# משקל קַטָּל‎‎



## Sharjeel72

Hi again

Is משקל קַטָּל usually used for professions? For example, סַפָּר, which means barber.


----------



## Abaye

Often.

קטגוריה:קַטָּל (משקל) - ויקימילון


----------



## Ali Smith

Sharjeel72 said:


> Hi again
> 
> Is משקל קַטָּל usually used for professions? For example, סַפָּר, which means barber.


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׃


----------



## Graciela J

Ali Smith said:


> How come סַפָּר means 'barber'? Isn't it from ספר, which means either 'to count' or 'to write'?



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)


----------



## Ali Smith

No way! I thought לְסַפֵּר only meant 1. to count, 2. to tell, 3. to publish.
Thanks!


----------



## Ali Smith

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).


----------



## Drink

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

nagan נַגָן is another example


----------



## Ali Smith

Misspiiggy999 said:


> nagan נַגָן is another example


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.


----------



## Drink

Ali Smith said:


> You forgot the דגש חזק, because it’s נַגָּן, not נַגָן.


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.


That's not interesting at all. This pattern is not tied to any particular verb form, nor even necessarily to verbs at all.


----------



## Ali Smith

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)


Here is another example of this pattern deriving not from Qal but Pi'el: שָׁרָת 'server', which comes from שֵׁרֵת 'to serve'.


----------



## Drink

Again, the binyan or even whether the word exists as verb does not seem to be relavant at all to this noun pattern.


----------



## JAN SHAR

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.


----------



## Abaye

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.


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.


----------



## Drink

שָׁרָת is certainly of this pattern. The vowel on the first syllable is due to the ר not taking a dagesh.


----------



## Ali Smith

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.


----------



## Drink

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.


Actually, this was originally a long-ā that for some reason didn't go through the Canaanite shift.


----------



## aavichai

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.


----------

