Ö"ä, ï ëeøæ, ï ëé!úé!k!ä, ï ëO"Ö!ä, ï ë"úK"Ö!ä (the last two forms are found in the conjugational pattern ä ìâ ä in the symbol épb), ï ë"z"ìb"ìb, ï ëeî"îÇø, ï ëé!z"î îÇø; future forms ï ë"áé!Ö"à, ï ë"áé!Öé, ï ë"áé!Öð, ï ëYæð, ï ë"k à, ï ëe ö"à, ï ëO"Ö à, ï ë"ìb"ìâ"à, ï ë"îé!×"à, ï ë"î!îÇø"à, ï ë"×ÇÖ"à (conjugational pattern äVÇæ in the symbol ä@ ò), ï ë"áé!èé à. Examples of ï include imperatives ïVæ, ï k ä, ïe ö, ïV"a c, ï î"îÇø; future forms ïVæ"z, ï k à, ïe ö"à, ïL"Ö à (conjugational pattern ä ìâ ä in the symbol épb), ï î"îÇø"à, ï ×ÇÖ"à (conjugational pattern äVÇæ in the symbol ä@ ò). These suffixes also feature in other Karaite grammatical works, e.g. past ï ë#ò î"Ö and future ï ò î"Ö à in the treatise on the Hebrew verbs,137 past ï ë"î îÇø in Me"or #Ayin,138 and future forms ï ëY î"Öé, ï ëeø"î"Öé in a Genizah fragment T-S AS .. The suffix for the f.pl. is found on the future and imperative forms not only in the unattested form ï but also in the form ï characteristic of past and nominal forms. Examples of forms with ï were given above. Forms with ï include imperatives ï ëé!ì"Ö ä, ï ìb"ìb, ï îé!×; future forms ï áé!Ö"à,
133
Phenomena described below are attested in all examined manuscripts which preserve sections on forms with object suffixes. The forms quoted here are taken from FEA I . Cases of alternative vocalization in other copies of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud are noted in footnotes. 134 See Gesenius (§§–); Joüon-Muraoka (§§–). 135 See Diehl (:, ). 136 Here and in the following all forms are of sample verbs and can be found in respective conjugational patterns. Where object suffixes are added to a verb other than the sample verb, the conjugational pattern will be specified in brackets. 137 See Khan (b:–). More examples can be found on pp. , , –, – , –, –, . 138 See Zislin (:).
morphological theories in kit¯ab al-#uqu¯ d
ï áé!Öé, ï áé!Öð, ïTæé, ïT"aA"à, ï ëé!ì"Ö à, ï áé!èé à.139
Sometimes, forms with ï and are quoted as alternatives, e.g. ïVæð and ïTæð; ï î"îÇø"à and ï î"îÇø"à. On the contrary the m.pl. suffix is í in all but one case í áé!èé ä, presumably by analogy with ï áé!èé ä. The treatise on the Hebrew verbs invariably uses the hypothetical form ï . In Me"or #Ayin a pair of imperative forms í î"îÇø vs. ï î"îÇø could be found with the attested but deviant ï .140 An explanation for the use of ï on future and imperative forms might be that in the Bible only the m.pl. form í but not the f.pl. form ï is attested after future and imperative verbs. After past verbs and nouns, on the other hand, both the m.pl. form í and the f.pl. form ï are attested. Vocalizers of Kit¯ab al#Uq¯ud and Me"or #Ayin apparently felt uncomfortable using the unattested form ï and so sometimes substituted the attested ï , although it is only used in the Bible on past and nominal forms. A similar phenomenon can be observed regarding the f.sg. suffix after future and imperative forms. In the Bible the more widespread form of the f.sg. suffix used with future forms is ä . The form d usual with past and nominal forms also occurs but is rare.141 In Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud a reverse tendency is observed in that forms with the f.sg. suffix d ( occurrences) outnumber those with ä ( occurrences). Inflected forms with the suffix ä include imperatives äWæ, ä k ä, äe ö, äW"ô Ö (conjugational pattern ä ÖO a in the symbol épb), ä î"îÇø, ä ×ÇÖ (conjugational pattern äVÇæ in the symbol ä@ ò); future forms äWæ"z, ä k à, äe ö"à, äM"Ö à (conjugational pattern ä ìâ ä in the symbol épb), ä î"îÇø"à. Inflected forms with the suffix d 142 are imperatives dT"a c, d ëé!ì"Ö ä, d ìb"ìb, d îé!×, d áé!èé ä; futures d áé!Ö"à, d áé!Öé, d áé!Öð, dTæé, dTæð, dT"aA"à, d ëé!ì"Ö à, dT"ô Ö"à (conjugational pattern ä ÖO a in the symbol épb), d ìb"ìâ"à, d îé!×"à, d áé!èé à. The use of past and nominal suffix forms d and ï on future and imperative forms corresponds well to the leveling of suffix paradigms on verbs and nouns characteristic of the epistolary Hebrew of the period.143 A number of times a m.sg. suffix with nun energicum is used:144 ep áé!Ö"à and ep áé!Öé, epM"Ö à (conjugational pattern ä ìâ ä in the symbol épb), ep ÖÇã"à (conjugational pattern á&ñ in the symbol ïðÇk) and ep îé!×"à. In all cases the ï
139
T-S Ar . (copy ), fol. r has ï áé!èé à. See Zislin (:). 141 Gesenius (§d); Joüon-Muraoka (§a); Petri (:–). 142 In the originals the mappiq in the heh is not always marked, or marked under the heh instead of inside it. 143 See Outhwaite (:). 144 The dagesh in the nun of the suffix is not always marked. 140
chapter six
same or a nearly identical verb form is attested in the Bible. Thus, we find ep áé!Ö#à (Gen. :, passim), ep áé!Öé (Job :, :, :); äpM"Ö à (Isa. :) and epM"Öð (Gen. :); ep îé!×#à (Gen. :, ; Micah :); ÖÇã à ep Öeãé (Isa. :).145 The fact that suffixes with nun energicum were used in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud only with (some) verbs where they are attested in the Bible correlates with the lack of creative usage of such suffix forms in Genizah letters of the period.146 In the Bible participles and infinitives can take both nominal and verbal object suffixes, nominal suffix forms being more widely used.147 In Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud infinitives and participles are in most cases combined with nominal suffixes although verbal suffixes also occur. The sg. verbal suffix éð is used on the infinitive éð úÇe ö and on the active participle m.sg. éð ×ÇÖ"î which was corrected in the manuscript to é!×ÇÖ"î (conjugational pattern äVÇæ in the symbol ä@ ò). In the treatise on the Hebrew verbs éðV"ô Ö"î and éð ×ÇÖ"î are quoted.148 In the m.sg. the verbal suffix eä is mainly used on active participles m.sg. of final heh verbs, e.g. eä k î, eäV"ô Ö"î (conjugational pattern ä ÖO a in the symbol épb), eä ×ÇÖ"î (conjugational pattern äVÇæ in the symbol ä@ ò), whereas active participles m.sg. of other verbs take the nominal suffix Ç, e.g. Çî"îÇø"î, Çáé!èé î. However, we find a final strong participle with eä , namely eä ëé!ì"Ö î, and a final weak participle with the suffix Ç, i.e. Ç÷"Ö î (conjugational pattern ä ìâ ä in the symbol épb). In the f.sg. the verbal form ä is used only once on a final weak active participle m.sg. ä k î; in the rest of the cases the nominal suffix form d is attached to infinitives and participle forms, including active participles m.sg. of final weak verbs, e.g. d áé!Ö"î, d úTæ"î, dT"ô Ö"î (conjugational pattern ä ÖO a in the symbol épb), d ×ÇÖ"î (conjugational pattern äVÇæ in the symbol ä@ ò), d úÇe ö. In pl. verbal suffixes occur on three forms, namely ï k î, í ×ÇÖ"î (conjugational pattern äVÇæ in the symbol ä@ ò) and í áé!èé î.149 In all other cases nominal pl. suffixes are used, e.g. íT"aA"î, ï ëé!ì"Ö î, ï ×ÇÖ"î (conjugational pattern äVÇæ in the symbol ä@ ò), ï áé!èé î.
145
The link between ep ÖÇã"à and ep Öeãé ÖÇã à must be as follows. The form ÖÇã à, which today is analyzed as a corrupt inf. abs. (Gesenius (§w, f.n. )), was construed in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud as sg. future (FEA I , fol. v) of the imperative ÖÇc attributed to the conjugational pattern á&ñ in the symbol ïðÇk. Then ep Öeãé was taken as the base of analogy for ep ÖÇã"à whereby the vowel of the first radical was changed from shuruq to holam to fit . the characteristic vowel of the conjugational pattern á&ñ. 146 See Outhwaite (:). 147 See Gesenius (§a, h); Joüon-Muraoka (§–). 148 See Khan (b:, ). 149 T-S Ar . (copy ), fol. v has í áé!èé î.
morphological theories in kit¯ab al-#uqu¯ d
In the sg. the ambiguity of the infinitive regarding voice is resolved by suggesting that the object suffix is éð and the subject suffix is é! :150 ®
®
®
å÷ë ãåéìàå ïåðìà äøéîö ïàë àìåòôî øãöîìàá íìëúîìà ïàë àãà ïà íìòàå ® ® àìòàô øãöîìàá íìëúîìà ïàë àãàå ®êìã äàáùàå 151éð á!Ö ä"ì éð úé!î ä"ì éðøéëäì ® ® éöç úà éçìùá ®êéúåöî ìë ìà éèéáäá éìå÷ éîéøäë å÷ë è÷ô ãåéìà äøéîö ïàë ® :êìã äàáùàå íåìùá éáåùá ®êì éøôëá ®áòøä
Take note that if the person uttering the infinitive is a patient, the suffix [denoting] him is the nun and yod, e.g. éðVé!k ä"ì (Ruth :), éð úé!î ä"ì (Sam. :, passim), éð áé!Ö#ä (Jer. :, Job :) and similar cases. If the person uttering the infinitive is an agent, the suffix [denoting] him is the yod only, e.g. é!ìÇ÷ é!îéX#ä k (Gen. :), ^é úÇ"ö!î ì k ì à é!èé!a ä"a (Ps. :), é v!ç ú à é!ç"l Ö"a á òT ä (Ezek. :), _ ì éX"t ë"a (Ezek. :), íÇì Ö"á é!áeÖ"a (Judg. :, passim) and similar cases. [FEA I , fol. r]
150
Ibn Janah. was of the same opinion (see Derenbourg :, –). is not attested, read éð áé!Ö#ä.
151 éð á!Ö ä"ì
chapter seven RULES OF DERIVATIONAL RELATIONS
.. Definition and Terminology Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud contains a series of statements describing general conditional relations between different verb forms. For example, ®
ïåëéå àåù àì êìî óøçìà êìã è÷ð ïåëéå éìöà óøç äôåøç ìåà øîà ìë ïà íìòàå ® ® ® ®ìçðé àì ã÷ò àãäå áëàø íàîá éâé ìòàôìà ïàô ïéúè÷ð øîàìà êåìî øëà
Take note that if an imperative begins in a root letter vocalized with a full vowel rather than a shewa and the last vowel of the imperative is a s. ere, the active participle will begin in an affixed mem. This is a rule without exceptions. [FEA I , fol. v]
These statements, which are found throughout the book, are referred to in Judaeo-Arabic as #uq¯ud l¯a tanhall, literally ‘knots that cannot be untied’ . (sg. #aqd l¯a yanhall, once #aqd l¯a yanhall . . wa- jumla l¯a tatafas. s. al). The word #aqd has the meaning ‘knot; arch’ but in the technical sense it should probably be translated ‘link, connection, conditional relation, implicational rule,’ and #uq¯ud l¯a tanhall . as ‘inseparable links, rules without exceptions.’ To the best of my knowledge this term is not attested in any other grammatical work, Karaite, Rabbanite or Arabic. A Hebrew term qeˇser (literally, ‘knot’), pl. qiˇsronim1 is used in Me"or #Ayin for conditional relations between grammatical forms similar to #uq¯ud.2 Considering that Kit¯ab al#Uq¯ud is one of the main sources of Me"or #Ayin, qeˇser here is in all probability a translation of #aqd.
1 The plural form qiˇ sronim is peculiar. Indeed, the regular plural form of qeˇser is qeˇsarim. The form qiˇsronim could have been derived from the singular qiˇsˇsaron which according to J. Klatzkin (–:III, ) is used in Karaite texts synonymously with qeˇser to denote ‘connection, interrelation.’ 2 Zislin (:–). For M. Zislin’s interpretation of qeˇ ser as ‘relationship between grammatical forms’ see ibid., –.
chapter seven .. Corpus of Rules
Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud contains eighteen implicational rules of derivational relations. Sixteen of them connect verb forms with their imperative bases, two more describe regularities in participle forms. Below is the corpus of rules which I collected from the entire text of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud. Rule ®
®äéô èáö àì áëàøìàô áëàøå éðáî ïéîñ÷ íñ÷ðú ìàá÷úñàìà óåøç ïà íìòàå ® àì óéøöú éô ïåëé øëàìàå ®éãòúî óéøöú éô ïåëé ãçàåìà ïéîñ÷ íñ÷ðé éðáîìàå ® ® ® äçúàôìà êåìî äòáøà ïò äè÷ð âøëé àì éãòúîìà óéøöú éô éãìà àîàô ®àãòúé ® ìàá÷úñà óøç éàô ä î î&ù ä êåìî àäèàáøå äöîà÷ìàå ïéúðúìàå ÷åô ïî äè÷ðìàå ® ® ® ®êìã èôçàô äè÷ð äè÷ðå à ä äøîà éô ïà íìòà äòáøàìà äãä éãçà äè÷ð ïàë ® ®ïéôøç ïò äøîà ãàæ àîéô ã÷òìà àãäå
Take note that future prefixes can be divided into two groups, i.e. built-in and affixed. The affixed prefixes can not be grasped [in a rule]. The builtin prefixes, however, are of two types. The first type occurs in transitive paradigms and the second type occurs in intransitive paradigms. As to the prefixes in transitive paradigms, their vocalization is limited to four vowels, i.e. a patah, a s. ere, and a qamas. , their mnemonic sign being the . a holam, . vowels of ä î î&g ä. Take note that if the vowel of the future prefix is one of these four, the corresponding imperative begins in a heh vocalized with the same vowel. Learn it! This rule holds for verbs with imperatives of more than two letters. [FEA I , fol. v]
Rule (this rule is a continuation of Rule and as such deals with builtin future prefixes only) ®
®
ïéúè÷ð àîà äè÷ð ïåëé éãòúé àì éãìà óéøöúìà éô ïåëé éãìà ìàá÷úñàìà óøçå àäá øîàìà ïàë äè÷ð äúçú ïàë àîô éðé á êåìî àîäèàáøå ìôñà ïî äè÷ð àîàå äéãòúìà øéâå äéãòúìàá äøáúòú ïéúè÷ð äúçú ïàë àîå ïåðá ìòàôìàå ïåðá øáòìàå éãòúî øéâ ïàë ïàå ®íàîá ìòàôìàå à äá øáòìàå àäá øîàìà ïàë éãòúî ïàë ïàô ® :ìçðé àì ã÷ò àãäå ïåðá ìòàôìàå ïåðá øáòìàå à äá øîàìà ïàë
The vowel of a future prefix in an intransitive paradigm can be either a s. ere or a hireq, the mnemonic sign being the vowels of éðé a. Those verbs . that have a hireq have an imperative in a heh, a past form in a nun, and an . active participle in a nun. For verbs that have a s. ere take into consideration whether they are transitive or intransitive. If the verb is transitive, it will have an imperative in a heh, a past form in a heh, and an active participle in a mem. If it is intransitive, it will have an imperative in a heh, a past form in a nun, and an active participle in a nun. This is a rule that is not broken. [FEA I , fol. v–r]
rules of derivational relations
Rule ®
äìòàô éô àâå àåù àì êìî äè÷ð ïåëéå àéìöà àôøç äôåøç ìåà ïåëé øîà ìë ïà íìòàå ® ® àîàå ºãçàåìà ìòàôìà éô ìçðé àì ã÷ò àãäå áëàø àìà íéîìà êìã ïåëé àì íéî ®äéðáî àãáà íäîéîô ïéìòàôìà
Take note that whenever an imperative begins in a root letter vocalized with a full vowel rather than a shewa and the active participle derived from it begins in a mem, this mem is affixed. This is a rule without exceptions for the active participle m.sg. As to the active participle m.pl., the mem in it is always built-in. [FEA I , fol. r]
Rule ®
®
®
àãäå úðåîìàå øëãîìì íéáøìàå ãéçéìà éô àãáà éðáî ìåòôî ìë íéî ïà íìòàå ìçðé àì ã÷ò
Take note that the mem of the passive participle is always built-in in the singular, plural, masculine and feminine. This is a rule without exceptions. [FEA I , fol. v]
Rules , , ®
®
®
àî ïéúè÷ð àãáà øîàìà êìã êåìî øëà ïåëé éìöà øéâ à ä äøëà øîà ìë ïà íìòàå ® ® ® àãä éô ìçðé àì ã÷ò àãäô ®äàöå êàáö ä áU ®êùôðì äîëç ä òE ïë àîäå ïéòöåî àåñ ® ® ® ® ® øéâ à ä óøç äøëà éô éãìà øîàìà êìã éô éúìà ïéúè÷ðìà ïà åä ïàú ã÷òå ®òöåîìà ® ® ® äøëà øîà ìë ïà åä úìàú ã÷òå ºäöîà÷ éìà àãáà ãéçéìà ø á ò éô áì÷ðú éìöà ® ® ® éìò äìàìãìàå ìçðú àì ãå÷ò äãäå åúá àãáà úðåîìà øáò øëà ïåëé éìöà øéâ àä ® ® ® ® ® ® äëåìî øëàå à ä äøëà äVæ øîàìà ïà åä òöåîìà àãä éô ãå÷òìà äãä ïî úøëã àî ® éô äöîà÷ éìà øîàìà éô éúìà ïéúè÷ðìà úáì÷ðà óéë øèðà äTæ øáòìàå ®ïéúè÷ð ® ® ® ä ìâ!ä ä ìâ ä ä ú"ìâ ä lâ ä lâ êìãëå å úìàá ä úYæ äúðåîìà øáòå ®ãéçéìì éãìà øáòìà ® ® êìã ìàúîàå ä ú"ìâ!ä
Take note that the last vowel of each imperative ending in a non-root heh is always a s. ere except in two passages, i.e. ^ Ö"ôð"ì ä î"ë ç ä ò"c ï k (Prov. :) and ä à öå ^#à á"ö ä aU (Judg. :). This is a rule without exceptions regarding this matter. The second rule is that the s. ere in the end of such imperatives ending in a non-root heh always turns into a qamas. in the m.sg. past verb form. The third rule is that every f.sg. past verb form derived from an imperative ending in a non-root heh always ends in a taw. These are rules without exceptions. The indication regarding the rules I have mentioned here is that the last consonant of the imperative äVæ is a heh and its last vowel is s. ere. The past verb form is äTæ. Notice how the s. ere in the imperative turned into a qamas. in the m.sg. past verb. The f.sg. past form ä úYæ has a taw. Similar are ä lb–ä lb–ä ú"lb, ä ìâ ä–ä ìâ!ä–ä ú"ìâ!ä, and other examples. [FEA I , fol. v–r]
chapter seven
Rule ®
®
®
ä k ä ìúîå ìé!ö!ä ì ö ä ìúî éìöà øéâ à ä àîäìåà éô úáú øáòå øîà ìë ïà íìòàå ® ® ® ãá àì øáòìàå øîàìà ñàø éô à äìà àãä úáú àãàå áëàø àì éðáî àäìàô ä k!ä ® ® ® ® ® åäå äá èôçúìà áâé ã÷ò êìã ïî øàöô ®ä ë î ìé!ö î ìúî ìòàôìà éô íéîìà úåáú ïî ® úðàë àîìå ®íàîá àãáà ìòàôìà ïàë éìöà øéâ à ä àîäìåà éô úáú øáòå øîà ìë ® ® ã÷ò åäô êìã èáöàô éðáî ìòàôìà íàî øàö øáòìàå øîàìà éô ïééðáî ïéààäìà ® ìöôúú àì äìîâå ìçðé àì
Take note that each non-root heh which is established in the beginning of an imperative and a past form, as in ì v ä–ìé!v!ä or ä k ä–ä k!ä, is built-in rather than affixed. If such a heh occurs in the beginning of the imperative and the past, a mem will necessarily occur in the active participle, e.g. ìé!v î, ä k î. This leads to a rule which must be learned by heart, namely if the imperative and the past form begin in a non-root heh, the active participle will always begin in a mem. And since the heh’s in the imperative and the past are built-in, the mem of the active participle is built-in. Learn it well for this is a rule without exceptions and a principle that is not undone. [FEA I , fol. v–r]
Rule ®
ïåëéå àåù àì êìî óøçìà êìã è÷ð ïåëéå éìöà óøç äôåøç ìåà øîà ìë ïà íìòàå ® ® ® éøú àìà ®ìçðé àì ã÷ò àãäå áëàø íàîá éâé ìòàôìà ïàô ïéúè÷ð øîàìà êåìî øëà ® ® áëàø íàîá ìòàôìà àâ ïéúè÷ð äøëà éôå êìî äè÷ðå éìöà óøç äôåøç ìåà ä ìâ ïà ® ®äìâî ÷ë
Take note that if an imperative begins in a root letter vocalized with a full vowel rather than a shewa and the last vowel of the imperative is a s. ere, the active participle will begin in an affixed mem. This is a rule without exceptions. Surely you can see that ä lb begins in a root letter vocalized with a full vowel, and ends in a s. ere. Thus, its active participle begins in an [FEA I , fol. v] affixed mem, i.e. ä lâ"î.
Rule ®
®
®
éìöà øéâ à ä äìåà éô úáú øîà ìë åäå ®ìçðé àì äéìà òâøú àã÷ò êìã ïî øàöô ® øîà _ ì"Ö ä ÷ë íéî ïî äìòàôì ãá àìå à ä ïî äøáòì ãá àì éãòúîìà äâéö äúâéöå ® ì ö ä äìúîå íàî äìåà éô _é!ì"Ö î ìòàôìàå ®à ä äìåà éô _é!ì"Ö!ä øáòìàå ®à ä äìåà éô ® ® ® êåìîìà éô àì óåøçìà éô èàáø ñðâìà àãäì úìòâô ®ä ìâ î ä ìâ!ä ä ìâ ä ®ìéöî ìé!ö!ä ®ìòàôìì íàîìàå øáòìàå øîàìì ïààäìà í ä ä åäå
This leads to a rule without exceptions to which you can refer, namely, if an imperative begins in a non-root heh and has the form of a transitive verb, the past form will necessarily begin in a heh and the active participle will necessarily begin in a mem. For example, imperative _ ì"Ö ä begins in a heh, the past form _é!ì"Ö!ä begins in a heh and the active participle _é!ì"Ö î begins in a mem. Similar cases are ì v ä–ìé!v!ä–ìé!v î and ä ìâ ä–ä ìâ!ä–ä ìâ î.
rules of derivational relations
I have coined for this type a mnemonic based on the consonants, not on the vowels, namely í ä ä, where the heh’s represent the imperative and the past, and the mem represents the active participle. [FEA I , fol. v]
Rule ®
®
ïåðá äìòàôå ïåð äì éãìà øáòìà ìåàå à ä äøîà ìåà åìòâ éãòúî øéâìà ìòôìàå ® ® àãä ïî øàöô ®ïåð äìåà ïåëð øáòìàå ®éãòúî øéâ ñôðìà éô à ä äìåà øîà ïÇë!ä ÷ë ® ® ® àì ñôðìà äâéö äúâéöå éìöà øéâ à ä äìåà éô øîà ìë åäå àéðàú àã÷ò éðàúìà áøöìà ® ® ® óåøçìà éô èàáø áøöìà àãäì úìòâå ®ïåðá ìòàôìàå ïåðá àãáà äì øáòìà éãòúìà ® ®ìòàôìì øëàìàå øáòìì ãçàåìà ïåðìàå ®øîàìì à äìà ïð"ä êåìîìà éô àì
For intransitive verbs they formed an imperative beginning in a heh, a past beginning in a nun, and an active participle beginning in a nun. For example, ïÇk!ä is an imperative beginning in a heh, which is for intransitivity, not for transitivity. The past form ïÇëð begins in a nun. This second case leads to the second rule, namely, if an imperative begins in a non-root heh and has a form of an intransitive rather than a transitive verb, the past form always begins in a nun and the active participle also begins in a nun. I have coined for this type a mnemonic ïð"ä based on the consonants, not the vowels. The heh stands for the imperative, one nun stands for the past, and the other nun for the active participle. [FEA I , fol. r]
Rule ®
®
®
øáòìà ìàòúôà å ú äéôå à ä äìåà øîà ìë ïà åäå àúìàú àã÷ò êìã ïî øàöô ® ® øîàìì ïéààäìà ú î ä ä ñðâìà àãäì èàáøìàå íàîá äðî ìòàôìàå à äá àãáà äðî ® _ ì ä"ú!î _ ì ä"ú!ä _ ì ä"ú!ä êìã ïî ìå÷ú ìàòúôàìì å úìàå ìòàôìì íàîìàå øáòìàå ® ® ® ® ® ® äøéúë ìàúîà äì ãòá ïî éâéñ àîî ñðâìà àãä ïî êìã øéâ éìà
This leads to a third rule, namely, if an imperative begins in a heh and contains the taw of ifti#¯al, then the past form will always be in a heh and the active participle in a mem. The mnemonic for this type is ú î ä ä, where the heh’s stand for the imperative and the past, the mem is for the active participle and the taw for the ifti#¯al. An example is _ l ä"ú!ä, _ l ä"ú!ä, _ l ä"ú!î and other verbs of this kind, many instances of which will be cited later on. [FEA I , fol. r]
Rules , (these two implicational rules pertain only to verbs in the chapter ‘On imperatives which coincide in their first vowel but differ in their last vowel [from the past verb forms derived from them] and on other related matters’) ®
®
®
®
ìîòúñî àäöòá åà äééìöà àäìë ïåëú ïà àù óåøç äúìú óéøöúìà éô úáú àîìë ® ® ® à ä øîàìà øëà éô úáú àî ìëå ®äçúàôá óéøöúìà êìã øáò ïàë óãàøúîå ® ® ® ® àãä óéøàöú øúëà ïéã÷òìà ïéãäá èáöðà ã÷ô ®äöîà÷á äðî øáòìà éìöà øéâ áàáìà
chapter seven Each conjugation with three stable letters, be all of them root letters, or some of them auxiliary or geminated, has a past form ending in a patah. . Whenever an imperative ends in a non-root heh, the past form ends in a qamas. . These two rules capture most conjugational patterns in this chapter. [FEA I , fol. r–v]
Rule ®
äðéòá óøçìà êìã àìà øáòìà ìåà ïåëé àì ìîòúñî åà éìöà óøç äìåà øîà ìë ® ® ® ä ù ò ä ×#ò á Ö áeù ä ìâ ä ìâ å÷ êìã éìò ìéìãìàå ìçðé àì ã÷ò äâììà éô äøéñ äãäå ® ® ìúîô ìîòúñî óøç äìåà ïàë àî àîàå ®éìöà óøç äìåà àîî êìã øéâ éìà ø î ù ø&î"ù ® ®êìã øéâ éìà ãUé ãUé òAé òAé ò ñð ò ñð çK ì çK"ì
Whenever an imperative begins in a root letter or an auxiliary letter, the past form will begin in that same letter. This is the way of the language and a rule without exceptions. The evidence regarding this is, for example, ä lb–ä lb, áeÖ–á Ö, ä ×#ò–ä × ò, ø&î"Ö–ø î Ö and other imperatives which begin in a radical. Examples of imperatives beginning in an auxiliary letter are çK"ì–çK ì, ò ñð–ò ñð, òAé–òAé, ãUé–ãUé, etc. [FEA I , fol. r]
Rule ®
®
®
øëàìàå áëàø ãçàåìà ïéäâå éìò øîàìà éìò ìëãé ã÷ ìòàôìà íàî ïà íìòàå ® ® ® ® ® ® ïàë àãàå ®äãàéæ éìà øîàìà êìã âàúçé àì äúôãç àãà áëàø ïàë àãàô ®éðáî ® ® ® ® ® òîúâé àì ìòàôìà íàî ïàì à ä äãàéæ éìà øîàìà êìã âàúçà äúôãç àãà éðáî ® ® ® ® ® ® øîàìì éãìà à äìà äöåò úãø äúôãç àãà êìãìô øîàìà éô éãìà à äìà òî äúá ® ® áëàøìà íàîìà åäå íã÷ú àî ïàéá ®ìöôúú àì äìîâå äâììà éô ìçðé àì ã÷ò àãäå ® ® ® ® ® ® ® úôãç àãà äWæ"î _V á"î ÷ë à ä äãàéæ éìà øîàìà êìã âàúçé àì äúôãç àãà ® ìë àîäéìò ñ÷å à ä äãàéæ éìà àâàúçé àì ïàì÷úñî ïàøîà äVæ _V á àé÷á íàîìà ® ® ® àì÷úñé àì ïéîàîìà úôãç àãà ìé!ö î áé!Ö î å÷ë éðáîìà íàîìà ïàéáå ®áëàø íàî ® ® ® ® ®éøâîìà àãä éøâé éðáî íàî ìëå ì v ä á Ö ä ìå÷úô à ä äãàéæ éìà âàúçúô àîäñôðàá
Take note that the mem of the active participle can be attached to the imperative in two ways: firstly, as an affixed [prefix] and secondly, as a builtin [prefix]. If it is affixed and you remove it, the imperative will not need any additions. If it is built-in and you remove it, the imperative will need an added heh because the mem of the active participle never occurs together with the heh of the imperative. Hence, if you remove it, substitute it with the heh of the imperative. This is a rule without exceptions in the language and a principle that is not undone. An explanation of the first case is that if you elide an affixed mem, the imperative will not require the addition of a heh, e.g. _V á"î, äWæ"î if you elide the mem, the resulting [forms] _V a, äVæ are by themselves imperatives and do not require the addition of a heh. Treat analogously every affixed mem. An explanation regarding the builtin mem is that if, for example, you elide the mem from áé!Ö î, ìé!v î, [the forms] cannot stand on their own but will require the addition of a heh, as you say ì v ä, á Ö ä. This is the way of every built-in mem. [FEA I , fol. r–v]
rules of derivational relations
Rule ®
®
®
êìã ïéìòàô éô íàîìà úåáú ïî ãá àì íàî äìòàô éô úáú óéøöú ìë ïà íìòàå ® àì íàî äìòàô éô úáúé àì óéøöú ìëå ïéìåòôî äì ïàë ïà äéìåòôîå óéøöúìà ® ® ® ®äâììà éô ìçðé àì ã÷ò àãäå äúá íàî óéøöúìà êìã éô úáúé àì äéðáî àìå äáëàø
Take note that in each conjugational pattern the active participle of which has a mem, a mem will inevitably be established on the active participle m.pl. and the passive participles if the conjugational pattern has a passive participle. Whenever a conjugational pattern has an active participle without a mem, neither affixed, nor built-in, then the mem is not present on any form in this pattern. This is a rule without exceptions in the language. [FEA I , fol. v]
Rule ®
®
®
®
éô ã÷òìàå àåùá éðàúìàå ®íåîöî ãçàåìà ïéáøö éìò äè÷ð éô éâé ìåòôîìà íàîå ® ® äì ïàë ïà ìåàìà íåîöî äìåòôî íéî ïåëé éðáî à ä äìåà éô ïåëé øîà ìë ïà åä êìã ® ® äìåà éô ïåëé àì øîà ìëå êìã ìàúîàå ä ë%î äë ä á Öeî äìåòôî øîà á ù ä ÷ë ìåòôî ® äìåòôîå øîà _V á äWÇæ"î ìåòôîå øîà äVæ ÷ë àåù äìåòôî ìåà è÷ð ïåëé éðáî à ä ® ® éðáî äéô íéîìà àîî êìã ìàúîàå êTÇá"î
The mem of the passive participle can be vocalized in two ways, firstly, with a qubbus. and secondly, with a shewa. The rule regarding it is this. Whenever an imperative begins in a built-in heh, the initial mem of its passive participle is vocalized with a qubbus. , if it has a passive participle. For example, á Ö ä is an imperative and its passive participle is á Öeî, ä k ä– ä k%î, and other similar cases. Whenever an imperative does not begin in a built-in heh, its passive participle has a shewa in the beginning, e.g. äVæ is an imperative and the passive participle is äWÇæ"î, _V a is an imperative and its passive participle is _TÇá"î, and other cases where the mem is built-in. [FEA I , fol. r]
.. The Structure of Rules of Derivational Relations The typical formula used in a rule is: Each verb form A (input form, antecedent) with characteristic features so-and-so has verb form B (output form, consequent) with characteristic features so-and-so.
A variant formula is: Each verb form so-and-so has structural characteristics so-and-so.
As is evident from the corpus, characteristic features of antecedent and consequent forms mentioned in the rules include the presence or absence of formatives as well as their status and vocalization. Importantly, these characteristic features are always well formalized.
chapter seven
Often implicational rules are proven with examples of verbs conforming to the phenomenon described in a rule. Such examples can be introduced with wa-l-dal¯ala (‘indication’), wa-l-dal¯ıl (‘proof, evidence, indi® cation’), al¯a tar¯a inna (‘surely, you can see’), but most often with ÷ë for ka-qawlihi, ka-qawlika (‘for example’). At times unattested verb forms are used to support a rule. This is found in Rule which claims that any imperative which begins in a radical or an auxiliary letter has a past form beginning in that same letter. To prove the rule the author used form pairs such as imperative ä lb–past ä lb, imperative áeÖ–past á Ö for imperatives beginning in a radical and hypothetical imperative çK"ì–past çK ì, hypothetical imperative òAé–past òAé for imperatives beginning in an auxiliary letter. A similar example is found in Me"or #Ayin in a rule connecting the form of the imperative with the form of the active participle derived from it. The rule states that whenever an imperative has a shewa in the initial syllable, the active participle derived from it does not contain the prefix mem. To demonstrate this relationship the author used form pairs imperative ç ú t–active participle ç úÇt, hypothetical imperative ãUé–active participle ãVÇé, hypothetical imperative òAé–active participle òBÇé.3 .. Rules of Derivational Relations vs. Other Remarks on Verbal Morphology Implicational rules found in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud and Me"or #Ayin have a number of salient features in that they: . describe conditional relations between verb forms; . do not have exceptions; . pertain to wide groups of verbs united by common formalizable features. Statements on regularities in verbal derivation which do not conform to one or more of these criteria are not labelled as ‘rules.’ Below are some examples: øîà à ä ãòá àìà ïåëé àìå àåù àìà àãáà äè÷ð ïåëé àì ìàòúôàìà å ú ïà íìòàå ® ® ® ® ® äãâú ãàù åäô àéù êìã ïò âøë ïàå ®äîìòàô ìàá÷úñà óøçå ìòàô íéîå øáò à äå ïéùå éãöå êàîñ ãòá
3
See Zislin (:).
rules of derivational relations
Take note that the taw of ifti#¯al is always vocalized with a shewa and comes after the heh of the imperative, the heh of the past, the mem of the active participle or the future prefix. Note this! Exceptions from this are rare and occur after samekh, s. ade and shin. [FEA I , fol. r] ®
®
®
®
®
®
äøéúë òöàåî éô ñëòú êìã èáöé íì ïîå øëãîìà øáò ìúî äð"áð äìòàôìàå
The active participle f.sg. is äð"áð and it is the same as the m.sg. past. He who does not grasp it will be frustrated in many cases. [FEA I , fol. r–v] ®
®
®
®
ãçàå íäì éãìà øáòìàå íéáøìà øîà øëàåàìà óìúëîìà áàáìà óéøàöú øúëà ®äîìòàô
In most conjugations in the chapter on the verbs with different final vowels [of the imperative and the past], the plural forms of the imperative and the past are identical. Take note of that! [FEA I , fol. v]
In these examples verb forms and their structural features are not described as conditioned by another verb form. Moreover, the remarks pertain either to forms in particular conjugational patterns (as in the example of äð"áð) or to verb groups that are not well defined (such as ‘most conjugations in the chapter on the verbs with different final vowels [of the imperative and the past]’). An interesting case of a statement on verbal derivation not counted among the rules on account of the low level of its formalization is found in Me"or #Ayin in the ‘Chapter on the explanation ®®®® of the four letters ïúéà.’4 The statement referred to as ‘condition’ (tena"y) is formulated as follows: ç÷å êìùä ãéúòä úåà äéìò øùà äìî ìë àåäå 5®åéìà áåùú àåä éàðú êì äéä äæ ìòå óéñåä åùôðá ãåîòé àì äéä íàå ®àä åéìò óéñåú àì åùôðá ãåîòé éååöä äéä íà éååöä éååöä àä úåà ãå÷ð ãéúòä úåà ãå÷ð íéùå ãéúòä íå÷îá àä
From this follows a condition to which you can refer, namely, if a word has a future prefix, discard it and get the imperative. If the [inferred] imperative form can stand on its own, do not add to it a heh. If it cannot stand on its own, add a heh instead of the future [prefix] and put the vowel of the future prefix on the heh on the imperative. [Zislin (:)]
The algorithm for inferring imperatives described in the ‘condition’ is very similar to that in Rule in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud which deals with inferring imperatives from participle forms with the prefix mem. Rule
4
See Zislin (:). The introductory formula åéìà áåùú àåä éàðú êì äéä äæ ìòå is very close to ïî øàöô ® ® ìçðé àì äéìà òâøú àã÷ò êìã found in Rule in Kit¯ ab al-#Uq¯ud. 5
chapter seven
makes the form of the imperative dependent on a formal characteristic of the participle prefix, namely its affixed or built-in nature. On the contrary, in the ‘condition’ the characteristic features of the antecedent (future forms) are not specified and the final form of the imperative is said to depend on whether or not a form produced by removing a prefix from the future can be used on its own. This level of formalization is not enough for a statement to be considered a rule. An additional reason preventing a morphological statement from being called a rule are exceptions. Consider this: ®
®
®
®
äìåòôî øëà éô à äìà úåáú ïî ãá àì éðáî à ä äøëà éô úáú øîà ìë ïà íìòàå ® ® ® éô äöåò àðáé ìá äìåòôî øëà éô úáúé àì à äìà ïàô äôéøàöúå äùò àåñ àî ®®® ®ãåéå åàå ìåòôîìà
Take note that whenever an imperative ends in a non-root heh, its passive participle will inevitably end in a heh … An exception is ä ×#ò and other verbs of this conjugational pattern which does not have a heh in the end of its passive participle. Rather a waw and yod are built into the passive participle instead of the heh. [FEA I , fol. v]
Here a conditional relation between the imperative and the passive participle of final heh verbs is formulated in a manner consistent with the definition of a rule. Yet, it is not referred to as #aqd, presumably, because it does not hold for final weak verbs in pa#al whereas a rule has to be without exceptions. .. Rules of Derivational Relations and the System of Symbols Rules of derivational relations seem to be disconnected from the system of symbols. Belonging to a particular symbol or conjugational pattern is never mentioned as a characteristic feature in a rule. Even when a rule clearly refers to a particular symbol and this symbol alone, the symbol word does not appear in the rule. Thus, Rule pertains to the symbol á ñ î alone but does not mention the mnemonic itself. In turn, regularities about verbs in certain homogeneous symbols are never referred to as #uq¯ud, e.g.: ®
íàî àäéìòàô éô ïåëé ïà æåâé àì úT"ô óéøàöú ïà íìòàå
Take note that active participles of conjugational patterns in the symbol úT"t do not have [prefix] mem. [FEA I , fol. v]
rules of derivational relations
®
®
®äöåî÷î àãáà àîäìàá÷úñà óåøç ì òeÖ éôéøöú ïà èáöú ïà áâéå
You have to grasp that future prefixes of conjugational patterns in the [FEA I , fol. r] symbol ì òeÖ are always vocalized with a qamas. .
The situation is similar in Me"or #Ayin. To give examples, a statement regarding á ñ î similar to Rule in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud contains the symbol word but is not called a rule: øúåéå úåéúåà ùåìùî àéää äìîä øùà êøã ìëá êì äéäé ïîéñä äæå áñî ïîéñ
Symbol á ñ î. This symbol applies to all patterns in which a word has three or more consonants. [Zislin (:)]
On the contrary, a rule exclusive to verbs in the symbol mention the symbol word:
úT"t
does not
äæ ìò äéàøä ç÷úå äùåòä úòéðîå øáòä ùàøîå éååöä ùàøî äôñåúä úòéðîá øù÷ éååöä ùàøá ïéà éë òãú äöî÷ åãå÷ð úìçú åá äéäé øùà éåùò ìë ®éåùòä ãå÷ðî ïéðòä íééåùò íä äìà éeðJ øeî ù ìeë à îë äôñåú äùåòä ùàøá ïéàå øáòä ùàøá ïéàå ®äôñåú åùàøá ïéà ìëÇà äùåòäå ®äôñåú åùàøá ïéà ìÇë à éååöä àá ïë ìò ïéöî÷ íùàøá ®äôñåú
Rule on the preclusion of an addition from the beginning of the imperative and from the beginning of the past and on the preclusion of the active participle [from additions]; take the evidence about this from the vocalization of the passive participle If the first vowel of the passive participle is a qamas. , take note that the imperative does not have additions in the beginning, and the past and the active participle do not have additions in the beginning. For example, ìeë à, øeî Ö, éeðJ are passive participles with a qamas. in the beginning, so the imperative is ìÇë à6 without additions in the beginning and the active participle is ì ëÇà without additions in the beginning. [Zislin (:)]
This rule deals with passive participles vocalized with a qamas. in their initial syllable. Such passive participle forms are characteristic of pa#al verbs which are discussed in the method of symbols within the symbol úT"t. Hence, this rule is exclusive to úT"t and yet the mnemonic does not appear in its text. From these and similar examples it can be inferred that when devising rules of derivational relations the authors of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud and Me"or #Ayin thought of them as independent from the symbols so that symbols and rules represent two different traditions of morphological description.
6
The expected vocalization is ì&ë$à.
chapter seven
The only element of implicational rules which connects them with the system of symbols are examples given to prove rules. In most cases verbs used in the examples are sample verbs of conjugational patterns for which a particular rule is relevant. Thus, in Rules – ä lb and äVæ are both sample verbs of homonymous conjugational patterns in the symbols é!pb and à á ä respectively. In Rule _ ì"Ö ä, ì v ä and ä ìâ ä are sample verbs in the symbol é!pb. In Me"or #Ayin as well sample verbs are most commonly used to prove rules. Yet, since more examples are given than in Kit¯ab al#Uq¯ud other verbs also appear. .. Rules of Derivational Relations and Binyanim By referring to characteristic features of input forms, rules divide verbs into groups to which they pertain. Interestingly, these groups are in most cases closer to binyanim and gezarot than to symbols and conjugational patterns.7 Thus, Rule starts from future forms of intransitive verbs in which the future prefix is a built-in letter vocalized with s. ere or hireq. . It follows from the definition of a built-in letter that this rule refers to niph#al verbs. Rule uses as its input imperatives beginning in a root letter vocalized with a full vowel such that their active participles begin in a mem. This corresponds to imperatives of pi#el verbs.8 Rule clearly refers to hitpa#el verbs. The antecedent of Rules – are imperatives ending in a non-root heh. This singles out imperatives of third weak verbs. The situation is similar in Me"or #Ayin where the division of the rules into three chapters9 on () verb forms derived from imperatives without prefixes (roughly, pa#al and pi#el verbs); () verbs belonging to mnemonics í ä ä and ú î ä ä (hiph#il and hitpa#el verbs); and () verbs in the mnemonic ïð"ä (niph#al verbs) is the best demonstration of this point. This fact is noteworthy because it shows that although Karaite grammarians did not operate with the notions of binyanim and gezarot they were aware that Hebrew verbs can be divided into large categories much more general than the conjugational patterns.
7 Rules pertain to verbs of attested as well as hypothetical morphological patterns so that it would not be accurate to state that verb groups produced by rules correspond exactly to binyanim and gezarot. 8 This rule also works for some hypothetical imperatives which cannot be attributed to any binyan. 9 See ..
rules of derivational relations
.. Function of Rules of Derivational Relations The importance attached by our author to the rules of derivational relations follows clearly from the fact that he entitled his work Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud f¯ı Tas. a¯r¯ıf al-Lu˙ga al-#Ibr¯aniyya (Book of Rules regarding the Grammatical Inflections of the Hebrew Language). Rules have two functions in the system of the author: a morphological and a pedagogical. Here the morphological function of rules will be considered. For the pedagogical function of rules see .. Rules of derivational relations play a role in the author’s reconstruction of paradigms of poorly attested verbs. The author admitted having had recourse to rules for this purpose in two cases. . In the discussion on ‘imperatives which do not have a past form’ the author considered the possibility that the past forms of imperatives ò ñ and çK are ò ñð and çK ì respectively. He refuted this option on the basis of Rule which claims that any imperative which begins in a radical or an auxiliary letter has a past form beginning on that same letter: åà éìöà óøç äìåà øîà ìë ïà äì ìé÷ ®ç÷ì çK øáòå ò ñð ò ñ øáò ïà ìà÷ ïàô ® ® àì ã÷ò äâììà éô äøéñ äãäå äðéòá óøçìà êìã àìà øáòìà ìåà ïåëé àì ìîòúñî ìçðé
If somebody says that the past of ò ñ is ò ñð and the past of çK is çK ì, it should be said to him that whenever an imperative begins in a root letter or an auxiliary letter, the past form will begin in that same letter. This is the way of the language and a rule without exceptions. [FEA I , fol. v–r]
. In the conjugational pattern ïðÇk!ä in the symbol á ñ î the author tried to decide on the correct prefix for the past form of the imperative ïðÇk!ä inferred from éððÇk!z äJ@"ö!a (Isa. :). Admitting that ‘neither its past form nor its active participle are attested nor is there a verb by analogy with which it could be conjugated; nor is it handed down by oral tradition, as it is rarely used’10 the author had to resort to regularities in the language to determine whether the past begins in a heh or in a nun. He preferred the form with a nun, ‘because it is the way of the language that an intransitive infi#¯al imperative beginning in a built-in heh
® ®
®
®
®
10 ìéì÷ äðàì àòàîñ ãëåé àîî åä àìå äñé÷ð àãàî éìòô ãåâåî ìòàôìà àìå ãåâåî øáòìà ñéì ìàîòúñàìà [FEA I , fol. r].
chapter seven
has the past form and the active participle beginning in a nun.’11 This statement is a paraphrase of Rule . In other cases a comparison of restored forms with rules of derivational relations shows that hypothetical verb forms comply with the rules yet there is no proof that the author actually used the rules to create them. One example will demonstrate this point. Active participle forms of hypothetical final heh imperatives ä ë"Ö î and äV(à z have the prefix "î, i.e. ä ë"Ö î"î, äW(à ú"î. This choice of the active participle form agrees with Rule which determines that imperatives which begin in a root letter vocalized with a full vowel have active participles in an affixed mem. Clearly, imperatives ä ë"Ö î and äV(à z meet all the conditions stipulated in the rule. Hence, their active participles must begin in an affixed mem. The vocalization of an affixed mem is always a shewa: àåù äè÷ðô áëàø äðî ïàë àîô ïéîñ÷ éìà äè÷ð éô íñ÷ðé ìòàôìà íéî ïà íìòàå ® ® ® êìã ìúàî àîå êV á"î ø áA"î ìúî
Take note that the mem of the active participle is vocalized in two ways. An affixed mem is vocalized with a shewa, as in ø aA"î, _V á"î, and similar cases. [FEA I , fol. r]
This leads to the above-mentioned active participle forms ä ë"Ö î"î, äW(à ú"î. .. Relationship between the Material in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud and Me"or #Ayin In Me"or #Ayin rules are not dispersed in the text of the book but are collected together and organized in three chapters. The first chapter entitled ‘Chapter on the rules with which you can link many doubtful cases’ contains rules on the presence and vocalization of afformatives in verbs of various types but especially in verb forms derived from imperatives without prefixes.12 The second chapter entitled ‘The speech on the chapter on rules’ deals with verbs belonging to mnemonics í ä ä and ú î ä ä (hiph#il and hitpa#el verbs).13 In the third chapter, namely ‘Chapter on the rules in the mnemonic ïÇð"ä,’ rules are formulated which concern niph#al verbs.14 Whereas in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud the antecedent of ® 11 äì øáòìà éðáî à ä äìåà éô ìàòôðàìà óéøàöú ïî ñôðìà éô øîà ïàë àã à äâììà äøéñ ïàì r al see ... ïåðá ìòàôìàå ïåðá [FEA I , fol. ]. On the classification of ïðÇk!ä as infi#¯
12 ìôè à ä éååöä ùàøá ïéà, äôñåú éååöä ùàøá ïéà 13 Zislin (:–). 14
Zislin (:).
[Zislin (:–)].
rules of derivational relations
most implicational rules is the imperative, in Me"or #Ayin this is true only of half of the rules, the other half having the imperative as a consequent and other derivative forms as antecedents (a few rules do not refer to the imperative at all). The structure of an implicational rule in Me"or #Ayin is as follows.15 Each rule is introduced with a heading specifying forms or afformatives discussed in a rule and often mentioning the antecedents of the conditional relation as well as its consequents. Examples include ‘rule on the letter heh,’16 ‘rule on knowing the vocalization of future prefixes, infer it from the vocalization of the heh of the imperative,’17 ‘rule on the presence of a heh in the beginning of the imperative, a heh in the beginning of the past and a mem in the beginning of the active participle, take evidence about it from the vocalization of future prefixes.’18 In the body of a rule characteristic features of an antecedent form are linked through a regular conditional relation to characteristic features of a consequent form in a formula which resembles that of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud.19 Most rules are followed by supporting examples. The examples are introduced with kemo (‘like, as in’) and once with we-ha-re"ayah (‘proof, evidence’) although the term re"ayah is mainly used to introduce antecedents in rule headings. An example of a complete rule in Me"or #Ayin is: ®øáòä ùàø ãå÷ðî åéìò äéàøä ç÷úå éåðáä äùåòä íî ãå÷ð ìò øù÷ ãå÷ð äéäé úåãå÷ð éúù à ä úåà úçú äéäéå ø÷ò åððéà à ä åùàøá äéä øáò ìë éë òã ® ® ïë úåãå÷ð éúù àä úåà ãå÷ðå øáò àåä íé÷ä îë úåã÷ðá øáòä ãå÷ð îë äùåòä í î ® äùåòä àá åãå÷ð úåãå÷ð á àä úåà øáò ïé!ë ä ïëå íé÷ î úåãå÷ð éúù äùåòä íî ãå÷ð àá íúåîãå úåã÷ð éúù íî úåà ãå÷ð ïé!ë î
15 Rules of derivational relations in Me"or #Ayin were but briefly described in previous studies. M.N. Zislin (:–) summarized a small number of rules and pointed out that when formulating rules the author did not mention verbal stems. He concluded that the notion of a verbal stem was not known to the author. A. Maman (:) limited his description to a definition of qiˇsronim as ‘inner-morphological relations restrained by one another’ (äìàá äìà íéðúåîä íééîéðô íééâåìåôøî íéøù÷). 16 àä úåà øù÷ [Zislin (:)]. 17 éååöä àä ãå÷ðî åúåà ç÷ú ãéúòä úåéúåà ãå÷ð úòã ìò øù÷ [Zislin (:)]. 18 úåéúåà ãå÷ðî äæ ìò äéàøä ç÷ú íî äùåòä ùàøáå à ä øáòä ùàøáå àä éååöä ùàøá úåéäì øù÷ ãéúòä [Zislin (:)]. 19 One rule namely ‘rule on the vocalization of affixed future prefixes’ (ãéúòä úåàá øù÷ åãå÷ð äéäé éî áëåø äéäé íà [Zislin (:–)]) is peculiar. The first part of the rule dis-
cussing future prefixes of bi-consonant imperatives does not follow the usual formula of a rule in that it states that future prefixes of such imperatives can take three different vowels, qamas. , s. ere or hireq, but does not specify characteristic features of imperative forms . which would enable one to decide which vowel to choose. Indeed, such characteristics are very difficult to define within the framework of verbal roots of variable length.
chapter seven Rule on the vocalization of the built-in mem of the active participle; take the evidence about it from the vowel found in the beginning of the past Take note that if a past form begins in a non-root heh vocalized with a s. ere, the vowel of the mem of the active participle will be like the vowel of the past a s. ere. For example, íéN ä is a past form and the heh is vocalized with a s. ere and so the vocalization of the mem of the active participle is a s. ere íéN î. Similarly ïé!ë ä is a past form and the heh has a s. ere, and the active participle is ïé!ë î where the mem is vocalized with a s. ere, etc. [Zislin (:)]
Most rules given in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud are found in Me"or #Ayin. Out of the eighteen rules in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud only four do not have correlates. These are Rules , –, . Rules – correspond to statements in Me"or #Ayin not referred to as rules.20 Some rules in Me"or #Ayin are directly translated from Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud. Compare these: Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud (Rule ) ®
ïåëéå àåù àì êìî óøçìà êìã è÷ð ïåëéå éìöà óøç äôåøç ìåà øîà ìë ïà íìòàå ® ® ® ®ìçðé àì ã÷ò àãäå áëàø íàîá éâé ìòàôìà ïàô ïéúè÷ð øîàìà êåìî øëà
Take note that if an imperative begins in a root letter vocalized with a full vowel rather than a shewa and the last vowel of the imperative is a s. ere, the active participle will begin in an affixed mem. This is a rule without exceptions. [FEA I , fol. v]
Me"or #Ayin éååöá øùà ïåùàøä úåàäî äúåà ç÷ú åéìò äéàøä ãåîòé äîá äùåòä íî úåàá øù÷ éååöä óåñ ãå÷ðå éååöá øùà ïåùàøä úåàä ãå÷ðå &á éååöä óåñ ãå÷ð äéäéå àåù àìå êìî àåää úåàä ãå÷ðå ø÷ò úåà åúìçú äéä éååö ìë áëåø íîá äùåòä úåéä áåç úåãå÷ð
Rule on the mem of the active participle, namely what is the evidence about it; take it from the first letter of the imperative and the vocalization of the first letter of the imperative and the vocalization of the end of the imperative If an imperative begins in a root letter and this letter is vocalized with a full vowel rather than a shewa and the vowel in the end of the imperative is a s. ere, the active participle will necessarily begin in an affixed mem. [Zislin (:)]
20
See ..
rules of derivational relations
Other rules in Me"or #Ayin are paraphrases, for example, Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud (Rule ) ®
®
®
®
éìöà øéâ à ä àîäìåà éô úáú øáòå øîà ìë åäå äá èôçúìà áâé ã÷ò êìã ïî øàöô íàî øàö øáòìàå øîàìà éô ïééðáî ïéààäìà úðàë àîìå ®íàîá àãáà ìòàôìà ïàë ® ® ® ìöôúú àì äìîâå ìçðé àì ã÷ò åäô êìã èáöàô éðáî ìòàôìà
This leads to a rule which must be learned by heart, namely if the imperative and the past form begin in a non-root heh, the active participle will always begin in a mem. And whenever the heh’s in the imperative and the past are built-in, the mem of the active participle is built-in. Learn it well for this is a rule without exceptions and an inevitable principle. [FEA I , fol. v–r]
Me"or #Ayin: øáòäå éååöä ùàø úìçúî åéìò äéàøä ç÷úå äùåòá éåðá íî úåà áåéç ìò øù÷ äùåòä ùàøá éåðá úåéä íî úåà áåç äéäé ø÷ò åððéà àä íùàøá äéä øáòå éååö ìë
Rule on the inevitability of a built-in mem in the active participle; take the evidence about it from the beginning of the imperative and the past If an imperative and a past form begin in a non-root heh, the mem in the beginning of the active participle is necessarily built-in. [Zislin (:)]
In other cases a rule of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud is modified and extended in Me"or #Ayin: Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud (Rules ,,): ®
®
®
àî ïéúè÷ð àãáà øîàìà êìã êåìî øëà ïåëé éìöà øéâ à ä äøëà øîà ìë ïà íìòàå ® ® éô ìçðé àì ã÷ò àãäô ®äàöå êàáö ä áU ®êùôðì äîëç ä òE ïë àîäå ïéòöåî àåñ ® ® ® ® ® ® óøç äøëà éô éãìà øîàìà êìã éô éúìà ïéúè÷ðìà ïà åä ïàú ã÷òå ®òöåîìà àãä ® ® øîà ìë ïà åä úìàú ã÷òå ºäöîà÷ éìà àãáà ãéçéìà ø á ò éô áì÷ðú éìöà øéâ à ä ® ® ® ® ìçðú àì ãå÷ò äãäå åúá àãáà úðåîìà øáò øëà ïåëé éìöà øéâ àä äøëà
Take note that the last vowel of each imperative ending in a non-root heh is always a s. ere except in two passages, i.e. ^ Ö"ôð"ì ä î"ë ç ä ò"c ï k (Prov. :) and ä à öå ^#à á"ö ä aU (Judg. :). This is a rule without exceptions regarding this matter. The second rule is that the s. ere in the end of such imperatives ending in a non-root heh always turns into a qamas. in the m.sg. past verb form. The third rule is that every f.sg. past verb form derived from an imperative ending in a non-root heh always ends in a taw. These are rules without exceptions. [FEA I , fol. v]
chapter seven
Me"or #Ayin (the heading of this rule is not preserved): ®
úåà íøèî àåä øùà úåàá éååöä óåñá úåãå÷ð éúù íé÷ìç â áéçé éååöä óåñá à ä úåà ® à ìë éë òãå ®®® åéú úåà äá÷ðä øáòá áéçéå ®®® äöî÷ åìù øáòä óåñá áéçéå ®®® à ä ® óåñá áééçé íâ éååöä óåñá äéäé øùà à ä úåà òãå ®®® åøáç ìò äðòé àåä íéøáãä â åìàî ® ãå÷ð ùåìù ãéúòä
The letter heh in the end of an imperative necessitates three things. [It necessitates] a s. ere in the end of the imperative on the letter before the letter heh … It also necessitates a qamas. in the end of the past form … It also necessitates the letter taw in the f.sg. past … Take note that each of these three matters indicates the others … Take note that the letter heh in the end of an imperative also necessitates a segol in the end of the future. [Zislin (:)]
The rules in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud and Me"or #Ayin have identical antecedents, i.e. the heh in the end of the imperative, but differ in the consequents in that Me"or #Ayin adds the final segol of future forms as a fourth consequent in addition to the final s. ere of m.sg. imperative, the final qamas. of m.sg. past, and the formative taw of f.sg. past already mentioned in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud. Moreover, Me"or #Ayin remarks that each of the first three consequents is indicative of the rest of the forms. Me"or #Ayin has more rules than Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud. Most new rules are based on statements in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud which do not take the form of a rule. For example, a remark in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud on the form of the active participle of verbs in the symbol úT"t is turned into a rule on the relation between the imperative and the active participle in Me"or #Ayin. Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud: ®
®
áëàø ïàëì ïàë åì êìã ïàì íàî àäéìòàô éô ïåëé ïà æåâé àì úT"ô óéøàöú ïà íìòàå øîàìàå øîàìà éìò àìà áëøé àì ìòàôìà íàîå àåù àìà äè÷ð ïåëé àì áëàøìàå ® ® àðàë ïàô íàìëìà ìåà éô àåù éìò àåù ïåëé ïà êìã ïî éâé ïàëô àåù äìåà úT"ô ïî ® ® ® åà êøçúî éðàúìàå ïëàñ ìåàìà ïàë ïàå êìãëô ïéðëàñ àðàë ïàå æåâé àì ïéëøçúî ® ® ® ® ®íàî úT"ô ìòàô éô ïåëé àì ïà áâå êìãìô æåâé àìô êìã ñëòá
Take note that it is not permissible for the mem to occur in the active participles of conjugations belonging to úT"t. This is so because, should it occur, it would be an affixed letter, and the vocalization of an affixed letter is always a shewa. Further, the mem of the active participle can be attached only to an imperative. But the first [letter] in any imperative of úT"t has a shewa. This means that two shewa’s would come together in the beginning of a word. This, however, is not admissible either when they are both vocal, or when they are both silent. If the first shewa is silent and the second one vocal or vice versa, it is still inadmissible. Thus the active participle of úT"t may not contain the prefix mem. [FEA I , fol. v]
rules of derivational relations
Me"or #Ayin éååöä ùàø ãå÷ðî åúåà òãú áëåøä äùåòä í î úòéðî ìò øù÷ àåää úåàä éë êì äðòéå í î äùåòä ùàøá ïéà éë êì äðòé àå"ù åãå÷ð úìçú äéäé éååö ìë ® ®ãá$òð åà ø÷ò àåä éë àå"ù åãå÷ð øùà éååöä úìçúá ùà
Rule on the preclusion of an affixed mem in active participles; infer it from the vocalization of the beginning of the imperative If the first [letter] of an imperative is vocalized with a shewa, it means that the active participle does not begin in a mem. It also indicates that the letter in the beginning of the imperative which is vocalized with a shewa is a radical or an auxiliary letter. [Zislin (:)]
Sometimes a part of a chapter in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud is summarized in a set of rules in Me"or #Ayin. Thus, the chapter ‘On types of active participles’ in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud discusses among other things the vowel of the built-in prefix mem in active participles of various verbs. The author distinguishes between three cases in the vocalization of the prefix and writes that it can be vocalized: () as the prefix of the past, e.g. áé!Ö î as áé!Ö ä; () as the prefix of the imperative, e.g. ä k î as ä k ä; () as the prefix of the past and the prefix of the imperative, e.g. _ l ä"ú!î as _ l ä"ú!ä and _ l ä"ú!ä. In Me"or #Ayin three rules are formulated to capture these cases. Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud ®
®
ìåà è÷ð äè÷ð ïåëé ìåàìà ®íàñ÷à äúìú éìà äè÷ð éô íñ÷ðà éðáî äðî ïàë àîå ® ® ® ® ® ìåà è÷ð äè÷ð éðàúìàå ®êìã ìúàî àîå á Ö î á Ö ä áéÖ î áé!Ö ä ÷ë äì éãìà øáòìà ® ® ® ® ® ® ìåà è÷ð äè÷ð úìàúìàå ®êìã ìúàî àîå ä ë î ä ë ä ìé!ö î ì ö ä ÷ë äì éãìà øîàìà ® ® ® ® íéî íäìòàô éô éãìà óéøàöúìà òéîâ åäå äì éãìà øáòìà ìåàå äì éãìà øîàìà ® ® ® _ ì ä"ú!î _ ì ä"ú!ä _ ì ä"ú!ä ÷ë øëàåàìà óìúëîìà ìéàåàìà ÷ôúîìà áàáìà ïî éðáî ® ® ®êìã ìúàî àîå _V á"ú!î _U á"ú!ä _V á"ú!ä
The built-in [prefix mem of the active participle] can be vocalized in three ways. Firstly, it can have the vowel found in the beginning of its past form, e.g. áé!Ö ä–áé!Ö î, á Ö ä–á Ö î, etc. Secondly, it can have the vowel found in the beginning of its imperative, e.g. ì v ä–ìé!v î, ä k ä–ä k î, etc. Thirdly, it can have the vowel found in the beginning of its imperative and its past form. This holds for all conjugational patterns with participles in a built-in mem in the chapter on verbs with identical first but different final [vowels of the imperative and the past], e.g. _ l ä"ú!ä–_ l ä"ú!ä–_ l ä"ú!î, _V a"ú!ä–_U a"ú!ä– _V a"ú!î, etc. [FEA I , fol. v]
chapter seven
Me"or #Ayin ®øáòä ùàø ãå÷ðî åéìò äéàøä ç÷úå éåðáä äùåòä íî ãå÷ð ìò øù÷
()
í î ãå÷ð äéäé úåãå÷ð éúù à ä úåà úçú äéäéå ø÷ò åððéà à ä åùàøá äéä øáò ìë éë òã ® úåã÷ðá øáòä ãå÷ð îë äùåòä
Rule on the vocalization of the built-in mem of the active participle; take the evidence about it from the vowel found in the beginning of the past Take note that if a past form begins in a non-root heh vocalized with a s. ere, the vowel of the mem of the active participle will be like the vowel of the past a s. ere. [Zislin (:)] åéìò éååöä ùàø ãå÷ð ïî äéàøä åîò ç÷úå éåðáä äùåòä í î ãå÷ð úòã ìò øù÷ () øàáàùë çúô äùåòä í î úåà ãå÷ð äéä çúô à ä úåà ãå÷ðå ìôè à ä åùàøá äéä éååö ìë
Rule on inferring the vocalization of the built-in mem of the active participle; take the evidence about it from the vowel found in the beginning of its imperative as I will explain If an imperative begins in a non-root heh vocalized with a patah, . the vowel of the mem of the active participle is a patah. [Zislin (:)]. . øáòäå éååöä ùàø ãå÷ðî åúåà ç÷úå äùåòä íî ãå÷ð úòã ìò øù÷ () äéäé ãçà éååöä ùàøå øáòä ùàø ãå÷ð äéäéå ìôè àä úåà íùàøá äéä øáòå éååö ìë íäá äùåòä íî ãå÷ð
Rule on inferring the vocalization of the mem of the active participle, take it from the vocalization of the beginning of the imperative and the past If an imperative and a past form begin in a non-root heh and the vocalization of the beginning of the imperative and the past is identical, the vocalization of the mem of the active participle will be the same. [Zislin (:)]
Some new rules in Me"or #Ayin, in particular, rules on the final heh, do not seem to be based on any material in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud, e.g. àä úåà øù÷ äùåòä óåñá íâå à ä øáòä óåñá úåéäì áéçé ø÷ò åððéà à ä úåà éååöä óåñá äéäé íà à ä ãéúòä óåñá íâå à ä éåùòä óåñá íâå
Rule on the letter heh If an imperative ends in a non-root heh, it necessitates a heh in the end of the past, and a heh in the end of the active participle and the passive participle, and a heh in the end of the future. [Zislin (:)]
To summarize, rules of derivational relations appear to be the area of maximal creativity in Me"or #Ayin. The main distinctive features of rules,
rules of derivational relations
such as their implicational character, high level of formalization of features of input and output forms, and the prohibition of exceptions are preserved. Equally unchanged remains the position of the rules with respect to other means of morphological description: rules are separated from the system of symbols and divide verbs into groups which bear resemblance to binyanim and gezarot. Yet the organization of the material, the appearance and corpus of rules differ in Me"or #Ayin. All rules are collected in three consecutive chapters rather than distributed in the flow of the text, the rules are provided with headings announcing the antecedent and consequent forms and the corpus is modified and extended. The extraction of the rules from the bulk of the morphological description in the frame of the system of symbols and the introduction of special chapters on the rules of derivational relations are signs of a deeper separation between the rules and the system of symbols in Me"or #Ayin. The fact that new rules were created and material found in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud in a form incompatible with the definition of a rule was reworked into rules appears to signify that the author of Me"or #Ayin found it important to develop and promote this tool of morphological description, presumably, for pedagogical purposes.
chapter eight ¯ AL-#UQUD ¯ PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES IN KITAB
Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud is a pedagogical grammar. It is specifically targeted at students who were beginning to study Hebrew systematically, building on their knowledge of the text of the Scripture. In view of this target audience, the book’s emphasis on verbal morphology becomes easily understandable. Indeed, the verbal system is the central part of Hebrew grammar, a part each beginner needs to master before everything else. On the whole, the book takes the form of a reference tool on verbal morphology containing numerous paradigms and chapters dedicated to methods of morphological analysis. The main objective of learners studying the Hebrew conjugation from Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud was to memorize complete paradigms of all sample verbs. This would enable them to determine forms of an attested verb by running it through the paradigms, deciding to which pattern it belongs and conjugating it by analogy with the respective sample verb: ®
®
àäèôç ïàå óéøàöúìà äáìâú óéøàöúìà ìåöà èôç àîå äâììà íìò éô íìëúîìà ® ® ® ® ® òéîâ éìò àäöøòà àäôéøöú óéë äéìò øãòú äèôì äì úò÷å àãà äðàì àäáìâ ® ® ® áòúà àî åäå êìã éìò øã÷é ïìå óøöúú àîî úðàë ïà äì âøëú éäô óéøàöúìà ® óéøàöúìà èôç éô äñôð
Anybody talking about grammar without having learnt the principles of conjugational patterns will be overcome by conjugations. But if he learns them, he will overcome them. This is so because if he encounters a word which he does not readily know how to conjugate he can compare it with all conjugational patterns and it will stand out, provided it can be conjugated. But if he did not take the trouble of learning the conjugational patterns, he will not be in the position to do this. [FEA I , fol. r]
The author knew that verbal forms can be confusing and that students can easily become frustrated unless they learn properly. Variations of the phrase ‘he who does not learn it will be frustrated with the conjugations’1 are recurrent in the book. The author used an array of didactic strategies aimed to facilitate the acquisition of Hebrew forms. These include lucid
® ® 1 óéøàöúìà éô ñëòú êìã èáöé íì ïîå
[FEA I , fol. r].
chapter eight
sample paradigms, the gradual character of presentation, rules of derivational relations, systems of mnemonics, algorithms of parsing forms and model analyses of Biblical passages. .. Lucidity of Conjugational Patterns When defining conjugational patterns, the author divided verbs into very narrow groups so that each conjugational pattern contained verbs of only one morphological form. He described the paradigm of each group separately. For example, for hitpa#el verbs he introduced seven conjugational patterns: () _ l ä"ú!ä for strong verbs; () ã äé"ú!ä for second guttural verbs which lack the dagesh in the second radical but do not exhibit compensatory lengthening; () ì a z"ñ!ä for first sibilant verbs; () ç t z"ñ!ä for first sibilant third guttural verbs; () _V a"ú!ä for second guttural verbs exhibiting compensatory lengthening; () øV z"×!ä for first sibilant second guttural verbs exhibiting compensatory lengthening; and () òV z"×!ä for first sibilant second and third guttural verbs exhibiting compensatory lengthening. For comparison, in al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı only the patterns _ l ä"ú!ä and _V a"ú!ä are recorded.2 The multiplication of conjugational patterns in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud serves to avoid potential confusion caused by phonetic changes associated with gutturals and other phonetic irregularities of the root. This is explicitly stated with regard to verbs with guttural letters: ®
®
®
®
®
áø÷à äðàì êìã éô øéâìà äèáö àî éìà íöúå àäôàìúëà óéøàöú èáöú ïà âàñå ® ® çåúôîìà øéâá çåúôîìà äéìò ìëùé àìéì éãúáîìà éìò ãö÷î ìäñàå ãëàî
It is permissible to establish for them (i.e. verbs with gutturals) separate conjugations and add these to what was established by others. This way they will be easier to grasp and simpler to understand for a beginner, and clear matters will not be obscured by unclear ones. [FEA I , fol. r]
.. Choice of Verbs Included in the Account The author admitted having to find a compromise between the completeness and the feasible size of the symbols. He made his decisions based on the needs of students who were beginners. On the one hand, he included verbs of rare morphological patterns alongside widely attested verbs to make sure beginners were able to conjugate irregular verbs:
2
Khan et al. (:, I..).
pedagogical strategies in kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud ®
®
®
åà äðò ìñé àìéì ãàùìà óéøöúìà éøâî óéë éãúáîìà íìòé éúç àäúøöçà àîðàå ® ® ®ãàùìàë àôë ñéì øåäùîìà óéøöúìà ãà äñôðì äîìò áçé
I included them so that a beginner knows how to conjugate an exceptional verb in case he is asked about it or wants to know it for himself. Indeed, well-known verbs are not similar to exceptional ones. [FEA I , fol. r]
Examples of such conjugational patterns are ì à"î"× ä, the only attested first strong quadriliteral hiph#il, or à ôT ä, the only first resh final aleph niph#al.3 On the other hand, fearing to overload the students, the author omitted certain paradigms from the system of symbols and listed them separately: ®
®
éìà àäîöà íì àî äòñúî øéâ éä éúìà óéøàöúìà ïî äúøëã àîøéâ é÷á ã÷ ïàìà ® ® ® é÷á ã÷ ïà íìòåéì àðäàä àäðî çðñ àî øëã éìò úìååòå àäèôç ì÷úé àìéì äîàìò ® ® äìîâìà éô ìëãé íì àî
Apart from the non-extensive conjugations I have mentioned above, there remain others which have not been included in any symbol so that they do not complicate the learning. I have decided to mention here those of them which occurred to me and to make it known that there remain conjugations not included in the total. [FEA I , fol. r]
Examples of imperatives on this list are äå#ç z"Ö!ä from é!úéå#ç z"Ö!ä (Sam. :), ò Ö"ò Ö from eò Ö(ò Ö"z (Isa. :), ïðek from epðeëéå (Job :), ä ì#òÇä from ä ú ì#òÇä (Nahum :), etc.4 In Me"or #Ayin a shortened version of this list is included under the heading ‘Imperatives which most probably have a past form but we do not know what it is.’5 On the contrary, Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un excluded all rare verbs from the system of symbols on purely theoretical grounds that their derivative forms are not sufficiently attested to decide on the appropriate symbol.6 .. Didactic Elements in Pattern Description Conjugational patterns are described in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud by citing a set of forms of a sample verb. In some conjugations two or even three sample paradigms are provided, presumably, following the maxim that repetition is the mother of learning. In the very first conjugational pattern áé Ö ä the author found it necessary to explain certain forms instead of just listing them: 3 4 5 6
See Lambert (:–, –). The imperatives ò Ö"ò Ö, ïðek, and ä ì#òÇä are hypothetical. Zislin (:). Khan et al. (:–, I..).
chapter eight ®
®
ïà ãàøà àîì äöîà÷ äìá÷ ìòâå à ä øëãîìà ãéçéìà éìò ãàæ ä áé!Ö"î äìòàôìàå ® ® ® ® òîâì éãìà åúå åàå ãàæå äöîà÷ìàå à äìà äãéçéìà ïî óãç úÇáé!Ö"î úàìòàôìàå ºúðåé ® ®úéðàúìà
The active participle f.sg. is ä áé!Ö"î. [The Scripture] added a heh to the m.sg. participle and used a qamas. before it, when it intended to make it feminine. The active participle f.pl. is úÇáé!Ö"î. It elided from the f.sg. form the heh and the qamas. and added the waw and taw which serve to form f.pl. [FEA I , fol. v]
A similar introduction is given into verb forms with object suffixes. Usually forms with object suffixes are supplied with Arabic translations and arranged in tables. A table is a format of presentation which does not allow much space for grammatical explanations. It certainly is not suited to explain the phenomenon of object suffixes and introduce their forms. Hence, in the first conjugational pattern the author presented a number of forms of the m.sg. past form áé!Ö ä with object suffixes in running text and fully described the agent-patient combination encoded in each form: ®
øàöô é!úÇáé!ù"ä ìà÷ àìòàô ïàëå äñôð éìà øáòìà ìòôìà íìëúîìà ãø àãàå ® ® ® ® äðà øáëà àãàå ®åé!úÇáé!ù"ä äñôð ïò ìà÷ äì àìòàô ïàë àãàå ®ãåéìàå åúìà äøéîö ® ® ® ìà÷ úàáéàâìì àìòàô äðà øáëà àãàå ®íé!úÇáé!ù"ä ìà÷ ïéøëãîìà ïéáéàâìì àìòàô ® ® ^é!úÇáé!ù"ä ìà÷ äìáà÷é ïîìå ® äé!úÇáé!ù"ä ìà÷ àäì àìòàô äðà øáëà àãàå ºïé!úÇáé!ù"ä ® ® ® ìòô íìëúîìà ãø àãàå ®_é!úÇáé!ù"ä ìà÷ éúðà ïàë ïàå àìâø ìáà÷îìà ïàë àãà ® ïåðìà äá ò÷àå ìòôìàå äøéîöô éð áé!Ö"ä ìà÷ äá ò÷àå ìòôìàå äñôð éìà øáòìà ® ® ®ãåéìàå å úìà äøéîö øàö äðî ò÷àå ìòôìà ïàë àãàå ãåéìàå
If a m.sg. speaker referred with the past verb form to himself as an agent, he would say é!úÇáé!Ö"ä, the sg. pronoun being the taw and yod. If he acted as an agent with regard to a m.sg. patient, he would say about himself åé!úÇáé!Ö"ä. If he informed that he was an agent with regard to a m.pl. patient, he would say íé!úÇáé!Ö"ä. If he informed that he was an agent with regard to a f.pl. patient, he would say ïé!úÇáé!Ö"ä. If he informed that he was an agent with regard to a f.sg. patient, he would say äé!úÇáé!Ö"ä. And with regard to a sg. patient he would say ^é!úÇáé!Ö"ä, if it is a man, and _é!úÇáé!Ö"ä, if [the patient] is feminine. If a m.sg. speaker referred with the past verb form to himself as a patient, he would say éð áé!Ö"ä,7 the object pronoun for the sg. being the nun and yod. And the subject sg. pronoun is the taw and yod. [FEA I , fol. r–v]
Providing such explanations in the very beginning of the book is certainly a pedagogical tool used to introduce the reader gradually into the subject matter.
7
The expected vocalization is éð áé!Ö"ä.
pedagogical strategies in kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud
.. Capturing Regularities in Verb Forms Rules of derivational relations intended to link different forms to one another were introduced by the author in order to facilitate the learning of paradigms by providing some insight into the logic of the Hebrew verbal system: ®
®
óéøàöúìà éìò øèàðìà àäøáñéì óéøàöúìà ïéá àîéô ã÷ò ìë øëã úîã÷ àîðàå ® ® ãòá óéøàöúìà õéìëú äéìò áòöé àìô àèôç äì øéöúå äãðò ø÷úñúô ìåàô ìåà ® ® ®ìåöàìà äãä èáö
I have presented first the discussion of the rules pertaining to paradigms so that he who studies the paradigms can examine them one by one and they will settle down in his mind, and he will remember them. When he masters these principles it will not be difficult for him to complete the paradigms. [FEA I , fol. v–r]
Even though it might appear from this quotation that the rules are collected together and presented in one block before the paradigms for the benefit of the learners, the opposite is the case. The rules are, in fact, dispersed in the text of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud and offered as part of the discussion on verbs of relevant types as the need arises. The role of rules as didactic tools is also stressed in Me"or #Ayin where these are collated and presented in a separate section of the book: êéðéòá ïåùìä úòã ì÷ú åúåà øåîùúå åúåà ùôçú íà ÷åîòå ìåãâ àåä øòùä äæ éë òã
Take note that this chapter (i.e. the chapter on rules of derivational relations) is large and deep. If you study and grasp it, it will be easier for you to learn the language. [Zislin (:)]
Not knowing the rules is said to lead to confusion and frustration: ®
®
®
®
®
äâììà óéøàöú øúëà éìò øãú÷ú éúç ú î ä ä ïð"ä í ä ä éäå ãå÷ò äúìúìà äãä èáöàô à äá øáòìà ìäå íàîá åà ïåðá ìòàôìà ìä ñàáúìàìà éô úò÷å àäá úðåàäú ïàô ïåðá åà
Learn these three rules, i.e. í ä ä, ïð"ä, and ú î ä ä in order to master most conjugational patterns of the language. But if you neglect them, you will be confused whether the active participle begins in a nun or a mem, and whether the past begins in a heh or a nun. [FEA I , fol. r] ®
®
®
®
®
®®® åúá àãáà úðåîìà øáò øëà ïåëé éìöà øéâ àä äøëà øîà ìë ïà åä úìàú ã÷òå ® ® ® å ú øéâáå å úá úðåîìà øáò éô ïàì óéøàöúìà éô ñëòú êìã èáöé íì ïîå
The third rule is that if an imperative ends in a non-root heh, the f.sg. past form will always end in a taw … He, who does not learn it, will be frustrated with the conjugational patterns because there are f.sg. past forms with and without taw. [FEA I , fol. v, r]
chapter eight
The author of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud realized that his rules would not suffice to describe all types of Hebrew verbs and did not exclude the possibility that more rules could be added: ®
®
®
®
®
®
®
èôç êìã ãòá ãù àîô áàáìà àãä óéøàöú øúëà ïéã÷òìà ïéãäá èáöðà ã÷ô ® ® ® ® ® ãàùìà äá èáöúô äá øôèà íì àîî äá øôèú ïà êàñò àî áìèú ìòì åà àèôç äá òúôðåéô
These two rules capture most conjugational patterns in this chapter. As for the exceptions that are left after that, they should be learned by heart. Or maybe you can try to include [in a rule] what I could not include. Then you will capture the exceptional cases and it will be useful. [FEA I , fol. v]
.. Mnemonics Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud uses a number of mnemonics (rib¯at. ) to assist memory. In some mnemonics only the consonants are representative of the phenomenon to be captured, in others it is the vowels or whole words. ... Mnemonics Based on Consonants a. Mnemonics ÷C ö òæb ø t ñ è ç and äðé!á Çz"ëà ì"î Ö8 The first set of mnemonics based on consonants are mnemonics for root and servile letters. Root letters are arranged into a mnemonic òæb ø t ñ è ç ÷C ö; servile letters are arranged into a mnemonic äðé!á Çz"ëà ì"î Ö. These mnemonics, coined by Menahem ben Saruq,9 are well known and were . used by many grammarians, Karaite as well as Rabbanite.10 Interestingly, different mnemonics are used for root and servile letters in al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı (ç ö ãb ÷ òæ ø ñ"ô!è for root letters and í Ö ì ú ä ï ëé!á#àå for servile letters)11 indicating that the author of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud held it necessary to change mnemonics and return to the more widely known ones for his abridgment.
8
FEA I , fol. r. Sáenz-Badillos (:, *). 10 See Allony (:, , :); Bacher (b:); Derenbourg (:– , , :); Dotan (:); Maman (a:–); Zislin (:–). 11 Khan et al. (:, I..–). 9
pedagogical strategies in kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud
b. Mnemonics í ä ä, ïð"ä and ú î ä ä12 The set of mnemonics í ä ä, ïð"ä and ú î ä ä is, to the best of my knowledge, unique to Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud and Me"or #Ayin. These mnemonics, also referred to as ‘rules’ are coined for imperatives beginning in a non-root heh (in modern terms, hiph#il, niph#al and hitpa#el verbs) and summarize the prefixes of their imperative, past and active participle forms. The mnemonic í ä ä was coined for transitive imperatives with an initial nonroot heh (hiph#il verbs). Here the heh’s represent the prefixes of the imperative and the past, and the mem represents the prefix of the active participle, e.g. imperative _ ì"Ö ä, past _é!ì"Ö!ä, active participle _é!ì"Ö î. Along the same lines, the mnemonic ïð"ä represents intransitive imperatives with an initial non-root heh (niph#al verbs), e.g. imperative ïÇk!ä, past ïÇëð, active participle ïÇëð. The mnemonic ú î ä ä is coined for imperatives which begin in a heh followed by a taw of ifti#¯al (hitpa#el verbs), e.g. imperative _ l ä"ú!ä, past _ l ä"ú!ä, active participle _ l ä"ú!î. ... Mnemonics Based on Vowels a. Mnemonics ä î î&g ä and éðé a13 Mnemonics ä î î&g ä and éðé a represent the vocalization of built-in14 prefixes of future verb forms and are unique to Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud and Me"or #Ayin. ä î î&g ä stands for the four possible vowels of built-in future prefixes in transitive verbs, e.g. _é!ì"Öé, áé!ÖÇé, áé!èéé, áé!Öé. In turn, éðé a stands for the vowels of built-in future prefixes of intransitive verbs, e.g. è ì né, à ôTé. b. The Symbols The symbols are mnemonics representing the first (or last) vowels of the imperative and the past of various groups of verbs. Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud contains twelve symbols based on the first vowel of the imperative and the past, namely à á ä, épb, úT"t, ì òeÖ, ïðÇk, äTé!Ö, ä ì Ö, Çøé!Ö, ä k î, ä á à, é!ì ò, and _U a. Five symbols are based on the last vowel of these forms: á ñ î, ä@ ò, éD ò, òK a and éX t.
12 13 14
FEA I , fol. v–r. FEA I , fol. v. See ...
chapter eight ... Mnemonics Based on Words
One mnemonic based on words is used in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud in a syntactical chapter dedicated to the word order in Biblical Hebrew.15 The author counted six different ways in which the verb (V), the subject (S) and the object (O) can be arranged and exemplified them as follows: . . . . . .
VSO: àé!áp ä eäé"îYé ú à øeç"Ö ô ä kiå (Jer. :); ® SVO: äT × ú à ãK t éé (Gen. :); OVS: ùT ç _ ñð ì ñ t ä (Isa. :); SOV: ìé!t z íé!à ôY õW àå (Isa. :); OSV: Çîé q ëé Çîé ú ô"× ì î#ò é a!ñ"î Öà] (Ps. :);16 VOS: ø òð í úÇà àYiå (Sam. :).
To summarize the various word orders, the author introduced a mnemonic sentence made up of initial17 words of each verse (not necessarily in the form in which they occur in the verse): õW à ä ì ñ t ä ä cR"t á ä k%ä äé àY ä Öà]. It is interesting to note that this section in Kit¯ ab al-#Uq¯ud is a close abridgment of the chapter ‘On the verb, the agent and the patient’ in al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı.18 In al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı the same six arrangements are discussed but the mnemonic is not given. Hence, it must have been coined and added by the author of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud. ... Classification of Sample Imperatives by Mnemonics Of the mnemonics two sets are particularly important as they are used in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud to classify sample imperatives. These mnemonics capture certain elements of paradigms which are common to all imperatives in a class and thus reduce the amount of information which needs to be remembered. The first system is the set of symbols themselves. A learner was given a list of sample imperatives belonging to each symbol. Below is the beginning of this list: ®_V á ®äVæ ® çð ä ®á Ö ä ®ãåé øéâá øô ä ®ãåéá áé Ö ä ®óéøàöú äúñ à á ä ®ò l á ®ø áA ®ä ìâ ä ®ä ìâ ® çð ä ®Öâ ä ®ãåé øéâá ì ö ä ®ãåéá ìé ö ä ®ä k ä ®óéøöú ïéøùò épâ ®ì à"î"× ä ® ò ú"ò ú ®ì áY ë ®ä ëYE ä ®ä ÖO á ® ò á"Ö ä ®ø ö"ô ä ®_ ì"Ö ä ®_é ì"ù ä ®í çU ® ç áæ
15
FEA I , fol. v. The verse is cited according to qere. MT: Çîå q ëé. 17 An exception is the second case (SVO), where the second word is used in the mnemonic. 18 Khan et al. (:–, I.). 16
pedagogical strategies in kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud à á ä includes six conjugational á Ö ä, çð ä, äVæ and _V a.
patterns:
áé Ö ä
with yod, ø ô ä without yod,
épb includes twenty conjugations: ä k ä, ìé v ä with yod, ì v ä without yod, Öb ä, çp ä, ä lb, ä ìâ ä, ø a c, ò l a, ç aæ, í çU, _é ì"Ö ä, _ ì"Ö ä, ø ö"ô ä, ò a"Ö ä, ä ÖO a, ä ëYE ä, ì aY k, ò z"ò z, ì à"î"× ä. [FEA I , fol. v]
Knowing the symbol to which a particular imperative belongs, the student could deduce the vowel of the past form as it was encoded in the symbol. This system of classification embraces all verbs described in the treatise. The second classification is relevant only for imperatives beginning in a non-root heh. It uses the mnemonics í ä ä, ïð"ä and ú î ä ä as class labels. As with symbols, a learner was provided with lists of sample imperatives belonging to each of í ä ä, ïð"ä and ú î ä ä. An extract from the list of imperatives in the class í ä ä is given below: ®ãåéá ìé ö äå ®ä k äå ® çð äå ®á Ö äå ®ãåé øéâá á ù äå ®ãåéá áé Ö ä ®óéøàöú äãò ìîùú í ä ä ® òð"ë äå ®ø ö"ô äå ®ãåé øéâá _ ì"Ö äå ®ãåéá _ ì"Ö äå ®ä ìâ äå ® çp äå ®Öâ äå ®ãåé øéâá ì ö äå ®äVæ"ò äå ®ãåé øéâá ã îòäå ®ãåéá ãé î#ò äå ®ä ì#ò äå ®ì à"î"× äå ®ä ëYE äå í ä ä includes a number of conjugations: áé Ö ä with yod, á Ö ä without yod, á Ö ä, çð ä, ä k ä, ìé v ä with yod, ì v ä without yod, Öb ä, çp ä, ä ìâ ä, _ ì"Ö ä with yod, _ ì"Ö ä without yod, ø ö"ô ä, òð"ë ä, ä ëYE ä, ì à"î"× ä, ä ì#ò ä, ãé î#ò ä with yod, ã î#ò ä without yod, and äVæ"ò ä. [FEA I , r–v]
A student who knew to which group a sample imperative belonged, could work out past and participle forms from the mnemonic and did not have to remember them separately. The mnemonics ä î î&g ä and éðé a are also closely associated with this classification because ä î î&g ä summarizes vowels of future prefixes in the class í ä ä and éðé a does the same for the class ïð"ä.19 .. Algorithms of Parsing ... Algorithms for Establishing Imperative Bases The author equipped his readers with algorithms of parsing attested forms for the purpose of establishing imperative bases. He instructed students that the easiest way to work out imperatives was to look for forms with future prefixes or for active participles with the prefix mem.
19
FEA I , fol. v.
chapter eight
Given any of these forms, one can elide its prefix and get the imperative: ®
®
àîà óãçà ìàá÷úñàìà èôì àîàå ìòàôìà íñà àîà ãö÷à øîàìà úãøà éúîô ® ® ®øîàìà ãëå ìàá÷úñàìà óøç àîàå ìòàôìà íéî
When you need [to establish] an imperative, look for an active participle or a future form, elide either the mem of the active participle or the future prefix and take the imperative. [FEA I , fol. r]
To make the logic behind this procedure clearer, the author gave this real life parallel: ®
®
®
àøîç äîàîò àãáà äñàø éìò ïåëé ïáåàø äîñà ïî ìë ïà ìå÷é ïî éøâî êìã éøâé ® ® ® ® øöëìàå øîçìà íéàîòìà áàçöà ãö÷à ïáåàø äîñà ïî úãøà éúîô àøöë äîàîòå
It is as if somebody told you that everybody whose name is Reuven always wears a red or a green turban on his head. Then if you had to find a person whose name is Reuven, you would look for people in red and green turbans. [FEA I , fol. r]
The exact algorithm for inferring imperative bases depended on the nature of the prefix. For affixed prefixes20 a mere elision of the prefix produces the imperative: ® ®
®
®
®
®äãàéæ éìà øîàìà êìã âàúçé àì äúôãç àãà áëàø ïàë àãàô
If [the prefix] is affixed, when you elide it, the imperative does not require any additions. [FEA I , fol. r]
For example, the imperative _V a can be obtained by the elision of the affixed prefix aleph from the future _V á"à or the elision of the affixed mem from the active participle _V á"î. In case of a built-in prefix,21 the imperative is obtained by the replacement of the future or participle prefix by the prefix heh: ® ®
®
®
®
à ä äãàéæ éìà øîàìà êìã âàúçà äúôãç àãà éðáî ïàë àãàå
If [the prefix] is built-in, when you elide it, the imperative requires an addition of the heh. [FEA I , fol. r]
Thus, eliding the built-in aleph from the future form ìé!v à or the built-in mem from the active participle form ìé!v î and replacing them by a heh will result in the imperative form ìé v ä.
20 21
See ... See ...
pedagogical strategies in kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud
... Algorithms for Determining Nuclear Components of Complex Forms As is well known, a written Hebrew word, i.e. a text unit between two spaces, can consist of a word with its various affixes joined together with syntactical elements such as the article, the conjunction we- and monosyllabic prepositions. Such forms must be divided into their components before they can be parsed morphologically. A special chapter ‘On stripping words of added letters in order for a word to return to its basic form without additions’ is dedicated in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud to splitting such complex forms into constituents and determining their nucleus. In this chapter the author analyzed compounds based on various verbal forms, namely imperatives, e.g. eîe÷iå; active participles, e.g. íé!ë"ìÇä ä; past forms, e.g Öé!cO!ä ä; and infinitives, e.g. í ë"úÇð"á!a. Each example was intended to serve as a model for stripping other words of the respective pattern: ®
®
®
®
àäìúî àäðæå ïàë àî ìë úéøâà äãçàå äîìë àäðî êì õìëú àãà
If one of the words is stripped for you, you can handle everything of its morphological pattern in the same manner. [FEA I , fol. v]
Below is a section on stripping forms based on active participles: ìöô ®
®
íé!ÖO á"î ä íé!ë"ô&ä ä íé!ë"ìÇä ä å÷ë ïéìòàôìà àîñà éìò äéðáîìà íìëìà õéìëú éô ® ® ® íé!ë"ôÇä íé!ë"ìÇä úàøëð úé÷á àîñàìà ñåø ïî óéøòúìì éãìà úààäìà úöìë àãà ® ® ® ® ñ÷å ä ÖO á"î _ ôÇä _ ìÇä à÷áé òîâìì ïàãìà íàîå ãåé àäðî úöìë àãàô íé!ÖO á"î ® ® :äéøâî éøâ àî äéìò
Section On stripping words based on active participles, e.g. íé!ë"ìÇä ä, íé!ë"ô&ä ä, íé!ÖO á"î ä. If you strip the heh’s of definiteness from the beginning of the participles, they will become indefinite, íé!ë"ìÇä, íé!ë"ôÇä, íé!ÖO á"î. Then if you strip them off the yod and mem of the plural, what will remain is _ ìÇä, _ ôÇä, ä ÖO á"î.22 Treat similar cases by analogy. [FEA I , fol. v]
.. Model Analyses of Biblical Passages On two occasions Biblical passages are used as model texts demonstrating methods of grammatical analysis.23 In the very beginning of the book 22
This participle form is hypothetical, see ... Similar passages in Me"or #Ayin have previously been identified as pedagogical by A. Maman (:). 23
chapter eight
in the chapter ‘On parts of speech’ the author discussed characteristic features of verbs, nouns and particles and established criteria for attributing words to a part of speech. He then applied these criteria to Gen. :– in order to create a model for analogical analyses of the Scripture and of the Hebrew language in general. The analysis of Gen. : is: ®
®
ìéà÷ ìà÷ ïà ºäâììà øéàñå àø÷îìà òéîâ äéìò ñà÷éì úéùàøá ìöô õìëà àðààäå ® ® ºàäéìò áëàø à áìà ïàì íñà éä äì ì÷ íãàë íà ìòô íà íñà éä úéùàøá äèôì ® ® ® ® ® êîì óåøç äéìò áëøé ïàì íñà íé!äì"à éöàîìà ïàîæìàá õúëà ã÷ äðàì ìòô àT a ® ® ® ® ® ºíãàë ú àå ®äéìò áëàø à äìà ïàì íñà íé î ùä ºíãàë ú à ®íéäìàá íéäìàî å÷ë äá ® ® ® ® àãàå íéD á#ò ã á ò ìúî íé!öT"à àöéà äòîâúå à äìà äéìò áëø ã÷ ïàì íñà õW à ä ® :úÇî ë"ç ä î ë"ç ìúî ä öT"à àäðî ãçàåìàô úÇöT"à úéàø
I will now analyze a portion from Genesis so that the entire Scripture and the rest of the language be treated by analogy. If someone says: ‘Is the word úé!ÖàV"a a noun, a verb, or a particle?’ tell him: ‘it is a noun, because [the letter] bet is affixed to it.’ àT a is a verb because it specifically refers to the ® ® ® ® ® past tense. íé!äÀ"à is a noun because the letters äá êîì can be affixed to it as it is said íé!äÀà î, íé!äÀà a. ú à is a particle. íé î g ä is a noun because the heh is attached to it. ú àå is a particle. õW à ä is a noun because the heh is attached to it and also [because] you can make it plural íé!öT"à as ã á ò–íéD á#ò. But if you encounter úÇöT"à, the singular of it is ä öT"à, as in ä î ë"ç–úÇî ë"ç.24 [FEA I , fol. r]
Later in the book a model analysis of all verbs in Ps. exemplifies the attribution of attested verbs to symbols: ®
®
®
®øeâé éî éé ãåãì øåîæî ®êìã ïî äòéîâ äéìò ñà÷éì ìöô àø÷îìà ïî øééñà àðààäå äîìë ìëå ì òeù ïî åäå øîàåàìà éìò áëøé ìàá÷úñàìà óøç ïàì øeâ øeâé ïî øîàìà ® ® ®øëãìà ïî àäôãçà àðà óéøöú àäì ñéì øåîæîìà éô ®
®úT"ô ïî åäå ø&î"Ö ø&î"Öé ìúî ï&ë"Ö àäðî øîàìà ï&ë"Öé ®_ ì ä øáòìà ïàì úT"ô ïî éäå _À"ä øîàìàå ìòàô íñà _ ìÇä ®®®
I will now set forth [an analysis of] a portion from the Scripture so that ® the whole can be treated analogously. øeâé é!î éé ãå@"ì øÇîæ!î (Ps. :). The imperative of øeâé is øeb because the letters of the future are attached to imperatives. It belongs to ì òeÖ. I will not mention those words in the Psalm which cannot be conjugated. 24
The pairs attested singular õW à–hypothetical plural íé!öT"à, hypothetical singular were created to maintain the regularity in the derivation of plural forms, in that singular forms ending in -ah always have plural forms ending in -ot and singular forms which do not end in -ah always have plural forms ending in -im. The same principle of derivation of plural forms was applied by Ibn N¯uh. (see Khan (a:– )). ä öT"à–attested plural úÇöT"à
pedagogical strategies in kit¯ab al-#uq¯ud
The imperative of ï&k"Öé (Ps. :) is ï&ë"Ö, similar to ø&î"Öé–ø&î"Ö. It belongs to úT"t. _ ìÇä (Ps. :) is an active participle, úT"t because the past is _ ì ä …
the imperative is _À"ä.25 It belongs to [FEA I , fol. v]
25 This imperative is hypothetical. Hypothetical imperatives of this type were proposed by early Karaite grammarians (see Khan (a:)).
chapter nine CONCLUSIONS
In this book I have reconstructed from unpublished sources and described the medieval Karaite treatise on Hebrew grammar Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud f¯ı Tas. a¯r¯ıf al-Lu˙ga al-#Ibr¯aniyya. Based on this reconstruction, I conducted a comparative study of Karaite approaches to the verbal conjugation of Biblical Hebrew as they are reflected in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud and other Karaite works on verbal morphology, such as the Diqduq of Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub Y¯usuf Ibn N¯uh, . an anonymous treatise on the Hebrew verbs, al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil and al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı by Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un, an anonymous treatise Me"or #Ayin and a number of grammatical Genizah fragments of Karaite origin. I anticipated that such comparative analysis could contribute to identifying the lines of development and transmission of the Karaite grammatical tradition. Now that the details of the relation between the grammars in the area of verbal conjugation have been elucidated, it is possible to draw conclusions on the position of Kit¯ab al#Uq¯ud and Me"or #Ayin in the chain of the Karaite grammatical works. As was mentioned in the introduction, two periods are distinguished in the development of the Karaite grammatical thought.1 In the early period (till the end of the th–the beginning of the th century) grammars took the shape of grammatical commentaries to difficult places in the text of the Bible with limited attempts to present grammatical knowledge systematically in the area of verbal and nominal inflection. On the other hand, in the classical period (th century) integral systematic grammars of the Biblical language were produced. The present study shows that the classical period can be further divided into two successive stages. Initially comprehensive scholarly grammars were composed which dealt with all areas of Hebrew linguistics, and, indeed, were concerned with Language in general. Such grammars were authored by Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un ibn Faraj. These were followed by pedagogical grammars intended to teach Biblical Hebrew to beginning students represented by Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud and Me"or #Ayin. The pedagogical
1
See Khan (a, b); Khan et al. (:xi–xxxii).
chapter nine
grammars were based on scholarly grammars which they shortened and adapted for the needs of the beginners. The appearance of these works is well in line with the general trend to create didactic abridgments evident in the Arabic and Judaeo-Arabic literature of the th century.2 Although still broad in scope pedagogical grammars concentrated mainly on morphology, verbal and to a lesser extent nominal, leaving syntactical, semantic and lexicological issues at the outskirts. They resembled early attempts at systematizing morphological knowledge in providing large numbers of extensive and often purely hypothetical paradigms of Hebrew verbs. Besides, the pedagogical grammars are distinguished by the gradual character of presentation and the use of various didactic strategies designed to facilitate learning and equip students with tools for independent investigation of the Biblical text. Admittedly, didactic elements were pointed out in a number of studies on both early and scholarly Karaite grammatical works. G. Khan suggested that the practice of offering alternative explanations of grammatical difficulties in the Biblical text characteristic of early Karaite grammarians was a pedagogical device which ‘encouraged enquiry and engagement rather then passive acceptance of authority.’3 A. Maman identified the following didactic tools in al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil by Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un: () abundant examples; () description of phenomena in exhaustive detail; () analysis of multiple examples; () repetition of terms and definitions; and () revision of grammatical notions explained before.4 Yet in these works didactic elements are sporadic. In contrast, in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud and Me"or #Ayin the pedagogical aspect is so prominent that it defines both the focus of the books and the way material is presented. In terms of the grammatical theory Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud combines the approach of Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un with that of early grammarians. It is well known that despite including elements of earlier teachings in his description of the verbal morphology, in particular the system of symbols and the practice of proposing imperative bases as a means of parsing verbal forms,5 Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un broke with the early tradition in a number of cases, often by virtue of adopting a semantic rather than a purely
2 3 4 5
See Arazi, Ben Shammai (). Khan (b:). Maman (:–). See Khan et al. (:xxxvii–xxxviii).
conclusions
structural approach to verbal derivation.6 Thus, he argued that the infinitive rather than the imperative was the primary verb form on the grounds of its semantic priority. In the same vein he dismissed passive imperative bases which were commonly proposed by early grammarians as semantically unsound. In all such issues of divergence between the early tradition and Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un the author of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud followed the latter. Yet in the derivation of forms proper, he adopted the most rigid approach developed by the early school which demanded complete structural correspondence between the imperative and its derivative forms. Most types of hypothetical imperatives proposed by early grammarians to account for deviations in attested forms are recorded in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud. Moreover, Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud is more rigorous at preserving the one-to-one correspondence between a derivational base and its inflections than most early grammars. Indeed, where early grammarians offered alternative imperatives of a derivative form or alternative derivatives of an imperative base, our author made a definitive choice. Examples include the twofold vocalization of third guttural imperatives depending on the vocalization of the occurring form, rigid choice of the middle vowel in second weak verbs in pa#al, and the invariable vocalization of the m.sg. past form of pi#el verbs with a patah. in the final syllable. Structural analogy between verb forms is carried out to the utmost in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud, often at the expense of semantic and prosodical considerations. Thus, grammatical patterns of imperative bases of active or context verbs were extended to analogical forms even if these are passive or pausal. On the other hand, íé!ìeî (Josh. :) was not interpreted as a passive participle on the grounds of the lack of a base of analogy, because other middle weak verbs in pa#al were deemed not to have passive participles. A possible explanation of the return to rigid structuralism complemented by a strong tendency to regularize grammatical features of verbs can be seen in the didactic nature of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud. Indeed, a system of verbal conjugation in which everything is standardized and analogical could have been perceived as most easily accessible to beginning students. Most innovations found in Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud are of a pedagogical nature, too. Apart from some new types of hypothetical imperatives (e.g. imperatives with and without yod in tri-radical verbs), the author introduced
6
See Khan ().
chapter nine
new tools of morphological analysis, such as the status of consonants and vowels, and new ways of presenting morphological information, including lucid conjugational patterns, rules of derivational relations, new mnemonics and systems of verbal classification. The grammatical and pedagogical system of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud was fully adopted in Me"or #Ayin which makes an impression of a compilative rather than creative work, at least with regard to verbal morphology.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Allony, N., , Ha-Egron, Jerusalem. ———, , ‘Three excerpts from Qarqa#ot ha-Diqduq by Joshua ben Abraham,’ in Gilat, Y.D., Levine, H.Y., Rabinowitz, S.M. (eds), Studies in Rabbinic Literature, Bible and Jewish History in Honor of Prof. E.Z. Melamed, Ramat-Gan, pp. – [in Hebrew]. ———, , ‘Genizah fragments of Hebrew philology,’ in Festschrift zum jährigen Bestehen der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek: Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer (P. Rainer Cent.), Vienna, pp. –. Ankori, Z., , Karaites in Byzantium, New York, Jerusalem. Arazi, A., Ben Shammai, H., , ‘Mukhtas. ar,’ in The Encyclopaedia of Islam (New Edition), Leiden, vol. , cols. –. Bacher, W., Kaufmann, D., Grünwald, Porgés, , ‘Les singes mnémoniques des lettres radicales et serviles,’ Revue des Études Juives , pp. –. Bacher, W., a, ‘Le grammairien anonyme de Jérusalem,’ Revue des Études Juives , pp. –. ———, b, Die Anfänge der Hebräischen Grammatik, Leipzig. Baker, C.F., Polliack, M., , Arabic and Judeo-Arabic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections: Arabic Old Series (T-S Ar.a-), Cambridge. Basal, N., , ‘Excerpts from the abridgment (al-Muhtas. ar) of al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı ˘ by Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un in Arabic script,’ Israel Oriental Studies , pp. – [in Hebrew]. ———, , ‘Part One of al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil by Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un and its dependence on Ibn al-Sarr¯aj’s Kit¯ab al-Us. u¯ l f¯ı al-Nahu, . ’ Leshonenu , pp. – [in Hebrew]. ———, , ‘The concept of h¯ . al in al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil of Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un in comparison with Ibn al-Sarr¯aj,’ Israel Oriental Studies , pp. – [in Hebrew]. ———, , ‘A fragment of Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un’s al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil in Arabic script,’ Jewish Quarterly Review , pp. –. ———, , ‘Specification in the syntactical understanding of the Karaite grammarian Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un,’ Pe#amim , pp. – [in Hebrew]. Becker, D., , ‘The “ways” of the Hebrew verb according to the Karaite grammarians Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un and the author of Me"or #Ayin,’ in Friedman, M.A. (ed.), Studies in Judaica, Te#udah , Tel-Aviv, pp. – [in Hebrew]. ———, , ‘#Od simanim ba-laˇson ha-#irit,’ Leshonenu la-#Am (), pp. –. ———, , ‘A unique semantic classification of the Hebrew verb taken by the Qaraite "Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un from the Arab grammarian "Ibn al-Sarr¯aj,’ Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam , pp. –. Beit-Arié, M., , Hebrew Codicology. Tentative Typology of Technical Practices Employed in Hebrew Dated Medieval Manuscripts, Jerusalem. Ben-Sasson, H.H., , ‘The Karaite community of Jerusalem in the tentheleventh centuries,’ Shalem , pp. – [in Hebrew].
bibliography
Ben-Shammai, H., , ‘The Karaites,’ in Prawer, J., Ben-Shammai, H. (eds), The History of Jerusalem. The Early Muslim Period (–), Jerusalem, pp. –. Ben-Yehuda, E., , Thesaurus Totius Hebraitatis et Veteris et Recentioris, vols, New York, London (complete international centennial edition). BDB: Brown, F., Driver, S.R., Briggis, C.A., , A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Oxford (reprint with corrections). Cowley, A.E., , Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar as Edited and Enlarged by E. Kautzsch, Oxford (reprinted ). Dalman, G., , Grammatik des Jüdish-Palästinischen Aramäisch, Leipzig. Derenbourg, J., , Manuel du Lecteur, d’un Auteur Inconnu, Paris. ———, , Le Livre des Parterres Fleuris. Grammaire Hébraïque en Arabe D’Abou’l-Walid Merwan Ibn Djanah de Cordoue, Paris. ———, , ‘Les singes mnémotechniques des lettres radicales et serviles,’ Revue des Études Juives , pp. –. Diehl, W., , Das Pronomen Personale Suffixum: . und . Pers. Plur. des Hebräischen in der Alttestamentlichen Ueberlieferung, Giessen. Diez-Macho, A., , ‘A new list of so-called “Ben Naftali” manuscripts,’ in Winton Thomas, D., McHardy, W.D. (eds), Hebrew and Semitic Studies presented to Godfrey Rolles Driver, Oxford, pp. –. Dodi, A., , ‘A morphological study of the weak verbs in Targum Onqelos,’ Leshonenu , pp. – [in Hebrew]. Dotan, A., , The Diqduqé Hat. t. e˘#amim of Ah˘aron ben Moˇse ben Aˇsér, Jerusalem [in Hebrew]. ———, , ‘Masorah,’ in Encyclopaedia Judaica, Jerusalem, vol. , cols. – . ———, , The Dawn of Hebrew Linguistics. The Book of Elegance of the Language of the Hebrews by Saadia Gaon, vols, Jerusalem [in Hebrew]. Dozy, R., , Supplément aux Dictionnaires Arabes, vols, Leiden-Paris (rd. edition). Eldar, I., , The Hebrew Language Tradition in Medieval Ashkenaz (ca. – C.E.), Jerusalem [in Hebrew]. ———, , ‘Chapter concerning the places of articulation of the consonants from the long version of Hid¯ayat al-Q¯ari,’ Leshonenu , pp. – [in Hebrew]. ———, , ‘Muhtas. ar Hid¯ayat al-Q¯ari edited according to Genizah fragments,’ Leshonenu ,˘pp. –; , pp. – [in Hebrew]. ———, , The Study of the Art of Correct Reading as Reflected in the Medieval Treatise Hid¯ayat al-Q¯ari (= Guidance of the Reader), Jerusalem [in Hebrew]. Erder, Y., , ‘The mourners of Zion,’ in Polliack, M. (ed.), Karaite Judaism, Leiden, pp. –. Gallego, M.Á., , ‘Origen y evolución del lenguaje según el gramático y exegeta caraíta Ab¯u al-Fara˘g H¯ar¯un ibn al-Fara˘g,’ Sefarad /, pp. –. Gil, M., , A History of Palestine, –. Translated from the Hebrew by Ethel Broido, Cambridge and New York. Goldenberg, E., , ‘The first Hebrew conjugation table,’ Leshonenu , pp. – [in Hebrew].
bibliography
Hava, J.G., , Arabic-English Dictionary for the Use of Students, Beirut. Harkavy, A., , Studien und Mittheilungen aus der Kaiserlichen Oeffentlichen Bibliothek zu St. Petersburg V, St. Petersburg. Hirschfeld, H., , Arabic Chrestomathy in Hebrew Characters, with a Glossary, London. ———, –, ‘An unknown grammatical work by Abul-Faraj Harun,’ Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series , pp. –. Joüon, P.—Muraoka, T., , A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, vols, Rome. Khan, G., , ‘Vowel length and syllable structure in the Tiberian tradition of Biblical Hebrew,’ Journal of Semitic Studies /, pp. –. ———, , ‘"Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un and the early Karaite grammatical tradition,’ The Journal of Jewish Studies , pp. –. ———, , ‘The book of Hebrew grammar by the Karaite Joseph ben Noah,’ Journal of Semitic Studies , pp. –. ———, a, ‘The Karaite tradition of Hebrew grammatical thought,’ in Horbury, W. (ed.), Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda, Edinburgh, pp. – . ———, b, ‘The early Karaite grammatical tradition,’ in Targona Borrás, J., Sáenz-Badillos, A. (eds), Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century. Proceedings of the th EAJS Congress, Toledo, July, . Volume I: Biblical, Rabbinical, and Medieval Studies, Leiden, pp. –. ———, a, The Early Karaite Tradition of Hebrew Grammatical Thought: Including a Critical Edition, Translation and Analysis of the Diqduq of Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub Y¯usuf Ibn N¯uh. on the Hagiographa, Leiden. ———, b, Early Karaite Grammatical Texts, Atlanta. ———, , ‘Biblical exegesis and grammatical theory in the Karaite tradition,’ in Khan, G. (ed.), Exegesis and Grammar in Medieval Karaite Texts, Oxford, pp. –. ———, a, ‘The notion of transitive and intransitive actions in the early Karaite grammatical tradition,’ Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam , pp. –. ———, b, ‘The medieval Karaite tradition of Hebrew grammar,’ Boletín de la Asociacion Española de Orientalistas XXXVIII, pp. –. Khan, G., Gallego, M.Á., Olszowy-Schlanger, J., , The Karaite Tradition of Hebrew Grammatical Thought in its Classical Form: A Critical Edition and English Translation of al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı f¯ı al-Lu˙ga al-#Ibr¯aniyya by Ab¯u al-Fara˘g H¯ar¯un ibn al-Fara˘g, vols, Leiden. Khan, G., , ‘Fragments from an early Karaite grammatical treatise,’ in Juusola, H., et al. (eds), Verbum et Calamus: Semitic and Related Studies in Honour of the Sixtieth Birthday of Professor Tapani Harviainen, Helsinki, pp. – . ———, , ‘The contextual status of words in the early Karaite tradition of Hebrew grammar,’ in Maman, A., Fassberg, S.E., Breuer, Y. (eds), Sha#arei Lashon; Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic and Jewish Languages Presented to Moshe Bar-Asher, vols, Jerusalem, vol. , pp. –. Klatzkin, J., –, Thesaurus Philosophicus Linguae Hebraicae et Veteris et Recentioris, vols, Berlin.
bibliography
Lambert, M., , Termes Massorétiques, Prosodie Hébraïque et Autres Études; Appendices à la Grammaire Hébraïque, Geneve. Lane, E.W., , Arabic-English Lexicon: Derived from the Best and Most Copious Eastern Sources by Edward William Lane, vols, London. Law, V., , Grammar and Grammarians in the Early Middle Ages, London. Maman, A., , ‘Review of Zislin (),’ Leshonenu , pp. – [in Hebrew]. ———, a, ‘Medieval grammatical thought: Karaites versus Rabbanites,’ Language Studies , pp. – [in Hebrew]. ———, b, ‘The infinitive and the verbal noun according to Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un,’ in Bar-Asher, M. (ed.), Studies in Hebrew and Jewish Languages Presented to Shelomo Morag, Jerusalem, pp. – [in Hebrew]. ———, , ‘The “#amal” theory in the grammatical thought of Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un,’ in Bar-Asher, M. (ed.), Massorot. Studies in Language Traditions and Jewish Languages [Gideon Goldenberg Festschrift], Jerusalem, pp. – [in Hebrew]. ———, , ‘The Hebrew alphabet as a grammatical mnemotechnic framework: Introduction to al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil, Part III,’ Language Studies , pp. – [in Hebrew]. ———, , ‘Order and meaning in radical letters: Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯a r¯un’s Al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil, Part VII,’ Pe#amim , pp. – [in Hebrew]. ———, , ‘Karaite Hebrew,’ in Polliack, M. (ed.), Karaite Judaism, Leiden, pp. –. ———, , Otzrot Lashon: The Hebrew Philology Manuscripts and Genizah Fragments in the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York, Jerusalem [in Hebrew]. ———, , ‘Karaite Hebrew grammatical thought—state of the art,’ in del Valle, C., García-Jalón, S., Monferrer-Sala, J.P. (eds), Maimónides y Su Época, Madrid. Mann, J., , Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature, vols, Cincinnati. Margoliouth, G., , ‘Ibn al-H¯ıt¯ı’s Arabic chronicle of Karaite doctors,’ Jewish Quarterly Review , pp. –. Morag, S., , ‘The vocalization of Codex Reuchlinianus: Is “pre-Masoretic” Bible pre-Masoretic?’ Journal of Semitic Studies /, pp. –. ———, , The Hebrew Language Tradition of the Yemenite Jews, Jerusalem. ———, , The Vocalization Systems of Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic, Mouton. Nemoy, L., , Karaite Anthology, New Haven, London. Neubauer, A., , Kit¯ab al-Us. u¯ l: The Book of Hebrew Roots by Abu ’L-Wal¯ıd Marw¯an ibn Janah, . Oxford. Olszowy-Schlanger, J., , ‘Karaite linguistics: the “renaissance” of the Hebrew language among early Karaite Jews, and contemporary linguistic theories,’ Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft , pp. –. ———, , ‘Early Qaraite grammarians and their concept of the Hebrew root,’ Histoire, Épistémologie, Langage /, pp. –. ———, , ‘The “Explanation of Difficult Words” by "Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un ibn
bibliography
al-Faraj,’ in Khan, G. (ed.), Exegesis and Grammar in Medieval Karaite Texts, Oxford, pp. –. Outhwaite, B., , A Descriptive Grammar of the Medieval Hebrew of the Cairo Geniza Letters, PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge (unpublished). ———, , ‘Karaite epistolary Hebrew: the letters of Toviyyah ben Moshe,’ in . Khan, G. (ed.), Exegesis and Grammar in Medieval Karaite Texts, Oxford, pp. –. Petri, H., , Das Verbum mit Suffixen im Hebräischen. . Teil: In den íéàéáð íéðùàø, Leipzig. Poznanski, S., a, ‘Aboul-Faradj Haroun ben al-Faradj le grammairien de Jérusalem et son Mouschtamil,’ Revue des Études Juives , pp. –, – . ———, b, ‘Karaite Miscellanies,’ Jewish Quarterly Review , pp. –. ———, , ‘Nouveaux renseignements sur Abou-l-Faradj Haroun ben alFaradj et ses ouvrages,’ Revue des Études Juives , pp. –. Rozin, D., , ‘The meaning of the mnemonic formulae for the radical and servile letters in Hebrew,’ Jewish Quarterly Review, Old Series , pp. – . Sáenz-Badillos, A., , Teˇsubot de Dunaˇs ben Labrat: Edición crítica y traducción española de Angel Sáenz-Badillos, Granada. ———, , M˘enahem ben Saruq/ Mahberet: Edición crítica e introducción de . . Angel Sáenz-Badillos, Granada. ———, , A History of the Hebrew Language, Cambridge. Schoeler, G., , The Oral and the Written in Early Islam, London. Skoss, S.L., –, The Hebrew-Arabic Dictionary of the Bible known as ˘ ami# al-Alf¯az. (Agron) of David ben Abraham al-F¯as¯ı the Karaite, vols, Kit¯ab G¯ New Haven. Schwarb, G., Yeshu#ah ben Yehudah (Ab¯u "l-Faraj Furq¯an b. Asad), Muqaddimat Jaw¯ab¯at al-Mas¯a"il al-Mushakkala f¯ı"l-Arayot, Arabic Text with Hebrew Translation and Glossary, (forthcoming). Shaked, S., , ‘Two Judaeo-Iranian contributions,’ in Shaked, S. (ed.), IranoJudaica. Studies relating to Jewish Contacts with Persian Culture Throughout the Ages, Jerusalem, pp. –. Shivtiel, A., Niessen, F., , Arabic and Judaeo-Arabic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections: Taylor-Schechter New Series, Cambridge. Sperber, A., , The Bible in Aramaic Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts, vols, Leiden. Stevenson, W.B., , Grammar of Palestinian Jewish Aramaic, Oxford. Vidro, N., a, ‘A newly reconstructed Karaite work on Hebrew grammar,’ Journal of Semitic Studies /, pp. –. ———, b, Verbal Morphology in the Karaite Treatise on Hebrew Grammar Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud f¯ı Tas. a¯ r¯ıf al-Lu˙ga al-#Ibr¯aniyya, PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge (unpublished). ———, ‘Towards a critical edition of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud f¯ı Tas. a¯r¯ıf al-Lu˙ga al-#Ibr¯aniyya,’ in Gallego, M.Á., Monferrer-Sala, J.P. (eds), The Semitic Languages of Jewish Intellectual Production. Memorial volume for Dr. Friedrich Niessen (forthcoming).
bibliography
Wright, W., –, A Grammar of the Arabic Language, vols, Cambridge (rd. edition). Yannai, Y., Ofer, Y., , ‘ “We-simanak”: simanim ba-laˇson ha-#ibrit,’ Leshon¯ ¯ enu la-#Am (), pp. –. Yeivin, I., , Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah, Missoula. ———, , The Hebrew Language Tradition as Reflected in the Babylonian Vocalization, vols, Jerusalem [in Hebrew]. Zislin, M.N., , ‘Chapter from a grammatical work al-Kafi by Abu-l-Faradˇz Xarun ibn al-Faradˇz,’ Palyestinskiy Sbornik , pp. – [in Russian]. ———, , ‘Leningrad fragments from Kitab al-Kafi by Abu-l-Faradˇz Xarun ibn al-Faradˇz (XIth cent.),’ Semitskie yazyki, pp. – [in Russian]. ———, a, ‘Chapter from the second part of a grammatical work al-Kafi by Abu-l-Faradˇz Xarun ibn al-Faradˇz (XIth cent.),’ Kratkie Soobˇseniya Instituta Narodov Azii , pp. – [in Russian]. ———, b, ‘Abu-l-Faradˇz Xarun on the conjugation of Hebrew verb,’ Kratkie Soobˇseniya Instituta Narodov Azii , pp. – [in Russian]. ———, c, ‘Eastern school of Jewish grammarians in X–XII cent. (Résumé),’ Semitskie yazyki , pp. – [in Russian]. ———, , Me"or #Ayin, Moscow.
INDEX OF SOURCES
Biblical Verses Genesis Gen. :, Gen. :, Gen. :, Gen. :, Gen. :, Gen. :, , , , , Gen. :, Gen. :, , Gen. :, Gen. :, Gen. :, Gen. :, Gen. :, Gen. :, Gen. :, Gen. :, Gen. :, , Gen. :, Gen. :, Gen. :, Gen. :, Gen. :, , Exodus Ex. :, Ex. :, Ex. :, , , , Ex. :, Ex. :, Ex. :, , , Ex. :, , , , Ex. :, , Ex. :, Ex. :, , , Ex. :, Leviticus Lev. :, n
Lev. :, Lev. :, Lev. :, Lev. :, Lev. :, Lev. :, Lev. :, Numbers Num. :, Num. :, Num. :, Num. :, Num. :, Num. :, Deutoronomium Deut. :, Deut. :, Deut. :, , Deut. :, Deut. :, Deut. :, Deut. :, Joshua Josh. :, , , , Josh. :, Josh. :, Josh. :, Judges Judg. :, , Judg. :, Judg. :, Judg. :, , , Judg. :, Judg. :, , , Judg. :, Judg. :, Judg. :, ,
Samuel Sam. :, Sam. :, Sam. :, Sam. :, Sam. :, Sam. :, Sam. :, Sam. :, Sam. :, Sam. :, , Sam. :, , Sam. :, Sam. :, , Samuel Sam. :, , Sam. :, Sam. :, Sam. :, Sam. :, Sam. :, Sam. :, n Sam. :, , Kings Kings :, Kings :, Kings :, , Kings Kings :, Kings :, Kings :, Isaiah Isa. :, Isa. :, Isa. :, Isa. :, Isa. :, Isa. :, , , , Isa. :, Isa. :, Isa. :, , , ,
index of sources Isa. :, Isa. :, Isa. :, Isa. :, Isa. :, Isa. :, Isa. :, Isa. :, Isa. :, Isa. :, , Isa. :, Isa. :, , Isa. :, Isa. :, , Isa. :, , Isa. :, Isa. :, , Isa. :, Isa. :, Isa. :, , Isa. :, Isa. :, , , Isa. :, , Isa. :, , , Isa. :, Isa. :, , , Isa. :, Isa. :, Isa. :, Jeremiah Jer. :, n Jer. :, Jer. :, Jer. :, Jer. :, , Jer. :, Jer. :, n Jer. :, , Jer. :, Jer. :, , , Jer. :, Jer. :, Jer. :, Jer. :, Jer. :,
index of sources Jer. :, Jer. :, Jer. :, Jer. :, Jer. :, Jer. :, , Jer. :, Jer. :, Jer. :, Jer. :, Jer. :, , Jer. :, , , , Jer. :, Jer. :, Jer. :, Jer. :, Jer. :, , Ezekiel Ezek. :, Ezek. :, Ezek. :, Ezek. :, Ezek. :, Ezek. :, Ezek. :, Ezek. :, Ezek. :, n, , Ezek. :, , Ezek. :, Ezek. :, , Ezek. :, Ezek. :, Ezek. :, , , Ezek. :, , Ezek. :, Hosea Hos. :, , Hos. :, Amos Amos :, Jonah Jonah :, ,
Micah Micah :, Micah :, , Micah :, Nahum Nahum :, , , Nahum :, Habakkuk Hab. :, Hab. :, Zephaniah Zeph. :, Zeph. :, Zechariah Zech. :, Psalms Ps. :, n Ps. :, Ps. :, , Ps. :, – Ps. :, Ps. :, n Ps. :, n Ps. :, , Ps. :, , Ps. :, Ps. :, , , Ps. :, Ps. :, Ps. :, Ps. :, n Ps. :, Ps. :, Ps. :, Ps. :, , , , , , Ps. :, , Ps. :, Ps. :, Ps. :, Ps. :, Ps. :, , , Ps. :, ,
index of sources
Ps. :, , n Ps. :, Ps. :, , , Ps. :, Ps. :, n Ps. :, , , Ps. :, n Ps. :, Ps. :, , Ps. :, Ps. :, Ps. :, Ps. :, Ps. :, , , n Ps. :, , , Ps. :, Ps. :, , Ps. :, , n Ps. :, Ps. :, Ps. :, Proverbs Prov. :, Prov. :, Prov. :, , , n Prov. :, Prov. :, , , Prov. :, Prov. :, , , Prov. :, Prov. :, n Prov. :, Prov. :, Job Job :, Job :, Job :, , , Job :, Job :, Job :, , Job :, Job :, Job :, Job :, Job :, , ,
Job :, , Job :, Job :, Job :, Job :, , n, Job :, Job :, Job :, Job :, Job :, , Job :, Job :, Job :, Job :, Job :, Job :, n Job :, Job :, Job :, , Job :, Song of Songs Cant. :, Ruth Ruth :, Ruth :, Ruth :, n Ruth :, Ruth :, , Ruth :, , n Lamentations Lament. :, Lament. :, , n Lament. :, Lament. :, , n Lament. :, Lament. :, , Ecclesiastes Eccl. :, Eccl. :, n Eccl. :, Eccl. :, Eccl. :,
index of sources Esther Esth. :, Esth. :, Daniel Dan. :, Dan. :, Dan. :, Dan. :, Dan. :, , Ezra Ezra :, Ezra :, Chronicles Chron. :, Chron. :, , , Chronicles Chron. :, Chron. :, Chron. :, , Chron. :, , n Manuscripts Manuscripts of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud FEA I , , , , , n, , , FEA I , , , , , , , passim FEA I , , FEA I , , , , , n
T-S Ar. ., T-S Ar. ., T-S Ar. ., , n, n T-S NS ., JTS ENA ., JTS ENA .–, , BL Or. E, , , , , n, n, n Manuscripts of works other than Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud T-S K., T-S NS ., T-S NS ., T-S AS ., Mosseri I.., JTS ENA ., , , , n, , n, JTS ENA .–, JTS ENA .–, , , , n, n, , n, , Bodl. MS Hebr. d., , n FEA I , n, n FEA I , n, n, n, n, n, , n FEA I , n, n, n, n FEA I , n FEA I , n II Firk. Arab.-Evr. , n II Firk. Evr. C , n
GENERAL INDEX he-#abar lah, , n ¯ lah¯a, , n al-#abar he-#a¯bar lahem, , n ¯ lahum, , n al-#abar ¯ Abraham ibn Ezra, Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un ibn Faraj, , , –, , –. See also al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı, al-Kit¯ab alMuˇstamil on primary verb form, n on principles of verbal derivation, on status of letters and vowels, , on system of symbols, , , , , , , , , terminology of, – on particular verbal forms, , , , –, , Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub Y¯usuf Ibn N¯uh, . , , . See also Diqduq active participle in description of verbal paradigm, –, , for establishing imperatives, , – mnemonics for prefixes of, , of hypothetical final heh imperatives, of passive imperatives, with pronominal suffixes, vocalization of m.sg. participles of geminated niph#al verbs, – agent, , , , . See also noun of agent #al¯ama, , n, #al¯amat al-#abar, , ¯ #al¯amat al-amr, amr bi-˙gayr yod, amr bi-ra"sih,
amr bi-yod, al-amr lah¯a, , n al-amr lahum, n analogy, , base of, – #aqd, #uq¯ud, –, , , , Arabic literature, , , , Aramaic, , arba# hur¯ . uf as. liyya, arba# mukarrara, as. l, as. l yuq¯as #alayh, asm¯a" z¯ . ahira, attribute, attributive construction, beginners, , , , , , binyanim, , , , Byzantium, , – Codex Leningradensis, n compensatory lengthening, compound forms, conjoined form, , , , , , –, , connective, contextual gender, dagesh, , – dam¯ . a"ir, David ben Abraham al-F¯as¯ı, , , , , , , derek, ¯ derivative forms, , –, – , , , , didactic strategies, , , , , –, , – Diqduq, . See also Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub Y¯usuf Ibn N¯uh. grammatical terminology in,
general index
Diqduq (cont.) on imperative in its primary form, on plural of nouns, n and system of symbols, n, – translation principles in, n on verbal classification, on particular verbal forms, , , , , –, , n, , n, –, , , , , disjoined form, , , , , , Dunaˇs ben Labrat., elision, , , . See also letter, elided emphatic element, Eˇskol hak-Kop¯ er, far#, fi#l f¯ı al-˙gayr, , fi#l f¯ı al-nafs, fi#l f¯ı nafsih, , , n, f¯ı al-nafs g˙ayr muta#addin, , furtive patah, . , n, –, future in description of verbal paradigm, –, , for establishing imperatives, , – mnemonics for vocalization of future prefixes, , with pronominal suffixes, – vocalization of sg. future prefix, , g˙ayr muta#addin, , genitive construction, gezarot, , , , grammatical commentaries, , grammatical commentary in JudaeoPersian, , n, , Greek,
hataph patah, . . , hataph qamas. , . hataph segol, . Hid¯ayat al-Q¯ari", n, hiph#il, , , first guttural, , , first yod (originally first waw), , , first nun, , , geminated, –, , , jussive (without yod), , , , , , , , – with aramaising gemination of the first radical, , indicative (with yod), , , – , , , , , – middle weak, –, , , , , – originally first yod, pausal, , with prefix aleph instead of heh, quadriliteral, , with retraction of tone, with shewa on the second radical, , , strong, , third guttural, , , , , , – third weak, , hireq, , . hitpa#el, , , , , –, , , , , , . See also infi#¯al, ifti#¯al with assimilation of the prefix taw, , , , , –, n first sibilant, , –, , , with prefix aleph instead of heh, second guttural, , , , , , strong, , third aleph, third guttural, , third weak, ,
general index hitpalpel, hitpo#el, , with assimilation of the prefix taw, first sibilant, third guttural, holam, , , , , , . hoph#al, , , – third weak, –, , hur¯ . uf as. liyya, hur¯ . uf jawhariyya, hur¯ . uf mabniyya, , hur¯ . uf musta#mala, , al-hur¯ . uf al-neqebot, ¯ hur¯ . uf r¯akiba, , al-hur¯ u f al-ze karim, . ¯ jawhar, , n Jerusalem, , , , –, n, , ifti#¯al, , , –, imperative(s) alternative, , –, characteristic vowel of, – classification of by mnemonics, – as derivational base, , in description of verbal paradigm, –, , establishing, , , –, – , –, first, with the function of infinitives, – guttural, –, –, which have no past, , , , , – hypothetical, , n, , , , n, , –, , –, , , , , n, n, inferred from jussive forms, , , inferred from pausal forms, – , in its primary form, passive, n, –,
as primary verb form, , n, with pronominal suffixes, – sample, , – second, structurally identical, , –, terminology for, , n types of, – in verbal classification, , –, – with yod, – without yod, , – infi#¯al, , , – infinitive, , –, n, – , –, initial item, intransitive verbs, , –, –, Iran, Iraq, , Islamic education, ism f¯a #il allad¯ . ı l¯a min tas. r¯ıf, ism f¯a #il laysa ma" h¯ud. min al-tas. r¯ıf, ˘ n ism f¯a #il ma" h¯ud. min al-amr wa-l˘ tas. r¯ıf, n jussive, , ka-l-as. l¯ı, Karaite grammar classical, –, early, –, , , n, , , n, , , pedagogical, , , – scholarly, , Kit¯ab J¯ami# al-Alf¯az, . , . See also David ben Abraham al-F¯as¯ı al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı f¯ı al-Lu˙ga al#Ibr¯aniyya, , n, , n. See also Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un on compensatory lengthening, description of verbal paradigms in, mnemonics in,
general index
al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı f¯ı al-Lu˙ga al#Ibr¯aniyya (cont.) on morphological pattern, as source of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud, , , – on status of letters, n, , system of symbols in, , , n, , –, , , , , , , , n on particular verbal forms, , , , , , , n, n, , on verbal adjectives, n al-Kit¯ab al-Muˇstamil #al¯a alUs. u¯ l wa-l-Fus. u¯ l f¯ı al-Lu˙ga al#Ibr¯aniyya, , n, n, n, n. See also Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un didactic elements in, on status of letters, n system of symbols in, , n, , –, , , –, on verbal adjectives, n on particular verbal forms, Kutub al-Lu˙ga, n, n l¯azim, letters added, , , affixed, , , , , , auxiliary, , , , –, , built-in, , , –, , elided, , –, . See also elision feminine, , , – masculine, , , , – non-root, , – quiescent, , root, , , , n, –, , , n, , servile, , , stable, , , status of, –, , lexical class, , –, , , n,
lexicology, , , , , lu˙ga, ma#ase be-nep¯ eˇs, ma#ase be-zulat han-nep¯ eˇs, ma#ase be-zulato, ma#n¯a, Masorah Magna, n Masoretic literature, , , n meaning, , – Menahem ben Saruq, . Me"or #Ayin, , –, description of verbal paradigm in, , , , , , , mnemonics in, model analyses of Biblical passages in, n pronominal suffixes on verb forms in, – rules of derivational relations in, , , , , , , –, on status of letters, , n system of symbols in, , , , –, , n, , , on particular verbal forms, , , , , n, , mnemonics, , n, –, – , –, morphological base, , n morphological form, , –, , , morphological pattern, , , , –, , , , , Moshe ibn Ezra, mud¯ . af, muhtas. ar, , n ˘ htasar, , n, , , al-Mu . ˘uk asliyya, mul¯ . mul¯uk musta#mala, muta#addin, niph#al, , , , , , , , , . See also infi#¯al first guttural, , , –, , first yod,
general index first nun, first resh, , –, first waw, , , n geminated, , , , –, middle weak, , , , , , pausal, , , , – with retraction of tone, , , second guttural, , strong, third aleph, third guttural, , , , third weak, , nominal sentence, noun, , , , of agent, , n defective, of instrument, plural, n verbal, object suffixes, , , –, – , –, object types, oral tradition, – origins of language, , n ot ne#ebad, ¯ pa#al, , –, , , with aramaising gemination of the first radical, , first aleph, first guttural, first nun, , , , – first yod, , , n, – geminated, , , , , , , , m.pl. and f.sg. imperative forms with a short qamas. under the first radical, , middle weak, , , , –, primary vowel of the imperative, stative, , strong, , third aleph,
third guttural, , , , third weak, , particle, , , , parts of speech, , passive participle in description of verbal paradigm, of middle weak verbs in pa#al, –, of passive imperatives, with pronominal suffixes, past characteristic vowel of, –, in description of verbal paradigm, –, , predicting the vowel of, –, terminology for, , n, n of third aleph verbs, – for verbal classification, , , – vocalization of m.sg. past of pi#el and hitpa#el, – patah, . , , , , –, , , , –, patient, , , , pedagogical strategies. See didactic strategies people of the language, n, , , permutative element, Persia, Persian, Persian grammarians, , – phonetic processes, , , , , , , pi#el, , m.sg. past of, –, lacking dagesh in a non-guttural, , , , – with object suffixes, – quadriliteral, second guttural, , , , , strong, third aleph, third guttural, third weak, , , ,
general index
pi#lel, pilpel, , , – po#el, , , – geminated, middle weak, strong, third weak, predicate, primary form, pronoun, , . See also object suffixes pu#al, , pausal, second guttural and resh, , , , – third guttural, third weak, , – qamas. , , , , qeˇser, qiˇsronim, , , n, n qiˇsˇsaron, n quadriliteral verbs, , , , – , , –, qubbus. , , , Rabbanite grammatical tradition, , , , , Rabbinic literature, raphe, , re"ayah, reconstruction of verb forms, , – regularization of grammatical features, , rib¯at. , , , , root. See letters, root root of lexical class, , n Sa#adya Gaon, n, n sam¯a #, secondary form, segol, , , , , , , , semantics, , , –, , , , , n, , , s. ere, , , , , , , , , ,
shewa, n, , , , , , short qamas. , , , , , shuruq, , , , al-s. ifa al-muˇsabbiha bi-ism al-f¯a #il, n s.¯ıg˙a, siman, simanim, , n, has. -s. iwwuy lah, , n has. -s. iwwuy lahem, n has. -s. iwwuy le-neqeba, n ¯ has. -s. iwwuy le-zekarim, n ¯ stress, , , , , –, . See also tone structural approach, , –, , substrate, n, syntax, , , , , , , , , t¯abit, ¯tafa#lal, taf¯a #ul, tafa##ul, Targum Onqelos, tas. r¯ıf, tena"y, tiph#el, tone, , , . See also stress topic-comment dichotomy, Toviyyah ben Moshe, . transitive verbs, , –, , , , treatise on the Hebrew nouns, as source of Me"or #Ayin, , treatise on the Hebrew verbs, description of verbal paradigms in, , , , , –, , pronominal suffixes on verb forms in, – as source of Kit¯ab al-#Uq¯ud, – , on verbal classification, n on particular verbal forms, , , –, , true and pseudo-verbs,
general index verbal adjective, , n vocalization archaic Tiberian, Babylonian, –, non-standard Tiberian, , Tiberian, n, , , vowel auxiliary, , , – long (Hebrew), radical-like,
root, – stable, , , wazn, word order, , Yehudah Hadassi, Yehudah Hayy¯ uj, , . Yehudah ibn Bal#am, Yonah ibn Jan¯ah, . , n yu" had. sam¯a#an, – ˘
