INFLECTIONAL AND DERIVATIONAL HEBREW MORPHOLOGY …

BEN- GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV FACULTY OF HUMINITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN LITERATURES AND LINGUISTICS

IINNFFLLEECCTTIIOONNAALL AANNDD DDEERRIIVVAATTIIOONNAALL HHEEBBRREEWW MMOORRPPHHOOLLOOGGYY AACCCCOORRDDIINNGG TTOO TTHHEE TTHHEEOORRYY OOFF

PPHHOONNOOLLOOGGYY AASS HHUUMMAANN BBEEHHAAVVIIOORR

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS

LINA PERELSHTEIN

UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: PROFESSOR YISHAI TOBIN

FEBRUARY 2008

BEN- GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV

FACULTY OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN LITERATURES AND LINGUISTICS

IINNFFLLEECCTTIIOONNAALL AANNDD DDEERRIIVVAATTIIOONNAALL HHEEBBRREEWW MMOORRPPHHOOLLOOGGYY AACCCCOORRDDIINNGG TTOO TTHHEE TTHHEEOORRYY OOFF

PPHHOONNOOLLOOGGYY AASS HHUUMMAANN BBEEHHAAVVIIOORR

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS

LINA PERELSHTEIN

UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF PROFESSOR YISHAI TOBIN

Signature of student: ________________ Date: _________

Signature of supervisor: _____________ Date: _________

Signature of chairperson

of the committee for graduate studies: ______________ Date: _________

FEBRUARY 2008

ii

ABSTRACT

This research deals with the phonological distribution of Hebrew Inflectional and

Derivational morphology, synchronically and diachronically. The scope of this study

is suffixes, due to the fact that final position bears grammatical information, while

initial position bears lexical items. In order to analyze the gathered data, the theory of

Phonology as Human Behavior will be employed. The theory classifies language as a

system of signs which is used by human beings to communicate; it is based on the

synergetic principle of maximum communication with minimal effort. This research

shows that the similarity within Modern Hebrew inflectional and derivational suffix

system is greater than the derivational Modern Hebrew – Biblical Hebrew system in

terms of a specialized suffix system and that the phonological distribution of Hebrew

suffixes is motivated by the principles of the theory. This leads towards the

conclusion of a self-improving system, more economical, self-efficient with more

suffixation distinction, and with greater emphasis on the preference for producing

easier suffixes. The results of this research yield the fact that the theory of Phonology

as Human Behavior is valid for describing and explaining Hebrew morphology and

other languages.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to those people whose contribution, patience,

perseverance, and kindness have helped me to complete this thesis.

I am sincerely thankful to my supervisor, Prof. Yishai Tobin, for his vast knowledge

and enthusiasm, inspiration and stimulating suggestions, who remained thoughtful,

and supportive throughout.

I would like to thank my fellow student, Liron Shokty, for hearing and sharing ideas

on the matter, and for her practical part in our mutual works.

To my best friend Gabi Friderich for all the times he was there to lend an ear to my

crazy ideas and thoughts.

To my significant other, Ram Shallom, who enriched my life, for his everlasting

support and unceasing love.

Last, but certainly not least, I wish to thank my brother Michael and my parents Sima

and Israel Perelshtein for their love and encouragement to be curious and an

independent thinker.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ii

Acknowledgements iii

List of tables vi

1 Introduction 1

1.1 The Theory of Phonology as Human Behavior (PHB) …………………… 3

1.2 The Principles of the Theory of PHB ……………………………………... 6

1.3 Hypotheses ………………………………………………………………... 8

1.4 Data and goals …………………………………………………………….. 8

2 Analysis 9

2.1 Phonological Systems …………………………………………………….. 9

2.1.1 The Biblical Hebrew Phonological System ………………………. 14

2.1.2 The Modern Hebrew Phonological System ………………………. 17

2.2 Hebrew Root System: Conjugations and Derivatives …………………….. 19

2.3 Inflectional Data …………………………………………………………... 20

2.3.1 Verbal Inflection ………………………………………………….. 24

2.4 Derivational Data …………………………………………………………. 25

2.4.1 Biblical Hebrew …………………………………………………... 26

2.4.2 Modern Hebrew …………………………………………………... 35

2.5 Data Analysis ……………………………………………………………... 45

2.5.1 Synchronic Analysis ……………………………………………… 45 2.5.1.1 Modern Hebrew: Summary of inflectional suffixes ……. 45

2.5.1.2 Modern Hebrew: Summary of derivational suffixes …… 46

2.5.1.3 Inflectional and Derivational suffixation: a comparison ... 47

2.5.2 Diachronic view: Modern Hebrew vs. Biblical Hebrew ………….. 53

2.6 Language changes and phenomena: Standard Hebrew vs. Spoken ………. 61

v

3 Summary and Conclusions 64

4 Appendix 67

Appendix A …………………………………………………………………... 67 Appendix B …………………………………………………………………... 72 Appendix C …………………………………………………………………... 75 Appendix D …………………………………………………………………... 76 Appendix E …………………………………………………………………... 77 Appendix F …………………………………………………………………... 78

5 References 79

vi

LIST OF TABLES

TTaabbllee 11.. Points for Hebrew vowels (and selected consonant) phonemes ………… 1111 TTaabbllee 22.. Points – shwa ……………………………………………………………. 1122 TTaabbllee 33.. Vowel length comparison and summary for BH vs. MH ….……………. 1133 TTaabbllee 44.. Consonants ………………………………………………………………. 1166 TTaabbllee 55.. Hebrew modern phoneme system ……………………………………….. 1188 TTaabbllee 66.. Noun declension …………………………………………………………. 6677 TTaabbllee 77.. Adjectival Inflection …………………………………………………….. 6688 TTaabbllee 88.. Noun declension (possession) …………………………………………… 6699 TTaabbllee 99.. Hebrew Forms …………………………………………………………… 2211 TTaabbllee 1100.. Construct state (proximity) ……………………………………………… 7700 TTaabbllee 1111.. Verbal inflection ………………………………………………………… 7711 TTaabbllee 1122.. Gizrat Lamed-Aleph ( א"גזרת ל ) ………………………………………….. 7722 TTaabbllee 1133.. Gizrat Lamed-Hei )ה"גזרת ל( …………………………………………….. 7733 TTaabbllee 1144.. Suffixes summary of Hebrew nouns …………………………………….. 2233 TTaabbllee 1155.. Summary Derivatives ……………………………………………………. 7744 TTaabbllee 1166.. Summary: Verbal Suffixes (by tenses) ………………………………….. 2244 TTaabbllee 1177.. Regular verbs Gizrat ha-shlemim (גזרת השלמים) ………………………… 2277 TTaabbllee 1188.. I - Guttural verbs ………………………………………………………… 2288 TTaabbllee 1199.. I-Aleph verbs ……………………………………………………………. 2288 TTaabbllee 2200.. II – Guttural verbs ……………………………………………………….. 2299 TTaabbllee 2211.. Gizrat Pei-Nun ( נ"גזרת פ ) ………………………………………………… 2299 TTaabbllee 2222.. I- Vav verbs / Gizrat Pei-Yod ( י"גזרת פ ) ………………………………... 3300 TTaabbllee 2233.. Gizrat Lamed-Hei/Lamed-Yod ( י"ל+ה "גזרת ל ) ………………………….. 3311 TTaabbllee 2244.. Gizrat Ain-Vav + Ain-Yod ( י"ע+ ו "גזרת ע ) (Hollow verbs) …………….. 3322 TTaabbllee 2255.. Geminate verbs )גזרת הכפולים( …………………………………………… 3333 TTaabbllee 2266.. III – Guttural …………………………………………………………….. 3344 TTaabbllee 2277.. III Aleph (Gizrat Lamed-Aleph א"גזרת ל ) ……………………………….. 3344 TTaabbllee 2288.. Gizrat Lamed-Hei/Lamed-Yod ( י"ל+ה "גזרת ל ) ………………………….. 3355 TTaabbllee 2299.. Gizrat Lamed-Aleph ( א"גזרת ל ) ………………………………………….. 3366 TTaabbllee 3300.. Gizrat Pei-Yod ( י"גזרת פ ) ………………………………………………… 3377 TTaabbllee 3311.. Gizrat Pei-Nun ( נ"גזרת פ ) ………………………………………………… 3388 TTaabbllee 3322.. Gizrat Ain-Vav + Ain-Yod ( י"ע+ ו " עגזרת ) ……………………………... 3399 TTaabbllee 3333.. Gizrat ha-merubaim (גזרת המרובעים) ……………………………………... 4400 TTaabbllee 3344.. Gizrat ha-kfulim (גזרת כפולים) …………………………………………… 4411 TTaabbllee 3355.. Gizrat ha-shlemim (גזרת השלמים) ………………………………………… 4444 TTaabbllee 3366.. Summary of Hebrew inflectional suffixes: Nouns, Adjectives, Forms,

Derivatives and Verbs …………………………………………………… 4466 TTaabbllee 3377.. Summary of MH Derivatives ……………………………………………. 4466 TTaabbllee 3388.. Summary of BH Derivatives …………………………………………….. 5544 TTaabbllee 3399.. Summary of BH Derivational suffixes ………………………………….. 7755 TTaabbllee 4400.. Summary of MH Derivational suffixes ………………………………….. 7766 TTaabbllee 4411.. Diachronic summary …………………………………………………….. 5555 TTaabbllee 4422.. BH &MH: Examples of suffixal change ………………………………… 6600 TTaabbllee 4433.. Frequency: BH and MH …………………………………………………. 7777

1

Why can't the English teach their children how to speak? Norwegians learn Norwegian; the Greeks have taught their

Greek. In France every Frenchman knows his language from 'A' to 'Zed'.

Arabians learn Arabian with the speed of summer lightning. And Hebrews learn it backwards,

which is absolutely frightening.

-- GGeeoorrggee BBeerrnnaarrdd SShhaaww ((11991133))

1. Introduction

Phonology is an attempt to understand the non-random distribution of sounds (Diver

1975). Phonology tries to describe, and explain the distribution of sounds in certain

phonetic environments, the diverse frequency of different sounds, and the favored and

disfavored collocations of sounds.

There have been many developments in linguistics science from the beginning of the

20th century until today; which have been placed under the name of "Modern

Linguistics". Modern Linguistics' main research objective is to determine the

characteristic of human linguistic abilities. A language, as a system that stands by

itself, in a given time, was first introduced by the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de

Saussure, who is considered to be the 'father' of Modern linguistics. Saussure was

interested in the structure of language; and he viewed linguistics as a science of signs

(which he named Semiology1). Saussure states that "the subject matter of linguistics

comprises all manifestations of human speech, whether that of savages or civilized

nations, or of archaic, classical or decadent periods". He asserts that the linguist must

consider in each period "not only correct speech and flowery language, but all other

forms of expression as well" along with the written text, since observing the speech

directly is not an easy task, and "only through them can he reach idioms that are

remote in time and space".

1 "A science that studies the life of signs within society is conceivable; it would be a part of social psychology and consequently of general psychology; I shall call it semiology' (from Greek semefon 'sign'). Semiology would show what constitutes signs, what laws govern them. Since the science does not yet exist, no one can say what it would be; but it has a right to existence, a place staked out in advance. Linguistics is only a part of the general science of semiology; the laws discovered by semiology will be applicable to linguistics, and the latter will circumscribe a well-defined area within the mass of anthropological facts." (Saussure, 1916/1959)

2

Saussure changed the traditional units of analysis such as words and sentences

and replaced them with the notion of the linguistic sign –"a combination of a concept

and a sound image". He argued that linguistic signs were composed of two distinct

parts: a signifier and a signified. The former is the sound image or a signal (e.g. zero,

independent and bound morphemes, intonation, word order, idioms etc.). According

to Saussure, this sound image or signal is arbitrarily chosen; it can be either a mental

projection (when we silently recite a selection of verse to ourselves), or as an actual

physical realization as part of a speech act. The second part of Saussure's new

linguistic approach is the signified, which is the meaning or concept of the signal.

This connection between the signal and concept of the sign, by Saussure's view, is

also basically arbitrarily assigned: signifieds are relative to each other, and they are

determined by the differences or oppositions between and among them. Therefore, the

concept of a sign is independent of the world, but rather is connected to the language

itself. While previous approaches focused on the relationship between words and the

things in the world they refer to, Saussure's approach was quite different- it aimed at

understanding the way people make use of the signs of a language. By focusing on the

internal constitution of signs rather than focusing on their relationship to objects in the

world, Saussure made the structure of language something that could be analyzed and

studied. (Saussure, 1916/1959)

Prior to Saussure's approach, conventional 19th century linguistics dealt with

historical aspects of language. Saussure's approach to language within a specific time

period is called a Synchronic view; while a historical approach is called a Diachronic

one.

A diachronic approach examines over periods of time the development of a

language, meaning it deals with the history of a language, more precisely with its

historical changes. Furthermore, a diachronic study of a language is based on several

assumptions, among them are these: (a) language systems are asymmetric (i.e. easy

vs. difficult sounds); (b) a tendency towards an easier system over time. (c) reaching a

range of 20 to 40 phonemes; (d) distinctive allophones that become phonemes; and,

(e) language leans towards branching and layering, that is- being a "system of

systems" (adapted from Tobin, 2005)

A synchronic approach, however, deals with a language at a single moment or

period in time. By the synchronic approach, a history of a language is not necessarily

3

accessible to its speakers. "To synchrony belongs everything called "general

grammar", for it is only through language-states that the different relations which are

the province of grammar are established". By language-state, Saussure (1916/1959)

refers to a synchronic approach as a static linguistics, which is in fact more difficult to

explore than a historical one. Changes2 may be observed over a period of time;

however, the absence of changes is what interests the synchronic study. This type of

linguistic study is important as to understand how it is possible for human beings to

acquire a first language without any guidance.

1.1 The Theory of Phonology as Human Behavior (PHB)

This research will deal with Hebrew Inflectional3 and Derivational4 suffixes,

synchronically and diachronically. The basic hypothesis is that the final position

(containing morphological suffixes) bears grammatical information where the

communication load is the lowest, while the initial position bears lexical items where

the communication load is the highest. This research will employ the theory of PHB

in order to analyze the gathered data. The theory of PHB which is based on the

synergetic principle of maximum communication with minimal effort, classifies

language as being a system of signs, which is used as a communicative tool by human

beings (Tobin 2006). It attempts to explain the non-random distribution of phonemes,

within a language, found in inflectional and derivational morphology as derived from

three basic principles included in the human factor:

1. Human Intelligence- the ability to infer abstract conclusions from minimal

clues.

2. Human Efficiency- the tendency to exert minimal effort as possible in order to

achieve maximal results.

2 "… it is easy, often even amusing, to follow a series of changes. But the linguistics that penetrates values and coexisting relations presents much greater difficulties." (Saussure, 1916/1959) 3 Inflectional morphology deals with inflectional variation in a single lexeme i.e., changing the form of the word by giving it an extra meaning (such as in number, gender, case, tense, etc.). 4 Derivational morphology concerns word formation, i.e., changes the structure of words in accordance to their role and functions and parts of speech and creates a new word.

4

3. Memory Limitation- human memory is large but limited.

In the desire to achieve maximum communication with minimal effort, the human

factor is in constant conflict with the communication factor – the establishment of

opposition, which consists of the following principles:

1. The phoneme – the smallest sound unit of langue5 that makes distinction in

meaning from which communicative oppositions are derived. Theses

communicative oppositions are usually determined by minimal pairs which

vary in one phonological element (e.g., tip vs. tap)

2. The phonemes of a language are in a tight paradigmatic relation based on their

communicative oppositions.

3. The syntagmatic distribution of the phonemes of a language is part of a

relativity open system allowing for as many communicative oppositions as

possible in as many phonetic environments as possible in a language.

4. Therefore, it has generally been believed that the distribution of the abstract

phonemes in a language is random and unpredictable.

5. There are variant realizations of the abstract phoneme produced on the

concrete phonetic level (allophones); each allophone appears in a single,

specific phonetic environment, and together (complementary distribution) they

represent all the concrete realizations of the abstract phoneme in the language.

6. In addition to the primary distinctive features associated with the phoneme

represented, allophones also contain secondary features associated with the

specific phonetic environments within which they appear that are

nondistinctive and do not create communicative oppositions.

7. The allophones of a phoneme are in a tight paradigmatic relation, one based on

the closed syntagmatic system and composed of the specific phonetic

environments in which the allophones appear.

8. Therefore, it is generally believed that the distribution of the variant

allophones of an invariant phoneme is nonrandom and predictable.

(adapted from Tobin, 1997)

5 Saussure defined langue as being "both a social product of the faculty of speech and a collection of necessary conventions that have been adopted by a social body to permit individuals to exercise that faculty." He believed that language is "a self-contained whole and a principle of classification. As soon as we give language first place among the facts of speech, we introduce a natural order into a mass that lends itself to no other classification." (Saussure 1916/1959)

5

Linguistic communication can be accomplished through the cooperation of at least

two language users, the encoder and the decoder, thus a mutual cooperation is

requited in order to achieve successful communication. Originally, the theory of PHB

was developed by William Diver (1979) "and his students of the Columbia school.

The theory of PHB combines aspects of the “communication factor” inherent in

Prague School phonology (Tobin 1988) with aspects of the “human factor” inherent in

André Martinet’s (Martinet 1955) diachronic phonology" (Tobin, 2006). PHB is

based on seven underlining theoretical and methodological assumptions, which

explain non-random phonological distribution:

1. Users of language behave as though they have learned certain distinctive

units, the phonemes, which they deploy for communicative purposes.

2. We cannot observe directly what it is that they behave as though they have

learned.

3. We can however observe the phonotactic skewing, a skewing that has been

built up over the centuries and millennia in the very mouths of the speakers.

4. We can infer that these long-range skewings represent favorings and

disfavorings on the part of users of the language. (It is to be observed that the

skewings are not idiosyncratic to particular languages; they are general

characteristics recur from language to language).

5. We can then examine the favorings and disfavorings against the background

of the orientation- which means with independent knowledge of what kinds

of favorings and disfavorings humans are prone to in areas other than the use

of language.

6. We can infer that a disfavoring, for example, represents a difficulty in

learning process, and by a close examination of what it is that constitutes a

difficulty in the way of particular learning process, we can infer what it is

that is being learned.

7. What it is that is being learned we may identify as a characteristic of the

distinctive units. (Diver 1979, Tobin 1997a).

6

1.2 The Principles of the Theory of PHB

The theory of PHB consists of the following phonological principles discovered and

supported by several studies made in and across various languages. The first 10 were

obtained and developed by quantitative results according to Diver's (1979) analysis of

initial consonant clusters in English, and Yishai Tobin (1995, 1997, 2000, 2002) who

further developed, verified and validated them in over 45 languages in his articles and

books. Another 3 were added from Joseph Clair Davis's (1984/1987) analysis of the

entire phonemic system of Italian. The latter six principles were added from

developmental and clinical research, made by Lilach Katz (1993, 1995) and others.

1. Additional articulators are less favored: voiced vs. voiceless.

2. Coarticulation by the same articulators/phoneme is even more highly

disfavored.

3. Visual articulators are favored (particularly in word/root initial position).

4. Transitions from one distinct constriction to another within a single phoneme

are disfavored.

5. Like phonemes prefer to collocate with each other (mobile6 +mobile, stable7

+stable instead of mobile+stable and stable+mobile).

6. Explosive (mobile/stop) phonemes are favored in initial position.

7. Turbulent (stable/fricative) phonemes are favored in final position.

8. Apical articulations are favored in general and in final position in particular.

9. Consonant clusters are restricted concerning different articulatory and

acoustic features (e.g., mobility/stability).

10. Different word (or root) positions have different communicative force and

thus affect the favoring and disfavoring of different articulatory and acoustic

features and phonemes.

6 Mobile indicates that "the articulator is necessary in motion during sound production. For the stops there is an explosion of the pent-up air, and the lip, apex, and dorsum, respectively, are violently displaced." (Tobin, 1997) 7 Stable "indicates that the articulatory organ employed in the production of the sound is relatively stationary during excitation of the resonant cavity. Thus, the lip and apex, respectively, are stationary during the production of fff, sss, and lll." (Tobin, 1997)

7

11. Among constrictions, maximal constriction is favored.

12. Among apertures, maximal aperture is favored.

13. Sequences of phonemes with the same articulators are disfavored unless their

juxtaposition is, by virtue of some other factor, mutually beneficial.

14. The preservation of as many distinctive features as possible (usually 2 out of

3 features per phoneme) in substitution processes which require more effort

than deletion processes.

15. The preservation of as many communicative oppositions as possible in the

original word (e.g., the number of phonemes per word) in substitution

processes which require more effort than deletion processes.

16. The use of readily available phoneme already found in the speaker's

repertoire in accordance with the immediate phonetic environment in

substitution processes which require more effort than deletion processes.

17. The preservation of the original phonetic structure of the word in deletion

processes not involving syllable reduction and reduplication.

18. If the original structure of the word is reduced by deletion of syllables, the

stressed syllable bearing the most communicative information is maintained.

19. If the original structure of the word is enlarged by epenthesis, the epenthesis

makes the transition to or between more difficult sounds easier.

These principles support the conclusion that "language in general -- and phonology in

particular -- can be seen as a mini-max struggle: the desire to create maximum

communication with minimal effort" (Tobin, 2006). Previous work on inflectional

suffixes supporting the principles of PHB had been done on English (Tobin 2006),

Russian (Buk 2003), Arabic (Saif 2004), and this research continues this line of

research to Hebrew and also expands it by including derivational morphology.

This research is based on the following:

8

1.3 Hypotheses

There are two basic hypotheses needed to be accounted for in this research.

a) Inflectional morphology (number, gender, case, tense, etc.) and Derivational

morphology (in word formation such as changing "part of speech" e.g.

nation, national, nationalization) are both functional and frequent and

should, therefore, in principle, be composed of phonemes which are either

relatively easy to make and are frequent and considered to be "unmarked"8.

b) In terms of a diachronic view, the hypothesis above should increase over

time (in terms of the basic diachronic study assumptions, made above), i.e.

inflectional and derivational morphology should be simplified over time

(adapted from Tobin 2000).

1.4 Data and Goals

In this research the PHB principles will be applied to inflectional and derivational

morphology in Biblical and Modern Hebrew both synchronically and diachronically.

In sections 2.1, 2.1.1, 2.5.2 the phonological systems of Biblical Hebrew (henceforth,

BH) and Modern Hebrew (henceforth, MH) will be presented, compared and

contrasted in general and with regard to the characteristics of the phonemes found in

BH and MH inflectional suffixes in particular. Hebrew inflectional suffixes will be

examined from a synchronic point of view; particularly the data relevant to noun,

adjectival and verbal suffix inflection will be presented in section 2.5.1. Section 2.2

will present the paradigms of Hebrew inflectional suffixes according to basic

linguistic categories (e.g. tense, gender, person, number, etc.). Hebrew inflectional

suffixes will be examined closely; their phonemic distribution will be explored, and a

contrast between standard Hebrew and spoken Hebrew will be made. Some of the

pragmatics of the language will also be looked into. It will be shown how the data

conform to and can be explained by the basic hypotheses and principles of the theory

of PHB. That is, it will be demonstrated that the phonemic distribution of the

inflectional suffixes is not random. This research will explore two diachronic

8 Markedness – in general, there are two forms of markedness; marked and unmarked. The unmarked form represents the basic, normal meaning, e.g. sound is the unmarked form, while marked represent an addition of a feature that provides a special meaning, e.g. soundless is the marked form of sound.

9

extremes – classical or biblical Hebrew versus modern contemporary Israeli Hebrew,

when the source of data and other historical periods between them should be the

source of further research.

A diachronic approach will be taken, in the next section (2.5.2) when Hebrew

derivational suffixes will be examined, in both MH and BH. The derivational data

presented in section 2.4 will be considered, which includes Gerunds (in Hebrew

'shemot pe'ula) and Infinitives (in Hebrew 'shemot hapo'al) (in 2.4.2), and the BH data

in section 2.4.1 that consists of Absolute and Construct infinitives. In section 2.5.2 the

results will be analyzed, while diachronically comparing MH derivational Suffixes with

BH derivational suffixes. Synchronically, inflectional and derivational MH suffixes will

be compared. The data, appearing in tables, in this research is collected and combined

from various sources (Ross 2001, Lambdin 1971), including Hebrew grammar books

(Rozner 2001, Mochnik 1995) and Hebrew history articles. Finally, in the last section

Summary and Conclusions (section 3), some generalization regarding Hebrew

phonological system as a whole will be made, and conclusions will be drawn.

2. Analysis

2.1 Phonological Systems

Hebrew, the official language of Israel spoken by the majority of population, can be

divided into three or four major historical periods:

1. classical or biblical Hebrew (ca. 1200 B.C. – ca. 200-300 B.C.);

2. mishnaic or rabbinical Hebrew (ca. 300 B.C. – ca. A.D. 400-500);

3. medieval Hebrew (ca. A.D. 500 – A.D. 1700); and

4. modern Hebrew (including the period of the Enlightenment and the revival of

Hebrew in Israel) (ca. A.D. 1700 to the present).


Hebrew words, in general, can be analyzed according to their consonantal roots,

"these roots are combined with fixed morphophonemic patterns for what are

traditionally called nominal, verbal, and adjectival forms" (Tobin, 1997). In this

research, as mentioned above, the intermediate historical periods will not be

10

examined. BH, which is "the literary form of the very conservative dialect of

Jerusalem", as Steinberg claims, became dominant in Jerusalem at about 900 b.c. and

remained almost unchanged until the Babylonian exile in the 6th century b.c. From

then on it became less and less used in spoken Hebrew and turned into an archaic

literary dialect used until the fall of the Second Temple in 70 c.e. BH can be divided

into three main forms:

a. A poetic form (used in e.g. Job, Psalms) – this is a more archaic form, uses

highly stylized poetry and special vocabulary.

b. A semi poetic form of rhythmic speech (used in e.g. Isaiah).

c. A prose form – this form was probably close to spoken Hebrew of the

early first Temple period. It is a much more straight forward form (used in

e.g. Genesis, Samuel, Kings).

(adapted from Steinberg, 2004)

If one compares and contrasts the Hebrew phonological systems of biblical and

modern, one observes the following: the older system contained more phonemes than

the modern system; BH had more consonants, in addition to vowel length, as a

distinctive phonemic feature.

Languages, among which BH, that distinguish vowel length make a phonemic

distinction between short and long vowels, this duration of vowel sounds is called

vowel length. It is important to mention that Hebrew has a syllabic-consonant based

writing system which doesn't represent vowels at all hence the reader has to fill in the

"missing" vowels. This is further complicated by the fact that the same vowel may

also appear as two distinct phonemes based on its duration, which is a distinctive

phonemic feature. Thus the BH vowel system is much more complex than that of MH

where vowel length is allophonic rather than phonemic and hence a much simpler

phonemic system, this will be explained further.

"When Hebrew ceased to be the language for daily use, understanding the text

became so perplexing and difficult that the meaning was in danger of being lost", thus

in order to maintain the traditional pronunciation the system of signs was introduced

during the 7th-9th centuries by the Jewish scholars (Ross, 2001). Hebrew orthography

11

has vowel points/signs (nikud - ניקוד), which are in fact dots and lines, called Tiberian9

system. The vowel points that appear in the Tiberian system of BH were added to the

consonantal syllabic writing system of BH in order to represent vowels, for better

reading and understanding. They are placed in adjacency to the letter; below above or

inside. BH had three types of vowels: short, long and interrupted (hataf) and had

above ten vowels. Historically, below a letter were placed the short vowels, such as;

patah, qubuts, hiriq, segol, and hataf-qamets, while above and in front of a letter were

placed the long vowels. Such vowels are read together with the letter in front of them,

these vowels are; holam – above a letter, shuruq and holam vav – in front of a letter,

and sere-yod – is placed below and in front of the letter. The following table will

show the different points and how they are placed with a letter.

Table 1. PPooiinnttss ffoorr HHeebbrreeww vvoowweellss ((aanndd sseelleecctteedd ccoonnssoonnaanntt)) pphhoonneemmeess

Name Hebrew parallel Symbol IPA

Qamets ם קמץ /a/, (or /o/)

Patah ם פתח /a/

Hiriq חיריק Used before the letter 'yod' ם /i/

Tserei ם צירי /e/ and /ei/

Segol ם סגול /e/, (/ei/)

Qubuts ם קובוץ /u/

Holam חולם Used only with the letter vav "ו" ם /o/

Sin

(appears on the upper left of the consonant)

ן"שי Used only with the letter sin ( "ש" /s/ ם (

Shin

(appears on the upper right of the consonant)

ן"שי Used only with the letter shin ( "ש" )

/ʃ/ ם

9 "Different systems were used by various schools, but the one associated with the city of Tiberias in Galilee prevailed. The scribes of this school, know as Masoretes (possible meaning "traditionists"), perfected their system by the ninth and tenth centuries" (Ross, 2001).

12

Dagesh10 כ דגש /-/

Shuruq שורוק Used only with the letter vav "ו" /u/ ם

Furthermore, an absence of a full vowel was represented by shwa (a sign of

two dots that are placed vertically below a letter), meaning a short vowel. The shwa is

divided into two types; the silent shwa (resting - nax) represents the end of a syllable

and the vocal shwa is a reduced vowel sound, it appears in the start of a syllable and it

is combined with three vowel signs producing the Hatafs.

Table 2. PPooiinnttss -- sshhwwaa

Name Hebrew parallel Symbol IPA

Shwa11 שווא

(Shwa) ם /ə/ , /-/

Reduced Qamets קמץ חטף (Hataf Qamets) ם /o/

Reduced Segol סגול חטף (Hataf Segol) ם /e/

Reduced Patah פתח חטף (Hataf Patah) ם /a/

The Shwa and the Hatafs appear with the gutturals12. MH on the other hand, has

no phonemic distinction between long and short vowels: i.e. variation in vowel length

is allophonic and speaker and context dependent. Diachronically, Hebrew has lost its

distinction between short/long vowels, leaving MH with only 5 (short) vowel

phonemes, namely- /a, ε, i, o,u/ 13.

10 Can be referred to as 'mapik' (מפיק), as well. 11 The vocal shwa does not exist in MH anymore, what used to be pronounced as dεvar now is dvar. 12 Gutturals are produced in the throat, either the larynx or pharynx. They are (ҁ) ayn – ע,(ϰ)

xet - ח ,(?) aleph – א, (h) hei - ה , and also (γ) resh - ר (which is usually grouped with the gutturals). 13 In this research only the (diachronic) consonantal change will be considered. There will be no reference to the diachronic suffix vowel changes in Hebrew (to those vowels that no longer exist in MH), which are fairly well documented in the literature. It appears that consonantal suffix change is a much less studied subject, thus it will be the main focus of this research.

13

Table 3. VVoowweell lleennggtthh ccoommppaarriissoonn aanndd ssuummmmaarryy ffoorr BBHH vvss.. MMHH

Vowel Length Very short14 (Reduced) Short Long

IPA Example

15 /a/ gone

/e/ step

/i/ big

16 /o/ rope

/u/ cube

Categorization of phonemes according to the number of sets of articulators and

the degrees of stricture and airflow along with active articulators opposed to passive

receptors is represented in Tobin's (1997) book.

"Research in phonology as human behavior has found the traditional and neotraditional consonant categories (e.g., place of articulation, manner of articulation, voicing) previously used in studies of the patterning of root phonemes in Semitic and Hebrew root systems from both structural and generative approaches (e.g., Greenberg 1950, Herdan 1962, Morgenbrod and Serifi 1981, Weissman-Gordon 1978) to be wanting for the following reasons.

1. Place of articulation often merely labels a passive receptor (e.g., dental, alveolar, palatal or postalveolar, velar, etc.) rather than an active articulator (e.g., lips, apex, antereodorsum, postereodorsum, etc.).

2. Manner of articulation often includes specific place information, together with labels indicating different degrees of stricture and airflow (e.g., oral versus nasal, stops, central versus laterals [alveolar] fricatives and/or approximants), and also includes place-oriented and/or articular-oriented phonation processes (e.g., labialization, dentalization, palatalization, velarization, nasalization, glottalization, etc.).

3. These and other manner categories (e.g., consonants vs. vowels, semiovowels, liquids, glides, approximants, and/or obstruents vs. resonanrs, etc.) often depend on the concept of voicing and are all directly or indirectly related to different degrees of stricture and airflow.

14 The two vertical dots symbolizing shwa make the vowel very short, they can also be referred as compound or composite shwas, as Rocine (2000) stated. 15 This nikud presents a long /a/ and also appears as the short /o/ under the name of qamets hatuf. 16 These days the short /o/ and /u/ almost do not exist anymore, the longs parallels are used instead.

14

4. Voicing also spans the opposition of place and manner and is related to both specific articulators (the larynx, glottis, vocal folds) and different degrees of the control of airflow (fortis vs. lenis).

Therefore, these imprecise traditional categories have been replaced by such alternative concepts as active articulators versus passive receptors, scales of relative degrees of stricture and airflow, and the number of sets of articulators being utilized, which support the communication and human factors inherent to this approach."

The following will be dealing with consonants while using distinctive features

based on the theory of PHB, such as active articulators and passive receptors rather

than the traditional place of articulation. The Hebrew phonological systems presented

here refer to the active articulators in Hebrew. Hebrew has six active articulators: lips,

the tongue which is divided into three parts (- apex, anterodorsum and

postereodorsum), the pharynx and the glottis (also- larynx). The distribution of

Hebrew consonants thus, is-

1. Lips: /p,b,m/

2. Apex: /t, t', d, n, ts, r, s, z, l/

3. Anterodorsum: /∫, j/

4. Postereodorsum: /k,g /

5. (Lips/velum+) postereodorsum: /w,q/

6. Pharynx: / ħ, ҁ/

7. Glottis: /?,h/ (adapted from Tobin, 1997)

2.1.1 The Biblical Hebrew Phonological System

Hebrew is an oriental language belonging to the Semitic family (Ross, 2001). The

Semitic family consists of a group of about 70 distinct language forms, which are

related to each other and to the rest of the Afro-Asiatic group (Proto-Hamitic group

below):

15

(adapted from Steinberg, 2004)

Languages that are classified as belonging to the Semitic family exhibit features that

strongly imply a common origin. A summary of at least three common features of

Semitic languages can be made:

1. Phonological features: the consonantal system has many laryngeal,

pharyngeal, and uvular articulations.

2. Triradical roots: the morphology is based on lexical morphemes (roots that

normally consist of three letters or radicals).

3. Morphological determination: the addition of prefixes, suffixes, and infixes

(mostly vowels inserted in the root) to the three radical determines the

precise sense and function of the word. These modifications form the

various nouns, verbs and other parts of speech.

(adapted from Ross, 2001)

Table 4, presents BH phoneme system. From the following table it can be seen that

Hebrew had 22 consonants.

16

Table 4. CCoonnssoonnaannttss

Coarticulation Lips- Apex Antero-dorsum

Postero-dorsum

Lips+ Postero-dorsum

Postero- dorsum +Uvular

Pharyngeal Laryngeal

Stricture Airflow o l v o l v o l v o l v o l v o l v o l v o l v0 0 stopped p b t d t' k g q ?

0 2 non-

turbulent, potentially turbulent

m n

0-1 0-1 stopped,

then turbulent

ts

½ ½ non-


w

1 1 turbulent f s z ∫ (r)* (R)* ħ ҁ h

2 2 non-


l j

Note: "0" is null, "l" is larynx, and "v" is velum. (Tobin, 1997)

* It is uncertain whether it was a front /r/ and/or a back /R/.

The Biblical vowel system is not included in the table above. "Long before Jewish

scholars introduced vowel point into the text, certain consonants were used to represent

long vowels," states Ross. He claims that by the 6th century these letters were already

used within words, however prior to that time they appeared only at the end of words.

The most common indicators of long vowels were ה (representing a final long vowel â

and sometimes ê or ô, when it is not the consonant h), ו (representing long ô or û, when

it is not the consonant w), and י (representing long ê or î, when it is not the consonant

y), while א was, scarcely but, also used to represent a vowel (Ross, 2001). Thus, vowels

as they appear in table 3 can be represented as follows; long vowels (â, ê, î, ô, û), short

vowels, vowels, (ā, ē, ī, ō, ū) and the reduced vowels (ă, ě, ǐ, ŏ, ŭ). Ross asserts that the

vowel system of the BH is a combination of historically long vowels, which appear

under the name long in table 3, tone-short vowels, which appear under the name short

in table 3, and the tone-long vowels, which are in fact qamets , tserei , and hiriq .

However, tone-long vowels that Ross presents are part of and exactly the same as the

historically long vowels, thus I argue that the tone-long vowels should be in fact very

short vowels or reduced as they appear in table 3 due to the shwa attached to them.

17

Moreover, as it appears the long and the reduced vowels had a connection to the stress

in a word, i.e., the long vowels would appear in a stressed syllable, while the reduced

vowels would appear in a non stressed syllable, and the short vowels were in fact

intermediate vowels between the long and the reduced (Kabali, 1993).

2.1.2 The Modern Hebrew Phonological System

It has been noted that contemporary Hebrew is "the most extraordinary example of a

linguistic revival" (Tene-Ariel, 1969). After a long exile Jews returned to homeland

and there was a need to resurrect their ancestors' language. Hebrew was revived again

as a spoken language from the 19th century. Of course, Hebrew phonology

experienced some changes. Given that, the earliest Hebrew speakers were Ashkenazi

who already spoke Yiddish, thus many of the Ashkenazi phonology was transferred

into Hebrew, and some of the changes that occurred can be attributed to this fact, as

well. The changes that Modern (Israeli) Hebrew has undergone can be divided into

three categories:

a. Phonemes used biblically and no longer exist in MH: while BH made use of

active articulators such as the uvular, larynx and pharyngeal (e.g., ח - het, ע

- ayin), phonemes of this type are in sparse use nowadays. Five biblical

phonemes /q, w, t', ħ, ҁ/ are not in use today by the majority of native

Hebrew speakers. Furthermore, the biblical laryngeal phonemes /?/ and /h/

are now much less in use in modern speech. The glottal stop /?/ has become

more and more silent, and the laryngeal /h/ is frequently silent or a glottal

stop.

b. Phonemes that have not existed in BH but are used in MH: the fricative

phoneme / γ / of today for example was not pronounced the same way it is

today. As mentioned above the exact way of biblical pronunciation is still

unclear (whether it was front or back fricative).

c. Phonemes that have been both in BH and MH always.

The early speakers of Israeli Hebrew came from Europe and were unable or not

used to pronounce the gutturals א-'aleph', ח-'het', ע-'ayn' and the emphatics stops /t'/

and /q/. This occurred along with a reduction of doubled consonants (gemination),

18

causing a drastic reduction in the phonemes of MH as compared to BH (Steinberg,

2004). Table 5 presents MH sound system, which has 20 consonants and 5 vowels.

Nowadays, there are only 5 vowels used by Hebrew native speakers. With regard to

those, a hierarchy of vowel articulation difficulty can be drawn from the human factor

point of view, when the easiest vowels to produce are /a, i, u/ (extreme vowels-

central-low, front-high and back-high respectively) and the more difficult ones are / ε,

o/ (both mid-high vowels).

Table 5. HHeebbrreeww mmooddeerrnn pphhoonneemmee ssyysstteemm

Coarticulation Lips- Apex Antero-dorsum

Postero-dorsum

Lips+ Postero-dorsum

Pharyngeal Laryngeal

Stricture Airflow o l v o l v o l v o l v o l v o l v o l v

0 0 stopped p b t d k g ?

0 2 non-


m n

0-1 0-1

stopped, then

turbulent ts

1 1 turbulent f v s z ∫ ϰ γ h

2 2 non-


l j i u

3 3 non-turbulent o

4 4 non-turbulent ε

5 5 non-turbulent a

The fricative phoneme / γ /, mentioned before, which exists nowadays in MH, as

opposed to BH, has in fact two more variations of this phoneme, uttered by speakers

of Hebrew of different ages. These variations (appear in table 4) are the velar

approximant or fricative (R), and the apical trill (r).

19

2.2 Hebrew Root System: Conjugations and Derivatives

The Semitic root itself is a morphological entity, a linguistic sign, which might have

three or four radicals. It is a morpheme that cannot stand on its own, combined in or

with another morpheme such as form (mishkal) or a conjugation (binyan) it creates a

word. Tobin (1994/1995) asserts that "the vast majority of the words of the language

can be analyzed into consonantal roots signaling broad semantic fields which are

combined with fixed morphophonemic patters for what are traditionally called

nominal, verbal and adjectival forms." Hebrew verbs have a number of conjugations:

a simple conjugation (Binyan QAL) and a number of derived conjugations. According

to traditional17 analyses all conjugations can be in one of three voices: active (Binyan

PAAL, PIEL, HIFIL), passive (Binyan NIFAL, PUAL, HUFAL) and reflexive

(Binyan HITPAEL). Hebrew's seven conjugations can be thus divided according to

their "prototypical functions":

1. pa?al = 'basic-simple' 'active' conjugation (KaTaV 'he wrote')

2. nif?al = 'passive' of pa?al (niKTaV 'it was written')

3. pi?el = 'intensive' 'active' conjugation (KiTeV 'he inscribed')

4. pu?al = 'passive' of pi?el (KuTaV 'it was inscribed')

5. hif?il = 'causative' 'active' conjugation (hiKTiv 'he dictated')

6. huf?al = 'passive' of hif?il (huKTaV 'it was dictated')

7. hitpa?el = 'reflexive' 'active' conjugation (hitKaTeV 'he corresponded')


Thus, the Hebrew verbal system allows for any verbal root to be based on a

combination of root and conjugation. As for Derivatives (Gzarot), any Hebrew verb

can be classified to a certain derivative depending on the structure of its root. In

Modern Hebrew there are 8 classes of derivatives, divided by the consonantal root

type. The derivatives are divided as following:

1. Gizrat lamed-hei/lamed-Yod ( י"ל+ה "גזרת ל )

2. Gizrat lamed-aleph ( א"גזרת ל )

17 There are other analyses, such as Tobin (1994/1995), that replace the traditional analysis of conjugations (binyanim), he raises fundamental questions and his extensive study on the matter exhibits the difference between the diverse approaches to this issue.

20

3. Gizrat pei-Yod ( י"גזרת פ )

4. Gizrat pei-nun ( נ"גזרת פ )

5. Gizrat ain-vav + ain-Yod ( י"ע+ ו "גזרת ע )

6. Gizrat ha-merubaim (גזרת המרובעים)

7. Gizrat ha-kfulim (גזרת הכפולים)

8. Gizrat ha-shlemim (גזרת השלמים)

Each derivative refers to a certain three consonantal root: CCC (except one, four

consonantal root derivative, ('gizrat ha-merubaim'). Ancient Hebrew syntax even had

roots with only two18 radicals. Four consonantal (or quadrilateral) roots have been

created by an expansion of a three radical root or from four consonantal nouns. Yet,

the three consonantal root is the basic pattern of Hebrew lexicon. The Hebrew three

consonantal root is assigned the conventional root P-A-L (פעל), where 'Pei' stands for

the first root letter (radical), 'Ain' refers to the second, and 'Lamed' to the third. Thus,

for example the label, 'gizrat Pei-Nun' ( נ"פ ) means that the letter 'nun' is the first letter

of the verbal root19.

2.3 Inflectional Data

The data presented in this section consists of inflectional suffixes of nouns, adjectives

and verbs. In each case the different forms of inflections will be divided into

categories, or rather, paradigms, and for each, a summary of the inflectional suffixes

will be made.

What is inflectional morphology?

Inflectional morphology is a "branch of morphology concerned with inflections:

hands especially with both the semantic and the formal structure of paradigms an

inflectional affix is similarly an affix described as an inflection, a process by which

e.g. such an affix is added is an inflectional formation and so on" (Matthews, 1997).

18 "k.m" – 'kum', the root of to get up. 19Another equivalent system makes use of Latin numeration: I, II, III; where I stands for the first root letter (radical), II refers to the second, and III to the third.

21

Below are the paradigms of Hebrew inflectional suffixes (additional data, on noun,

adjectival and verbal inflection, appears in tables 6. 7. 8. 10. 11. in Appendix A).

Table 9, while belonging to the tables in appendix A, presents suffixations of nominal

forms in Hebrew, the table is divided into functional and semantic categories such as

masculine and feminine presenting forms such as Occupation, Deficiency, Tools,

Places, Diminutive, etc.

Suffixes such as chik and nik, also appear in this table. These `borrowed'

suffixes are used extensively in the Hebrew language, while giving a feeling that they

were always there, in words like xayalchik ('little' soldier), miluimnik (reservist),

kibbutsnik (kibbuts member) and many more20. Suffixes such as those do not seem to be

part of the Hebrew language, since they are not like any other suffixes. However, let

us not forget that the first immigrants to come to Israel were Russian speakers (who

also spoke Yiddish). Thus, it is understandable that some of the language (as well as

many other cultural things) became absorbed in Hebrew and this is why they cannot

be overlooked. Chik is a diminutive suffix. In Russian, adding this suffix changes the

formulation of the word and its meaning into much friendlier and even 'cuter' form.

This also works for Hebrew words as well. Nik is a suffix representing occupation,

explicitly turning a noun into an active form. Another Russian suffix, ist21 also

represents an active form of a noun.

Table 9. HHeebbrreeww NNoommiinnaall FFoorrmmss

Suffixes Forms (mishkalim) Masculine Feminine

zamar (singer) /Ø/ zameret /-εt/ bamaj (director) /-aj/ bamajt /-ait/ manhig (leader) /Ø/ manhiga /-a/ rakdan (dancer) /-an/ rakdanit /-nit/

shiputsnik (repairing man) /-nik/ shiputsnikit /-nikit/

Occupation

musaxnik (mechanic) /-nik/ musaxnikit /-nikit/

20Kolboinik (waste bowl), baxurchik (lad), nudnik (a nagger), moshavnik (moshav member), likudnik (supporter of an Israeli political party), golanchik and magavnik (members of different IDF units), xabadnik (member of Xabad). Moshe Ufnik (Israeli version of Sesame Street), xafifnik (actually an Arabic word used in Hebrew, and in this case with a Russian suffix, i.e. someone who doesn't do his best and does things superficially), jobnik ('pencil-pusher' in the IDF), klumnik (a nobody), shtutnik (a person who does stupid and funny things), palmaxnik (kibbutz member), pazamnik (a person who has served in the IDF for a while now). 21 trempist (hitchhiker), balaganist (a messy person)

22

iver (blind) /Ø/ iveret /-εt/ xeresh (deaf) /Ø/ xereshet /-εt/ kereax (bald) - keraxat /-at/

Deficiency

piseax (cripple) - pisaxat /-at/ atslan (lazy) /-an/ azlanit /-nit/

akshan (stubborn) /-an/ akshanit /-nit/ Quality kind harpatkan (adventurer) /-an/ harpatkanit /-nit/

- - tayeset (squadron) /-εt/ - - rakevet (train) /-εt/ Groups - - dafdefet (loose-leaves) /-εt/ - - ademet (measles) /-εt/ - - kalevet (rabies) /-εt/

dikaon (depression) /-on/ - - Diseases

shigaon (craziness) /-on/ - - mavreg (screwdriver) /Ø/ - - matspen (compass) /Ø/ - -

- - makdexa (drill) /-a/ Tools

- - matslema (camera) /-a/ - - mishtara (police) /-a/ - - mirpaa (clinic) /-a/ - - nagarija (carpentry) /-ja/ Places

- - masgerija (welding workshop) /-ja/

yomon (daily newspaper) /-on/ - - Newspaper/Collection

milon (dictionary) /-on/ - - sifron (booklet) /-on/ - - tipshon (silly) /-on/ - -

katanchik (tiny) /-chik/ - - shamenchik (fatty) /-chik/ - -

- - sakit (small bag) /-it/

Diminutive

- - kapit (teaspoon) /-it/ - - yahadut (Judaism) /-ut/

Abstract - - xaverut (friendship) /-ut/

The following table will present a summary of different suffixes that appear in

Hebrew nominals.

23

Table 14. SSuuffffiixxeess ssuummmmaarryy ooff HHeebbrreeww nnoouunnss

Masculine Female

singular /Ø/ /-at/, /-εt/ Construct state (proximity)

plural /-εj/ /-ot/

singular /Ø/ /Ø/, t (/-εt/, /-it/, /-ut/), /-a/ Noun declension

plural /-im/, /-aim/, /-ot/ /-jot/, /-ot/, /-im/, /-aim/

singular /Ø/, /-uj/ /-a/, -t (/-εt/, /-it/) Adjectival declension

plural /-im/ t (/-ot/, /-jot/)

Hebrew forms (mishkalim) /Ø/, /-aj/, /-an/, /-on/, /-nik/, /-chik/ /-a/, /-ja/, t (/-it/, /-εt/, /-ait/, /-nit/), /-nikit/

sheli (my) /-i/

shelxa (your(m, sing.)) /-xa/

shelax (your(f, sing.)) /-εx/, /-aix/

shelo (his) /-o/, /-iv/, /-av/

shela(her) /-a/, /-ha/, /-ta/

shelanu (our) /-nu/

shelaxem/n (your (pl.)) /-xεm/n/

Noun declension- Possession

shelahem/n (their) /-am/n/, /-hεm/n/, /-tam/n/

Nouns and adjectives in Hebrew are inflected in word final position, with regard to

gender and number. In addition to gender and number however, Hebrew nouns, unlike

adjectives, are also inflected with regards to possession (table 8 in appendix A), forms

(mishkalim) as can be seen in table 9 above, and construct state (proximity – appears

in table 10, appendix A). The next section will examine verbal phonological

components.

24

2.3.1 Verbal Inflection

In Hebrew, Verbs are inflected at word final position with regard to tense, person,

form (such as the imperative form and verbal noun) and the Hebrew conjugations.

The following summary tables of MH inflectional suffixes are divided according to

tense, person and conjugations and they exhibit only the suffixes (for complete data

on MH derivatives' inflectional suffixes see tables 12, 13, 15 in Appendix B).

Table 16-1. SSuummmmaarryy:: VVeerrbbaall SSuuffffiixxeess ((bbyy tteennsseess))

Tense ani ata at hu hi anahnu Atem/n hem/n

Past /-ti/ /-ta/ /-t/ /Ø/ /-a/ /-nu/ /-tem/n/ /-u/

Future /ε-/ /ti-/ /ti-/ /ji- / /ti-/ /ni-/ /ti-/ /ji-/

Table 16-2.

Conjugation Tense

paal nif?al piel pual hitpael hif?il huf?al suffixes- summary

Present

/-εt/, /-im/,

/-ot/, /-at/

/-εt/, /-im/,

/-ot/, /-at/

/-εt/, /-im/, /-ot/, /-?a/

/-εt/, /-im/,

/-ot/, /-at/

/-εm/, /-εt/, /-im/,

/-ot/, /-at/

/-in/, /-na/, /-im/, /-ot/, /-?a/

/-an/, /-εt/, /-im/,

/-ot/, /-at/

/ε-/, /-εt/, /i-/, /-im/, /-a/, /-?a/, /-an/, /a-/, /-ot/, /-at/

Imperative /-i/, /-u/ /-i/, /-u/ /-i/, /-u/ - /-εm/, /-i/,/-u/

/-εn/, /-i/, /-u/ - /-i/, /-u/,

/ε-/

From the tables above it is clear that Hebrew verbs display a rich array of inflectional

suffixes. Finite verb forms are distinguished in number of features; in terms of tense,

number, gender, and person. The following section will explore the phonological

components of the derivational morphology.

25

2.4 Derivational Data

Derivational morphology is defined as such: it is a "branch of morphology concerned

with the derivation of one word in the lexicon from another: e.g. that of hanger from

hang, or of countess from count. In these examples, -er and –ess are derivational

suffixes, and the process of which they are part derivational formations. Traditionally

distinguished from inflectional morphology; also from formation of compounds"

(Matthews, 1997). Contrary to inflectional morphology, derivational morphology

actually changes parts of speech. In this section two main categories both in MH and

BH will be presented; namely Gerunds and Infinitives, and Absolute and Construct

Infinitives in MH and BH respectively. The suffixes that change a root into either one

of these categories will be considered.

The following section will explain the terms that are used in this research:

The Infinitive is "a non finite form of a verb characteristically used in clauses and in

other constructions subordinate to another verb" (Matthews, 1997). In Hebrew, there

are two forms of infinitives: Absolute infinitives and Construct infinitives.

The Infinitive Construct is the 'makor natuy' (- inflected infinitive) of traditional

grammar. According to Ross (2001), "Infinitives are verbal nouns that may function

either as verbs or nouns. Of the two infinitive forms in Hebrew, infinitive construct is

more nominal, or noun-like (hence, the label construct)." Furthermore, when the

subject of infinitive construct is a pronoun, pronominal suffixes are added to the

infinitive construct. Finally, there are two possible usages for the infinitive construct:

verbal/adverbial or nominal.

Verbal/adverbial uses of infinitive construct

The most frequent use of infinitive construct appears in BH. Such constructions

usually include prepositions, for example 'befakdi et ami' (when I visit my people/lit.

in the visiting of me my people). This type of construction, in BH, may or may not

use the preposition le- (Ross, 2001). Morphologically, in MH the infinitive consists of

"the future stem of the verb with a prefix l- as infinitive marker" (Berman, 1978).

Thus, in MH the form of the infinitive marker in all conjugations is le- ('to').

26

Nominal uses of infinitive construct

The infinitive construct often functions as a verbal noun, taking either a subject or an

object, for example 'pkod ha-ish' (the visiting of the man/the man's visiting). In this

construct the infinitive functions as a gerund, which is a nominal form of verbs.

Gerunds are developed from verbal nouns which in course of time became verbalized

preserving at the same time their nominal character. In English, the gerund is formed

by adding the suffix 'ing' to the stem of the verb. In Hebrew, however, formation of

gerunds is much different, and requires various suffixes.

Infinitive Absolute is the 'makor muxlat' of traditional grammar. This is a form

which is morphologically constant, i.e. uninflected. In contrast to infinitive construct,

it does not take pronominal suffixes or prefixed prepositions. It is used in BH in

special kinds of constructions, and serves a very marginal role nowadays in MH. Its

main purpose is to add emphasis e.g. axol toxal ('you may freely eat' Genesis 2:16)

ve'elohim pakod jifkod etxem ('and god shall surely visit you' Genesis 50:24). This

type of construction also functions as to convey a complementary idea – "an infinitive

absolute from a verbal root different than that of the main verb often adds

complementary idea", e.g. vajisa avram halox venasoҁ ('and Abram continually

traveled along'/lit. 'Abram traveled, going and traveling' Genesis 12:9), (Ross, 2001).

Infinitive absolute may also function as a verb in sequence with a preceding verb, e.g.

pakadeti ve∫aloaħ ('I have visited and [I have] sent'); it can also function as an

independent verb i.e. "stand independently in the place of a verb." The purpose of the

latter is to "draw attention to the basic meaning of the verb," e.g. zaxor et jom ha∫abat

('remember the Sabbath day' Exodus 20:8) (Ross, 2001).

2.4.1 Biblical Hebrew

Below are tables of BH suffixes. The following tables contain various suffixes that

can be noted as being phonologically motivated rather than being concrete suffixes

(i.e., /-εt/ or /ot/, as in tables 23, 26, 27), exhibiting a vowel appearing before the last

letter of the word which is also the last letter of the root (i.e., /a-/, /ε/, /i-/, /o-/, /u-/ as

in tables 17-22 and 24, 25). In this case the nineteenth phonological principle of the

PHB theory may be employed, when the vowel before the last radical of the root is

the epenthesis which makes the transition to or between more difficult sounds easier.

27

The tables are divided according to the following derivatives: Gizrat ha-shlemim

(Regular verbs), I - Guttural verbs, I-Aleph verbs, II – Guttural verbs, Gizrat Pei-Nun,

Gizrat Pei-Yod, Gizrat Lamed-Hei/Lamed-Yod, Gizrat Ain-Vav + Ain-Yod ("Hollow"

verbs), Gizrat Ha-Kfulim (Geminate verbs), Gizrat III – Guttural and Gizrat III Aleph

Lamed-Aleph22. Each table is divided into the two types of BH infinitives: absolute

and abstract. The words and their suffixes in each of the infinitive types are presented

by the various Hebrew conjugations.

Table 17. RReegguullaarr vveerrbbss -- GGiizzrraatt hhaa--sshhlleemmiimm ((גזרת השלמיםגזרת השלמים))

Derivative (gizra)

Binyan (conjugation)

Infinitive construct Suffix Infinitive

absolute Suffix Translation

pkod pakod (to appoint) paal (Qal)

- /o-/

katov /o-/

(to write)

hipaked hipakod/ nipakod (to be visited)

nif?al hikatev

/ε-/ niϰtov

/o-/ (to be written)

paked pakod (to muster) piel

katev /ε-/

katov /o-/

(to write)

pukad pukod (to be punished) pual

- /a-/

kutov /o-/

(to be written)

hitpaked hitpaked/ hitpakod (mustered)

hitpael hitkatev

/ε-/ hitkatev

/o-/, / ε-/ (corresponded)

hafkid hafked (to appoint) hif?il

haϰtiv /i-/ haϰtev / ε-/ (to dictate) hafkad hafked (to be appointed)

Gizrat ha-shlemim

(Regular verbs)

huf?al - /a-/

haϰtev / ε-/

(to be written)

The table above is considered to be a part of the strong verbs as Ross (2001) refers to

them, it can be seen that the common suffixes in this table are / ε-/ and /o-/.

22 Some BH and MH roots can belong to two derivatives at the same time (e.g- n-v-ҁ 'to move'- belongs to Pei-Nun and Ain-Vav derivatives).

28

Table 18. II -- GGuuttttuurraall vveerrbbss

Derivative (gizra)




ҁamod ҁamod (stand)

ħazok ħazok (strong)

ҁalot - (rise)

ҁasot - (do)

ҁanot - (answer)

hejot hajo (h) / haju (to be)

paal (Qal)

ҁazov

/o-/ /ot/

-

/o-/

/u/

(abandon)

heҁamed naҁamod (stand) nif?al he?amen

/ ε-/ he?amon

/o-/ (believe)

piel ҁamed / ε-/ ҁamod /o-/ (stand)

pual - ҁumod /o-/ (stand)

hitpael hitҁamed / ε-/ hitҁamed / ε-/ (stand)

haҁamid /i-/ haҁamed / ε-/ (to stand) hif?il

haҁalot /ot/ haҁale(h) / ε/ (to raise)

I - Guttural verbs

huf?al haҁamad /a-/ haҁamed / ε-/ (to stand)

The parenthesis contain the last root consonant (/h/ or /?/) in conjugation PAAL-

Infinitive absolute. This is due to the lack of the ability to establish what BH's exact

pronunciation of these words was. It could be either one of these two options: either

the last root consonant was pronounced as part of the suffix, or that the suffix ended

with a vowel. In MH, however, these consonants are never pronounced as part of the

suffix.

Table 19. II--AAlleepphh vveerrbbss

Derivative (gizra)




I-Aleph verbs

paal (Qal) eϰol /o-/ aϰol /o-/ (eat)

29

Table 20. IIII –– GGuuttttuurraall vveerrbbss

Derivative (gizra)




paal (Qal) bħor /o-/ baħor /o-/ (choose)

hibaħer nivħor (to be chosen) nif?al

hibareϰ / ε-/

nivroϰ /o-/

(bless)

bareϰ bareϰ (to bless) - ma?en (refuse) piel

baҁer / ε-/

- / ε-/

(root out)

pual boraϰ /a-/ boraϰ /a-/ (to be blessed) hitpael hitbareϰ / ε-/ hitbareϰ / ε-/ (to be blessed) hif?il havriϰ /i-/ havreϰ / ε-/ (bless)

II – Guttural verbs

huf?al - havreϰ / ε-/ (bless)

The three tables above present irregular or weak verbs, as Ross (2001) relates to them,

when "one or more of the letters may change or disappear altogether. Verbs with

guttural letters occupy an intermediate position," while the guttural letters are usually

not the ones that undergo a change but rather the vowels are the ones that are

modified..

TTaabbllee 2211.. GGiizzrraatt PPeeii--NNuunn (( ננ""גזרת פגזרת פ ))

Derivative (gizra)




ge∫et / ε-/ nago∫ (approach) nfol /o-/ nafol (fall) t'et / ε-/ naton

/o-/ (give)

kaħat lako?aħ /o?a-/ (take)

saҁat /at/

- - (drive)

nso/set/s?et /o/ / εt/ - - (carry)

paal (Qal)

ntot /ot/ - - (give)

hinage∫ hinage∫ / ε-/ (approach)

hinafel nipol (fall)

Gizrat Pei-Nun

nif?al

hinaten

/ ε-/

hinaton /o-/

(give)

30

piel napel / ε-/ napol /o-/ (fall)

hitpael hitnapel / ε-/ hitnapel / ε-/ (fall)

hakot /ot/ hake (h) / ε/ (attack) hagi∫ hage∫ (approach) hapil hapel (fall)

hif?il

ha(n)gid /i-/

ha(n)ged / ε-/

(tell) hugad huged (tell) hupal hupel (fall) huf?al

huga∫ /a-/

huge∫ / ε-/

(approach)

In the above derivative, many verbs that begin with 'nun' show assimilation of that

letter to a following consonant or lose the letter entirely. In general, the letter 'nun'

assimilates to the following consonant if no vowel or a schwa comes between the two

letters (Ross, 2001).

TTaabbllee 2222.. II-- VVaavv vveerrbbss // GGiizzrraatt PPeeii--YYoodd (( יי""גזרת פגזרת פ ))

Derivative (gizra)




∫evet ja∫ov (sit down)

jtov jatov (to do good)

jvo∫ (et) - (dry up)

redet - (go down)

re∫et - (inherit)

ledet - (give birth)

j∫on - (sleep)

jro(?) - (fear)

lexet - (go)

daҁat jadoҁa (to know)

paal (Qal)

ts?et/tset

/ εt/

/o-/

/o/

/a-/

/?εt/, /εt/

-

/o-/ /a/

(departure) hiva∫ev hiva∫ov (sit down)

nif?al hivaled

/ε-/ -

/o-/ (to be born)

piel ja∫ev /ε-/ ja∫ov /o-/ (sit)

pual - -

I- Vav verbs

---

Gizrat Pei-Yod

hitpael hitja∫ev /ε-/ hitja∫ev /ε-/ (to sit)

31

horot hore (h) show/point

ho∫iv ho∫ev (to sit down)

hejtiv hejtev

horid hored

/ε/

/ε-/

(to take down)

hif?il

ho∫iҁa

/ot/

/i-/

/a/

ho∫eҁa /a/ (to salvate)

huf?al hu∫av /a-/ hu∫ev /ε-/ (to return, to bring back)

There are two types of verbs that begin with 'Yod': those that were originally I- Vav,

and those that were originally I-Yod. The two types cannot be distinguished in the

infinitive absolute (and in the perfect, and the participle), because they both begin

with 'Yod' in these forms. Many verbs that begin with 'Yod' were originally I-Vav

verbs. In several Hebrew roots, 'Vav' is presented as either a consonant or a vowel

letter. (Ross, 2001)

TTaabbllee 2233.. GGiizzrraatt llaammeedd--hheeii//llaammeedd--YYoodd (( יי""לל++ה ה ""גזרת לגזרת ל ))

Derivative (gizra)




glot galo (h) (to reveal)

bnot bano(h) (to build)

hejot - (to be)

hagot - (to meditate)

ntot - (to incline)

ҁalot - (to rise)

ҁasot - (to do)

paal (Qal)

ҁanot

/ot/

-

/o/

(to answer)

higalot niglo (h) (to be uncovered) nif?al

hibanot /ot/

nivno (h) /o/

(to be built) galot gale (h) (to uncover) piel banot /ot/ bano (h) /ε/ (to build) bunot - (to build) pual gulot /ot/ gulo (h) /o/ (to be uncovered)

hitgalot hitgale (h) (to become uncovered)

Gizrat lamed-hei/lamed-Yod ( גזרת

י"ל+ה "ל )

hitpael hitbanot

/ot/ -

/ε/ (to become built)

32

haglot hagle (h) (to exile) havnot havne (h) (build) haҁalot haҁale (rise up) ħakot ħake (h) (to wait)

hif?il

horot

/ot/

hore (h)

/ε/

(show/point) - havne (h) (build)

huf?al haglot /ot/ hagle (h) /ε/ (to exile)

Most verbs that end with 'Hei' were originally 'Lamed-Yod' verbs (or rarely 'lamed-

vav' verbs). According to Ross, there are three pieces of evidence that point to this

conclusion:

1. Final 'Hei' represents a vowel and not a consonant.

2. 'Yod' appears in many of the forms as a silent letter.

3. Many of these verbs are spelled in cognate languages with final 'Yod'.

(adapted from Ross, 2001)

TTaabbllee 2244.. GGiizzrraatt AAiinn--VVaavv ++ AAiinn--YYoodd (( יי""עע+ + ו ו ""גזרת עגזרת ע )) ((""HHoollllooww"" vveerrbbss))

Derivative (gizra)




kum kom (analogy of katol) (to rise)

mut mot (to die )

bo∫ bo∫ (to be ashamed)

sim/sum som

/o-/

(to place)

bo(?) bo(?) /o/ (come)

lun - (spend the night)

paal (Qal)

∫u∫

/u-/

/o-/

/i-/

-

(to rejoice)

Gizrat

Ain-Vav + Ain-Yod

(Hollow verbs)

nif?al hikom /o-/

hikom/nakom (difference in

data from various sources)

/o-/ (get up)

33

hakim

hakam/hakem (difference in

data from various sources)

/ε-/, /a-/ (to raise)

hif?il

hani?aħ

/i-/

/ia-/ -

(to cause to rest/to set

down)

huf?al hukam /a-/ hukem / ε -/ (raised)

"Hollow" verbs have as their middle root letter, one of two semi-vowels: 'yod' or

'vav', rather than a consonant, (Ross, 2001).

TTaabbllee 2255.. GGeemmiinnaattee vveerrbbss ))גזרת הכפוליםגזרת הכפולים((

Derivative (gizra)




sov (active) savov (active) (surround)

kol/kalot (stative)

kalol (stative) (easy)

ħom - (heat)

tom - (complete)

paal (Qal)

rov

/o-/

-

/o-/

(multitude)

nif?al hisav/hisev /ε-/ or /a-/ hisov /o-/ (to turn)

piel sabev /ε-/ - (to turn) hitpael histabev /ε-/ histabev /ε-/ (turn around)

hasev hasev (to turn) hif?il

haraҁ

/ε-/

/a-/ - /ε-/

(to do evil)

Gizrat Ha-Kfulim

(Geminate verbs)

huf?al husav /a-/ husev /ε-/ (to be turned)

Geminate verbs have identical second and third root letters. The root tends to become

monosyllabic in conjugation due to the omission of one of the identical letters, but

where ever it's possible the geminate letter is preserved by doubling the second root

letter (using emphasis ('dagesh' – in Hebrew)). (Ross, 2001)

34

TTaabbllee 2266.. IIIIII –– GGuuttttuurraall

Derivative (gizra)




hi∫amҁa ni∫moҁa (hear) nif?al

hi∫alaħ

/a/

/a-/ ni∫lo?aħ

/a/

/a-/ (send)

piel ∫amҁa /a/ ∫ameҁa /a/ (to make hear)

pual - - hitpael hi∫tamҁa hi∫tameҁa (hear)

hif?il ha∫miҁa /a/

ha∫meҁa (to be heard)

Gizrat III - Guttural

huf?al - ha∫meҁa

/a/

(hear)

Ross (2001) states that there are slight vocalization changes in verbs that end with a

guttural letter, while the infinitive construct and infinitive absolute are the ones that

differ from the normal patterns. Furthermore, in the following table the last letter is a

guttural letter aleph, which in this case does not have a consonantal value and the

vowel before it is long.

TTaabbllee 2277.. IIIIII AAlleepphh ((GGiizzrraatt llaammeedd--aalleepphh אא""גזרת לגזרת ל ))

Derivative (gizra)




paal (Qal) ts?et/tset /?εt/, /εt/ - (to go out)

himatse(?) nimtso(?) (to be found) nif?al hikare(?)

/ε/ nikro(?)

/o/ (call)

piel matse(?) /ε/ matso(?) /o/ (to be found)

hitpael hitmatse(?) /ε/ - (to find/be familiar with)

(Gizrat III Aleph

Lamed-Aleph)

hif?il hamtsi(?) /i/ hamtse(?) /ε/ (cause to find)

The tables above were arranged according to the various Gzarot23 appearing in the

Hebrew language. In this section (2.4.1), it can be seen that BH derivatives were

divided into eleven derivatives, while MH is divided into (traditional) eight

derivatives24, as can be seen below.

23 BH data is maintained from these BH grammar sources: Ross,2001; Lambdin, 1971; Jouon, 1996. 24 BH derivatives I,II,III guttural verbs and I-Aleph verbs can be seen as belonging to MH 'gizrat hashlemim'.

35

2.4.2 Modern Hebrew

Below are tables of MH suffixes. As in the BH tables above, the tables here are

divided into Hebrew derivatives. However, as was mentioned above, MH is typically

divided into eight derivatives. Each table is divided into the two types of MH verbal

nouns: Infinitives and Gerunds. The words and their suffixes in each of the verbal

noun columns are presented by the various Hebrew conjugations. In contrast to BH,

however, MH derivatives do not contain pu?al and huf?al verbal nouns, that are both

considered to be the passive counterparts of piel and hif?il, and do not have either

gerunds or infinitives. However, as Tobin (1994/1995) states, although it has been

considered to be a grammatical rule, "their functions do not always fall under the

rubric of passivity"25.

Table 28. GGiizzrraatt LLaammeedd--HHeeii//LLaammeedd--YYoodd (( יי""לל++ה ה ""גזרת לגזרת ל ))

DDeerriivvaattiivvee ((ggiizzrraa))


Gerund )שם פעולה( Suffix Infinitive

)שם הפועל( Suffix

bnija (building)

livnot (to build)

knija (shopping)

liknot (to buy)

∫tija (drinking)

li∫tot (to drink)

dxija (postponing)

lidhot (to postpone)

paal

-

/-ja/

lilvot (to borrow from)

hibanut (being built)

lehibanot (to be built)

nif?al dxija (hidahut)

(postponing)

/-ut/ lehidahot (to be postponed)

pinuj (evacuating)

lefanot (to evacuate)

∫inuj (changing)

le∫anot (to change)

GGiizzrraatt LLaammeedd--HHeeii//LLaammeedd--

YYoodd

piel

giluj (discovering)

/-uj/

legalot (to discover)

/-ot/

25 "Sometime a root will have an active message even though it only appears in the passive paired binyanim (nixnas, `enter'/NIFAL) or the root will appear in both the active and the passive paired banyan with an active message (laxam (PAAL/QAL) / nilxam (NIFAL), `fought'). So, like so many other traditional and neotraditional grammatical rules, this active-passive relationship of paired binyanim has too many exceptions and contradictions to be accepted as an absolute or hard and fast rule." (Tobin, 1994/1995)

36

livuj (escorting)

lelavot (to escort)

nikuj (cleaning)

lenakot (to clean)

hi∫tanut (changing)

lehi∫tanot (to change)

hitgalut (revelation)

lehitgalot (to be *revelated) hitpael

hitlavut (accompanying)

/-ut/

lehitlavot (to accompany)

haf?naja (turning)

lehafnot (to turn over)

haglaja (deporting)

lehaglot (to deport)

hagaha (proof-reading)

lehagot (to proof-read)

halva?a (lending)

lehalvot (to lend)

hif?il

hoda?a (thanking)

/-ja/

/-a/

lehodot (to thank)

Table 29.. GGiizzrraatt LLaammeedd--AAlleepphh (( אא""גזרת לגזרת ל ))

Derivative (gizra)




metsia (finding)

limtso (to find)

kria (reading)

likro (to read) paal

bria (creation)

/-a/

livro (to create)

/-o/

nif?al himats?ut (excistence) /-ut/ lehimatse

(to be found (at)) /-ε/

miluj (filling)

lεmalε (to fill)

ripuj (healing)

lεrapε (to heal) piel

jεvu (importing)

/-uj/

/-u/ lεjavε

(to import)

/-ε/

hitbat?ut (expressing)

lεhitbatε (to express)

Gizrat Lamed-Aleph

hitpael hitmats?ut

(orientation)

/-ut/ lεhitmatsε

(to be familiar with)

/-ε/

37

hamtsa?a (invention)

lεhamtsi (to invent)

hakpa?a (freezing)

lεhakpi (to freeze)

hotsa?a (taking out)

lεhotsi (to take out)

hif?il

-

/-a/

lεhavri (to recover)

/-i/

An important point to mention is about the suffix /-ε/ appearing in the table above,

which has changed in the Hebrew language that is used nowadays, many if not most

Hebrew speakers do not use the correct suffix /-ε/ but rather the incorrect one /-ot/

(This will be further explained in section 2.6)

Table 30. GGiizzrraatt PPeeii--YYoodd (( יי""גזרת פגזרת פ ))





jadia (knowledge)

ladaҁat (to know)

jεrida (going down)

larεdεt (to go down)

jεshiva (sitting)

lashεvεt (to sit)

jεtsia (exit)

latsεt (to exit)

- lishon (to sleep)

jεrika (spitting)

lirok (to spit)

paal

jεnika (sucking)

/a/

linok (to suck)

/-at/

/-εt/

/o-/

hivaldut (being born)

lεhivalεd (to be born)

hivasdut (establishing)

lεhivasεd (to be

established) hivadҁut

(making known) lεhivҁεd

(to be convened) hivatrut

(remaining) lεhivatεr

(to remain)

nif?al

hivaxaxut (realizing)

/-ut/

lεhivaxax (to realize)

/ε-/

/a-/

GGiizzrraatt PPeeii--YYoodd

piel - -

38

hitpael - - horada

(lowering) lεhorid

(tp lower) hozala

(cheapening) lεhozil

(to cheapen) hotsa?a

(taking out) lεhotsi

(to take out)

hif?il

hoda?a (thanking)

/-a/

lεhodot (to thank)

/i-/

/ot/

Table 31. GGiizzrraatt PPeeii--NNuunn (( ננ""גזרת פגזרת פ ))



Gerund (shem pe'ula) Suffix Infinitive

(shem hapo'al) Suffix

nεtila (taking)

lintol (to take)

nεtisha (abandonment)

lintosh (to abandon)

nεfila (falling)

linpol (to fall)

nεfila (falling)

lipol (to fall)

nεsia (drive)

linsoҁa (to drive)

paal

nεgia (touching)

/-a/

lingoҁa (to touch)

/o-/

/oa/

nif?al hinatslut (being saved) /-ut/ lεhinatsεl

(to be saved) /ε-/

piel - - pual - -

hitpael - - hakara

(acquaintance) lεhakir

(to be familiar with) hapala

(dropping) lεhapil

(to drop) hatala

(throwing) lεhatil

(to throw) hazaҁa

(sweating) lεhaziҁa

(to sweat) hagaҁa

(arriving) lεhagiҁa

(to arrive)

hif?il

hatsaҁa (suggestion)

/-a/

lεhatsiҁa (to suggest)

/i-/

/-ia/

GGiizzrraatt PPeeii--NNuunn

huf?al - -

39

In the derivative above, as in BH, many verbs that begin with 'nun' show assimilation

of that letter to a following consonant or an omission of 'nun' entirely. In general, the

letter 'nun' assimilates to the following consonant if no vowel or a schwa comes

between the two letters26, (Ross, 2001).

Table 32. GGiizzrraatt aaiinn--vvaavv ++ aaiinn--YYoodd (( יי""עע+ + ו ו ""גזרת עגזרת ע ))





- lagur (to live)

- lazuz (to move)

tisa (flying)

latus (to fly)

lina (lodging)

lalun (to lodge)

shira (singing)

lashir (to sing)

sima (putting)

lasim (to put)

- lanuax (to relax)

niҁa (moving)

lanuҁa (to move)

paal

bi?a (coming)

/-a/

lavo (to come)

/u-/

/i-/

/ua-/

/-o/

nif?al - - sijum

(finishing) lεsajεm

(to finish) piel mijun (sorting)

/u-/ lεmajεn (to sort)

hitkomemut (rebellion)

lεhitkomεm (to rebel)

histovεvut (rotation)

lεhistovεv (to rotate)

hi∫tolεlut (riotousness)

lεhi∫tolεl (to riot)

hitgorεrut (dwelling)

lεhitgorεr (to dwell)

hitbolεlut (assimilation)

lεhitbolεl (to assimilate)

hitpael

hitpotsεtsut (explosion)

/-ut/

lεhitpotsεts (to explode)

/ε-/

GGiizzrraatt AAiinn--VVaavv ++ AAiinn--YYoodd (( גזרת גזרת

יי""עע+ + ו ו ""עע )

hif?il hakama (establishing) /-a/ lεhakim

(to establish) /i-/

26 For example MH Hebrew 'Pei-Nun' roots ע.ס.נ and ל.פ.נ would have infinitives 'linsoҁa'/'lisoҁa, and 'linpol'/lipol, respectively.

40

hazaza (moving)

lεhaziz (to move)

hε?ara (clarification)

lεha?ir (to clarify)

havana (understanding)

lεhavin (to understand)

hanaxa (laying down)

lεhani?aħ (to lay down)

/ia-/

Concerning the next two tables, let us consider the issue of reduplication.

Table 33. GGiizzrraatt hhaa--mmeerruubbaaiimm ((גזרת המרובעיםגזרת המרובעים))





paal - - nif?al - -

pirsum (advertising)

lεfarsεm (to advertise)

lixlux (dirty)

lεlaxlεx (to dirty)

bizbuz (wasting)

lεvazbεz (to waste)

∫ixrur (releasing)

lε∫xrεr (to release)

kilkul (spoiling)

lεkalkεl (to spoil)

xirmun (caressing)

lεxarmεn (to caress)

tsiltsul (ringing)

lεtsaltsεl (to ring)

gilgul (rolling)

lεgalgεl (to roll)

piel

tifkud (functioning)

/u-/

lεtafkεd (to function)

/ε-/

hitparsεmut (becoming known)

lεhitparsεm (to become known)

hitgalgεlut (rolling)

lεhitgalgεl (to roll)

hitlaxlεxut (becoming dirty)

lεhitlaxlεx (to become dirty)

hitargεnut (organizing)

lεhitargεn (to organize)

hitxarmεnut (fondling/ caressing)

lεhitxarmεn (to fondle )

GGiizzrraatt hhaa--mmeerruubbaaiimm גזרת גזרת )) (המרובעיםהמרובעים

hitpael

hitbazbεzut (being wasted)

/-ut/

lεhitbazbεz (to be wasted)

/ε-/

41

hi∫taxrεrut (being released)

lεhi∫taxrεr (to be released)

hitbalbεlut (confusing)

lεhitbalbεl (to be confuse)

hif?il - -

Table 34. GGiizzrraatt hhaa--kkffuulliimm ((גזרת כפוליםגזרת כפולים))





paal - - nif?al - -

sibuv (rotation)

lεsovεv (to rotate)

bidud (isolation)

lεvodεd (isolate)

xikuk (legislation)

lεxokεk (to legislate)

piel

tifuf (drumming)

/u-/

lεtofεf (to drum)

/ε-/

pual - - hitkofεfut

(bending over) lεhitkofεf

(to bend over) hit?orεrut

(awakening) lεhit?orεr

(to awaken) hit?lonεnut

(complaining) lεhit?lonεn

(to complain) histovεvut

(turning around) lεhistovεv

(to turn around) hitgorεrut (dwelling)

lεhitgorεr (to dwell)

hitbolεlut (assimilation)

lεhitbolεl (to assimilate)

hitpotsεtsut (explosion)

lεhitpotsεts (to eplode)

hitpael

hi∫tolεlut (wild behavior)

/ut/

lεhi∫tolεl (to go wild)

/ε-/

hakala (easing)

lεhakεl (to ease)

hagana (defense)

lεhagεn (to defense)

hafara (violation)

lεhafεr (to violate)

hatsara (narrowing)

lεhatsεr (to narrow)

GGeemmiinnaatteess ((GGiizzrraatt hhaa--kkffuulliimm)

hif?il

hεata (slowing down)

/-a/

lεhaεt (to slow down)

/ε-/

42

haxala (beginning)

lεhaxεl (to begin)

hεҁaza (daring)

lεhaҁεz (to dare)

The process of reduplication, as defined by Hall occurs when "some element of a

form is repeated, being thus infixed before (or after) itself (in Tobin, 2000). Indeed

this is the case of two MH derivatives- 'gizrat hakfulim' (geminates) and 'gizrat

hameruba'im'. In the former the three-radical root maintains two final identical

radicals, and in the latter the four-radical root maintains a repetition of the first two

radicals (e.g. ' ב.ב.ס ' and ל.ג.ל.ג' ' respectively). Tobin (2000) divides these two

derivative patterns into four types, where the last two are mirror or reversed images of

each other:

1. A-B-B (G-L-L 'to roll, wrap, furl')

2. A-B-C-C (?-S-R-R 'to ratify, confirm')

3. A-B-A-B (G-L-G-L 'to roll, revolve; knead')

4. B-A-B-A (L-G-L-G 'to sneer, mock, deride, scoff, ridicule')


According to Tobin (2000), the "connections and relationships" between these

patterns and the root are far from being arbitrary. For one thing, regardless of their

classification or aspectual properties, these roots are all marked for integrality, and

can be viewed as being "continuous, uninterrupted whole or a set: i.e. an integral

activity" (Tobin, 2000). Further, according to Tobin there is a nonrandom distribution

of the number of reduplicated roots within the reduplicated root patterns, in which the

simplest reduplicated root (both in form and meaning) A-B-B is the most common

pattern (out of the four pattern types)- it has the largest number of reduplicated roots.

The pattern A-B-C-C (marked for result), on the other hand, is the least common

pattern, with only 55 reduplicated roots. The last two patterns show an interesting

connection: A-B-A-B (unmarked for result) has 129 reduplicated roots, but only 40

reduplicated mirror image reduplicated roots of the pattern B-A-B-A (Tobin, 2000).

According to Tobin, these two patterns also differ in semantic meaning: one indicates

repeated action in one direction (e.g. x-ts-x-ts 'to shoot an arrow') and the other (the

reverse pattern) an action in more than one direction (e.g. ts-x-ts-x 'to shine, brush,

polish').

43

Moreover, according to Tobin (2000) there is a distinct connection between

form and meaning: the more complex a pattern is in its form, the more complex it is in

meaning. This connects to the fact that MH consists of a vast number of quadrilateral

consonantal roots (thus, BH does not contain a distinctive quadrilateral derivative).

Possible motivation for this, in terms of PHB theory's principles, for Hebrew later

reduplication is that it creates a dichotomy (between two types of meanings/actions),

which is easier to remember, and thus creates another set of consonantal root. One

other factor that has surely contributed to the appearance of MH quadrilateral roots is

technological and modern development. Indeed, it is hard to imagine the necessity of

such roots as F-K-S-S ('to fax') or K-D-R-R ('to dribble') or even Z-P-Z-P ('to flip

channels') and T-R-T-R ('to rattle, hassle, rush someone over and over'). An

interesting point worth mentioning concerns the issue of mirror images and their

origins. It seems that the A-B-A-B root patterns that lack mirror images have a

common trait; they indicate a two direction, or a repeated action. Consider these roots

for example: G-R-G-R ('to gurgle'), G-M-G-M ('to stutter'), K-R-K-R ('to quack'), N-

D-N-D ('to nag, swing'), M-∫-M-∫ ('to feel'), TS-L-TS-L ('to ring'), B-Z-B-Z ('to spend,

waste'), B-ҁ-B- ҁ ('to bubble, sparkle'), T-R-T-R ('to rattle, hassle, rush someone over

and over'), ∫- ҁ -∫- ҁ ('to amuse'), Z-G-Z-G ('to zigzag').

None of the above quadrilateral roots have a mirror image (thus, there is no

*R-G-R-G, *M-G-M-G, and so on). A possible hypothesis would be that MH

quadrilateral roots have originated denoting a one way directional action. The later

appearing mirror image quadrilateral roots, denoting two-directions or a repeated

action have probably sprung from those forms. A reasonable explanation for this

would be that mirror images serve as to expand the possible meaning of a root, by

creating an additional directionality and repetition. This seems more adequate and

simple than to narrow down a verb's meaning (i.e. to form one-directional mirror

images out of two-directional A-B-A-B roots). This hypothesis, if indeed

corroborated, leads to an additional assumption- it seems that possibilities of mirror-

image roots forming out of existing one-directional quadrilateral roots are unlimited

(current examples are L-K-L-K 'to lick repeatedly' formed out of K-L-K-L, and so

on). It is clear that the notion of maximum communication with minimal effort is

exhibited in the roots, as well. There has been a progression from two radical roots

into three, four, and nowadays even, five radical roots (such as f.l.r.t.t flirtut – same as

44

flirtation in English). This expansion prohibits easier reading, as well as,

differentiation between words and an understanding of them. Moreover, it can be seen

that the distribution of phonemes is not random at all.

Table 35. GGiizzrraatt hhaa--sshhlleemmiimm ((גזרת השלמיםגזרת השלמים))





nεҁila (locking)

linҁol (to lock)

jεtsira (creation)

litsor (to create)

nεxita (landing)

linxot (to land)

nεgiҁa (touching)

lingoҁa/ligoҁa (to touch)

ҁamida (standing)

laҁamod (to stand)

paal

?axila (eating)

/-a/

lε?εxol (to eat)

/o-/

knisa (entering)

lεhikanεs (to enter)

ҁatsira (stopping)

lεhεҁatsεr (to stop)

hi∫a?arut (staying)

lεhi∫a?εr (to stay)

nif?al

∫lixa (sending)

/-a/

/-ut/

lεhi∫alax (to be sent)

/ε-/

dibur (talking)

lεdabεr (to talk)

xizuk (strengthening)

lεxazεk (to strengthen)

birux (blessing)

lεvarεx (to bless)

piel

pituax (developing)

/u-/

/ua-/ lεfatεax

(to develope)

/ε-/

/εa-/

pual - - hitjaxasut

(treatment) lεhitjaxεs (to treat)

hitjaxadut (seclusion)

lεhitjaxεd (to seclude)

hitlab∫ut (dressing)

lεhitlabε∫ (to dress)

hi∫tam∫ut (using)

lεhi∫tamε∫ (to use)

hitkalxut (showering)

lεhitkalεax (to shower)

GGiizzrraatt hhaa--sshhlleemmiimm

hitpael

hitnatslut (apology)

/-ut/

lεhitnatsεl (to apologize)

/ε-/

45

hitasfut (gathering)

lεhitasεf (to gather)

hitxamεmut (heating up)

lεhitxamεm (to heat up)

hitxazkut (strengthening)

lehitxazek (to strengthen)

havtaxa (promess)

lεhavtiax (to promess)

hatxala (beginning)

lεhatxil (to begin)

haxlafa (exchanging)

lεhaxlif (to exchange)

ha?avara (transferring)

lεha?avir (to transfer)

haklata (recording)

lεhaklit (to record)

hafkada (depositing)

lεhafkid (to deposit)

harga∫a (customizing)

lεhargi∫ (to customize)

hif?il

hafsaka (break)

/-a/

lεhafsik (to break)

/ia-/

/-i/

huf?al - -

2.5 Data analysis

In this section a summary of the tables of the data above will be presented. The data

will be analyzed in two fashions: first the synchronic analysis will be made, by

comparing MH inflectional suffixes to MH derivational suffixes. And the second

analysis is a diachronic one: MH suffixes will be compared with those of BH.

2.5.1 Synchronic Analysis

2.5.1.1. Modern Hebrew: Summary of inflectional suffixes

As can be seen from the tables above (section 2.3), nouns, adjectives, verbs and

derivatives in Hebrew have many similar suffixes. A summary of all the suffixes is

presented in table 36. Suffixes in Hebrew are composed of final vowels, final

consonants, (C)VC, (V)CV, VVC and zero ending. From the human factor point of

view, vowels are easier to produce. However, from the point of view of the

communication factor, consonants provide clearer distinctions. This, again, reflects

the complex system in which language operates – a constant struggle of the mini-max

relationship between maximal communication with minimal effort.

46

Table 36. SSuummmmaarryy ooff HHeebbrreeww iinnfflleeccttiioonnaall ssuuffffiixxeess:: NNoouunnss,, AAddjjeeccttiivveess,, FFoorrmmss,, DDeerriivvaattiivveess aanndd VVeerrbbss.

Type of Suffix Suffixes

/Ø/

(C)VC

/-at/, /-εt/, /-ot/, /-εj/, /-it/, /-ut/, /-im/, /-jot/, /-aj/, /-an/, /-on/,

/-nit/, /-uj/, /-εx/, /-iv/, /-av/, /-xεm/, /-xεn/, /-am/,

/-hεm/, /-hεn/, /-tam/, /-tan/, /-tεm/, /-tεn/

VVC /-aim/, /-ait/, /-aix/

(V)CV /-ja/, /-ha/, /-ti/, /-ta/, /-nu/, /-xa/, /-nit/ /-nik/, /-nikit/, /-chik/

Final Vowel /-o/, /-i/, /-a/, /-u/, /-ε/

Final

Consonant /-t/

2.5.1.2 Modern Hebrew: Summary of derivational suffixes

Table 37. SSuummmmaarryy ooff MMHH DDeerriivvaattiivveess

Suffixes Derivative

Gerund Appearances Infinitive Appearances Total (=51)

Gizrat Lamed-Hei/Lamed-Yod /ja/ /ut/ /uj/ /a/ 4 /ot/ 1 5

Gizrat Lamed Aleph /a/ /ut/ /uj/ /u/ 4 /o/ /ε/ /i/ 3 7

Gizrat Pei-Yod /a/ /ut/ 2 /ε-/ /at/ /εt/ /o-/ /i/ /a-/ /i-/ /ot/ 8 10

Gizrat Pei-Nun /a/ /ut/ 2 /o-/ /i-/ /ε-/ /a/ (/iҁa/ and oҁa/) 4 6

47

Gizrat Ain- Yod + Ain- Vav /a/ /ut/ /u-/ 3 /ε-/ /u-/ /a/ (/ua-/) /o/ /i-/ 5 8

Gizrat ha-Merubaim /u-/ /ut/ 2 /ε-/ 1 3

Gizrat ha-Shlemim /a/ /u-/ /ua-/ /ut/ 4

/o-/ / ε-/ /a-/ (/εa-/and /ia-/)

/i/ 4 8

Gizrat ha-Kfulim (Geminates) /u-/ /ut/ /a/ 3 /ε-/ 1 4

Table 37. allows a summarization of MH unique suffixes27:

/ut/, /a/ (also, (/iҁa/ /ua/ and /oҁa/), /ε-/, /u-/, /i-/, /o-/, /i/, /o/, /ot/, /uj/, /a-/, /ε/, /u/,

/at/, /εt/, / εa-/, /ia-/, /ja/.

2.5.1.3 Inflectional and Derivational suffixation: a comparison

From the data above (tables 36 and 37) it is noticeable that there is a non-random

distribution of phonemes in the inflectional and derivational suffixes in Hebrew.

Indeed, there is a great similarity in the suffixes of Hebrew inflectional and

derivational systems. Both systems contain a large amount of similar suffix endings:

1. Suffixes ending with consonants: /ut/, /ot/,/εt/, /at/, /uj/.

2. Suffixes ending with vowels: /a/, /ε/, /i/, /o/, /u/ (all vowels appear, though in

different frequency).

3. VC suffixes.

With regard to the last suffix type, it is important to point out two things: first,

concerning (V), in both systems all five MH vowels appear (see further discussion

below). However, there is a slight difference in the distribution of the vowels between

the two systems28:

27 See table 40. in Appendix D for detailed statistic summary of MH derivational suffixes. 28 The distribution refers to the frequency of suffixes containing each vowel of the same sort out of the complete (C)VC suffix possible forms listed in tables 39 and 40 in Appendix D.

48

IInn tthhee IInnfflleeccttiioonnaall ssyysstteemm tthhee ddiissttrriibbuuttiioonn ooff vvoowweellss iiss aass ffoolllloowwss::

ε > a > i > o > u

IInn tthhee DDeerriivvaattiioonnaall ssyysstteemm tthhee ddiissttrriibbuuttiioonn ooff vvoowweellss iiss sslliigghhttllyy ddiiffffeerreenntt,, mmoosstt

nnoottaabbllee //aa// iiss tthhee lleeaasstt ccoommmmoonn ((//aa// aanndd //uu// iinntteerrcchhaannggeedd))::

ε > u > i > o > a

The fact that in derivational MH /a/ is the least common vowel to appear

before consonants is a bit surprising, concerning the fact that /a/ is the easiest vowel to

produce (and /u/ is one of the hardest, in terms of 'vowel hierarchy'). In fact, in the

derivational system suffix /ut/ is the most frequent suffix (see table 40 in Appendix

D). in this respect it is easy to explain this preference in terms of the human factor- it

is easier to utter rounded high vowel /u/ followed by apical /t/ than with central low

vowel /a/- in the former the lips are already contracted and the tongue is high enough

to move to the next sound apical /t/ which utilizes the tip of the tongue so it would

touch the upper dental area. A possible analysis for the sparse appearance of /a/

followed by a consonant has to take into account the specifics of its distributions:

from the derivational tables above (see tables 30-37) it can be seen that suffix /a-/

(including /at/) appears only in the Pei-Yod derivative, in pa?al (/at/) and nif?al (/a-/)

conjugations. More precisely, suffix /at/ appears only when preceded by root radical

/ҁ/ (as in ladaҁat 'to know'), and /a-/ in general appears only when followed by root's

radical /ҁ/ or /ϰ/ (as in lεhikanaҁ 'to surrender' and lεhivaxax 'to realize'). All three of

these cases can be accounted for by the human factor point of view: either followed or

preceding a turbulent Postereodorsum /ϰ/, or preceding turbulent Pharyngeal /ҁ/

central low vowel /a/ (where the mouth is open and the tongue ready to move back for

the p-dorsum/pharyngeal sound) is more accessible for these sounds than high vowel

/u/. Also, since MH speakers hardly pronounce /ҁ/ anymore (which assimilates to /a/

nowadays), it is reasonable to expect vowel /a/ rather than /u/.

Secondly, concerning (C), there is a basic difference between the two systems

concerning final consonants. While in both systems suffix of the type (C)VC is

favored, there is a difference as to the nature of this last consonant ending. In the MH

49

inflectional system, suffixes that end with a consonant do so in accordance to PHB

principles. The most common consonantal ending inflections are /t/ and /m, n/- the

former for verbal inflection, the latter for noun inflection. This agrees with several of

PHB's principles:

SSoonnoorraannttss ((nnaassaallss aanndd vvoowweellss)) aarree ffaavvoorreedd..

The data suggests that sonorants are the most favored phonemes in Hebrew

inflectional suffixes. Nasals /m/, /n/ are the most dominant. Nasals, which employ 3

sets of articulators, require more effort than voiceless obstruents (such as /t/, /v/ and

/x/) (the human factor). However, they are commonly used, since they convey more

acoustic information (the communication factor), and they are 'natural' phonemes, that

is, they require the speaker to move the uvular in a way that is natural for breathing

(the human factor).

AAppiiccaall aarrttiiccuullaattoorrss aarree ffaavvoorreedd..

Except for vowel endings, other common endings are: the apical stop /-t/ and the

apical nasal /n/. Being at the position of the apex of the tongue, /t/ and /n/, are

amongst the most flexible, sensitive and easiest to control of all the active articulators.

Therefore, phoneme that gives a good communication and is easy to produce - are

efficient and an economical phonemes.

VViissuuaall aarrttiiccuullaattiioonnss aarree ffaavvoorreedd.

Among the final word position consonants, the bilabial /m/ is very common. It

appears in several categories, for nouns, adjectives and verbs alike. This relates back

to the communication factor- visible bilabials make it easier to identify them

correctly. In addition, /m/ represents a final closure of both lips – which naturally

occurs when we finish speaking – word/utterance final position. Other, less common,

consonantal endings for MH inflectional systems are voiceless fricative /v/ and glide

/j/, and also the voiceless fricative /x/ once. These endings also agree with several

other PHB principles-

50

AAddddiittiioonnaall aarrttiiccuullaattoorrss aarree lleessss ffaavvoorreedd ((eessppeecciiaallllyy iinn ffiinnaall ppoossiittiioonn)).

There can be drawn an articulatory hierarchy, in terms of articulatory sets:

(1) Voiceless - Ø active (oral) articulators only

(2) Laryngeal - (+1) (voiced) active (oral) articulator(s) + vocal folds

(3) Nasal or velar - (+2) active (oral) articulator(s) + vocal folds + uvular.

(adapted from Tobin 1990).

Voiceless phonemes involve one less articulatory set than voiced phonemes, thus they

are easier to produce and are favored by the human factor point of view. Although,

from the communication factor point of view, more sets are favored, because they

carry more communicative features. However, since word final position has lower

communication load, the human factor takes precedence over the communicative one.

Thus, Hebrew inflectional suffixes are composed of voiceless obstruents; /-t/, /-x/ and

voiced /v/, which except from the sonorant nasals /-m/ and /-n/, are the prevailing

consonants in Hebrew inflectional suffixes (/t/ being the most common of all three).

All obstruent inflectional suffixes in Hebrew are then voiceless.

TTuurrbbuulleenntt ((ssttaabbllee pphhoonneemmeess)) pphhoonneemmeess aarree ffaavvoorreedd.

Concerning turbulent phoneme endings in general, Hebrew inflectional suffixes

contain the turbulent phonemes: /x/ and /h/, which, being fricatives, are stable

phonemes. /x/ is a postereodorsum, voiceless fricative; it appears in syllables (only in

second person). /h/, which is less common, is a laryngeal phoneme, and appears in

syllables. Due to the fact that fricatives are obstruents, they allow for the voiced and

voiceless phonemic distinction. Voiceless phonemes involve less articulatory sets of

muscles, and thus they are easier to articulate (the human factor). Therefore, since at

the final position of words the communication load is lower, the human factor can

take precedence, and stables in general are favored in word-final position. However,

/x/ and/ h/ are back phonemes (back of the tongue, and glottis, respectively), and

compared to other turbulents, are relatively hard to produce.

MH derivational suffix endings are however, somewhat different. In derivational

MH system the last consonant is the last root radical, thus arbitrary, in terms of PHB

51

principles, and therefore does not concern current analysis of MH derivational system.

However, whenever the suffix ends with a consonant not belonging to the root's

letters it is (with one exception - /j/) voiceless apical /t/ (as in /ot/ /at/ /εt/ and /ut/).

This, of course, fits right in PHB's principles, as were aforementioned (regarding

phoneme /t/ ending). Also, consider this PHB principle regarding /t/:

TTrraannssiittiioonn ffrroomm oonnee ddiissttiinncctt ccoonnssttrriiccttiioonn ttoo aannootthheerr wwiitthhiinn aa ssiinnggllee pphhoonneemmee

aarree ddiissffaavvoorreedd

Hebrew has only one phoneme with two constrictions in it: the apical affricate /ts/.

From the summary tables above it is noticeable that /ts/ does not appear in any of the

inflectional or derivational suffixes (while /t/ alone commonly appears).

Another common trait for both MH systems concerns constrictions (consonants) and

apertures (vowels).

AAmmoonngg ccoonnssttrriiccttiioonnss aanndd aappeerrttuurreess mmaaxxiimmaall iiss ffaavvoorreedd.

Phonemes of maximal constriction, and phonemes of maximal aperture, are favored in

Hebrew inflectional suffixes. Due to the human factor, phonemes of aperture are

easier to produce than phonemes of constriction. They provide maximal airflow,

which makes them easier to make. Among vowels, the most common one in the

suffixes is /a/, which has a stricture of 50- the maximal stricture. Among consonants,

/m/, /n/ and /t/, which have a stricture of 00 (- the lowest stricture), are the most

common in inflectional suffixes.

Also, as was mentioned above (regarding inf. MH), there is the PHB principle of

favoring sonorants (nasals and vowels). The data indeed suggests that sonorants are

the most favored phonemes in Hebrew inflectional and derivational suffixes: vowels

/a/, /ε/, /i/, /o/, /u/ are the most dominant among all other suffix types. Moreover,

favoring of vowels connects to another relevant PHB principle:

DDiiffffeerreenntt wwoorrdd ((oorr rroooott)) ppoossiittiioonnss hhaavvee ddiiffffeerreenntt ccoommmmuunniiccaattiivvee ffoorrccee aanndd tthhuuss

aaffffeecctt tthhee ffaavvoorriinngg aanndd ddiissffaavvoorriinngg ooff ddiiffffeerreenntt aarrttiiccuullaattoorryy aanndd aaccoouussttiicc

ffeeaattuurreess aanndd pphhoonneemmeess..

52

Hebrew inflectional and derivational suffixes composed of vowels (phonemes of

aperture) are favored over suffixes composed of consonants (phonemes of

constriction) or syllables. From the summary tables above it is clear that there are

more vowel endings than consonantal ones. This can be explained by the human

factor: vowels are easier to produce. Since at the final word position the

communication load is the lowest, the human factor can be given more precedence.

This demonstrates the basic principle of PHB theory: maximal communication with

minimal effort.

AAmmoonngg VVoowweellss,, tthhee mmoosstt eexxttrreemmee oonneess aarree ffaavvoorreedd:: //aa// //ii// //uu//

FRONT CENTRAL BACK

/ε/ is basically easy to pronounce (front/mid) but it is not extreme while /i/ /a/ and /u/

appear at the extreme ends of the 'vowel triangle'. They are extreme and therefore

easy to pronounce due to the extreme tongue position and height at the highest or

frontest/backest points which provides tactile feedback in language acquisition and

best communicative distinctions. Thus, the most common in Hebrew inflectional

suffixes- both in final vowel suffixes, as well as in VC and CV suffixes.

The difference between MH inflectional and derivational suffixes concerns the

(CVC) form: while the inflectional systems have this type of endings (e.g /tam/, /hεεm/

ets…), the derivational system has only suffix ending of the form (VC)29. However,

there can be made an observation concerning (CVC) endings in inflectional MH, in

terms of PHB:

29 That is because in derivational MH suffix of the form (VC) is preceded by the root's consonant, thus an additional consonant would be redundant in terms of human factor considerations.

a

ui

ε o

53

DDiissffaavvoorriinngg ooff tthhee ssaammee aarrttiiccuullaattoorrss iinn aaddjjaacceenntt pphhoonneettiicc eennvviirroonnmmeennttss

The use of the same active articulators is disfavored in (CVC) suffixes. The first and

last consonants in these syllable suffixes are made by different active articulators,

such as in the case of: /tεεm/, /tam/, /hεεm/n/, and /xεεm/n/. This favoring can be

explained by the great effort that is required in order to control the same set of

adjacent articulators.

Aside from 'pure' phonological traits, it seems then that MH inflectional and

derivational systems share yet another, more general, similarity. That is, both MH and

BH's derivational systems have shown to have many differing suffixes for the

different classes, thus forming a specialized (or rather, differentiated) suffixal

system30, for example:

In the inflectional system- suffix /t-/ (e.g. /-tεm/n/ or /ti/, /ta/) for Verbs, suffixes /im/

and /ot/ for Plural marking, suffix /-uj/ for Adjectives, and so on.

In the derivational system- suffixes /at/, /ea-/ and /ia-/ for Infinitives and suffixes /ut/,

/uj/ and /ja/ for Gerunds.

The fact that the derivational suffixes of MH do not have any nasal phonemes (/m/

and /n/), or the voiceless fricative /x/ and voiced /v/, or the laryngeal fricative /h/,

strengthens the assumption of a specialized, 'layered' suffixal system, in which

specific endings are allocated to different types of language units.

22..55..22 Diachronic view: Modern Hebrew vs. Biblical Hebrew

Below are summary tables of BH derivatives (see table 37. above for a summary of

MH derivatives) and the suffixes frequencies (detailed statistics are in tables 39, 40

and 43 in Appendix C-E).

30 Or rather, forming a 'differential suffix system' in which each suffixal type is marked for a different class (i.e. verbs, adjectives, gerunds, infinitives, etc.)

54

Table 38. SSuummmmaarryy ooff BBHH DDeerriivvaattiivveess

Suffixes Derivative

Infinitive construct Appearances Infinitive

absolute Appearances Total (73)

Gizrat Lamed-Hei/Lamed-Yod /ot/ 1 /o/ /ε/ 2 3

Gizrat Lamed Aleph /?εt/ /εt/ /ε/ /i/ 4 /o/ /ε/ 2 6

Gizrat Pei-Yod /εt/ /?εt/

/o/ /a-/ /ε-/ /i-/ /a/ /ot/

8 /o-/ /a/ /ε-/ 3 11

Gizrat Pei-Nun /ε-/ /o-/ /o/ /a-/ /i-/ /εt/ /ot/ /at/ 8 /o-/ /o?a-/ /ε-/

/ε/ 4 12

Gizrat Ain- Yod + Ain- Vav

/u-/ /i-/ /o-/ /a-/ 4 /ε-/ /a-/ (also

/ia-/) /o-/ /o/ 4 8

Gizrat ha-Shlemim /o-/ /ε-/ /a-/ /i-/ 4 /o-/ /ε-/ 2 6

Gizrat ha-Kfulim (Geminates) /o-/ /ε-/ /a-/ 3 /o-/ /ε-/ 2 5

I - Guttural verbs /o-/ /ε-/ /a-/ /i-/ /ot/ 5 /o-/ /u/ /ε-/ /ε/ 4 9

II – Guttural verbs /o-/ /ε-/ /a-/ /i-/ 4 /o-/ /ε-/ /a-/ 3 7

III – Guttural /a/ /a-/ 2 /a/ /a-/ 2 4

I-Aleph verbs /o-/ 1 /o-/ 1 2

55

Table 41. DDiiaacchhrroonniicc ssuummmmaarryy3311::

Modern Hebrew Biblical Hebrew Derivative

Gerund Infinitive Infinitive Construct

Infinitive Absolute

Gizrat Lamed-Hei/Lamed-Yod

/ja/ /ut/ /uj/ /a/ /ot/ /ot/ /o/ /ε/

Gizrat Lamed Aleph /a/ /ut/ /uj/ /u/ /o/ /ε/ /i/ /?εt/ /εt/

/ε/ /i/ /o/ /ε/

Gizrat Pei-Yod /a/ /ut/

/ε-/ /at/ /εt/ /o-/

/i/ /a-/ /i-/ /ot/

/εt/ /?εt/ /o/ /a-/ /ε-/ /i-/ /a/ /ot/

/o-/ /a/ /ε-/

Gizrat Pei-Nun /a/ /ut/ /o-/ /i-/ /ε-/ /ia/

/oa/

/ε-/ /o-/ /o/ /a-/ /i-/ /εt/

/ot/ /at/

/o-/ /o?a-/ /ε-/ /ε/

Gizrat Ain- Yod + Ain- Vav /a/ /ut/ /u-/ /ε-/ /u-/ /ua-/ /o/ /i-/ /ia-/

/u-//ia-/ /i-/ /o-/ /a-/

/ε-/ /a-/ /o-/ /o/

Gizrat ha-Merubaim /u-/ /ut/ /ε-/ - -

Gizrat ha-Shlemim (including I, II, III - Guttural and I-Aleph verbs)

/a/ /u-/ /ua-/ /ut/

/o-/ / ε-/ /εa-/ /ia-/

/i/

/o-/ /ε-/ /a-/ /i-/ /a/ /ot/

/ε-/ /u/ /ε/ /a-/ /a/ /o-/

Gizrat ha-Kfulim /u-/ /ut/ /a/ /ε-/ /o-/ /ε-/ /a-/ /o-/ /ε-/

Looking at table 38, it seems that BH contains a greater variety of derivational

suffixes than MH does. However, a closer look reveals several things. Table 41 above

for instance, reveals that Gerund suffixes almost have nothing in common with BH's

suffixes, or with MH infinitives' suffixes for that matter. First, from the data presented

above it appears that MH had two major changes, with respect to infinitivals: (1) MH

has eliminated the infinitive absolute form (which is only used as a form of a literary

or archaic manner nowadays), and- (2) It refined the infinitive construct form as to

create two distinct infinitival forms: the Gerund ('shem pe'ula') and the infinitive

('shem hapo'al'). The latter resembles the original biblical infinitive constructs'

suffixes (though, unlike the biblical form, appears always with prefix le).

31 In grey appear the shared suffixes for both BH and MH

56

It appears then, that Hebrew utilized a mechanism of 'refinement' rather than

one of 'extinguishing' (since BH suffixes were not actually lost altogether). Rather,

MH uses the same basic suffixes, only with greater distinction and division. This is

clear from reviewing tables 39 through 41 along with table 43 (see Appendix C-E).

Table 43 shows that MH and BH have more shared unique suffixes than not- 16 MH

unique suffixes as apposed to 14 BH unique suffixes; there is a difference of only 4

suffixes between the two: out of the 14 BH suffixes, MH still has 13 of them (only

one suffix- /?et/ was dropped), while adding 3 more suffixes to its derivational 'suffix

store': namely, /ut/, /uj/ and /ja/.

However, tables 39 and 40 show yet another phenomenon- they indicate that

there is a great difference between BH and MH in terms of the total number of (non-

unique) suffixes (in all the derivatives). While BH has a total of 73 non- unique

suffixes, MH has only 51- that is a difference of 22 suffixes! A minor statistical

analysis of the MH and BH suffix distributions seems to support the idea of a self-

specializing mechanism (see Appendix F). The fact that BH and MH share 13 suffixes

out of total 17 (table 43) (thus, MH and BH do not differ significantly in their

derivational suffixes), but that there is a big difference in the results of BH and MH's

(statistical) variance (20.9 and 7.4, respectively- Appendix F.), further strengthens the

postulation made above: there is a difference between BH and MH also in how

Hebrew suffixes are distributed, as well as what these suffixes are. It seems then, that

Hebrew has evolved from a 'suffix-centralized' system to a more 'suffix-scattered' (or

rather, 'suffix-random') one. BH's derivational suffixes then were distributed with

extreme differences between most common ones to less common ones. MH, however,

changed that. First, the most common suffixes in BH: /o-/ > /ε-/ > /a-/ (see table 39.),

are now replaced with these most common suffixes: /ut/ > /a/ > /ε-/ (see table 40.),

and not without a sufficient motivation, since medium back vowel /o/ and medium

front vowel /ε/ are harder to produce than extreme vowels /u/ and /a/. Once again,

favoring phonemes of maximal stricture/aperture and of extreme vowels is observed.

From tables 39-43 it can be seen that the rate (of appearances) of suffixes with vowel

/a/ (and its alike- MH's /iҁa/ and /oҁa/) has gone up dramatically: form 5.5% in BH to

17.65% in MH, indeed not a mild difference. /a/ being the easiest vowel with

maximum aperture is the most common vowel across languages.

57

Thus, MH has eliminated relatively more difficult vowels and replaced them

with easier ones, while allocating new suffixes for specific classes, namely either

infinitives or gerunds, and further within them- in specific derivatives and

conjugations. Therefore, although MH's suffixes do not differ significantly from those

of BH, it appears that the derivational distribution of suffixes is what crucially

changed: Hebrew suffixes have become more distinct, and MH derivational system

has evolved into a much more specialized system. Furthermore, all three of the newly

added suffixes: /ut/, /uj/ and /ja/ mark exclusively the Gerund form in MH, a form, as

previously mentioned, that is distinctive to MH. These suffixes then, appear only in

the Gerund form in MH, and did not exist in BH. Further, regarding MH tendency of

differentiation, the other four suffixes /at/, /ε-/ /i/ and /i-/ exhibit once more this

pattern of marking a specific form, in this case MH infinitive, since they all only

appear in the MH infinitive form (thus being 'Infinitive-distinctive-markers', see table

37.). The suffix /ε-/ however, with its mid-front vowel /ε/ was the second most

common suffix in BH (a rate of 17.8%, see table 43.). Today in contemporary

Hebrew, after having divided (into the Infinitive and Gerund forms), MH's verbal

nouns only have it in (its still somewhat concentrated distribution) one form - the

Infinitive form, being the third most common suffix in MH (11.8%, see table 43.).

Concerning BH /i/ and /i-/, they both appear only in the infinitive construct form.

Hence, it seems that after the infinitival division (to MH Gerund and Infinitive), those

suffixes remained exclusively with the infinitive form.

Another interesting phenomenon is revealed in the data. In contrast to BH,

MH derivatives do not contain any verbal nouns in the purely passive conjugation

pu?al and huf?al (although, also in BH both infinitives- abs. and cons. are quite rare

(Jouon, 1996)). BH suffixes in these conjugations are /a-/, /o-/ /e-/- which are also

BH's most frequent suffixes (see table 39, Appendix C). Being relatively more

difficult to produce, the vowels /o-/ and /e-/ have shown a great reduction in MH,

about which will be discussed further. It seems that BH's "passive" conjugations were

at the core of these suffixes' great frequency. The suffix /a-/ for instance, is BH's third

most common suffix (see table 39, Appendix C). However, this is no longer the case,

in MH it is much less frequent (with only 5.9%, see table 40 Appendix D). There

appears to be a connection, however, between 'reversed-image'' suffixes /a-/ and /-a/.

Concerning the latter, while it reached a very low frequency in BH (5.5%), it is the

58

most frequent suffix in MH (17.65) (see table 43, Appendix E). It seems that these

suffixes have 'exchanged roles', so to speak. From the point of view of PHB it makes

perfect sense. Both suffixes share the easiest vowel to produce /a/, and since vowels,

having a free flow of air, are easier to produce than consonant keeping /a/ (not

replacing it with another vowel or omitting the suffix /a-/ altogether), while putting it

at the end of a word (forming (CV)) - where burden of communication is the lowest-

is most reasonable, from the point of view of the human factor. Thus, the suffix /-a/

became more dominant than the prefix /a-/, in initial position with the highest

communicative load, in Hebrew derivational morphology.

It is not surprising that MH's new suffixes consist of the easier vowels to

produce (among the five MH available ones)- /u/, /i/ and /a/, since one of PHB

theory's principles is that among vowels the most extreme ones are favored both

artuculatorily and acoustically. While the suffix /ut/ appears in all Gerund derivatives,

the suffixes /uj/ and /ja/ seem to be more restrictive within the Gerund form,

appearing only in Lamed-Hei/Lamed-Yod and in Lamed Aleph derivatives (/ja/

appears only in the latter, while /uj/ in both derivatives). Thus, it seems that /ut/,

having an extreme vowel /u/ and a voiceless apical consonant /t/- which agrees with

two more PHB principle: disfavoring of additional articulators (voiced vs. voiceless)

and favoring apical articulators in word final position, thus /ut/ appears to be the

'perfect' unmarked suffix to pave its way into a developing language, and serve as a

marker of a distinct form (as mentioned earlier for the Gerund form). The suffixes /uj/

and /ja/ however are more selective. The verbal root of the derivative in which /ja/

appears, contains a final radical /h/ (as in b-n-h, 'to build'); thus making sense why the

easiest vowel /a/ was chosen (as in /bnija/). However, it would be much harder to

keep the laryngeal /h/ (as in /bniha/), thus a glide /j/ takes /h/'s place, being a perfectly

natural transition from the preceding high front vowel /i/, and manifesting its

existence as an actually semi-vowel (of /i/ origin). The suffix /uj/ shows a similar

pattern. The verbal roots of the derivatives in which /uj/ appears contain a final radical

/?/ or /h/ (as in k-r-?, 'to read' and b-n-h, 'to build'); here as well the glide /j/ takes the

final radical place in the word final position, hence offering the best ''compromise',

being half way between a vowel and a consonant, while facilitating phoneme

production by being easier to utter than glottal /?/ and laryngeal /h/. Also, once again

a relatively easy-to-make back vowel /u/ is used (out of the five MH available ones)

59

as part of this (VC) suffix form. Moreover, these three MH suffixes are in

complementary distribution in terms of Hebrew conjugations: /ja/ appears only in

pa?al and hif?il, /uj/ only in pi?el, and /ut/ in nif?al and hitpa?el (while in ALL

derivatives). In derivatives other than Lamed-Hei/Lamed-Yod, however, in pa?al

conjugation the central vowel /a/ appears instead of /ja/- indeed, a natural connection

to /ja/- when there is no necessity (i.e. the root's final radical is /h/) to complicate

phoneme production (by adding /j/), indeed an additional phoneme is avoided. The

same holds for /uj/: in derivatives other than Lamed-Hei/Lamed-Yod and in Lamed

Aleph, suffix /u-/ appears in the pi?el conjugation, omitting final consonant /j/ when

not being an essential part (or rather, an assimilation to-) of the root's final radical.

BH on the other hand, had a different distribution. Without having these

suffixes, BH's most frequent suffix across the different derivations was /o-/ (as in eϰol

and glot). In fact, from table 41 it is clear that Hebrew still maintains this suffix,

however only in the Infinitive (not Gerund) form. It appears then, that MH has

experienced a massive change in its derivational system: the former most prevalent

suffix /o-/ is now replaced by /ut/. However, /o-/ itself plays a significant role in the

MH infinitive class, by being the most common in the suffixes of the infinitive form.

Thus, it seems that both /ut/ and /o-/ have become (distinctive) markers of specific

forms: of the Gerund and the Infinitive respectively (which were formerly blended

together in the Infinitive Construct form of BH). Further, concerning BH suffix /?et/

(as in ts?et 'to get out'), its deletion from MH is certainly not a surprise: glottal /?/ has

become quite rare in MH. In fact, MH is left with similar suffix /εt/, however in a

lower rate than in BH (only 1.96%, comparing to BH's 4.1%, see table 43. in

Appendix E). It appears then, that mid-front vowel /ε/ might have played a role in the

elimination of BH suffix /?εt/, as well as 'clearing' the way for more relatively easy-to

make vowels in MH.

While the Gerund form is presented in MH with a new set of suffixes and a

new distribution of derivational suffixes, thus transforming the entire suffix system of

BH infinitival construct, BH and MH Infinitive Absolute remained completely intact.

The explanation for this is rather simple- since this form is seldom used by Modern

speakers of Hebrew, it remained untouched (or rather, unspoken), thus absorbed little,

if any, changes. Therefore, whenever the Infinitive Absolute form is used (though

60

very marginally) nowadays it is used in almost the same way it was used in biblical

times. Given that not enough forces have acted upon it in a sufficient manner to cause

a large change, as was the case for BH Infinitive Construct. Below is a table of

examples for some differences between BH and MH derivational suffixes.

Table 42. BH &MH: EExxaammpplleess ooff ssuuffffiixxaall cchhaannggee

BH MH The Derivatives Hebrew

Root Infinitive Construct

SuffixGerund Infinitive

Suffix Translation

Gizrat Lamed-Hei/Lamed-Yod ה.נ.ב bnot /ot/ bnija livnot /ot/ (build) No change

Gizrat Lamed Aleph א.צ.י ts?et / tset /?εt/

/εt/ jεtsi?a latsεt /εt/ /a/ (go out)

ב.ט.י jtov hatava lεhativ /i-/ /a/

(make better)

נ.ל.י jlon lina lεhalin /ε- (lodging) Gizrat Pei-Yod

ש.ב.י jvo∫

/o-/

jibu∫ lεjabε∫ //u-/ (dry)

ע.ס.נ saҁat /at/ nεsiҁa linsoҁa /oa/ (drive) Gizrat Pei-Nun

א.ש.נ. nso /o-/ nεsiҁa lasεt /εt/ (carry)

מ.י.ק hikom /o-/ - - - (get up) Gizrat Ain- Yod

+ Ain- Vav מ.י.ש sum /u-/ sima lasim /i-/ (put)

No equivalent binyan for

מ.י.ק in MH

ל.צ.ל.צ tsiltsul lεtsaltsεl /u-/ (ring) Gizrat ha-Merubaim ל.ג.ל.ג

- - gilgul lεgalgεl /ε-/ (rolling)

No such gizra in

BH

ע.מ.ש hi∫amҁa

∫amҁa /-a/ ∫miҁa lεhi∫amaҁ /a-/ (hear)

Gizrat ha-Shlemim

(including I, II, III - Guttural and I-Aleph

verbs) ב.ת.כ katev /ε-/ ktiva - /a-/ (write)

BH: CV when ҁ is present

MH: VC

No equivalent binyan for

ב.ת.כ

61

2.6 Language changes and phenomena: Standard Hebrew vs. Spoken

Hebrew is a revived language, which implies that after thousands of years BH came

back to life in an altered form. However, the revived language has omitted some of

the phonemes that existed in BH (vowels and consonants). Nowadays, Hebrew has

about 25 phonemes: 20 consonants and 5 vowels (Table 5). This is in comparison to

BH that had only 22, which also contained a complex system of vowels. The

consonants that do not exist any more in MH are /q, w, t', ħ, ҁ/. All of which are 'hard

to make' phonemes: /q/ is a uvular stop, /w/ is voiced bilabial and postereodorsal

phoneme, which involves both the lips and the back of the tongue and the vocal folds,

/t'/ is an ejective phoneme which involves both the apex and a raising of the vocal

folds, and /ħ, ҁ/ are voiceless and voiced pharyngeal fricatives respectively. These are

all marked phonemes, which from the human factor point of view are hard to produce.

Thus, in light of the second hypothesis, changes made in Hebrew morphology will be

towards a more relatively easy to make and/or unmarked phonemes. This might

explain in part why these phonemes were omitted from spoken MH.

In an attempt to preserve BH, a set of 'rules' were postulated and are considered

now to be what is called standard prescriptive/normative Hebrew, that is, how

Hebrew should be spoken. However, as might be expected, changes still do occur in

Hebrew, at least to some part of the native Hebrew speaking population. The

following, are some changes related to Hebrew suffixes:

Hebrew inflectional suffixes include both nasals- the bilabial /m/ and the apex

/n/, which serve as markers of gender (plural). However, in MH speech (and

possibly in earlier periods as well), many native speakers use the masculine

form of the inflection (/m/) instead of the feminine one ((/n/) ('shelaxem' -

(yours-masc.) instead of 'shelaxen' – (yours-fem.); 'atem' – (you-masc.) instead

of 'aten' – (you-fem.)). Consequently, nowadays, it seems that the inflectional

suffixes /hεεm/ - , /tεεm/ and /tam/ refer to both genders and the feminine suffixes

/hεεn/, /tεεm/ and /taan/ are almost no longer used. This might be explained by:

62

a. /m/ is a visual phoneme, while /n/ is not- from the point of view of the

communication factor; it is better or more efficient to use /m/ than /n/

exploiting both our senses of sight and hearing.

b. The human factor- one conjoined suffix for gender is more economical than

having two distinct ones. Hence, one suffix (/-n/) 'dropped' or 'merged' into

the other, to form one suffix (/-m/), which refers to both genders: male and

female.

Hebrew inflectional suffixes include the suffix /-a/, which serves as a marker of

gender (singular- masculine) for numerals. Nevertheless, in MH speech, many

native speakers would not use this suffix, when talking about numbers. Thus, a

Hebrew speaker might say 'shalosh sing-fem jeladim' (three children) instead of

'shlosha sing-masc jeladim.' An important factor might be the fact that suffix /a/

in Hebrew usually marks the feminine gender, so, this probably affects speakers'

tendency not to use it with refer to masculine32 gender by analogy. However,

here, again, the human factor might also provide an explanation: it is better to

have one ending rather than two. Since the unmarked zero masculine single

suffix is used for feminine numerals, the suffix /a/ was 'dropped,' and Hebrew

speakers simply regard all numbers as being neutral to gender since gender

agreement does not necessarily enhance or relevant to communication while

specifying numbers or when counting.

In Hebrew Gerunds, gizrat lamed-aleph ( א"גזרת ל ) specifically, there is the

vowel suffix /-εε/, as in the words 'lemale' (to fill) and 'lerape' (to heal), which

both end with the Hebrew letter aleph. Many Hebrew speakers substitute this

ending with the suffix /-ot/, as in 'lemalot,' and 'lerapot'33, which is not a correct

use of these words inflection. This can be explained by:

a. The fact that nowadays, the voiceless glottal stop phoneme represented by

the letter aleph, is no longer pronounced at word final (as well as other)

positions. This is due to the fact that the laryngeal stop is no longer

32 Another probability might be that due to the fact that many of the first settlers of Israel came from a romance language speaking country. Meaning, in romance languages the suffix /-a/ is indeed used for feminine gender and not only for numbering but also in all word inflections. 33 Another example is 'letate' (to sweep) - 'letatot'.

63

pronounced and appears as zero, it may be confused with the voiceless

laryngeal /h/ which is not pronounced by many if not most native speakers

and the /-ot/ ending for verbs ending with /h/ - /-ot/ replaces the normative

/e/ ending for verbs ending with aleph.

b. The PHB principle of stricture (# 11 and 12): /t/ is at the maximal

constriction of 00, while /-εε/ is an aperture of non maximal stricture of 40,

therefore, /-ot/ is easier and thus, preferred.

c. Also, another PHB principle can be applicable in this case (#8): /t/ is an

apical articulator standing in final poison, thus favored.

Another interesting phenomenon is the tendency of Hebrew speakers to say

'otex' instead of 'otax' (you). This seems a bit strange, because /-a/ (in /-ax/) is

easier to produce than /ε/ (in /-εx/) (the human factor). However, when

reviewing Hebrew noun-possession suffixes, it can be seen that the suffix in all

the inflections of shelax (yours) is /-εx/, rather than /-ax/ (table 8). Accordingly,

one possible explanation for the preference of /-εx/ over /-ax/ is the usage of a

more common and recognized suffix. In this sense, the communication factor

steps in: speakers choose what is more known and familiar, to hearer and

speaker alike.

Another possibility, which relates to the human factor, is that because /ε/ is a

mid-high front vowel, it might help to create a better transition from the apical

dental /t/ to the back fricative /x/, which its receptive articulator is the palate- /ε/

employs a closer tongue height to /t/ and /x/ than /a/. Therefore, since /ε/ is

closer (in height) to the palate (and in height and depth to the teeth) in /otεx/,

than /a/ in /otax/, it seems to be easier to produce /-εx/ than /-ax/.

It is a quite well known phenomenon that MH has lost the distinction between

the consonants /h/ /ҁ/ and /?/ (letters hei, ain and aleph in Hebrew, respectively).

Many Hebrew suffixes contain the laryngeal phoneme /?/ (verbs: mats?a

(found), hotsi?a (removed), nir?ε (seen) and BH infinitives himatse(?) (be

found), gulo(h) (were discovered)). However, this phoneme is practically non-

existent in Hebrew suffixes these days. It either turns to /j/, when appearing

after the vowel /i/, as in hotsija, or to the vowel that follows it (in a kind of an

64

assimilation process) as in matsa and nirε. Also, the pharyngeal suffix /ҁ/ is no

longer part of Hebrew phoneme system. In suffixes containing it (`hishtageҁ'

(became crazy), `hitpareҁa' (became wild)), it seems to assimilate either to /?/

('hishtage?a,' 'hitpare?a') or /j/ (when the preceding vowel is /i/), or to the

vowel e, ('hishtagea,' 'hitparea'). Since pharyngeal and laryngeal phonemes are

hard to produce, it is easier to simply omit them, and utter only the vowel after

them, or to turn them into relatively easier and/or unmarked phonemes, such as

/j/, which is considered an 'extension' of the vowel /i/ that precedes it (the human

factor). This is indeed, what most Hebrew speakers do.

Standard Hebrew contains feminine plural suffix 'na' which is marked for

feminine plus future or imperative (tishlaxna (will send), telexna (will go) -

future, tsena (get out) -imperative). However, this suffix was omitted, and is not

in use in spoken Hebrew. From the point of view of the human factor this is very

economical- it is easier to exert less effort, while the hearers still recognize the

word, and can figure the meaning from the context, or the rest of the sentence.

3. Summary and Conclusions

In this research PHB theory is used in order to explain phonological distribution in the

Hebrew suffixes morphology, synchronically and diachronically. The results support

the influence of the synergetic relationship between the human and communication

factors upon the non-random distribution of phonemes in Hebrew suffix morphology.

The theory, in this research, postulates and explains the favoring of unmarked and/or

relatively easy to produce phonemes, in Hebrew noun, adjectival and verbal

inflectional suffixes, MH and BH derivative suffixes and further more, the increasing

of this tendency over time: from Biblical Hebrew to Modern Hebrew, and from

standard (modern) Hebrew to spoken (modern) Hebrew. Indeed, it appears that basic

diachronic study's assumptions (see introduction) hold for the analysis of BH and

MH's derivational system. Hebrew today, has become, and is still becoming more

economical and relatively easier than the Biblical or standard language. Hebrew

nowadays (both standard and spoken), has fewer phonemes, and vowel length has

65

ceased to be a distinctive phonemic feature. This analysis has revealed the interesting

fact that MH suffixes, inflectional and derivational alike, have shown to consist of a

more specialized system than BH was. MH suffix systems have proven themselves to

be quite efficient and economical, with differing suffixes for each class (in the

inflectional system- for Verbs, Nouns, Adjectives, etc. in the derivational system- for

Infinitives and for Gerunds, and even for different conjugations); while in BH the

Infinitive Construct form functions both as infinitive and as gerund, and meaning was

deduced mainly from context, pronominal affixation or proximity. Indeed, MH has

evolved into a more specialized land economic linguistic system.

Indeed, the fact that there is greater similarity within MH inflectional and

derivational suffix system than there is within the derivational MH-BH system in

terms of a specialized suffix system leads towards the conclusion of a self-improving

system, a more economical and self-efficient one, with more suffixation distinction

(i.e. more suffixes and more classification differences) for one thing (the

communication factor), and with greater emphasis on the preference for easier

suffixes (and coarticulations) to produce (the human factor). Therefore the prediction

is that this tendency of specialization and differentiation (and simplification) in

Hebrew is not about to cease, if anything it is about to increase with the years and

with new generations. Thus, it would be reasonable to expect Hebrew's suffixes to

become much easier while being exclusive, as to mark specific language units,

specific derivatives, along with specific conjugations and so on.

Regarding the non-random distribution of Hebrew suffixes, the following tendencies

can be concluded:

1. Favoring of vowels (phonemes of aperture) over consonants (phonemes of

constrictions).

2. Among vowels, favoring of the extreme vowels: /a/, /i/, /u/, which are the

easiest vowels to produce in the vowel hierarchy.

3. The favoring of phonemes with maximal stricture and aperture.

4. Favoring of nasal phonemes

5. Favoring of apical phonemes

6. Favoring of visual phonemes

66

7. Disfavoring of transitions from one distinct constriction to another within a

single phoneme.

8. Disfavoring of additional articulators: voiceless phonemes are preferred.

9. Disfavoring of the same articulators in adjacent phonetic environments

These found preferences, all stem out of the mini-max struggle for the human need of

maximal communication with minimal effort. Yet again, PHB theory has shown to be

a valid theory for describing and explaining the distribution of inflectional

morphology of Hebrew (as well as Russian (Buk 2003) and Arabic (Saif 2005)) and

possibly other languages. Furthermore, the principles of PHB have been shown here

to apply for derivational morphology as well. Further research applying the principles

of PHB to derivational morphology in other languages should also be considered.

67

APPENDIX A

Noun, adjectival and verbal Inflection

Hebrew nouns and adjectives are inflected in four basic categories, as can be seen

from table 6. and 8., below.

Table 6. NNoouunn ddeecclleennssiioonn

Singular Plural

balon (balloon) balonim

jelled (boy) jeladim

luax (board) luxot

shavua (week) shavuot, shvuajm

xodesh (month) xodashim, xodshajm

Masculine

ozen (ear) oznajm

jalda (girl) jeladot

Rakevet (train) rakavot

xanut (store) xanujot

kapit (spoon) kapijot

gerev (sock) garbajm

shaҁa (hour) shaҁot, shaҁatajm

Female

shana (year) shanim

68

Table 7. AAddjjeeccttiivvaall IInnfflleeccttiioonn

Masculine Female

/-t/

/Ø/(zero),/-uj/, /-im/ /-a/ /-εt/ /-it/ /-ot/ /-jot/

Gadol (big) gdola

Muvan (understood) muvenet

Retsini (serious) retsinit

Singular

Panuj (free) pnuja

Gdolim gdolot

Muvanim muvenot Plural

Retsinim retsinijot

In addition to gender and number however, Hebrew nouns, unlike adjectives, are also

inflected with regards to possession, forms (mishkalim), and construct state

(proximity), seen in tables 8, 9 (appears in section 2.3), and 10, respectively.

69

Table 8. NNoouunn ddeecclleennssiioonn ((ppoosssseessssiioonn))

Word sheli shelxa shelax shelo shela shelanu shelaxem/n shelahem/n

dod (uncle) dodi dodxa dodex dodo doda dodenu dodxem/n dodam/n

xeder (room) xadri xadrexa xadrex xadro xadra xadrenu xadrexem/n xadram/n

singular(m)

declension

without

vowel

change ben (son) bni binxa bnex bno bna bnenu binxem/n bnam/n

av (father) avi avixa avix aviv aviha avinu avixem/n avihem/n

ax (brother) axi axixa axix axiv axiha axinu axixem/n axihem/n

singular

(m)

declension

with j

before

suffix xa xam

(fatherinlaw) xami xamixa xamix xamiv xamiha xaminu xamixem/n xamihem/n

dea (opinion) daati daatxa daatex daato daata daatenu daatxem/n daatam/n

dira (apartment) dirati diratxa diratex dirato dirata diratenu diratxem/n diratam/n

singular(f)

declension

to words

with suffix

a xavera (friend) xaverti xavertxa xavertex xaverto xaverta xavertenu xavertxem/n xavertam/n

em (mother) imi imxa imex imo ima imenu imxem/n imam/n

bat (daughter) biti bitxa biteh bito bita bitenu bitxem/n bitam/n

singular(f)

declension

to words

without

suffix a xamot (motherinlaw) xamoti xamotxa xamotex xamoto xamota xamotenu xamotxem/n xamotam/n

dodim (uncles) dodaj dodexa dodajx dodav dodeha dodenu dodexem/n dodehem/n

shxenim (neighbors) shxeni shxenexa shxenajx shxenav shxeneha shxenenu shxenexem/n shxenehem/n

plural(m)

declension

xaverim (friends) xaveraj xaverexa xaverajx xaverav xavereha xaverenu xavrexem/n xavrehem/n

dodot (aunts) dodataj dodotexa dodotajx dodotav dodoteha dodotenu dodotexem/n dodotehem/n

shxenot (neighbors) shxenotaj shxenotexa shxenotajx shxenotav shxenoteha shxenotenu shxenotexem/n shxenotehem/n

plural(f)

declension

xaverot (friends) xavrotaj xavrotexa xavrotajx xavrotav xavroteha xavrotenu xavrotexem/n xavrotehem/n

70

Table 10. CCoonnssttrruucctt ssttaattee ((pprrooxxiimmiittyy))

Singular Plural

xaver-miflaga (political party member) xavrej-miflaga

beit-sefer (school) batej-sefer Masculine orex-din (lawyer) orxej-din

aruxat-boker (breakfast) aruxot-boker

xufshat-kaits (summer break) xufshot-kaits Female

orexet-din (lawyer (f)) orxot-din

71

Table 11. Verbal inflection

Tense Person paal nif?al piel pual hitpael hif?il huf?al

ani (i) shamarti nishmarti pitarti putarti hitkadamti hizmanti huzmanti

ata (you) shamarta nishmarta pitarta putarta hitkadamta hizmanta huzmanta

at (you) shamart nishmart pitart putart hitkadamt hizmant huzmant

hu (he) shamar nishmar piter putar hitkadem hizmin huzman

hi (she) shamra nishmera pitra putra hitkadema hizmina huzmena

anahnu (we) shamarnu nishmarnu pitarnu putarnu hitkadamnu hizminu huzmanu

atem/n (you) shamartem/n nishmartem/n pitartem/n putartem/n hitkadamtem/n hizmantem/n huzmantem/n

Past

hem/n (they) shamru nishmeru pitru putru hitkadmu hizminu huzmenu

singular(m) shomer nishmar mefater mefutar mitkadem mazmin muzman

singular(f) shomeret (shomaat)

nishmeret (nishmaat)

mefateret (mashmi?a)

mefuteret (mushmaat)

mitkademet (mishtamaat)

mazmina (mashmi?a)

muzmenet (mushmaat)

plural(m) shomrim nishmarim mefatrim mefutarim mitkadmim mazminim muzmanim Present

plural(f) shomrot nishmarot mefatrot mefutarot mitkadmot mazminot muzmanot

ani eshmor eshamer afater afutar etkadem azmin uzman

ata/hi tishmor tishamer tefater tefutar titkadem tazmin tuzman

at tishmeri tishamri tefatri tefutri titkadmi tazmini tuzmeni

hu Jishmor jishamer jefater jefutar jitkadem jazmin juzman

anahnu nishmor nishamer nefater nefutar nitkadem nazmin nuzman

atem/n tishmeru tishamru tefatrtu tefutru titkadmu tazminu tuzmenu

Future

hem/n jishmeru jishamru jefatru jefutru jitkadmu jazminu juzmenu

ata shmor hishamer pater - hitkadem hazmen -

at shimri hishamri patri - hitkadmi hazmini - Imperative

atem/n shimru hishamru patru - hitkadmu hazminu -

Gerund lishmor lehishamer lefater - lehitkadem lehazmin -

Translation (to keep) (to be careful ) (to fire) (to fire) (to progress) (to invite) (invite)

72

APPENDIX B

DDeerriivvaattiivveess

Table 12. GGiizzrraatt LLaammeedd--AAlleepphh (( אא""גזרת לגזרת ל )

Tense Suffix

Conjugation

Person

paal nif?al piel pual hitpael hif?il huf?al

/-ti/ ani (i)

matsati nimtseti mileti muleti hitbateti hivreti hukpeti

/-ta/ ata (you)

matsata nimtseta mileta muleta hitbateta hivreta hukpeta

/-at/, /-εt/

at (you) matsat nimtset milet mulet hitbatet hivret hukpet

/-a/, /-ε/,/-

i/

hu (he) matsa nimtsa mile mula hitbate hivri hukpa

/-?a/ hi (she) mats?a nimtse?a mil?a mul?a hitbat?a hivri?a hukpe?a

/-nu/ anahnu (we) matsanu nimtsenu milenu mulenu hitbatenu hivrenu hukpenu

/-tεm/n/

atem/n (you) matsatem/n nimtsetem/n miletem/n muletem/n hitbatetem/n hivretem/n hukpetem/n

Past

/-?u/ hem/n (they) mats?u nimtse?u mil?u mul?u hitbat?u hivri?u hukpe?u

/-ε/, /-a/,/-

i/ singular(m) motse nimtsa memale memula mitbate mavri mukpa

/-εt/, /-?a/ singular(f) motset nimtset memalet memulet mitbatet mavri?a mukpet

/-?im /-im/ plural(m) mots?im nimtsa?im memal?im memula?im mitbat?im mavri?im mukpa?im

Present

/-?ot /- ot/ plural(f) mots?ot nimtsa?ot memal?ot memula?ot mitbat?ot mavri?ot mikpa?ot

/-a/, /-ε/,/-

i/ ani emtsa ematsa amale amula etbate avri ukpa

/-a/,/-ε/,/-i/ ata/ hi timtsa timatse temale temula titbate tavri tukpa

/-?i /- i/ at timtse?i timsts?i temal?i temul?i tibat?i tavri?i tukpe?i

/-a/,/-ε,/-i/ hu jimtsa jimatse jemale jemula jitbate javri jukpa

/-a/,/-ε/,/-i/ anahnu nimtsa nimatse nemale nemula nitnate navri nukpa

/-?u/- u/ atem/n timtse?u timas?u temal?u temul?u titbat?u tavriu?u tukpe?u

Future

/-?u/- u/ hem/n jimtse?u jimts?u jemal?u jemul?u jitbat?u javri?u jukpe?u

/-a/,/-ε/ ata mtsa! himatse! male! - hitbate! havre! -

/-?i/- i/ at mits?i! himts?i! mal?i! - hitbat?i! havri?i! - Imperative

/-?u/- u/ atem/n mits?u! himats?u! mal?u! - hitbat?u! havri?u! -

Translation (finding) (situated) (filling) (filling) expressing) (health) (freezing)

73

Table 13. GGiizzrraatt LLaammeedd--HHeeii ))הה""גזרת לגזרת ל((

Tense Suffix

Conjugation Person

paal nif?al piel pual hitpael hif?il huf?al

/-ti/ ani (i) baniti nivneti piniti puneti hitpaneti hifneti hufneti

/-ta/ ata (you) banita nivneta pinita puneta hitpaneta hifneta hufneta

/-it/, /-εt/

at (you) banit nivnet pinit punet hitpanet hifnet hufnet

/-a/ hu (he) bana nivna pina puna hitpana hifna hufna

/-ta/ hi (she) banta nivneta pinta punta hitpanta hifneta hufneta

/-nu/ anahnu (we) baninu nivnenu pininu punenu hitpanenu hifnenu hufnenu

/-tεm/n/

atem/n (you) banitem/n nivnetem/n pinitem/n punetem/n hitpanetem/n hifnetem/n hufnetem/n

Past

/-u/ hem/n (they) banu nivnu pinu punu hitpanu hifnu hufnu

/-ε/ singular(m) bone nivne mefane mefune mitpane mafne mufne /-εt/, /-a/ singular(f) bona nivnet mefana mefuna mitpana mafna mufnet

/-im/ plural(m) bonim nivnim mefanim mefunim mitpanim mafnim mufnim Present

/-ot/ plural(f) bonot nivnot mefanot mufunot mitpanot mafnot mufnot

/-ε/ ani evne ebane afane afune etpane afne ufne

/-ε/ ata/ hi tivne tibane tefane tefune titpane tafne tufne

/-i/ at tivni tibani tefani tefuni titpani tafni tufni

/-ε/ hu jivne jibane jefane jefune jitpane jafne jufne

/-ε/ anahnu nivne nibane nefane nefune nitpane nafne nufne

/-u/ atem/n tivnu tibanu tefanu tefunu titpanu tafnu tufnu

Future

/-u/ hem/n jivnu jibanu jefanu jefunu jitpanu jafnu jufnu

/-ε/ ata bne! hibane! pane! - hitpane! hafne! -

/-i/ at bni! hibani! pani! - hitpani! hafni! - Imperative

/-u/ atem/n bnu! hibanu! panu! - hitpanu! hafnu! -

Translation (building) (building) (evacuation) (evacuation) (evacuating) (turning) (turning)

74

Table 15. SSuummmmaarryy DDeerriivvaattiivveess

Tense suffix -

ggiizzrraatt llaammeedd--aalleepphh suffix -

ggiizzrraatt llaammeedd--hheeii

/-ti/ /-ti/

/-ta/ /-ta/

/-at/, /-εt/ /-it/, /-εt/

/-a/,/-ε/,/-i/ /-a/

/-?a/ /-ta/

/-nu/ /-nu/

/-tεm/, /-tεn/ /-tεm/, /-tεn/

Past

/-?u/ /-u/

/-ε/,/-a/,/-i/ /-ε/

/-εt/, /-?a/ /-εt/,/-a/

/-?im /-im/ /-im/ Present

/-?ot/- ot/ /-ot/

/-a/,/-ε/,/-i/ /-ε/

/-a/,/-ε/,/-i/ /-ε/

/-?i / i/ /-i/

/-a/,/-ε/,/-i/ /-ε/

/-a/,/-ε/,/-i/ /-ε/

/-?u/ u/ /-u/

Future

/-?u/ u/ /-u/

/-a/,/-ε/ /-ε/

/-?i/ i/ /-i/ Imperative

/-?u/ u/ /-u/

75

Appendix C

Summary of entire BH derivational suffixes and their distribution and frequency: Total number of suffixes: 73

Total number of (unique) suffixes is: 14 Table 39. SSuummmmaarryy ooff BBHH DDeerriivvaattiioonnaall ssuuffffiixxeess

Suffix Frequency34 Percentage % /a/ 4 5.5 /a-/ (also /ua-/,

/ia-/ and /o?a-/) 12 16.5

/u-/ 1 1.4 /u/ 1 1.4 /i-/ 6 8.2 /i/ 1 1.4 /o-/ 15 20.5 /o/ 5 6.85 /ε-/ 13 17.8 /ε/ 5 6.85 /ot/ 4 5.5 /at/ 1 1.4 /εt/ 3 4.1 /?εt/ 2 2.7

TOTAL 14 73 100%

34 Frequency across the derivatives.

76

Appendix D

Summary of entire MH derivational suffixes and their distribution and frequency: Total number of suffixes: 51

Total number of (unique) suffixes is: 16

Table 40. SSuummmmaarryy ooff MMHH DDeerriivvaattiioonnaall ssuuffffiixxeess

Suffix Frequency Percentage % /ut/ 10 19.6 /a/ (also, (/iҁa/

and /oҁa/) 9 17.65

/ε-/ 6 11.8 /u-/ 4 7.8 /i-/ 3 5.9 /o-/ 3 5.9 /i/ 2 3.9 /o/ 2 3.9 /ot/ 2 3.9 /uj/ 2 3.9 /a-/ (also /ua-/

and / εa-/ ) 3 5.9

/ε/ 1 1.96 /u/ 1 1.96 /at/ 1 1.96 /εt/ 1 1.96 /ja/ 1 1.96

TOTAL 16 51 100%

77

Appendix E

Frequency comparison Between BH and MH Table 43. FFrreeqquueennccyy:: BBHH aanndd MMHH3355::

Suffix MH Percentage % BH Percentage % /a/ 17.65 5.5 /ut/ 19.6 - /ε-/ 11.8 17.8 /u-/ 7.8 1.4 /i-/ 5.9 8.2 /o-/ 5.9 20.5 /i/ 3.9 1.4 /o/ 3.9 6.85 /ot/ 3.9 5.5 /uj/ 3.9 - /a-/ 5.9 16.5 /ε/ 1.96 6.85 /u/ 1.96 1.4 /at/ 1.96 1.96 /εt/ 1.96 4.1 /?εt/ - 2.7 /ja/ 1.96 -

TOTAL 17 100% 100%

35 Percentage is taken for each suffix out of its summary table (tables 39 and 40)

78

Appendix F

Statistic Variance

_ S2 = ∑(Xi-X) 2 / N

S2(BH) = (Xi- 5.2)2 / 14 = 292.36/14 = 20.9 ( S(BH) = 4.6)

S2(MH) = (Xi-3.2)2 / 16 = 118.44/16 = 7.4 ( S(MH) = 2.7)

S2(BH) > S2

(MH)

79

REFERENCES

[1] Berman A. R. (1978). Modern Hebrew Structure. Tel Aviv, University Publishing Projects.

[2] Buk, E. (2003). Phonology as Human Behavior: Inflectional

Morphology in Old Church Slavonic, Old and Modern Russian. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev M.A. Thesis.

[3] Crystal, D. (1996). A Directory of linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford:

Blackwell. [4] Davis, J. (1984/1987). “A Combinatory Phonology of Italian.”

Columbia University Working Papers in Linguistics (CUWPL) 8: 1-99. [5] Diver, W. (1979). “Phonology as Human Behavior.” In Psycholinguistic

Research: Implications and Applications, ed. D. Aaronson and J. Reiber, 161-98. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum

[6] Greenberg, J. (1950). “The patterning of Root Morphology in Semitic.”

Word 6: 162-81. [7] Hall, R. (1964). Introducing linguistics. Philadelphia and New York:

Chilton. [8] Herdan, G. (1962). “The Patterning of Semitic Verbal Roots Subjected

to Combinatory Analysis.” Word 18: 262-68. [9] Jouon, P. S. J. (1996). A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Rome, Editice

Pontificio Istituto Biblico. [10] Kabali, R. (1993). Knowledge of the Language (in Hebrew). Reches

Publishing House Educational Projects Ltd. Even-Yehuda. [11] Katz, L. (1993). An analysis of the phonological errors of children

according to the theory of phonology as human behavior (in Hebrew). M.A. thesis. Department of Communication Disorders, Speech, Language and Hearing, Sackler faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University.

[12] Katz, L. (1995). “The theory of phonology as human behavior: a

clinical application to functional articulatory problems” (in Hebrew). Dibur u-Smiya (Speech and language disorders) 18:63-78

[13] Lambdin, O. T. (1971). Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. New York,

Charles Scribner's Sons.

80

[14] Martinet, A. (1955). Économie des Changements Phonétiques: Traité de Phonologie Diachronique. Berne: Éditions A. Franke.

[15] Matthews, P. H. (1997). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics.

New York, Oxford University Press. [16] Morgenbrod, H., and E. Serifi. (1981). “The Sound Structure of Verb

Roots in Modern Hebrew.” Journal of Linguistics 17: 11-16. [17] Muchnik, M. (1995). Grammar - The Easy Way (in Hebrew), Bnei

Barak.

[18] Prunet, J. F. (2006). “External evidence and the Semitic root.” Morphology, 16: 41-67.

[19] Rosner, M. (2001). The verb + syntax for levels B and C (in Hebrew)

According to the program of Ministry of Education – The department of Adult Education.

[20] Rocine, B. M. (2000). Learning Biblical Hebrew: A New Approach Using

Discourse Analysis. Georgia: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Inc. [21] Ross, P. A. (2001). Introducing Biblical Hebrew. Michigan, Baker

Academic. [22] Saif, S. (2004). Phonology as Human Behavior: Inflectional

Morphology in Classical, modern and Urban Palestinian Arabic. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev M.A. Thesis.

[23] Saussure, F. (1916/1959). Course in General Linguistics, ed. Charles

Bally and Albert Sechehaye, trans. Wade Baskin, New York: Philosophical Library.

[24] Saussure, F. (1970). Third Course of Lectures on General Linguistics.

Lecture notes. Pergamon Press. [25] Steinberg, D. (2004). History of the Hebrew Language.

http://www.adath-shalom.ca/history_of_hebrew.htm. [26] Tene-Ariel, D. (1969). Israeli Hebrew.

http://www.adath-shalom.ca/israeli_hebrew_tene.htm#_edn1. 25: 48-63. [27] Tobin, Y. (ed.). (1988a). The Prague school and its legacy. Amsterdam &

Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

81

[28] Tobin, Y. (1994/1995). Invariance, Markedness and Distinctive Feature Analysis: A Contrastive Study of Sign Systems in English and Hebrew. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins and Be'er Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press.

[29] Tobin, Y. (1997a). Phonology as Human Behavior: Theoretical

Implications and Clinical Applications. Durham, NC/London: Duke University Press.

[30] Tobin, Y. (2000). “Phonology as Human Behavior”, Durham&London,

Duke University Press. [31] Tobin, Y. (2001). “Phonology as Human Behavior: Inflectional

Systems in English.” The Israeli Annual Gathering of the European Linguistics Society members.

[32] Tobin, Y. (2002a). “Trying to ‘make sense’ out of phonological reduplication

in Hebrew.” In Proceedings of LP 2000: Item Order and its Variety and Linguistic and Phonetic Consequences, Bohumil Palek and Osamu Fujimura (eds.), Prague: Charles University Karolinium Press.

[33] Tobin, Y. (2005). Lecture notes. [34] Tobin, Y. (2006). “Phonology as human behavior: Inflectional systems

in English.” In Joseph Davis, Radmila J. Gorup and Nancy Stern (eds.), Advances in Functional Linguistics: Columbia School Beyond its Origins, 63-86. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

[35] Weissman-Gordon, A. (1978). The Patterning of Root Morphemes in

Biblical Hebrew. Department of Linghistics, Tell-Aviv University. Typescript.

iii

טבלת תוכן עניינים

ii תקציר

iii תודות

vi רשימת טבלאות

1 מבוא 1

1.1 ......................................................תיאורית הפונולוגיה כהתנהגות האדם 3

1.2 ..... ..........................................................................עקרונות התיאוריה 6

1.3 ....................................................................................................היפותזות 8

1.4 ............................................................................................נתונים ויעדים 8

2 חניתו 9

2.1 ........................................................................................מערכת פונולוגית 9

2.1.1 ........................................ פונולוגית של עברית תנכיתהמערכת ה 14

2.1.2 ..................... ..................תפונולוגית של עברית עכשוויהמערכת ה 17

2.2 ................................................בניינים וגזרות: מערכת השורשים בעברית 19

2.3 .................................................................................................הנתוני נטיי 20

2.3.1 ...................................................................................ליםנטיית פע 24

2.4 .................................................................................................נתוני גזרות 25

2.4.1 ......................................................... .........................עברית תנכית 26

2.4.2 ...............................................................................עברית מודרנית 35

2.5 ........................... ...................................................................ניתוח נתונים 45

2.5.1 ...............................................................................ניתוח סינכרוני 45

2.5.1.1 ...................ה סיכום סיומות של נטיי: עברית מודרנית 45

2.5.1.2 ................ ...סיכום סיומות של גזרות: עברית מודרנית 46

2.5.1.3 .........................השוואה בין סיומות של נטייה וגזרות 47

2.5.2 .......................עברית מודרנית כנגד עברית תנכית: מבט דיאכרוני 53

2.6 ............ ........................עברית תקנית כנגד מדוברת: שינויי שפה ותופעות 61

iv

3 סיכום ומסקנות 64

4 נספח 67

.................................................................................................... נספח א 67 ............................ ................................................................................נספח ב 72 ............................................................................................................נספח ג 75 ................ ............................................................................................נספח ד 76 .............................................................................................נספח ה 77 ..............................................................................................נספח ו 78

.5 ביבליוגרפיה 79

ii

תקציר

גזרות מורפולוגיות בעברית באופן והמחקר זה עוסק בהתפלגות פונולוגית של נטיי

סוף מילה מהווה את האזור למידע דקדוקי ואילו בתחילת מילה . סינכרוני ודיאכרוני

למען . סיומותלכן הנושא המרכזי של מחקר זה הינו , מופיעים פריטים לקסיקליים

. אשתמש בתיאוריה של פונולוגיה כהתנהגות האדםניתוח מידע המופיע במחקר זה אני

זו מסווגת את השפה כמערכת של סימנים שבה משתמשים בני האדם כדי התיאורי

של מקסימום תקשורת במינימום יהינה מתבססת על העיקרון הסינרגט, לתקשר

של נטייה וגזרות בעברית סיומותמחקר זה מראה כי הדמיון בין מערכת . מאמץ

כאשר , ינו רב יותר מאשר מערכת הגזרות של עברית מודרנית ועברית תנכיתמודרנית ה

בעברית הינה סיומות מיוחדת כשההתפלגות הפונולוגית של סיומותמדובר במערכת

זה מוביל למסקנה כי מדובר במערכת המשפרת את . אוריהמונעת על ידי עקרונות התי

בעלת יותר הבחנה , מערכת המייעלת את עצמה עם הזמן, מערכת יותר חסכנית, עצמה

. קלות יותרסיומות ועם דגש רב יותר על ההעדפה של יצירת , השונותהסיומותבין

יה כהתנהגות תוצאות מחקר זה מניבות ומחזקות את העובדה כי התיאוריה של פונולוג

.כמו לגבי כל שפה אחרת בעולם, האדם הינה ברת תוקף לגבי עברית

גוריון בנגב-אוניברסיטת בן הפקולטה למדעי הרוח והחברה המחלקה לספרויות זרות ובלשנות

של של ההנטיות וגזרות מורפולוגיות בעברית על פי התיאורינטיות וגזרות מורפולוגיות בעברית על פי התיאורי

פונולוגיה כהתנהגות האדםפונולוגיה כהתנהגות האדם

לינה פרלשטיין: מאת

ישי טובין' פפרו: מנחה

___________:תאריך _________________: חתימת הסטודנט

___________:תאריך __________________: חתימת המנחה

___________:תאריך __________________: ר הועדה המחלקתית"חתימת יו

גוריון בנגב-אוניברסיטת בן

הפקולטה למדעי הרוח והחברה

המחלקה לספרויות זרות ובלשנות

של של ההנטיות וגזרות מורפולוגיות בעברית על פי התיאורינטיות וגזרות מורפולוגיות בעברית על פי התיאורי

פונולוגיה כהתנהגות האדםפונולוגיה כהתנהגות האדם

)M.A" (מוסמך למדעי הרוח והחברה"חיבור זה מהווה חלק מהדרישות לקבלת התואר

לינה פרלשטיין: מאת

ישי טובין' פרופ: בהנחיית

2008 פברואר ח"תשסשבט

Documents

INFLECTIONAL AND DERIVATIONAL HEBREW MORPHOLOGY …