# Verbs with first radical yod



## zaw

Hi,

In the Bible verbs whose first radical is yod either:

1. maintain the yod throughout

2. change it into vav in certain stems

3. assimilate it to the following radical in certain stems

Is there a rule for deciding when what happens? Like we have

היטיב from יטב (this belongs to no.1)

הוליד as the hiphil from ילד (this belongs to no. 2)

יצור as the imperfect of יצר "to fashion" (this belongs to 3.)

Toda raba


----------



## Drink

A lot of it is etymological. In Hebrew and closely related languages like Aramaic, initial w- generally became y-, but it remained w when not initial. Meanwhile in Arabic and other Semitic languages, this did not happen.

So this is why in Arabic you have walada and ’awlada, whereas in Hebrew you have yālad, but hōlīd (< hawlīd).

Meanwhile, the roots with original y- will maintain the y even non-initially. But these are much rarer, just as initial y- roots are rarer in Arabic than initial w- roots.

Some mixing up of these paradigms also occurred, so the etymology is not always a 100% accurate predictor.

The assimilation, however, is limited to a small list of exceptional roots, all of which have צ as the second root letter.


----------



## Ali Smith

Of those verbs whose first radical is י and second is צ, _some_ behave like I-nun verbs. They are יצב, יצג, יצע, יצק, יצר, and יצת. Thus,

וַיַּצֵּ֣ב אַבְרָהָ֗ם אֶת־שֶׁ֛בַע כִּבְשֹׂ֥ת הַצֹּ֖אן לְבַדְּהֶֽן׃
(בראשית כא כח)

And Abraham placed seven ewe lambs of the flock by themselves.


----------



## JAN SHAR

What about יזע?


----------



## Drink

JAN SHAR said:


> What about יזע?



This root is actually זיע/זוע. Despite the noun יזע.


----------



## Ali Smith

It seems I was mistaken about יצב; it does not belong to this category. As for וַיַּצֵּ֣ב in

וַיַּצֵּ֣ב אַבְרָהָ֗ם אֶת־שֶׁ֛בַע כִּבְשֹׂ֥ת הַצֹּ֖אן לְבַדְּהֶֽן׃
(בראשית כא כח)

And Abraham placed seven ewe lambs of the flock by themselves.

it is

particle, coordinating conjunction, waw-retentive + vb. 3m.s. short PC Hif'il נצב 'to place'/'and he placed'


----------



## Drink

No, יצב is a member of this group, as we've discussed before. There is no actual root נצב, as you can see whenever the the first radical does not assimilate, it is always י and never נ.


----------



## Ali Smith

Okay, but that's not what _Building Your Biblical Hebrew Vocabulary _by George M. Landes says!


----------



## Drink

And he's not alone. BDB and Strong's concordance also separate them.

But if you look at the internal Hebrew evidence, they are clearly one root.


----------



## Ali Smith

Got it. Thanks!

Would you mind sharing this internal evidence?


----------



## Drink

Simply the distribution of forms. You don't find any instances whatsoever where the נ of the root shows up explicitly (e.g. only התיצב and no התנצב). And you don't find any instances whatsoever of non-assimilated י forms in places where assimilation is possible (e.g. only נִצָּב and no נוצב, only הִצִּיב and no הוציב or היציב).


----------



## Abaye

In addition to the 6 בקעת גר (or ברג תקע) roots (that is, roots starting with י-צ and end with those 6 letters) there are also
יזע (not attested in the bible as belonging to this group but used like that later)
יסר (as appears in the book of Hosea)
יסת (as an exceptional form of ס-ו-ת)
יזם (in future tense, I'm not sure when it entered the language as a member of this group)

And maybe more.


----------

