verb paradigms originated by adding affixes to catav
are meaningful, though etymological meaning often blurred with time. Speakers of
other languages, used to different etymological relations, might not recognize
semantics of paradigms.
is actually catEv, not catav. Strong syntactical accent of verbs, juxtaposed on
the morphological accent, elongated catAv – catA:v – catEv. In 1-2s past
tense, the stop (dagesh kal) reduced tzere to patah, catEv.ti* - catAv.ti.
[ae] with [a] in 3ms past tense could emulate 1-2s PT or 3ms of other paradigms.
The reduction in 3ms PT could occur because of the phonetically attached pronoun
which reduced the air allocated to tzere, catEv – hu-catav. Purposeful
differentiation from the verbs of condition, gadel, is another for tzere –
reductions c’tavtem and cat’vu show that both vowels in paal are long, since
only long vowels are reduced to schwa.
appeared by prefixing the paal, catev* – ncatev – nactav (metathesis in the
first syllable; cf. drachma – darcemonim) (tzere reduced to patah in the heavy
accented syllable, na-ctav) – nectav – nictav (the Masoretes recorded short
unaccented [e] as hirek).
to metathesis, catev* – ncatev – necetev (epenthesis; two seghols) –
n’c’tev – nictav.
of nun for the niphal prefix is deliberate. Nun relates feminine (2fp PT, 2-3fp
FT, 2-3fp nouns), thus passive.
form ncatev rather than nictav is seen in the future tense, tncatev – tincatev
appeared similarly to niphal by prefixing consonantal hey to paal. When hey
eroded in long [a], the resulting diphthong caused accent shift, catEv* –
hcatEv – h’c’tEv – aIctiv (unaccented tzere turned hirek) – ictIv (unaccented
naked word-initial vowel is lost, and the accent shifts).
hcatEv – h’c’tev. Hey became [a], actEv. Naked word-initial vowel was
accented to avoid reduction, Actev. Unaccented tzere turned hirek, Activ. The
Masoretes recorded the formal pronunciation with consonantal hey similar to
niphal, but preserved the established hirek, hictiv.
penultimate accent of the 3fs past tense recalls the stress shift.
of hey for hiphil prefix stems from the directional connotation of hey. Likewise,
hiphil means, to direct someone to do something.
prefix of hitpael is hh – ht. Semantics of hitpael is closely related to
hiphil. Causative hiphil redirects the action with hey prefix. Two redirects (hh
prefix) formulate bi-directional or reflexive action, characteristic of hitpael.
shows that paal is actually pael, labesh – hitlabesh.
of hitpael and piel in gemination is coincidental. Gemination in hitpael is
post-tonic, hitlAbbesh. Accent shift hitlabEsh – hitlAbbesh recalls the accent
shit in hiphil.
is an emphatic stem. Many piel verbs appear non-emphatic, but etymologically
they express commands. Syntactically, commands are distinguished by forceful
pronunciation of the accented syllables. To add force, speakers pause before the
accented syllable; that is clear in Milspeak, catAv – caa.tAv! The first
consonant of heavily stressed syllable after a stop is pronounced explosively,
thus dagesh hazak in the second root letter.
second vowel elongated, ca.tA:v! – ca.tEv!
normal speech, as opposed to purposely commanding pronunciation, speakers
allocate less air, and the unaccented vowel blurs, ca.tEv! – c’.tEv! (compare
Russian command ïîøåë!
with simply emphatic ï’øåë!)
When piel verbs lost their command pronunciation, the second vowel became less
accented, and more air was left for the first vowel. The vocal schwa became very
distinct, and the Masoretes recorded it as hirek (diber), though the sound was
closer to [ae] which produced patah in the future tense, t’dabEr.
roots exist only in piel or only in paal because semantically some roots lend
themselves for emphatic use, while other do not. Talk! command is natural, while
Write! command is unusual. Similar semantic difference accounts for the fact
that some roots produce verbs, others – adjectives, but relatively few roots
have both actively used verbs and adjectives; no one consequently claims that
verbs and adjectives are essentially the same thing and the roots form verbs or
adjectives randomly. The existence of some roots in both piel and paal forms
shows that the forms are not randomly interchangeable.
first appeared in what are now conjugative forms, catav* - catOv! – c’tov!
– bc’tov – bic’tov. Emphatic command pronunciation elongated the second
vowel. To differentiate from piel, the second vowel was elongated to holam.
Weaker emphasis than in piel did not require a stop before the second (accented)
syllable, and produces no gemination (dagesh hazak).
later lost the emphatic stress on the second syllable, c’tOv! – catov.
Jussive shows the elongation similar to imperative in
ayn”waw’iod verbs: u/i of future tense into o/e of jussive.
Cohortative adds participle na to command to soften it.
Cohortative was used to command females. Specifically feminine commands survived
as 2-3fp future tense, tictovna.
Using consonant for prefix is odd. The Hebrew concept reserved consonants
for roots, and used vowels for inflexions. Consonant affixes appeared later.
One possibility is that niphal was originally formed with prefix hey, not
nun. Hey appears in infinitives. Hebrew roots relatively rarely have both
niphal and hiphil forms. Possibly, the original hphil form diversified into
reflexive niphal and causative hiphil.