# Construct state of XaXXaXah pattern



## hadronic

Hello,

This pattern can appear in several different occasions :
1. maXXaXah pattern of sound roots : "mamlakhah" (kingdom)
2. maXXaXah pattern of pey'nun roots : "mattanah" (present), "mattarah" (aim)
3. XaX'X'aXah pattern for pi'el substantif :  "baqqashah" (request)
4. haXXaXah pattern for hif'il substantif : "haskarah", "hakhlafah"

Yet, almost all of them show a different pattern in the construct state :
1. mamlakhah > mamlekhet : segholisation
2. mattanah > mattenat, mattarah > matterat : weakening of the penultima
3. & 4. baqqashah > baqqashat, haskarah > haskarat : no weakening, no segholisation.

Could someone explain why ?

Thank you.


----------



## scriptum

Such words as mamlakha, baqqasha and haskara belong to _three_ different patterns (maxxaxa, xaxxaxa, haxxaxa). There is no reason why they should behave in the same way.


----------



## dinji

hadronic said:


> 2. mattanah > mattenat, mattarah > matterat : weakening of the penultima


I would have said "mattanat" and "mattarat" in the construct. Are you sure you have this right?

And I agree with the previous comment: your examples belong to different patterns despite their vocalization, because you mix prefixes in the pattern. 
Except of course "mattaná" ("mantaná" [n.t.n]), which formally equals "mamlakhá" [m.l.k], for which your question is valid.

Does by the way "mattará" come from [n.T.r] or [m.T.r]?


----------



## scriptum

Hhag sameahh everybody.
The construct state forms are מַתְּנַת, מַטְּרַת.
The root consonants of מטרה are נט"ר.


----------



## hadronic

Precisely, in this case, "mattanah" uses the exact same pattern as "mamlakhah" (maXXaXah), but give a different construct form.

What does "mappalah" (defait) give for example ? 
My dictionary gives "mappelet" (but I like to check with another source, like morfix ?), which would be a counter-example to "mattanah" and "mattarah" (all three are pey'nun roots on a maXXaXah pattern).


----------



## hadronic

I came across other example of the same kind (with latin transcription, nikudot don't display very well):
 נְבֵלָה  ---> נִבְלַת               n&velah --->  niv&lat             (& = schwa)
שְׁכֵנָה  ----> שְׁכֶנֶת              sh&khenah ---> sh&khénet
אֲבֵדָה ---> אֲבֵדַת                'avedah    --->  'avedat       (chatef patach in both)
and all of those are of the X&XeXah pattern....

Should I conclude I've got no chance in finding something predictable ?


----------



## amikama

hadronic said:


> Precisely, in this case, "mattanah" uses the exact same pattern as "mamlakhah" (maXXaXah), but give a different construct form.
> 
> What does "mappalah" (defait) give for example ?
> My dictionary gives "mappelet" (but I like to check with another source, like morfix ?), which would be a counter-example to "mattanah" and "mattarah" (all three are pey'nun roots on a maXXaXah pattern).


Because _mattana _and _mattara _are exceptions. 

According to the Academia's booklet החלטות האקדמיה בדקדוק (pp. 22-23), words in the _mishkal _מפעלה have segolate inflections, except for three words: מתנה, מטרה, מטלה.


----------



## hadronic

Thank you Amikama for this piece of information.
Where can I get a chance to get this booklet (in English if possible) ?

For the haXXaXah and XaX'X'aXah patterns, I endly had the answer from the Hebrew grammar of Joüin. Those two deverbal patterns have Aramaic origin, where the pretonic qamatz's are long, and thus unchangeable (just like "tachbûrat" don't make "tachberat" but "tachbûrat").
In the same way, the job terms XaX'X'âX (like "gannav", "nehag", "hayyat" ...), have a long second qamatz, making plural construct "gannavei", and not the (otherwise) expected *gannevei".
Those patterns can be seen as "loanpatterns" from Aramaic, which we still find in Arabic with the same long "a": XaXXâX ( "Hallâq" hairdresser, "khabbâz" bread maker,...),  'iXXâX ("islâm" pacification, from the af3al/hif3il binyan), ...


----------

