Questions about the formation of Classical Hebrew verbs

hcdor

New Member
Brazilian Portuguese
Hi!
I've been curious about the formation of the Ancient Hebrew verbal system, so while looking around I came across this great post, this excellent (if sometimes self-contradictory) site, which clarified a lot things, and a lot of Ugaritic material, but I still have some questions: Can somebody help me with those?

1. Were these originally the Suffix and Prefix (Imperfect) forms of strong verbs in its various stems?
(Examples using the root K-T-B, 3rd person Masculine Singular):
SuffixPrefix (Imperfect)
G stem/'kataba//'yaktubu/
N stem/'naktaba//'yankatibu/
D stem/'kattaba//'yukattibu/
Dp stem/'kuttiba//'yukattabu/
Dt stem/'hitkattaba//'yatkattabu/?
C stem/'haktaba//yu'haktabu/
Cp stem/'huktaba//'yuhaktabu/

Notice the initial stress in almost all examples. Is this correct?
2. Speaking of stress, FIRST the Law of Attenuation turns /a/ into /i/ in the unstressed theme vowel and THEN the stress move to it, NOT the other way around or it wouldn't make sense, right? But then, why did this only happen in D, Dt and C stem?

3. The period referred to above (even if the forms aren't perfectly represented) seem to be called Proto-Semitic on the aforementioned post and Proto-Hebrew on the cited site, but from what I could gather, Proto-Semitic seemed closer to Akkadian, and these forms seem to come after that but to predate Ugaritic, not to mention that a search for Proto-Hebrew finds almost no results, so what would the language of this period be called? Canaanite? Proto-Canaanite? Proto-North-West-Semitic? Something else? And when could that be approximately?

4. Why does Suffix Pi´el and Hithpael have and /ē/ as theme vowel in 3MS and Hiph´il has /î/ in all 3rd persons while both have /a/ in all other Suffix forms?

5. While we're at it, why do Suffix 3MS Pi´el and Hithpa´el, and Prefix Niph´al, Pi´el and Hithpa´el have an /ē/ theme vowel while Hiph´il has an /î/, if they came from the same vowel and circunstances seem to be the same? I understand that:

Pref. (Impf.) /yu'haktabu/ > /'yaktabu/ > /'yaktibu/ > /yak'tibu/ > /yaḵ'tîḇ/
Pref. (Juss.) /yu'haktab/ > /'yaktab/ > /'yaktib/ > /'yaḵtɛḇ/ > /yaḵ'tɛḇ/ > /yaḵ'tēḇ/

Was the linguistic context not the same for the examples I mentioned not the same as the ones above? Why the different results?
Oh, and if I'm contradicting the forms I've just written above saying that the linguistic context was the same, it's because I'm not really sure which forms are correct, since I got contradicting information, especially when it comes to the original theme vowels of the D- and C-stems, both in Suffix and Prefix forms.

So, can somebody help me out?
Sorry for the wall of text and multiple questions and thank you in advance for your help,
hcdor.

(Also, sorry if this isn't the right place for those questions: if that's the case, just tell me where I should post them and I'll do it, but the Semitic > Hebrew subforum seem to be inundated with questions about historical Hebrew forms, while their focus seems to be more on the Modern variety of the language, so it seemed more appropriate to post it here on the Historical Linguistics subforum.)
 
  • Top