משקל קַטָּל‎‎

S

Sharjeel72

Member
English
Hi again

Is משקל קַטָּל usually used for professions? For example, סַפָּר, which means barber.
 
    • Sharjeel72 said:
    Hi again

    Is משקל קַטָּל usually used for professions? For example, סַפָּר, which means barber.
    Click to expand...
    How come סַפָּר means 'barber'? Isn't it from ספר, which means either 'to count' or 'to write'?

    Here's a better example: נַיָּד, which is derived from Qal נוד 'to sway/rock (intransitive)'

    וְהִכָּ֨ה יְהֹוָ֜ה אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל כַּאֲשֶׁ֨ר יָנ֣וּד הַקָּנֶה֮ בַּמַּ֒יִם֒ וְנָתַ֣שׁ אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל מֵ֠עַ֠ל הָאֲדָמָ֨ה הַטּוֹבָ֤ה הַזֹּאת֙ אֲשֶׁ֤ר נָתַן֙ לַאֲב֣וֹתֵיהֶ֔ם וְזֵרָ֖ם מֵעֵ֣בֶר לַנָּהָ֑ר יַ֗עַן אֲשֶׁ֤ר עָשׂוּ֙ אֶת־אֲשֵׁ֣רֵיהֶ֔ם מַכְעִיסִ֖ים אֶת־יְהֹוָֽה׃
     
    Last edited:
    No way! I thought לְסַפֵּר only meant 1. to count, 2. to tell, 3. to publish.
    Thanks!
     
    Here is another example of where קַטָּל is used as a nomen professionis: דַּפָּס (printer), although I don't think the root is ever used in the Qal. I find it very strange that a nomen professionis would be formed from an unused root (unused in the sense that there are no verbs from it).
     
    What do you mean it's unused? It's not in qal, but it is used. To print is hif'il הדפיס, to be printed is nif'al נדפס.

    But there are names of professions that are from non-verbal root. For example, גַּמָּל means a "camel-driver", but there is no corresponding verb, just the noun גָּמָל, meaning "camel".
     
    Misspiiggy999 said:
    nagan נַגָן is another example
    Click to expand...
    You forgot the דגש חזק, because it’s נַגָּן, not נַגָן. It’s interesting that the verb is not from qal but from pi’el: נִגֵּן ‘to play a stringed instrument’. I don’t think this is common though; the corresponding verb is usually from qal.
     
    Ali Smith said:
    You forgot the דגש חזק, because it’s נַגָּן, not נַגָן.
    Click to expand...
    People don't always use full vocalization.

    Ali Smith said:
    It’s interesting that the verb is not from qal but from pi’el: נִגֵּן ‘to play a stringed instrument’. I don’t think this is common though; the corresponding verb is usually from qal.
    Click to expand...
    That's not interesting at all. This pattern is not tied to any particular verb form, nor even necessarily to verbs at all.
     
    Graciela J said:
    It's from לְסַפֵּר wich means: to relate, to tell (a story), to read; to cut (hair). (It's the root of the word מִסְפָּרַייִם, scissors)
    Click to expand...
    Here is another example of this pattern deriving not from Qal but Pi'el: שָׁרָת 'server', which comes from שֵׁרֵת 'to serve'.
     
    Again, the binyan or even whether the word exists as verb does not seem to be relavant at all to this noun pattern.
     
    But שָׁרָת is clearly not of the pattern קַטָּל! Look at the first syllable closely.

    And although שָׁרָת does mean "server" in modern hebrew, it did not exist in older Hebrew. It is a neologism.
     
    JAN SHAR said:
    But שָׁרָת is clearly not of the pattern קַטָּל! Look at the first syllable closely.

    And although שָׁרָת does mean "server" in modern hebrew, it did not exist in older Hebrew. It is a neologism.
    Click to expand...
    Apparently you're right: שרת - ויקימילון. I guess it's some sort of historical miscalculation when this new word was coined, whoever took the decision had another pattern in mind.

    Correcting myself: it looks like a simple תשלום דגש for the pattern discussed above.
     
    שָׁרָת is certainly of this pattern. The vowel on the first syllable is due to the ר not taking a dagesh.
     
    Why doesn't the plural construct of קַטָּל‎‎-type nouns show a reduction of the קמץ? It's fairly obvious that historically speaking the קמץ was a short a sound. Hence, it should be reducible.
     
    Ali Smith said:
    Why doesn't the plural construct of קַטָּל‎‎-type nouns show a reduction of the קמץ? It's fairly obvious that historically speaking the קמץ was a short a sound. Hence, it should be reducible.
    Click to expand...
    Actually, this was originally a long-ā that for some reason didn't go through the Canaanite shift.
     
    you can see this in the root קנא
    Ex. 34:14 אֵל קַנָּא הוּא - the long "a" takes the Qamats
    Josh. 24:19 אֵל קַנּוֹא הוּא - the long "a" becomes "o" through a Canaanite shift.
     
    Substantives of the form qattāl come from a qattal base, of course. However, they are almost always nouns, not adjectives. Would חַלָּשׁ 'weak' be an example of an adjective with this base? Are there any other adjectives with this base? This is the only one I have ever come across.
     
    My source is Eric D. Reymond's Intermediate Biblical Hebrew Grammar, pg. 136 (see attachment). By the way, it seems כֶּחָשׁ 'deceitful' comes from this base, too.

    כִּ֣י עַ֤ם מְרִי֙ ה֔וּא בָּנִ֖ים כֶּחָשִׁ֑ים בָּנִ֕ים לֹא־אָב֥וּ שְׁמ֖וֹעַ תּוֹרַ֥ת יְהֹוָֽה׃
    (ישעיהו ל ט)

    For it is a stubborn nation, deceitful sons, sons (who) do not want to hear Y-----'s law.

    The standard doctrine is that the stative adjectives are qatil and qatul, but there is a good number of qatal stative adjectives, of which חָכָם always comes to my mind first, so there is no reason why there should not be a few qattal stative adjectives as well.
     

    Attachments

    • eric.jpeg
      eric.jpeg
      679.3 KB · Views: 51
    I see. Does he present any historical evidence for this, or is it just a synchronic abstraction?

    Ali Smith said:
    so there is no reason why there should not be a few qattal stative adjectives as well.
    Click to expand...
    You can't reason with reality. Either they exist or not.
     
    Drink said:
    I see. Does he present any historical evidence for this, or is it just a synchronic abstraction?
    Click to expand...
    Yes, he says that a historical /a/ goes to /ā/ in both an open pretonic syllable and a tonic syllable. In the latter case it doesn't make a difference whether the syllable is open or closed. See pg. 74-5 of his Intermediate Biblical Hebrew Grammar.
     

    Attachments

    • WhatsApp Image 2023-04-18 at 21.52.53.jpeg
      WhatsApp Image 2023-04-18 at 21.52.53.jpeg
      650.2 KB · Views: 39
    Last edited:
    Sorry, I'm afraid I fail to see where in your photographs he presents evidence of the historical origin of קַטָּל.

    We are not discussing a-vowels in general. We are discussing specifically the קַטָּל pattern, which most aptly connects with Arabic and Aramaic patterns that point to a Proto-Semitic *qattāl-.
     
    You know that when ע, ה, or ח is followed by a קמץ, a preceding פתח will turn into a סגול.
     
    Well, if the masculine form is נַהָג (with virtual doubling of the ה, of course), then the feminine form should logically be of the base /qattal + at/ = נֶהָגָה, just like לֶהָבָה 'flame'.
     
    But it just so happens that your theory is contrary to reality. The feminines of qattāl nouns in Hebrew are usually qattelet.
     
    Ali Smith, you made a mistake when you said that when ע, ה, or ח is followed by a קמץ, a preceding פתח will turn into a סגול. I mean, this is valid for ח but not for the other two letters. For them, the condition is that they should be UNstressed. So, your rule does NOT apply to נהג, and it should be נַהָג or נָהָג
     
    Hamster Huey said:
    Ali Smith, you made a mistake when you said that when ע, ה, or ח is followed by a קמץ, a preceding פתח will turn into a סגול. I mean, this is valid for ח but not for the other two letters. For them, the condition is that they should be UNstressed. So, your rule does NOT apply to נהג, and it should be נַהָג or נָהָג
    Click to expand...
    You're right. I wonder why some people pronounce the masculine singular form of this word as נֶהָג instead of נַהָג. :confused:
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top