# Origin of vowels in mishkalim



## Misspiiggy999

Hi

שָׁלוֹם לְכֻלָּם

Could someone tell me if words of the mishkal קְטוֹל originally had a short vowel in the last syllable and what vowel it had in the first?

Here are some examples: בְּכוֹר חֲלוֹם

Thank you


----------



## Abaye

I don't think all qtol words share a history. For example, חֲמוֹר and שְּׂמֹאל had long "a" that was shifted to long "o" (the Canaanite vowel shift) so are derivations of "qtāl" or alike. Other may be derivations of pre-Hebrew qutl. דרור is said to be derived of Akkadian darāru, thus "qatāl". Words may be of foreign origin, like ספוג from Greek σπόγγος so originally "qtol".


----------



## Misspiiggy999

Hi

שָׁלוֹם לְכֻלָּם

Could someone tell me if words of the following mishkalim originally had short vowels in both syllables?

mishkal קֵטָל - examples: לֵבָב עֵנָב
mishkal קָטוֹל - examples: גָּדוֹל רָחוֹק שָׁלוֹם שָׁלוֹשׁ
mishkal קָטֵל - examples: יָרֵךְ כָּבֵד זָקֵן כָּתֵף
mishkal קָטָל - examples: דָּבָר חָכָם כָּנָף נָהָר

Thank you


----------



## Abaye

As demonstrated above for "qtol", there's no one definite answer for such questions. It may help if you can explain the purpose of these questions.

Also, what do you mean by "originally"? Languages keep changing, There's no "original" language period or "original" word form. You can ask, for example, about the earliest attestation in biblical Hebrew, or about modern Hebrew, or about Proto-Semitic (one of Hebrew's ancestors).


----------



## Ali Smith

What were the original vowels in the mishkal of לְאֹם 'people'? Was it lu'um in proto-Hebrew, just like בְּכוֹר 'virgin' was originally bukur?


----------



## Drink

Where did you get that בכור means "virgin"? It means "firstborn". Also where did you get that it was originally *bukur-? In Akkadian it is certainly buk(u)r-, but in Arabic it is bikr-. The Hebrew form seems more likely to have been originally either *bikār- or *bukār- rather than bukur- (since Akkadian and Arabic have different forms of the word, we cannot prefer one over the other for a reconstruction), especially considering its consonantal spelling alternates between בכר and בכור (if it had been *bukur-, you'd expect the spelling בכור to be rare in Biblical Hebrew) and its plural form is בכורות (the feminine plural on masculine nouns is much more common when following the historically long vowel ā).

As for לאם, the relevant cognates are Akkadian līm- and Ugaritic lím (the use of í indicates that the vowel after the glottal stop could have been i, ī, or ē < ay; the vowel before the glottal stop cannot be determined from the spelling). Unfortunately neither of these is directly compatible with the apparent Proto-Hebrew form, either *li’um(m)- or *lu’um(m)-, so we cannot quite tell which of these it was.


----------



## Ali Smith

Thank you, Drink!

By the way, if mishkal קָטוֹל (e.g. גָּדוֹל רָחוֹק שָׁלוֹם שָׁלוֹשׁ) was originally qatāl, does that mean גָבוֹהַּ 'high' was originally gabāh?


----------



## Drink

No, גָּבֹהַּ seems to be from *gabuh. Note that it is never spelled גבוה in the Bible.

The other adjectives are sometimes spelled with ו, but I'd hazard a guess that these are later spellings.


----------



## Ali Smith

Thank you. What makes you think it was originally *gabuh rather than *gabāh though?

And if it were *gabuh how come it wound up as גָבוֹהַּ?


----------



## Drink

גָּבֹהַּ is precisely the expected result of *gabuh. I'm not sure what there is to question here.


----------



## Ali Smith

But if it had been *gabāh originally wouldn't it have turned into גָּבֹהַּ too? How can you be sure it was originally *gabuh?


----------



## Drink

Because of comparative Semitics.

The proto-Semitic deverbal adjectives were most commonly of the form *QaTuL- or *QaTiL-, while a form such as *QaTāL- is not known to have had such meanings.


----------



## JAN SHAR

Is there a place where I can find a complete list of the original forms (mishkalim) and what each turned into with the passage of time? Thanks.


----------



## Ali Smith

I can give you a few basic rules:

The principle generality in the short vowels is that the _a_ tends to remain in positions where the _i_ and _u_ do not. That is, historical short _a _is retained as קמץ in open pretonic position very regularly, e.g. דְּבָרִים 'words', whereas historical short _i_ does so only if the previous syllable is variable. So, you say זְְקֵנִים‎ 'elders' with צירי, but you say מִזְבְּחוֹת 'altars' with the צירי reduced.

So, just as a general phenomenon, the historical short _a _tends to hang around in more positions than do the _i_ or the _u_.

_u _is the strangest of the three because it is the most easily reducible (it reduces even in pretonic position very frequently, e.g. בְּכוֹר 'first-born') but it retains its characteristic in strange positions, e.g. קֳדְשִׁים, which is the plural of קֹ֫דֶש 'holiness'. Now קֳדְשִׁים shows a reduced vowel, but it retains the _quality_ of the historical short _u_, i.e. the _o_-quality commonly associated with historical short _u_. So, the historical short _u _is the most fleeting of the historical short vowels but also the one that tends to leave various kinds of traces behind that you are unsure exactly how to account for.

More specifically, a short _a_ in a closed, unaccented syllable is usually retained, e.g. מַלְאָךְ 'messenger, angel', but sometimes it turns into a short _i_, e.g. מִשְׁפָּט 'judgement, court decision; manner'. This phenomenon is called 'attenuation', and it regularly applies to the first syllable of the prefix-conjugation in the Qal stem, e.g. יִכְתֹּב. It does _not_ apply to I-gutturals though because there the syllable is not truly closed, e.g. יַעֲמֹד (what’s happening here is secondary opening). 

For some reason, in the suffix-conjugation of the Qal stem the short _a_ in the first syllable is lengthened when said syllable is pretonic, e.g. כָּ֫תְבוּ. This is despite the fact that it is a historical short _a_ occurring in a closed, unaccented syllable.


----------



## Ali Smith

Drink said:


> Where did you get that בכור means "virgin"? It means "firstborn". Also where did you get that it was originally *bukur-? In Akkadian it is certainly buk(u)r-, but in Arabic it is bikr-. The Hebrew form seems more likely to have been originally either *bikār- or *bukār- rather than bukur- (since Akkadian and Arabic have different forms of the word, we cannot prefer one over the other for a reconstruction), especially considering its consonantal spelling alternates between בכר and בכור (if it had been *bukur-, you'd expect the spelling בכור to be rare in Biblical Hebrew) and its plural form is בכורות (the feminine plural on masculine nouns is much more common when following the historically long vowel ā).


It’s true that the mater lectionis is strange for a historical short _u_, but the /qutālu/ or /qitālu/ form wouldn’t solve the problem either. The use of a wāw mater with a חוֹלָם is only thoroughly expected for a historical /aw/ diphthong. It’s also worth noting that there are plenty of occurrences without the mater.


----------



## Drink

That is incorrect. A vav mater lectionis is found interchangeably (with a frequency of about half the time) on vowels deriving from long ā.


----------



## Ali Smith

Drink said:


> That is incorrect. A vav mater lectionis is found interchangeably (with a frequency of about half the time) on vowels deriving from long ā.


In Biblical Hebrew itself the waw mater is, of course, often used for a historical _ā_. However, the use of waw for a historical _ā_ is just as secondary as its use for a historical _u_.


----------



## Drink

Ali Smith said:


> In Biblical Hebrew itself the waw mater is, of course, often used for a historical _ā_. However, the use of waw for a historical _ā_ is just as secondary as its use for a historical _u_.


No it's not. Its use for historical ā is prolifically widespread, occurring as I said, about 50% of the time, and seemingly completely interchangeable even in the same word.

Meanwhile, for historical u, you find that the vav is pretty rare.


----------



## Ali Smith

Drink said:


> No it's not. Its use for historical ā is prolifically widespread, occurring as I said, about 50% of the time, and seemingly completely interchangeable even in the same word.
> 
> Meanwhile, for historical u, you find that the vav is pretty rare.


I’m not sure about that (גָּדוֹל is written with ו much more often than not, for one datum).


----------



## Drink

Hmm... You may have a point there.

In segolates and geminates and finite verb forms, the historical short u is rarely spelled with vav. But perhaps the final syllable of nouns and adjectives is actually distinct from those cases. After all, a short "a" in segolates, geminated, and finite verbs becomes a patach, while in the final syllable of nouns and adjectives it is qamatz. So there is something different about this syllable as compared to the others and perhaps it was lengthened at an earlier time and thus spelled with vav more frequently just like the reflex of long ā.

If that's the case, then you are right, and it is possible that בכור is from *bukur-.


----------



## Ali Smith

By contrast, the proto-Hebrew form of מְאֹד 'very, much' would definitely have been either /qutālu/ or /qitālu/ because מְאֹד is hardly ever spelled with a mater lectionis in the Bible.


----------



## Drink

Let me say again: the reflex of long ā is spelled roughly half of the time with a mater lectionis.

So the fact that מאד is rarely found with one doesn't have anything to do with it being from ā.

Other methods must be used to reconstruct it.


----------



## Ali Smith

Got it. What are these methods, if you don't mind me asking? Also, do you think מְאֹד 'very, much' was originally /qutālu/ or /qitālu/ or /qutulu/?


----------



## Drink

The method of comparison with other languages, for example.

I don't know what the original vowel of this word was. I can see it being either ā or u.


----------

