# segolate noun + pronoun



## flockhat

Hi guys,

When a segolate noun has a tsere in the first syllable, it means it was originally qitl.

When a segolate noun has a cholam in the first syllable, it means it was originally qutl.

But when a segolate noun has a segol in the first syllable, how do you know whether it was originally qitl or qatl?

Like פֶּרֶק (plunder)?

Thanks again


----------



## Drink

There are some clues, but you can never know what it originally was.

One clue is that a segolate that was originally qitl usually does not lengthen to qamatz in pausal position. But the word מלך also doesn't lengthen to qamatz, even though it was originally qatl.

Another clue is when you have an attached pronoun. Usually if the vowel when you attach a pronoun is patach, then it was most likely originally qatl (unless the vowel was affected by a guttural), but if the vowel is chiriq, then it could have been originally qitl or qatl.

The only way to narrow down further is with comparative linguistics.


----------



## Ali Smith

Drink said:


> Another clue is when you have an attached pronoun. Usually if the vowel when you attach a pronoun is patach, then it was most likely originally qatl (unless the vowel was affected by a guttural), but if the vowel is chiriq, then it could have been originally qitl or qatl.


When you have a pronominal suffix, you can be sure what the vowel in the first syllable originally was. Observe:

מלכו _malko_ 'his king'
ספרו _sifro_ 'his book'
קברו _qibro_ 'his grave'
חדשו _khodsho_ 'his month'

This is despite the fact that in the absolute state, מלך and קבר are vocalized identically.

I don't know what פֶּרֶק (plunder) looks like in the pronominal state. Also, I think it means "chapter" rather than "plunder".


----------



## Drink

You are mistaken, and קבר is a perfect example of that. While קבר has a chiriq when you attach a pronominal suffix, it was in fact originally qabr- and not qibr-. This is precisely the point I am making.


----------



## Ali Smith

Thank you.

By the way, what proof do you have that the vowel in קבר was originally _a_?


----------



## Drink

Aramaic qabra and Arabic qabr. Plus, as I said above, the fact that it lengthens to qamatz in pausal position.


----------



## Ali Smith

Drink: I believe what’s at play here is Philippi’s law—which operates in accented syllables, hence /qibru/ > /qabru/ > /qéber/— the suffixal form is /qibrî/ in an unaccented syllable—the pausal form reflects the secondary form /qabr/.


----------



## Drink

If that were the case, it would apply to all original qitl segolates, but it does not.

Furthermore, it still ignores the Aramaic and Arabic forms. In other words, it's pretty clear it was qabr-, so Phillipi's "law" is irrelevant.


----------



## Abaye

Elaboration (and examples of *qatl -> qitl-) here, ch. 7.3.4 (Suchard, Benjamin, 2016), including בטן, פרש, יתר, קבר.
https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item:3145034/view


----------



## Ali Smith

Drink: We’re dealing with a class of HEBREW nouns, to which קבר appears to belong, not with Comparative Semitics (the precise base of individual nouns can vary from one language to another).


----------



## Drink

Hebrew doesn't exist in a bubble. If you want to claim that the Hebrew word was originally qibr, then you have to explain why it was originally qibr when other languages have qabr.

What I'm saying is rather that it never was qibr in Hebrew. It was always qabr. And only in the suffixed forms the vowel shifted.


----------

