# mem-preformative noun from geminate root



## Aleppan

Is it a rule that you can never have a mem-preformative noun from a geminate root?

We have such nouns from hollow roots and third-weak roots but never from a geminate root.

For example, מבוא (entrance) and מצוה (commandment) respectively.


----------



## Abaye

Not sure what exactly is the definition of mem preformative, yet what about מסיבה, מצלול, מגננה, מרקקה, מגילה.


----------



## Drink

Certainly you can have them with geminate roots. In addition to Abaye's examples, the most basic forms are like מגן and like מצר (also spelled מיצר).


----------



## Abaye

Good examples. Some of my examples above are for the case that פע"ע behaves like שלמים so may be irrelevant to this discussion.

And anyway, even if there's no example of a certain grammatical behaviour, behaviour that makes sense, I don't think it can be automatically called "a rule", it may also be a coincidence, the bible doesn't cover the whole Hebrew of its time, the bible is not a dictionary or a lexicon (assuming the question is about biblical Hebrew).


----------



## Ali Smith

Drink said:


> Certainly you can have them with geminate roots. In addition to Abaye's examples, the most basic forms are like מגן and like מצר (also spelled מיצר).


Is the mem in מֵצַר 'distress' not one of the root letters? If it's not, what is the root and what is the base? Is the root צרר and the base _maqtal_? By "base" I mean the reconstructed Proto-Hebrew form of a word expressed in terms of the root QTL.


----------



## Drink

Yes, it's צרר, and it is of mishqal miqtal. Let's not bring Proto-Semitic into this relatively focused discussion.


----------



## Ali Smith

Drink said:


> Yes, it's צרר, and it is of mishqal miqtal. Let's not bring Proto-Semitic into this relatively focused discussion.


מֵצַר is an excellent example, the only twist being that it shows a true miqtal base (/miṣarr/ >/mēṣar/), of which clear examples are rare in Hebrew.

I have yet to come across a maqtal base from a geminate root though.


----------



## Drink

I'm not sure why you assume it can't be miṣarr- < maṣarr-.


----------



## Ali Smith

Drink said:


> I'm not sure why you assume it can't be miṣarr- < maṣarr-.


Well, how would you account for the change in vowel in the first syllable?


----------



## Abaye

סיון וקמרון discuss the case of מצר and don't have a final conclusion about the original משקל.
See חילופי התנועות פתח וחיריק בהברה סגורה לא-מוטעמת בעברית המקראית ושאלת חוק ההידקקות pages 21, 23.


----------



## Drink

Ali Smith said:


> Well, how would you account for the change in vowel in the first syllable?


Why not say it's the same process as maqtal > miqtal?


----------



## Ali Smith

Drink said:


> Why not say it's the same process as maqtal > miqtal?


maqtal > miqtal exhibits attenuation, and I think attenuation only takes place in closed, unaccented syllables, such as the first syllable of מִשְׁפָּט, not the first syllable of מָקוֹם. Note that both מִשְׁפָּט 'judgement, court decision; manner' and מָקוֹם 'place' had the same base: maqtal.


----------



## Drink

Ali Smith said:


> I think attenuation only takes place in closed, unaccented syllables,


Maybe you need to adjust your working hypothesis?


----------



## Ali Smith

Well, how do you explain the fact that attenuation did not take place in the first syllable of מָקוֹם 'place'?


----------



## Drink

There are more differences between מקום and משפט than just whether the first syllable is closed or not.


----------



## zaw

And what might those differences be?


----------



## Drink

Different length of second vowel. Different quality of second vowel. Nothing so complicated.


----------



## zj73

Abaye said:


> סיון וקמרון discuss the case of מצר and don't have a final conclusion about the original משקל.
> See חילופי התנועות פתח וחיריק בהברה סגורה לא-מוטעמת בעברית המקראית ושאלת חוק ההידקקות pages 21, 23.


Could you please provide an executive summary for those who do not know Modern Hebrew?


----------



## Abaye

Here are the two passages (I hope the forum rules permit posting printed article fragments).
Maybe someone will be kind enough to translate.


----------



## Abaye

במקום שאין מתרגמים השתדל להיות מתרגם.Tiny letters in the text below are my comments, not part of the original.


> A relic of original *miqtal* pattern may be in the forms מֵסַב (in 1 Kings 6:29), מֵצַר (Psalms 118:5), מֵרוֹץ (Ecclesiastes 9:11). The Tzere in the open syllable is correctly interpreted (מתפרש אל נכון) as a result (or: descendant) of "i". The Tzere in the words מֵצַר and מֵסַב can also be interpreted as *distinction (בידול) of vowels (so it's not a result of historical "i"), but this explanation is irrelevant for מֵרוֹץ.





> ... two (such) words are punctuated with Segol: מֶחְקְרֵי (Psalms 95:4) and מֶחֱצָה (Numbers 31:36), although there are different traditions for this latter word. Is the Segol in these word a result of earlier "i" vowel (compare to מֵצַר, מֵסַב)? The fact that in most of the words above (previous paragraphs) the "a" vowel is preserved may attest a late time for the shift i<a in such cases ...


*distinction (בידול) - not sure about the correct term. It's the case that one of two similar vowels changes to make it distinct.


----------



## Drink

Dissimilation is probably the word.


----------

