# plural of segolate nouns‏‏



## zaw

Hi,

I believe the rule for forming a plural of a segolate noun is that you add the ending -im (if it's masculine) or -ot (if it's feminine), and you give the first letter a schwa (or compound schwa if it's a guttural) and you give the second letter a qamets. So, the plural of דָּבָר is דְּבָרִים

If so, then why does קֹדֶשׁ become קֹדָשִׁים? Why doesn’t it get a schwa like חֳדָשִׁים?

Toda raba


----------



## Ali Smith

Segholate nouns that were qutl-base nouns in proto-Hebrew retain the חוֹלָם‎ in the first syllable in the plural. That's why קֹדָשִׁים is the plural of קֹדֶשׁ 'holiness'.

By contrast, segholate nouns that were qatl- or qitl-base nouns in proto-Hebrew have plurals of the type you described in your question.

This still does not explain why the plural of חֹדֶשׁ 'new moon; month' is חֳדָשִׁים rather than חֹדָשִׁים though.


----------



## radagasty

zaw said:


> So, the plural of דָּבָר is דְּבָרִים


Yes, but note that דָּבָר is not segholate.



Ali Smith said:


> Segholate nouns that were qutl-base nouns in proto-Hebrew retain the חוֹלָם‎ in the first syllable in the plural. That's why קֹדָשִׁים is the plural of קֹדֶשׁ 'holiness'.
> 
> This still does not explain why the plural of חֹדֶשׁ 'new moon; month' is חֳדָשִׁים rather than חֹדָשִׁים though.



This is altogether misleading, I’m afraid to say.

The first thing to note is that the root vowel of segholate nouns was wont to be unstable, and could vary between dialects and between eras, so references to ‘proto-Hebrew’ are something of a furphy. That said, _qutl_ nouns form their plurals exactly like _qatl_ and _qitl_, with a schwa under the first radical, _e.g._, בְּקָרִים or חֳדָשִׁים. The latter is accordingly regular, and not an exception.

It is קֹדֶשׁ and שֹׁרֶשׁ that are exceptional, with plurals in ā-ā, קָדָשִׁים and שָׁרָשִׁים respectively. Even then, the former shows the expected vocalic reduction with the definite article: הַקֳּדָשִׁים Nouns whose first radical is א retain a full vowel in the manner you describe, _e.g._, אֹהָלִים, although, again, the _holem_ reduces when prefixed with a preposition: בָּאֳהָלִים.


----------



## Drink

I'm not sure where you saw קֹדָשִׁים, it should be קֳדָשִׁים. The one case I know of that has a holam is אֹהָלִים.

But essentially the explanation is like this: The chataf qamatz is basically like a shva, except that it preserves the quality of the former vowel. So in these cases, the quality of the vowel was exceptionally preserved rather than becoming a normal shva.


----------



## Ali Smith

What about the plural of קֶרֶן 'horn'? Why is it קַרְנוֹת? Shouldn't it have been קְרָנוֹת?

וַיִּשְׁחָ֗ט וַיִּקַּ֨ח מֹשֶׁ֤ה אֶת־הַדָּם֙ וַ֠יִּתֵּ֠ן עַל־קַרְנ֨וֹת הַמִּזְבֵּ֤חַ סָבִיב֙ בְּאֶצְבָּע֔וֹ וַיְחַטֵּ֖א אֶת־הַמִּזְבֵּ֑חַ וְאֶת־הַדָּ֗ם יָצַק֙ אֶל־יְס֣וֹד הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ וַֽיְקַדְּשֵׁ֖הוּ לְכַפֵּ֥ר עָלָֽיו׃
(ויקרא ח טו)

Then Moses slaughtered [it], took the blood, and put [it] on the horns of the altar on all sides with his finger and purified the altar. Then he poured the blood at the base of the altar and thereby sanctified it to make atonement for it.


----------



## Drink

It's in the construct state here. Everything is as expected.


----------



## Ali Smith

Oh, okay. As you mentioned in another thread, we should imagine another syllable at the end of construct nouns to understand how each syllable is stressed. In קַרְנוֹת the imaginary syllable would definitely explain why the קמץ was reduced to שוא. But where did the פתח in the first syllable come from?


----------



## Drink

It's essentially the original vowel from Proto-Hebrew qaranāt-.


----------



## Dashem

Ali Smith said:


> Oh, okay. As you mentioned in another thread, we should imagine another syllable at the end of construct nouns to understand how each syllable is stressed. In קַרְנוֹת the imaginary syllable would definitely explain why the קמץ was reduced to שוא. But where did the פתח in the first syllable come from?


The _kamatz _is reduced because in this construct state the stress it moved from it farther than 2 letters (some sources say it should be 3 letters): קַרְנוֹת הַמִזְ*בֵּ*חַ. Now, when it is replaced with _sh'va_, two consecutive _sh'va_s appear in the beginning of this word: "קְרְנוֹת", which contradicts the grammar. In the original form the ק has a vowel (קֶרֶן), therefore it is not a mistake to replace the first _sh'va _with _pata__h_.


----------

