The first suspect would be Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. As the vernacular language of the Tiberian Masoretes and their direct precursors (as attested by its use in the masoretic notes), at least, we may expect it to have influenced the reading tradition in some way. But the phonology of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic does not match the profile we are looking for. While Jewish Palestinian Aramaic distinguishes between /i/ : /e/ and /u/ : /o/ and could thus plausibly have split a mid vowel phoneme into two, it seems that only /e/, /a/, and /o/ occurred in closed, unstressed syllables (Fassberg 1991, 34–41). Thus, imposing Jewish Palestinian Aramaic phonology on the Hebrew reading tradition would have preserved /e/ and /o/ in this position, not split them.

Looking further east does not solve our problem either. While influence from Jewish Babylonian Aramaic is historically possible, its vowel inventory was apparently even poorer than that of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. As it probably did not distinguish between /u/ and /o/ (Morag 1961), it cannot be blamed for the split of /o/ into /u/ and /ɔ/ in the reading tradition.

Beyond Semitic, we find a final candidate in Palestinian Greek, the phonology of which has been admirably described by Benjamin Kantor (2017). According to Kantor's description and analysis (110–31), this variety of Greek featured the /i/ : /ɛ/ contrast that we are looking for. In the back vowels, however, we find /u/ contrasted with /o/, not with /ɔ/. This is not what the Hebrew situation would lead us to expect *a priori*, but on further reflection it may explain some curious facts of Hebrew historical phonology. As we have seen, the distribution of /i/ and /ɛ/ differs from that of /u/ and /ɔ/. With the front vowels, /i/ has the less restricted distribution, while with the back vowels, /ɔ/ does. Perhaps this can be attributed to the asymmetry in the Greek vowel system: Hebrew /o/ was normally mapped to Greek /o/ and to Greek /u/ only in more limited cases; this default value /o/ in the reading tradition later shifted to /ɔ/ in Tiberian. In the front vowels, on the other hand, Hebrew /e/ was more commonly adapted to Greek /i/, with /ɛ/ being the largely conditioned variant. There would thus seem to have been a hierarchy for the preferred vowel matching the Hebrew close-mid vowels, with a Greek close-mid vowel being the best choice when available, followed by a close vowel and then an open-mid vowel.4

4 Further evidence for the asymmetry between /e/ and /o/ in this regard comes from the pausal consecutive imperfect forms of some weak verbs. As described in Blau (1981), the forms with an \*i vowel developed like

#### **5.0. CONCLUSION**

The irregular reflexes of \**i* and \**u* in Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic challenge the principle of regular sound change. I have argued that the solution is not to be sought in sound change at all, obviating the need for regularity. The conditioning of the Biblical Aramaic split discussed in §3.0 reflects features of pre-Tiberian Biblical Hebrew phonology. This suggests that phonological adaptation is at play, a process that could also explain the similar split discussed in §4.0. As phonological adaptation is often characterised by irregularity, this provides us with an explanation from generally accepted principles of historical linguistics.

The phonology causing the adaptation was seen to be pre-Tiberian Biblical Hebrew in the case of Biblical Aramaic stressed \**i* and \**u* and was suggested to be Palestinian Greek in the case of Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic unstressed \**e* and \**o* in closed syllables. The influence of these languages on the biblical reading tradition is compatible with what we might call the least surprising model of the oral transmission of the biblical texts. First, Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic texts came to be combined in a shared, biblical corpus, leading to the adaptation of the Aramaic material to Hebrew phonology. Based on grammatical features of the Aramaic variety underlying the Biblical Aramaic

\**wayyēlek* > \**wayyēlɛk* > \**wayyēlɛ́k* > \**wayyēlák* > ך ּ ַל ֵי ַו' and he departed (pause)'. Forms with an \*u vowel like ת ּ מ ָיֶַו' and he died (pause)' do not reflect the parallel lowering of \*o. Based on the account sketched in the main text, we may now understand the development of these forms as \**wayyāmot ́* (with \**o* preserved in unstressed position as it .וַ יָ מ ּ ת < *wayyāmót*?) > \*/o/ Greek matched

reading tradition, I have argued elsewhere (Suchard forthcoming) that this fixing of the combined reading tradition should be placed in first-century CE Palestine. The later influence of Palestinian Greek, the most likely culprit behind the split discussed in §4.0, then supports a continuing transmission in Roman Palestine; historical considerations suggest that the tradition was maintained in the centres of Jewish learning in Galilee (Geller 1998, 562–65). While the involvement of Palestinian Greek, especially, remains speculative, the account offered here provides one more example of how the results of historical linguistics and linguistic reconstruction can help to illuminate the history of the ancient world as it is known to historians from more direct sources.

#### **6.0. REFERENCES**

———. 2020. *The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew*. 2 vols. Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures 1. Cambridge: University of Cambridge and Open Book Publishers.

## **CONNECTING THE DOTS: THE SHARED PHONOLOGICAL TRADITION IN SYRIAC, ARABIC, AND HEBREW VOCALISATION**

*Nick Posegay*

————————————————————————————

#### **1.0. INTRODUCTION**

The development of Semitic vocalisation systems spans a massive gulf of time, beginning with the first use of *matres lectionis* letters and continuing to the standardisation of the modern Arabic and Hebrew vowel pointing systems. But the portions most commonly implied by the phrase 'vocalisation system'—that is, the vowel signs themselves—were invented in the multicultural environment of the early medieval Middle East. Between the seventh and eleventh centuries, historically Aramaic-speaking Jews and Christians faced the challenge of preserving their biblical recitation traditions in the face of the growing dominance of the Arabic language. In the same period, Arab Muslims feared the corruption of the Qurʾanic recitation tradition as a result of contact with non-native Arabic speakers.

Adherents to all three religions took steps to protect their languages. Syriac Christians first created a system of diacritic dots to record vowels in the Bible, and soon after, both the Jewish Masoretes and Arab grammarians implemented dot-based systems for marking vowels. Scholars have debated potential relationships between these dot systems for over a century,1 often without regard to the chronology of their sources (see below, §3.1). 2 And indeed, the three vocalisation traditions are linked to such a degree that it is difficult to explain the history of one without putting it in context with the other two. The connections between them, however, are not necessarily graphic, and instead relate to phonological theories and terms that medieval grammarians developed to describe their vowel systems.

This study thus aims to compare the phonological traditions of Syriac, Arabic, and Hebrew to demonstrate how they influenced each other over time. That is to say, it will look at the ways medieval linguists described their own languages, and compare the concepts that they used to discuss vowel phonology. In what follows, §2.0 will establish shared features in the Syriac and Hebrew vocalisation traditions prior to the spread of Arabic as the dominant language in the Middle East. §3.0 will examine the emergence of eighth-century Arabic phonetic terminology and its relationship with Syriac. Then §4.0 will explore some ways in which tenth- and eleventh-century Syriac and Hebrew grammarians blended Arabic phonological concepts into their own linguistic traditions.

1 Haupt (1901); Abbott (1939); Blake (1940); Segal (1953); Revell (1975); Versteegh (1993); Dotan (2007).

2 Revell (1975, 181); Versteegh (1993, 30).

#### **2.0. THE HEBREW-SYRIAC CONNECTION**

#### **2.1. Early Syriac Relative Vowel Phonology**

Some of the earliest descriptions of a Semitic vocalisation system come from Jacob of Edessa (d. 708), a Syriac Christian bishop whose grammatical writings reflect a combination of Greek influence and native Syriac concepts. Three works in particular are crucial for understanding the history of Syriac phonology: his grammatical tract 'On Persons and Tenses,' his 'Letter on Orthography' to George of Sarug (Phillips 1869), and his grammar, the *Turrɔṣ Mamllɔ Nahrɔyɔ* 'The Correction of Mesopotamian Speech' (Wright 1871), of which only six folios survive.

Jacob addresses vowel phonology in the introduction of 'On Persons and Tenses,' writing:

ܙܒ ܕܝܢ ܬܠܬܐ . ܕܥܒܪ ܘܕܩܐܡ ܘܕܥܬܝܕ : ܘܒܢܬ ܩܠ ܕܥ݂ܒܝܢ ̈ܢܐ ܘܕܢܩܕܢ ܀ ܬܘܒ ܕܝܢ ܟܠ ܦܬܓܡܐ ܐܘ ܟܝܬ ܗܕܡܐ . ܐܝܟܐ ܡܢ ܕܥܒܐ ܐܘ ܦܬܐ ܒܒܪܬ ܩܠ . ܬܡܢ ܡܢ ܠܥܠ ܫܩܠ ܢܘܩܙܐ ܀ ܐܝܟܐ ܕܝܢ ܕܩܛܝܢ ܐܘ ܢܩܕ ܡܢ ܠܬܚܬ ܀ ܐܢ ܡܨܥܝܐ ܐܝܬܘ ܕܩܛܝܢܐ ̈ ܘܥܒܝܐ : ܘܐܝܬ ܬܪܝܢ ܐܚܪܢܐ ܕܫܘܝܢ ܠܗ ܒܟܬܝܒܬܐ ܬܪܝܢ ܢܘ ܙܐ ܩ ܫܩܠ ܚܕ ܡܢ ܠܥܠ ܘܚܕ ܡܢ ܠܬܚܬ . ܘܡܬܩܪܐ ܗܘ ܗܢܐ ܡܦܓܕܢܐ Then the tenses are three, past, present, and future, and sounds are thick and thin. Every saying, that is, [every] form, when it is thick or wide with sound, then it takes a point above. But when it is narrow or thin, then below. If it is intermediate, between narrow and thick, and there are two other [words] written the same as it, then it takes two points, one above and one below. This is called 'restrain-

ing'. (Phillips 1869, ܝܕ(

This passage shows that Jacob understood vowel phonology according to a relative classification system. Within this system, every word has a particular set of vowels that is comparatively different from the vowels of its homographs. These vowels are not absolutely defined, but rather for a given pair of homographs, Jacob would describe one as more *ʿbe* 'thick' or *pte* 'wide', while the other would be more *nqed* 'pure' or *qaṭṭin* 'narrow'. Based on examples later in the text (Phillips, ܝܙ(, vowels most often associated with the 'dot above'—i.e., relatively 'thick' vowels—were /ɔ/, /o/, and /a/. Meanwhile, those marked with a 'dot below'—the relatively 'thin' vowels—were usually /u/, /i/, /e/, and /ɛ/. However, these attributions were not absolute. It seems that while Jacob interpreted vowel phonemes in terms of relative bulk or openness, he did not use any terms or graphemes to indicate particular vowels on a one-to-one basis. A vowel that was considered 'wide' in the context of one homograph could be called 'narrow' when compared to another.

Jacob complicates this two-way relative system by the inclusion of *meṣʿɔyɔ* 'intermediate' vowels, which can only be identified in words that have at least two homographs. Such vowels are represented by 'two points, one above and one below,' which Jacob refers to as *mpaggdɔnɔ* 'restraining, bridling'. This term seems to describe only the physical two-dot grapheme, while the vowel phoneme itself is called *meṣʿɔyɔ*. This term almost always indicates the vowel /a/, but more importantly, it has no inherent descriptive qualities, and any *meṣʿɔyɔ* phoneme could be called *pte* or *qaṭṭin* in another context. It seems then that Jacob added the *meṣʿɔyɔ* term to his vowel phonology to align it with his understanding of consonants, which, in his grammar, he categorises as *ʿabyɔtɔ* 'thick', *meṣʿɔyɔtɔ* 'intermediate', and *neqdɔtɔ* 'thin, clear' (Wright 1871, ܓ(. E. J. Revell (1972, 367) suggests that Jacob adapted these terms from Greek descriptors that meant, respectively, 'rough', 'intermediate', and 'smooth' with regard to voicing, modifying them to suit the Syriac language (see also Knudsen 2015, 77). As such, *meṣʿɔyɔ* was likely an addition to pre-existing Syriac vowel phonology—one based solely on relative degrees of bulk or openness—in order to fit Jacob's wider Greek-inspired system.

From this information, we can assume that Jacob of Edessa built on an older phonological tradition that used terms like *ʿbe*, *pte*, *qaṭṭin*, and *nqed* to describe vowels relative to each other, but not to name them. Since *ʿbe* and *nqed* were probably calques from Greek, examining *pte* and *qaṭṭin* may provide further insight into how early Syriac phonologists perceived vowel quality. These latter two terms appear to be descriptions of the lips while articulating vowels. For example, the mouth is relatively wide (*pte*) when one says /a/, whereas it is narrow (*qaṭṭin*) when saying /e/. Similarly, the lips open wider for /e/ and /o/ than they do for /i/ and /u/. Curiously, similar descriptions occur in the earliest work of the Hebrew Masoretes.

#### **2.2. Early Masoretic Relative Vowel Phonology**

In an article on the etymology of Hebrew vowel names, Richard Steiner (2005, 379–80) argues that terms based on the roots *ptḥ* 'opening' and *qmṣ* 'closing' predate all other Hebrew vowel names, and that in their original form they distinguished minimal pairs of vowels according to lip movement. His main evidence for the relative antiquity of these two vowel terms is their appearance in the *Masora magna* and *parva*, as well as the fact that modern *pataḥ* and *qamaṣ* originated as the Aramaic active participles *pɔtaḥ* and *qɔmeṣ* (Steiner 2005, 374; 377–78; see also Khan 2000, 24). Meanwhile, the remaining names for Hebrew vowels are not in the *Masora*, and are contrived from later Hebraisms. Both of these features indicate that terms from *ptḥ* and *qmṣ* emerged in the eighth century, perhaps earlier, and Aron Dotan (1974) has identified rare usages of these roots to distinguish vowel pairs other than /a/ and /ɔ/ (see also Steiner 2005, 379). Both Steiner and Dotan thus conclude that the early Masoretes developed a relative system for describing vowels, as the latter writes:

It would appear that this use of the terms קמץ and פתח occurred during a most ancient period, a time when these terms were not as yet serving to denote definite vowels. The vestiges of this use, both of the terms מלעיל, מלרע and the terms קמץ, פתח indicate that in the period which preceded the invention of the vowel signs such a method of relative notation of vowels was current. It was therefore necessary to indicate the vowels which distinguish between homographs. (Dotan 1974, 32)

This relative usage disappeared by the tenth century at the latest, when Hebrew vowels were reclassified according to backness and airflow, as will be shown below. Syriac underwent a similar development around the turn of the eighth century, with phonetic backness becoming associated with 'height'.

#### **2.3. The Pre-Arabic Relative Context**

The lack of absolute vowel notation prior to the eighth century gave rise to homograph lists in Syriac and Hebrew. In the Hebrew tradition, these lists divided homographic pairs according to stress, separating them with the Aramaic terms *milleʿel* 'above' and *milleraʿ* 'below'. One of the first scholars to examine these concepts was Heinrich Graetz, who attempted to connect the Tiberian Masoretic tradition to Syriac on the basis of diacritic dots. He studied the homograph lists in *Okhla we-Okhla* and found that, in addition to their normal meanings related to stress, the terms *milleʿel* and *milleraʿ* were sometimes used to distinguish Hebrew homographic pairs that differed by one vowel (Dotan 2007, 622– 23). By analogy with the Syriac diacritic 'dot above' and 'dot below', Graetz identified this usage as part of a relative vocalisation system. Both Steiner and Dotan also see these terms as evidence of the earlier two-way, relative perception of vowels (Steiner 2005, 379; Dotan 1974). However, Graetz took an additional step, hypothesising that *milleʿel* and *milleraʿ* referred to diacritic dots that, just as in Syriac, were placed above or below a Hebrew word to indicate the relative quality of its vowels (Dotan 2007, 622–23). The problem with this idea is that a diacritic dot has been attested only once in the context of Hebrew *milleʿel* and *milleraʿ* lists, and in that manuscript the dot indicates stress, not vowel quality (Steiner 2005, 379; Dotan 2007, 623). Graetz's theory also requires that the terms themselves were borrowed from Syriac, and that they persisted after the apparent 'disappearance' of the hypothesised Hebrew diacritic dots.

Refuting Graetz, Dotan (2007, 623) insists that such terms 'do not exist and never did exist in the supposed source language, Syriac,' but this may not be true. Returning to the afore-mentioned passage from 'On Persons and Tenses,' Jacob of Edessa says:

ܬܘܒ ܕܝܢ ܟܠ ܦܬܓܡܐ ܐܘ ܟܝܬ ܗܕܡܐ . ܐܝܟܐ ܡܢ ܕܥܒܐ ܐܘ ܦܬܐ ܒܒܪܬ ܩܠ . ܬܡܢ ܡܢ ܠܥܠ ܫܩܠ ܢܘܩܙܐ ܀ ܐܝܟܐ ܕܝܢ ܕܩܛܝܢ ܐܘ ܢܩܕ ܡܢ ܠܬܚܬ

Every saying, that is, [every] form, when it is thick or wide with sound, then it takes a point above. But when it is small or thin, then below.

A word with thick vocalisation takes a dot *men lʿal* 'above', while its thinner homograph is *men ltaḥt* 'below'. Jacob's meaning here is clear, but these two prepositional phrases do not follow the typical Syriac practice of indicating above and below. Normally, one would expect the respective phrases *lʿal men(h)* or *ltaḥt men(h)* in this situation, and indeed that is what Jacob writes when he describes locations of diacritic dots in his 'Letter on Orthography' (Phillips (1869, ܗ, lns. 13–14; ܝܒ, lns. 2–3; for an example unrelated to diacritic dots, see ܐ, ln. 16: the art of writing 'is *lʿal men* all arts'). Jacob does not use *men lʿal* and *men ltaḥt* to discuss regular diacritic dots, but rather applies these phrases only to locate dots that are *specifically* related to vowels. That is, *men lʿal* and *men ltaḥt* are somehow unique phrases that have additional meaning related to vowel phonology. Furthermore, as is typical of Syriac, the second half of the above sentence does not repeat the word *nuqzɔ* 'dot', such that in a vacuum the line could be read, 'Then what is small or thin is below.' The phrase *men ltaḥt* thus *appears* to have an abstracted categorical usage, classifying the words it describes according to some conceptual 'low' quality. In the fourth chapter of 'On Persons and Tenses,' i.e., 'Sounds,' Jacob writes:

ܥ ܒ . ܡܠܟܐ . ܛܒܐ . ܡܢ ܲ ܥ ܒ . ܕܐ ܲ ܡܢ ܠܥܠ ܡܢ ܫܡܝܢܐ . ܥܒܕܐ . ܕܐ ܲ ܠܬܚܬ ܕܝܢ ܫܡܝܢܐ . ܥܒܕܐ . ܐ ܛ ܒ

Above are, for example, *shmayyɔnɔ*, ʿ*ɔbdɔ*, *ʿbɔdɔ*, *ʿabbadɔ*(?),3 *malkɔ*, and *ṭɔbɔ*. Then below are *shamminɔ*, *ʿabdɔ*, and *ṭebɔ*. (Phillips 1869, ܝܙ(

While his intention is undeniably to describe dot locations, Jacob does not use the word *nuqzɔ* with these instances of *men lʿal* and *men ltaḥt*. The prepositional phrases simply categorise the example words as 'above' and 'below,' according to the two types of vowels. That is, the phrases serve as phonological terms, rather than descriptors of dot position. This development, which seems to have been on the verge of completion during Jacob's life, may be the origin of the later Syriac phonological system that associated phonetic backness with height (Revell 1975, 181).

At the end of the manuscript, the copyist inserts a brief passage that had been omitted from the introduction:

ܕܡܫܘܕܥܢ ܐܢܐ ܐܡܪܬ ܐܥܒܕ ܘܟܠܗܝܢ ܕܫܪܟܐ ̈ ܢܬ ܩܠ ̈ ܬܘܒ ܕܝܢ ܠܒ ܢܘܩܙܐ . ܀ ̈ ܡܝܢ ܀ ܘܒܬܪܟܢ ܥܠ ܐܕܘܢ ܡܢ ܠܬܚܬ ܐܝܬܗ ܠܗܝܢ ̈ ܕܕ ܕܡܫܘܕܥܢ . ܐܡܪ ܐܟܠ ܘܕܫܪܟܐ . ܡܢ ܠܥܠ . ܀ ̈ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܝܢ

3 According to Jacob's system as laid out in his introduction, at least one of these words should be *meṣʿɔyɔ*, but he calls them all *men lʿal*. The third word from the root *ʿbd* should possibly be omitted. I suspect some of the dots were not faithfully copied from Jacob's autograph.

Then, again, as for the sounds which indicate *ʾenɔ ʾemret* and *ʾeʿbed*, and all the rest that are like them, and moreover, regarding *ʾeddun*, they have points below. Then those [sounds] which indicate *ʾɔmar* and *ʾɔkel*, and the rest, they are above. (Phillips 1869, 32, fn. i)

Phillips suspects that these instances of *men lʿal* and *men ltaḥt* should be reversed, in order to conform to the more common usage of diacritical dots that distinguish between first- and thirdperson verbs.4 However, the passage does not begin 'as for the dots which indicate,' but rather 'as for the *sounds* which indicate,' and, as such, the text should be interpreted in terms of the phonological system that Jacob has already explained. Through this lens, the syntactic placement of *men lʿal* and *men ltaḥt* makes sense: the first-person *ʾemret* (G perfect) and *ʾeʿbed* (G imperfect) have 'thinner' vowels than their respective third-person homographs, *ʾemrat* (G perfect 3fs) and *ʾaʿbed* (C perfect 3ms), so they ought to take a dot below. It seems that the copyist put dots above the first-person verbs according to the standard diacritic practice, as Phillips expected, even though, in this case, the dots that Jacob describes as *men lʿal* and *men ltaḥt* were meant to convey relative vowel quality. The following examples—the participles *ʾɔmar* and *ʾɔkel*—are thus correctly classed as *men lʿal*, as the dot above distinguishes them from their respective homographs in the perfect, *ʾemar* and *ʾekal*. So again, in a case related specifically to vowel phonology, Jacob uses the uncommon constructions *men lʿal* and *men ltaḥt* in such a way that they appear to be

4 First-person singular takes a diacritic dot above, and third-person feminine singular takes a dot below.

phonological terms, conceptually divorced from the dots they once described.

Recalling Dotan's stance on the potential relationship between Syriac and the terms *milleʿel* and *milleraʿ*, he (2007, 623) asserted that such terms "do not exist and never did exist in the supposed source language, Syriac." But Jacob of Edessa instructs that words with thick vowels take a dot *men lʿal*, while those with thin vowels take a dot *men ltaḥt*. Those particular phrases flirt with a theoretical usage, almost describing the phonology of words affected by dots, rather than the dots themselves. While still not explicit vocalisation terms, such descriptors mirror *milleʿel* and *milleraʿ*, at least on a conceptual level. It is possible that the Syriac phrases collapsed over time, with the *nūn* in *men lʿal* eliding to produce a geminated *lamed* in something like *milleʿel*. Similarly, *men ltaḥt* can be calqued as *men lraʿ*, which could collapse to *milleraʿ*. 5 Simultaneous with this etymological shift, the Syriac terms became dissociated from the physical dots, becoming adjectives expressing the relative qualities of vowels. If this is the case, then the lack of attested evidence for the Hebrew dots hypothesised in Graetz's theory is not irregular, but rather expected. That is, by the time the phrases *men lʿal* and *men ltaḥt* had a chance to become phonological terms in Syriac (c. 700–750), they had already lost their meaning related to dots. Consequently, the Masoretes could have adopted them without copying the Syriac diacritics. I know of no primary source that explicitly describes such a development, but Dotan is perhaps too quick to dismiss a Syriac connection.

5 I.e., *men lʿal > milleʿel*; *men ltaḥt* > *men lraʿ* > *milleraʿ*.

These similarities between the Syriac and Hebrew linguistic traditions suggest that the early Masoretes understood vowel phonology in much the same way as their Syriac Christian contemporaries. Both traditions qualified vowel phonemes on a hierarchy according to the relative openness of the mouth during articulation. For the Syrians, this meant that vowels could be *pte* 'wide' or *qaṭṭin* 'narrow' when compared to other vowels. Some early Masoretes also applied this principle, and described those same vowels as *pɔtaḥ* 'opening' or *qɔmeṣ* 'closing'. Moreover, there is even evidence that both traditions used Aramaic terms, i.e., *milleʿel* 'above' and *milleraʿ* 'below', in some form to delineate between homographs with different vowels, suggesting that the terms may have entered into masoretic usage as Syriac loans. Over time these terms likely contributed to the association of height with phonetic backness in the Syriac and masoretic traditions. This concept eventually appeared in Saadya Gaon's *Kutub al-Lugha* (Skoss 1952; Dotan 1997), which will be discussed below.

#### **3.0. THE DEVELOPMENT OF ARABIC VOWEL TERMINOLOGY**

## **3.1. The Chronology of Arabic Vowel Names and Their Relationship to Syriac**

The Arabic grammatical tradition emerged in this world of twoway relative descriptions, and early Arabic sources on vowel phonology reflect that context. They do not, however, indicate a wholesale borrowing of Syriac phonetic terms that became the Arabic vowel names (Versteegh 1993, 28–31; Talmon 2003, 289– 91).

C. H. M. Versteegh has identified a Qurʾanic *tafsīr* by Muḥammad al-Sāʾib al-Kalbī (d. 763) as the earliest source for Arabic vowel names. In it al-Kalbī lists variant readings of the Qurʾan using unpointed Arabic, so he describes alternative vowels using words, rather than signs. In the sixty-eight variants that he records, al-Kalbī uses *kasr*, *jarr*, and *khafḍ* to describe *i*-vowels, *fatḥ* and *naṣb* for *a*-vowels, and *ḍamm* and *rafʿ* for *u*-vowels (Versteegh 1993, 125). Versteegh (1993, 126) notes that at this stage there was no consistent distinction between what are now considered vowel names (*kasr*, *fatḥ*, *ḍamm*) and declensional terms (*jarr*, *khafḍ*, *naṣb*, *rafʿ*), and concludes that "the later terms for the case endings were once part of a system to indicate vowels." He takes these seven terms and compares them to the list of Syriac vowel names published by Adalbert Merx in 1889 (Versteegh 1993, 29–31), which Merx (1889, 50) collected based on what Gregory bar Hebraeus (d. 1286) wrote about what *he* claimed were the names of vowels used by Jacob of Edessa (d. 708). To say that this chain of transmission is tenuous would be generous.

Versteegh suggests that five vowel names in Bar Hebraeus' grammar—*ptɔḥɔ*, *zqɔp̄ɔ*, *rbɔṣɔ*, *ḥbɔṣɔ*, *ʿṣɔṣɔ*—are the source of the Arabic terms *fatḥ*, *naṣb*, *khafḍ*, *kasr*, and *ḍamm*. While he is correct in pointing out parallels between the two sets of terms, incorporation of the Syriac sources from before the thirteenth century reveals a more complicated picture. The most obvious connection is the pair of *ptɔḥɔ* and *fatḥ*, cognates that mean 'opening'. Similarly, *ʿṣɔṣɔ* and *ḍamm*, while not cognates, both mean 'contracting', and *ḥbɔṣɔ* and *kasr* can both (loosely) mean 'pressure' (Versteegh 1993, 30). The problem, then, is a chronological one. As we have already seen, Jacob of Edessa did not name any Syriac vowels, and only thought of them as relatively open or closed. There is no evidence that he had a word like *ḥbɔṣɔ* or *kasr* to indicate a third type of vowel, and in fact when Jacob of Edessa uses the root *ḥbṣ* in his 'Letter on Orthography', it indicates an orthographic contraction rather than anything phonological (Phillips 1869, ܕ, ln. 17). The earliest example of the use of the root *ḥbṣ* in relation to a vowel seems to come from Elias of Tirhan's (d. 1049) grammar (Baethgen 1880, ܟܒ ;see below for the use of *ḥbṣ* for both /u/ and /i/), and it is not clear that either he or Elias of Ṣoba (d. 1049) used *ʿṣɔṣɔ* as a vowel term at all. As such, while the dual concepts of vowel 'opening' (and thus *ptḥ*) and 'contracting' could have entered Arabic from Syriac in the eighth century, the terms *ḥbɔṣɔ* and *ʿṣɔṣɔ* are much later inventions, *possibly* calqued from *kasr* and *ḍamm* into Syriac. In any case, they cannot be the direct source of the Arabic vowel names. On the other hand, it would not be surprising if some of the earliest vowel descriptions in the Syriac, Arabic, and Hebrew traditions were all independently derived based on mouth movement. For example, *pte* 'wide' and *qaṭṭin* 'narrow' in Syriac, *fatḥ* 'opening' and *ḍamm* 'contracting' in Arabic, and *ptḥ* 'opening' and *qmṣ* 'closing' in Hebrew.

Versteegh's treatment of *zqɔp̄ɔ* and *rbɔṣɔ* is more problematic. He attempts to explain their relationship to Arabic, writing:

The other phonetic concept that can be reconstructed from the terminology is that of the progressive lowering (of the tongue?) towards the front of the mouth. According to Revell (1975:181), sounds at the back of the mouth are regarded by the Syriac grammarians as high, those at the front as low. Thus, the grammarians used the terms *zqāphā* 'raising' and *rbāṣā* 'lowering' for *ā* and *ē*, respectively.6 These vowels were indicated by a supralinear dot (*ā*) and a sublinear dot (*ē*), corresponding to their relative height. It is obvious that the position of the vowel dot in the Abu al-Aswad story7 is in accordance with this Syriac practice. It is equally obvious that the Arabic terms *naṣb* and *khafḍ*, as well as *rafʿ*, may be interpreted lexically in the same sense as the Syriac terms. (Versteegh 1993, 30)

Versteegh accepts Revell's idea that Syriac grammarians perceived sounds at the back of the mouth as 'high'. This concept of phonetic 'height' is likely a natural development from the earlier Syriac context, which created terms from *men lʿal* and *men ltaḥt*. Versteegh and Revell, however, assume that the principle of 'high' and 'low' vowel sounds entered the Arabic tradition along with calques of *zqɔp̄ɔ* and *rbɔṣɔ*; that is, *naṣb* and *khafḍ*. This conclusion is untenable on both chronological and linguistic grounds. The root *zqp* in the context of vowel phonology is not attested in any Syriac source before a commentary written by Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq (d. 873), a century after *naṣb* appeared in al-Kalbī's *tafsīr* (Hoffmann 1880, 10, ln. 13; 14, lns. 21–23). The

7 This refers to ʾAbu al-ʾAswad al-Du'alī, who supposedly invented the Arabic red-dot vowel system in the late seventh century.

6 I have left Versteegh's spelling of *zqāphā* and *rbāṣā*, as well as his use of *ā* and *ē* with macrons to transcribe the 'long' Syriac vowels, which is the traditional system for writing Syriac in Latin script. However, strictly speaking, the Syriac terms themselves do not indicate vowel quantity, and when the medieval sources say *zqɔp̄ɔ* they almost invariably mean a vowel with the quality /ɔ/ as distinct from /a/.

earliest source I know of with *rbṣ* in a similar context is Elias of Ṣoba's eleventh-century grammar, again, well after al-Kalbī (Gottheil 1887, 7–8)*.* That said, while the Syriac terms *zqɔp̄ɔ* and *rbɔṣɔ* cannot be the source of Arabic *naṣb* and *khafḍ*, respectively, Arabic grammarians did incorporate some height-based principles into their explanations of vocalisation.

### **3.2. Early Vowel Phonology in the Arabic Tradition**

After completing the list of the twenty-nine Arabic letters in his grammar (the *Kitāb*), Sībawayh (d. 793 or 796) says that there are actually thirty-five letters,8 some of which branch off of the others. Two of these additional letters are "the *ʾalif* which is tilted with great *ʾimāla*" and "the *ʾalif* of *tafkhīm*" (Harun 1982, IV:432: ُمال ت التي اللف شديدة إمالة and التفخيم ألف(. Here *ʾimāla* 'inclination, bending down' indicates the shift of an *ʾalif* towards /i/, such that the resulting sound is not /a/, but /ɛ/ or /æ/. Its opposite is *tafkhīm* 'magnifying, thickening', which indicates the shift of /a/ towards /ɔ/.9 This term may be related to the principle that Jacob of Edessa illustrated with his classification of /ɔ/ as a *ʿbe* 'thick' vowel.10 But beyond this similarity, Rafael Talmon points out that Sībawayh uses another term specifically to indicate an *ʾalif* that does *not* undergo *ʾimāla*: *naṣb* (Talmon 1996, 291; 2003, 239)*.*

8 He ultimately concedes that there are forty-two, but this is not relevant to the present discussion.

9 An example of *ʾimāla* is the shift towards /i/ that happens to *tāʾ marbūṭa* in certain Arabic dialects. The first vowel in *ṭālib* is an example of *tafkhīm.*

10 *Tafkhīm* is also known as *taghlīẓ* 'thickening, becoming coarse'.

Apparently, at some very early stage, *naṣb* and *ʾimāla* were contrastive terms that distinguished the allophonic variants of *ʾalif*.

The use of *naṣb* and *ʾimāla* to describe *ʾalif* probably began well before Sībawayh wrote the *Kitāb*, perhaps even before any Arabic vowels had absolute names. The main evidence for this conclusion comes from the first chapter of the *Kitāb*, where Sībawayh presents a systematic usage for the Arabic vowel names *fatḥ*, *kasr*, and *ḍamm* as distinct from the case names *naṣb*, *jarr*, and *rafʿ*. Prior to his time, all of these terms could indicate both vowels and cases, as seen in the work of al-Kālbī (Versteegh 1993, 125). Sībawayh was the first person to separate the two sets (Talmon 2003, 283),11 relegating *fatḥ*, *kasr*, and *ḍamm* to the status of phonological descriptors, whereas the so-called *ʾiʿrābī* 'declensional' terms were reserved for vowels with grammatical import. Sībawayh's use of *naṣb* to indicate the quality of *ʾalif* is thus anomalous: according to his own instructions, it is a declensional term, and not a word for describing internal vowels. This inconsistency suggests that the duality of *ʾimāla* and *naṣb* was fixed in the Arabic tradition long before Sībawayh isolated *naṣb* as the name for the accusative case, and he is merely transmitting this early convention when he uses *naṣb* to describe an allophone of *ʾalif* (see Harun 1982, IV:125–26, 143, for this contrastive use of *ʾimāla* and *naṣb*).

Sībawayh includes one other variant of *ʾalif* in his discussion of *naṣb* and *ʾimāla*. He first states that there are seven letters

11 Talmon suspects that al-Khalīl may have created the distinction near the end of his life, just before Sībawayh wrote the *Kitāb*.

which prevent *ʾimāla* when they precede *ʾalif*: *ṣād*, *ḍād*, *ṭāʾ*, *ẓāʾ*, *ghayn*, *qāf*, and *khāʾ*, and then explains:

 على، نها حروف مستعلية إلى إل ح نك إلإ نما منع ت هذه إلحرو ف إل إمال ة لإ وإ على، فلما كانت مع هذه ل ف ذإ خرج ت من موضعها إستعل ت إلى إلحنك إلإ إ وإلإ م ونحوها. سا ِج إلحروف إلمستعلية غلب ت عليها، كما غلبت إلكسر ة عليها في د لف، كان لف تستعلى، وقرب ت من إلإ فلما كانت إلحرو ف مستعلي ة وكانت إلإ خ ف عليهم... إلع من وجه وإحد م ل إ

You abstain from *ʾimāla* for these letters because they are letters which are elevated towards the top of the palate, and if the *ʾalif* is pronounced from their point of articulation, it goes up towards the top of the palate. Thus, when [the *ʾalif*] is with these elevated letters, they overpower it, just as the *kasra* overpowers it in *masājid*12 and other variations [that have *ʾimāla*]. So when the letters are elevated, and the *ʾalif* goes upwards, and [the letters] draw near to it, then the articulation is in a single manner, which is less burdensome for them. (Harun 1982, IV:129)

This passage describes the production of a backed *a*-vowel that, like *ʾimāla*, only occurs in specific phonological contexts. In this case, that context is immediately after a velar or emphatic consonant, and the vowel itself requires shifting the articulation of /a/ back towards the soft palate, approximating /ɑ/ or /ɔ/. Given that Sībawayh highlights the parallel between this vowel and *ʾimāla*, one might expect him to call it *ʾalif al-tafkhīm*, as he does in his description of the alphabet; but he does not. In fact, the term *tafkhīm* does not appear anywhere in this or any other of the *Kitāb*'s chapters on *ʾimāla*. Instead, this backed version of

12 Or *masǣjid*, as it happens.

*ʾalif* is included along with just one of many irregular situations that affect the normal *ʾimāla* rules. If Sībawayh is indeed transmitting an earlier phonological tradition that contrasted *naṣb* and *ʾimāla*, then perhaps that tradition did not have terminology to distinguish /a/ from /ɔ/, and instead referred to both as *naṣb* that is, 'not *ʾimāla*.' As such, *naṣb* and *ʾimāla* were effectively relative vowel terms, each indicating a particular allophone as either relatively fronted (*ʾimāla—*/ɛ/, /æ/) or relatively backed (*naṣb*—/a/, /ɑ/, /ɔ/). This usage of *naṣb* (standing upright) and *ʾimāla* (bending down) thus conforms to the two-way relative descriptions of vowels in the early Syriac and Hebrew traditions, paralleling the association of 'high' with backness and 'low' with frontedness.

The term *naṣb* must have become associated with the specific quality of an unaltered *ʾalif*—/a/—prior to al-Kalbī's time. Then, by analogy with *naṣb* and according to the understanding of back vowels as 'higher', *rafʿ* 'rising' and *khafḍ* 'lowering' were linked to /u/ and /i/, respectively. Throughout this process, *naṣb*  retained its now-secondary use as the opposite of *ʾimāla*, as evidenced by Sībawayh's *Kitāb*, and, by extension, it retained some function as a way to denote /ɑ/ in certain contexts. It seems then that *naṣb* is the likely source of Syriac *zqp* 'standing upright' as a descriptor of /ɔ/, first seen in Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq's commentary, mentioned above. Syriac grammarians had a concept of 'openness' in their vowel phonology as early as Jacob of Edessa, so when they began naming their vowels, *pɔtaḥ—*later, *ptɔḥɔ—*was the obvious term for /a/.13 Then when ninth-century Syrians needed a way to describe their *secondary a*-vowel, /ɔ/, they looked to their Arabic contemporaries, and calqued the second term which the*y* used to distinguish *a*-vowels (i.e., *naṣb*). The results were *zɔqep̄*and *zqip̄ɔ*, which became *zqɔp̄ɔ* 'standing upright' by the eleventh century.

This process also fits Versteegh's expected development of the vowel term *rbɔṣɔ*, which, in direct contrast to *zqɔp̄ɔ*, he suggests can mean 'lowering'. As such, one could conclude that when Syriac grammarians needed a term for their secondary *i*-vowel, /e/, they calqued the second Arabic term for *i*-vowels, *khafḍ* 'lowering'. The Syriac root *rbṣ*, however, does not exactly mean 'lowering' or 'depressing' as a physical motion, but rather refers to 'compression', and the vowel name *rbɔṣɔ* probably derives from the articulation of /e/ with relatively compressed lips in comparison to more-open vowels. Neither is it attested as a vowel descriptor in Syriac before grammars of the eleventh century, which complicates this reconstruction of the term's origin. Furthermore, these later sources—particularly Elias of Tirhan's grammar may also have incorporated an Arabic tripartite division of vowels into the older Syriac relative vowel system, further distorting the picture.

13 The earliest explicit use of this root for a Syriac vowel is in Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq's commentary, but a more implicit usage appears in the work of David bar Paul (d. c. 800; see Gottheil 1893, cxii, ln. 6–cxiii, ln. 3).

## **3.3. Reinterpretation of Vowel Phonology in the Arabic Grammatical Tradition**

According to Versteegh and Revell's argument, when Arabic grammarians adapted the Syriac vowel dots for Arabic, they also calqued their vowel terms, using a Syriac theory of 'height' that was linked to phonetic backness. As discussed above, there is no terminology in the early Syriac tradition that supports the idea that the Arabic case names are calques of Syriac terms, but the Arabic vowel names are certainly related to some phonological conception that relates backness to height. Arabic grammarians, however, reinterpreted this earliest vowel phonology, and instead explained non-consonantal phonemes based on physical motion, specifically associating them with the movement of airflow during articulation.

In contrast to the idea of height-as-backness, Ilan Eldar proposes that medieval Arabic grammarians understood vowel phonology as effects on air. Taking into account how *rafʿ* 'rising' usually indicates a high position, whereas *naṣb* describes something which is set upright (Eldar 1983, 45), he argues that *naṣb*, *rafʿ*, and *khafḍ* 'lowering' were interpreted in terms of the direction of airflow during vowel articulation. He focuses on the relationship between Arabic case names and Hebrew vowel phonology (see below), but for now it is sufficient to explain his theory with respect to Arabic. In short, /a/ is called *naṣb* because when one articulates it, the flow of air proceeds straight ahead, unimpeded; it is thus 'fixed in place' or 'standing upright'. By contrast, when articulating /u/, the airstream moves upwards; it is *rafʿ*. Then for /i/, the air tilts downwards, making it *khafḍ*. 14 Eldar points out that Sībawayh (d. 796) emphasises the relationship between vowel sounds and air (Eldar 1983, 48). In his description of the alphabet in the *Kitāb*, Sībawayh writes:

 جهما إلي وهي إلوإو وإلياء ن ومنها نة لإ ش د من إت ساع خر سع لهوإء إلصوت إ م يت جريت إلصوت ومددت ي وإلوإو وإن شئت إ غيرهما كقولك وإ ومنها إلهاوي وهو حر ف إت سع لهوإء إلصو ِت جه ش د من إت ساع ج خر م إ م إلياء خر نك قد تض م شفتيك في إلوإو وترفع في إلياء لسانك ل وإلوإو لإ ب إل وهي ح ق نك ِ لف إلإ خفى إلحروف لإت ساع جها وهذه إلثلاثة إ خر خفاه ن م وإ وسعه ن جا وإ لف خر م إلإ ثم إلياء ثم إلوإو

Among [the letters] are the *layyina* ['soft, flexible'], which are *wāw* and *yāʾ*, because their articulation is widened for the air of the sound, more than the widening of other [letters] besides them, as you say: *wa ʾayyun* and *al-wāw*, and if you want, you can make the sound occur with lengthening.

 Then pronounce /u/, /a/, and /i/. You will feel the air strike your hand in progressively lower places.

These three are the subtlest of the letters due to their articulations' widening, and the subtlest and widest of them is *ʾalif*, then *yāʾ*, then *wāw*. (Harun 1982, 435–36)

Sībawayh distinguishes the three Arabic *matres lectionis* according to their effects on air during speech. *Wāw* and *yāʾ* are different from *ʾalif* specifically because their articulation requires some obstruction of airflow, either by the lips or the tongue, whereas *ʾalif* is a pure *hāwī* 'airy, breathy' letter. He arranges them in order of 'wideness', which seems to relate to the amount of airflow allowed by each letter, and corresponds to the relative openness of the vowels.

The introduction of *Kitāb al-ʿAyn* also stresses the effect on air when discussing the *matres lectionis*. Convention attributes this text to al-Khalīl ibn Aḥmad al-Farāhīdī (d. 786 or 791), an early scholar of prosody and one of Sībawayh's teachers. In reality, most of the text was compiled after his death, probably by another student, al-Layth ibn al-Muẓaffar (d. c. 803). Despite this, the book's arrangement and parts of the introduction are probably original to al-Khalīl, and in any case the material in the introduction is quite old (Sellheim 2012a; 2012b). In its preliminary discussion on the letters of the alphabet, the text reads:

قال إلليث: قال إلخليل: حياز] : منها خمسة وعشرون حرفا صحاحا لها [إ 15 في إلعربية تسعة وعشرون حرفا لف إللينة وإلهمزة ّميت حرف جوف، وهي إلوإو وإلياء وإلإ ربعة إ ومدإرج، وإ وس

15 The Makhzūmī edition has أحيانا' sometimes', though possibly 'occasions' here, but based on the following lines it should probably be أحياز 'spaces'.

ِج إللسان، ولإ من نها تخرج من إلجوف فلا تق ع في مدرجة من مدإر لإ جوفا نما هي هاوية في إلهوإء فلم يكن لها حيز مدإرج إلحلق، ولإ من مدرج إللهاة، إ لإ إلجو ف. وكان يقول كثيرإ: لف نسب إليه إ نها ت ي إ إللينة وإلوإو وإلياء هوإئية إ إلإ في إلهوإء

Al-Layth said: Al-Khalīl said:

'In Arabic there are twenty-nine letters. Among them are twenty-five sound letters which have spaces and steps, and four letters of the [oral] cavity, which are the soft *wāw*, *yāʾ*, and *ʾalif*, as well as the *hamza*. They are called *jawf* because they exit from the cavity, but do not occur at one of the steps of the tongue, or the steps of the throat, or the step of the palate. Instead, they are airy, in the air, for they do not have a space to attach to besides the cavity. He [al-Khalīl] frequently used to say: the soft *ʾalif*, the *wāw*, and the *yāʾ* are airy, that is, they are in the air.' (Makhzūmī 1985, 57)

The so-called *ṣiḥāḥ* 'strong, firm' letters contrast with the *layyina* 'soft, flexible' *ʾalif*, *wāw*, and *yāʾ*. The primary difference between them is that the former letters connect to specific points within the mouth, whereas the latter exist entirely as an effect in the air. Sībawayh cites al-Khalīl in his *Kitāb* more than any other source, but notably does not use al-Khalīl's phonetic terminology in his chapters on phonology (Versteegh 1993, 16); and yet here *Kitāb al-ʿAyn* agree. These early Arabic grammarians understood vowels differently from consonantal phonemes, associating them not with any particular 'back' or 'front' locations in the mouth, but rather describing them based on airflow during articulation. The *matres lectionis*, then, are called *layyina* because they alone among the letters incline as streams of air.

These two early sources thus support Eldar's argument that Arabic vowel terminology was created based on airflow, or at least that it was interpreted that way by later scholars. Eldar cites a key passage from Ibn Sīnā's (d. 1037) *Risāla fī ʾAsbāb Ḥudūth al-Ḥurūf* (Eldar 1983, 46–47; the English translation is my own):

 ن جها ظن إ ختها إلفتحة فا لف إلمص وتة وإ ما إلإ وإ غير خر م مع إطلاق إلهوإء سلسا مزإحم ن مخرجها مع إطلاق إلهوإء مع إدنى تضييق ظن إ ختها إلضمة فا وإلوإو إلمصوتة وإ ج لل وميل به سلس إلى فوق مخر ن جها ظن إ ختها إلكسرة فا وإلياء إلمصوتة وإ م من إطلاق إلهوإء من إدنى تضييق خر ج سفل مخر لل وميل به سلس إلى إ

As for the sounding *ʾalif* and its sister, *fatḥa*, I believe its articulation is with the loosing of air smoothly, without obstructions.

For the sounding *wāw* and its sister, *ḍamma*, I believe its articulation is with the loosing of air and a little contracting of the articulation point,16 while inclining smoothly upwards at it.

For the sounding *yāʾ* and its sister, *kasra*, I believe its articulation is from the loosing of air and a little contracting of the articulation point, while inclining smoothly downwards at it.

It seems that Ibn Sīnā reached the same conclusion as Eldar, attributing a unique direction of airflow to each of the Arabic vowels, quite likely based on the names of case vowels (*rafʿ*, *naṣb*,

16 This point is probably the lips, though it could refer to the whole oral cavity. Likewise for *yāʾ* in the next line.

*khafḍ*; 'rising', 'standing upright', 'lowering', respectively). This passage fully illustrates the tripartite division of Arabic vowels according to airflow, but Eldar does not discuss the full significance of Ibn Sīnā's word choice. The root *myl* 'inclining' used here is the same as that of the term *ʾimāla*, which suggests that, at least for Ibn Sīnā, even the allophonic variants of *ʾalif* could be explained as tilting streams of airflow. This conception of vowel phonology must have been current, at least in some circles of Arabic grammarians, by the early eleventh century, and it also appears in Syriac and Hebrew grammatical texts at roughly the same time.

## **4.0. TWO EXAMPLES OF SYNCRETISATION IN PHONOLOGI-CAL SYSTEMS OF THE TENTH AND ELEVENTH CENTU-RIES**

#### **4.1. Elias of Tirhan's Syriac Grammar**

As the Arabic language and its grammatical tradition became dominant across the Middle East, Syriac and Hebrew grammarians adapted elements of the Arabic tripartite division of vowels to fit their older relative systems. Perhaps no author is more emblematic of this development than Elias of Tirhan (d. 1049), who wrote a Syriac grammar specifically for an Arabic-speaking audience in the first half of the eleventh century. In his chapter on vowel pointing, Elias groups the vowels by association with the *matres lectionis*; three for *ʾalap̄*: *zqɔp̄ɔ* /ɔ/, *ptɔḥɔ* /a/, and *rbɔṣɔ* or *sheshlɔ* /e/;17 two for *waw*: *ḥbɔṣɔ* /u/ and *massaqɔ* or *rwaḥtɔ* /o/; and one simply called *yod* /i/ (Baethgen 1880, ܠܓ, lns. 15–18). Besides the terms which he presents in this chapter, Elias describes vowels a few other ways throughout the text, including: *ḥbɔṣɔ* (Baethgen 1880, ܟܒ, lns. 16–21), *ḥbiṣtɔ* (Baethgen 1880, ܠ, lns. 1–5) for /u/; and two versions of *waw*, which he calls *metḥbaṣɔ* 'contracted' and *metrwaḥɔ* 'widened' (Baethgen 1880, .(21–19 .lns ,ܟܓ

At work here is the old Syriac tradition of 'wide-and-narrow' vowels: /u/ requires contraction of the mouth, and is thus *metḥbaṣɔ*. Its 'widened' counterpart is then /o/, which is *metrwaḥɔ*. *Ḥbɔṣɔ* 'contracting' and *rwaḥtɔ* 'widening' are likewise Elias's names for /u/ and /o/. All of these terms describe mouth movement and depend on the principle of two-way contrastive vowels laid out by Jacob of Edessa. This idea explains how roots like *ḥbṣ* can refer to an *u*-vowel here, but other authors use it to mean an *i*-vowel:18 it has meaning only in comparison to other vowels.

There are also indications of Arabic influence here. Most prominent is *massaqɔ*19 'raised up', which stands out as a C-stem

 17 Elias of Tirhan apparently worked from a tradition in which an older term for /e/ (*sheshlɔ*) had become interchangeable with *rbɔṣɔ* (see Baethgen 1880, ܠ, ln. 21–ܠܒ, ln. 5).

18 Notably, the grammars of Elias of Ṣoba (d. 1046) and Bar Hebraeus (d. 1286), as well as the modern names used for Syriac vowels (see Segal 1953, 152–53).

19 The root is *slq*.

form in a group of terms otherwise derived from G-stem participles. This uniqueness suggests that it came into use separately from the other terms, probably as a calque of the Arabic *marfūʿ* 'raised', but it preserves the relative nature of other Syriac vowel terms. Elias applies it to the 'higher' (more-backed) of a pair of vowels—/o/ as opposed to /u/—following the Syriac association of height with backness. There is even evidence that the Arabic phonetic theory based on airflow affected Elias of Tirhan's understanding of vowels. He was writing for an Arabic-speaking audience, so many of his explanations are meant to resonate with people familiar with Arabic. He explains that there are three *zawʿe* 'movements' in Syriac (Baethgen 1880, ܟܐ, lns. 19–21), directly translating the Arabic word for 'short' vowels, *ḥarakāt*  'movements', which to him are vowels that are written without *matres lectionis*. As such, the Syriac *zawʿe* are *ptɔḥɔ* (/a/), *rbɔṣɔ* (/e/), and *zqɔp̄ɔ* (/ɔ/), and he considers them each to be *pelgut ʾalap̄*'half-*ʾalap̄*' (Baethgen 1880, ܟܓ, ln. 21–ܟܕ, ln. 2). This grouping of terms parallels the Arabic triad of *naṣb* (/a/), *khafḍ* (/i/), and *rafʿ* (/u/), with one central vowel having unobstructed airflow (/a/), and the others being pronounced with relatively 'upward' (/ɔ/) and 'downward' (/e/) movement. Similarly, it corresponds to the Arabic allophones of *ʾalif*: *naṣb* (/a/), *ʾimāla* (/ɛ/ or /æ/), and *tafkhīm* (/ɔ/). Moreover, while explaining a case where one should read /o/ instead of /u/, Elias says *lʿel ʾapeqn lbart qɔlɔ* 'we pronounce the sound upwards' (Baethgen 1880, ܠ, lns. 5–6). While he may be referring to the idea that /o/ is a 'higher' (moreback) vowel than /u/, his language mirrors that of Ibn Sīnā (d. 1037), potentially indicating a direction of airflow.

#### **4.2. Saadya Gaon's Hebrew Grammar**

Vowel phonology in the Hebrew tradition underwent a similar development in the post-Sībawayh era, with elements of the earlier relative system combining with an airflow theory by the eleventh century. At the centre of this process was Saadya Gaon's (d. 942) 'vowel scale', which he recorded in the fifth chapter of his grammar, *Kutub al-Lugha*. In this chapter, titled *Al-Qawl fī al-Nagham* 'Discourse on Vocal Melody', he lists the Hebrew *ʾiʿrāb* 'vowels' from high to low: *ḥolem* /o/, *qɔmeṣ* /ɔ/, *pataḥ* (or *p/fatḥa*) /a/, *segol* /ɛ/, *ṣere* /e/, *ḥiriq* /i/, and *shureq* /u/ (Skoss 1952, 285).20 This scale is a fully-articulated version of the *milleʿel* and *milleraʿ* comparisons of earlier masoretic homograph lists. It is also precisely what would be expected if a Syriac phonologist undertook the same exercise, ranking the vowels from high to low (perhaps *men lʿal* to *men ltaḥt*?) according to backness. The one exception is /u/, which Saadya seems to remove from the scale in order to support a morphological principle for which he argues later on (see Skoss 1952, 316).

Saadya confirms that his organisation of vowels is based on backness, saying:

ואמא שרח אלבאב אלתאלת אלדי הו מערפה אמאכנהא פי אלפם ומראתבהא פאנא נקול אדא אכתאר אן יפצל נגמתה פי אול מוצע ימכנה קטעהא פיה בעד תרקיתהא מן אלחלק פאנה יטהר חיניד אלחֹלם וקותה סאלכה אמאמה גיר חאידה אלי פוק ולא אלי אספל

20The text is unpointed, so it is difficult to know the exact vowel names. I have used somewhat-modern spellings, but it is not at all clear that this is how Saadya pronounced these names.

#### ואן שא אן יתגאוז בהא הדא אלמוצע תם יפצלהא טהרת קוה אלקמץ וכאנת חרכתה אלי אעלי אלחנך כאצה

As for the explanation of the third chapter, which is the knowledge of the places in the mouth, and their levels, we say: if one chose to interrupt their vocal melody at the first point where it could be cut off after its ascension from the throat; then *ḥolem* would emerge, with [the *ḥolem*]'s force proceeding ahead of [that point], not turning upwards or downwards. But if one wanted to take [the vocalic melody] past this point and then interrupt it, the force of *qɔmeṣ*  would appear, and its movement would be specifically towards the top of the palate. (Skoss 1952, 292, lns. 7–13)

He proceeds in this manner for the rest of the vowels, saying for each one that you *tajāwaz* 'pass' the *mawḍiʿ* 'articulation point' of the previous vowel. But beyond showing how Saadya arranges vowels according to backness, this passage reveals the degree to which he is familiar with the Arabic grammatical tradition. His explanation of /ɔ/ (i.e., *qɔmeṣ*) is the same as Sībawayh's, and his progression through the *mawāḍiʿ* 'articulation points' and *marātib* 'levels' of the vowels mimics the language that both Sībawayh and al-Khalīl use in their classifications of consonants (Harun 1982, IV:431–36; Makhzumi 1985, 52–57). Additionally, his explanation of the *quwwa* 'force' of each vowel is reminiscent of Arabic descriptions of airflow, focusing on the *ḥaraka* 'movement' *ilā fawq* 'upwards' or *ilā ʾasfal* 'downwards'. At the same time, Saadya modifies this principle, stating explicitly that /o/ is the *ghayr ḥāʾida* 'unwavering' vowel, in contrast to Ibn Sīnā's understanding that /a/ was the vowel that does not tilt up or down (i.e., *naṣb*).

Many of Saadya's vowel names seem to be novel, with only the Aramaic *qɔmeṣ* and *pataḥ* attested in the Hebrew tradition prior to this text. *Segol* 'a cluster of grapes' is likely derived from the name of the Hebrew accent sign with the same form, but the other four may be Saadya's own tenth-century Hebraisms, all based on mouth movement.21 However, these innovations did not immediately catch on, and until at least the eleventh century, grammarians continued referring to /o/, /u/, /e/, and /i/ by either phonetic transcription or the number of dots in each sign (Khan 2000, 24; Steiner 2005, 377–78; Dotan 2007, 633). In fact, rather than accepting Saadya's scale as fully authoritative, his successors modified it to better align it with Arabic phonology.

Sometime in the eleventh century, an anonymous Hebrew grammarian took the Arabic concept of tripartite airflow and merged it with Saadya's vowel scale in an abridged version of *Al-Qawl fī al-Nagham* that is partially extant (Eldar 1981, 105–18). Titled *Kitāb Naḥw al-ʿIbrānī* 'The Book of Hebrew Inflection', the abridgement maintains a scale arranged by phonetic backness, but also divides the vowels into three groups: *al-rafʿ* (/o/ and /u/), *al-khafḍ* (/e/ and /i/), and *al-naṣb* (/ɔ/, /a/, and /ɛ/). Unlike in Saadya's version, the abridger does not use any of the 'modern' vowel names besides *qɔmeṣ* (/ɔ/) and *pɔtaḥ* (/a/), albeit in the Arabicised forms *al-qamṣa* and *al-fatḥa*. Instead, the author refers to /o/, /u/, /e/, and /i/ by spelling them phonetically, and also calls /i/ and /ɛ/ "the one dot" and "the three dots," respectively. It places vowels on a scale by ranking their status in the

21 Consider *ḥlm* 'closing firmly'; *ṣry* 'rift, split, tear'; *ḥrq* 'gnashing the teeth'; *shrq* 'whistling'.

three groups: /o/ is the greater *rafʿ*, /ɔ/ the greater *naṣb*, /a/ the middle *naṣb*, /ɛ/ the lesser *naṣb*, /e/ the lesser *khafḍ*, and /i/ the greater *khafḍ*.

The author also follows the original text in removing /u/ from the scale, although the fragment breaks off before explaining the reason behind this choice. Presumably, /u/ was the 'lesser *rafʿ*', as that classification would correspond to the Arabic notion that /u/ emits an upward stream of air, while also following Saadya's original scale and being phonetically 'lower' than /o/. As another example of the same principles: calling /e/ the 'lesser *khafḍ*' indicates that one should pronounce the vowel with a downward inclination of air, but not quite as inclined as the 'greater *khafḍ*' (/i/). Then the location—fifth from the top of the scale—designates the lesser *khafḍ* as the fifth-most-backed of the vowels. This syncretic Arabic-and-Saadyan scale thus classifies every vowel according to both its effect on airflow and relative amount of backing, combining principles from both the Arabic and Masoretic phonological traditions.

#### **5.0. CONCLUSION**

The development of Syriac, Arabic, and Hebrew phonological thought as it relates to vocalisation had significant inter-linguistic overlap during the medieval period. Early Syriac and masoretic sources show that both traditions perceived vowel phonology according to a relative system. This system distinguished homographs by the comparative 'openness' of their vocalisation and, at least in the Syriac tradition, it used dots above or below a word to indicate its vowels. Then, over time, terms like *milleʿel*

and *milleraʿ* developed out of the perceived connection between dot position and vowel quality, and phonetic backness came to be associated with 'height'.

The Arabic grammatical tradition emerged in this relative context, and although the early uses of *naṣb* 'standing upright' and *ʾimāla* 'bending down' reflect height-based principles similar to those of the Syrians and Masoretes, later Arabic grammarians interpreted their vowel names as designations of the direction of airflow when articulating vowels. Before the late eighth century, one of these terms—*naṣb* 'standing up'—had an extended usage that helped distinguish allophones of *ʾalif*, including a back vowel between /a/ and /ɔ/. It is likely that the Syriac name for /ɔ/, *zqɔp̄ɔ* 'standing up', is a calque of this term. Other Syriac vowel names may also be Arabic calques, but it is difficult to tell due to the syncretisation of phonological systems that happened in the tenth and eleventh centuries.

Elias of Tirhan's eleventh-century Syriac grammar exhibits this syncretic phenomenon, as he incorporates some of the Arabic tripartite division of airflow with the old Syriac system of 'wideand-narrow' vowels. Saadya Gaon's tenth-century Hebrew grammar also demonstrates this phonological blending, as his vowel scale combines the masoretic hierarchy of vowels with the Arabic emphasis on airflow.

This discussion is by no means an exhaustive account of all the connections between medieval Semitic vocalisation traditions, but rather it shows that it is possible to discern such links by comparing the phonological theories that authors used to describe their own languages. There is much more work to be done in order to connect the dots.

#### **6.0. REFERENCES**

*Ḥayyim be-hagiʿo la-śevah*, 43–55. Jerusalem: Magnes, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (in Hebrew).

Hoffmann, Georgius, ed. 1880. *Opusculo Nestoriana*. Paris.

*l'Orient: Revue semestrielle des études syriaques et arabes chrétiennes* 3 (2): 365–74.

## **DISCORD BETWEEN THE TIBERIAN WRITTEN AND READING TRADITIONS: TWO CASE STUDIES**

*Aaron D. Hornkohl*

————————————————————————————

#### **1.0. INTRODUCTION**

Like preceding *Biblia Hebraica* editions, the forthcoming *Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition* (formerly provisionally entitled *The Oxford Hebrew Bible*) will have as its base text the Firkovich B19 A Leningrad Codex (= L). Defending this approach, chief editor Ronald Hendel (2016, 31–32) explains:

The copy-text will be L, our oldest complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible. Since the accidentals of vocalization and accentuation in L are the product of medieval scribes, our critical text is open to the complaint of anachronism. This complaint is technically correct…. [B]iblical scholars already know that the consonantal text is older than the medieval vocalization system…. [However,] …the phonology of the Tiberian vocalization system is not wholly or even mostly anachronistic…. Scholars have demonstrated that most of the phonetic features of this system accurately represent a reading tradition from the Second Temple period, and many of its features stem from the First Temple period.

In biblical and Hebrew language studies, one encounters seemingly incongruous views on the historical status of the Tiberian reading tradition, i.e., the specific oral realisation of the biblical text as prescribed by the Masoretic vocalisation (and accentuation). On the one hand, in the case of a small minority of certain well-known features, the vocalisation diverges from the phonetic realisations implied by the consonantal text. In most such cases the reading tradition is correctly characterised as reflecting comparatively late, secondary phonology.1 On the other hand, as Hendel notes, many authorities past and present have emphasised the antiquity of the testimony embodied in the medieval vocalisation. 2

This article plumbs the historical depths of the Tiberian reading tradition. The 'depth' analogy usefully comprehends two aspects of the tradition: first, its antiquity (how far back it

1 One of the best-known and oft-described examples is the shift from *qal*  internal passive to alternative forms via reanalysis as *puʿʿal* or *hofʿal* or revocalisation as *nifʿal*; for a recent discussion and up-to-date bibliography see Reymond (2016, 1135, nn. 5–8). Hughes (1994) collects a number of further phenomena, as do the studies listed below, n. 2. Incidentally, while the issue is not treated here, it bears mentioning that the so-called consonantal text is not, in fact, purely consonantal. While it is legitimate to suppose that the earlier portions of the Hebrew Bible were composed in a more purely consonantal orthography, it seems that they were later subjected to a revision involving the insertion of *matres lectionis* in line with the Second Temple orthographical conventions employed in the composition of LBH texts. 2 Examples of nuanced presentations include those found of Barr (1968, 188–222; 1981, 27, 35–36; 1984, esp. 31); Morag (1974); Khan (2013a, 46–51); Joosten (2015). See also Tov (2012, 46–47).

reaches); second, its composite nature (its various constituent layers). Rarely are the two perspectives given the balanced and nuanced consideration that each deserves in exegetical, textual, literary, and even linguistic studies. All too often the Tiberian tradition's admittedly complex textual and linguistic testimony goes undervalued and oversimplified. This frequently leads to extremes that mar studies of various types. In linguistic research, for example, the combined consonantal-vocalic text is sometimes approached uncritically, as an organic unity, its degree of linguistic heterogeneity underrepresented or entirely unacknowledged. At the other extreme are scholars who wholly discount the historical testimony of the pronunciation tradition embodied in the vocalisation, despite furnishing little to no justification for their scepticism.

In focus here are two features in the Tiberian reading tradition whose vocalisation differs from that implied in the written tradition: (a) the *qal* construct infinitive and (b) the 3ms suffix that attaches to plural nouns and some prepositions. It is here argued that the Tiberian phonetic realisation, i.e., vocalisation, in the two cases both differs from that presupposed by the consonantal framework and is secondary thereto. However, far from being artificial and post-biblical, evidence is marshalled below to demonstrate that the realisations of the pronunciation tradition in both cases are organic and relatively ancient, products not of Byzantine or medieval times, but of the Second Temple Period, if not earlier.

#### **2.0. THE** *QAL* **CONSTRUCT INFINITIVE**

The ancient Hebrew construct infinitive evolved from Biblical Hebrew (BH) to Rabbinic Hebrew (RH) and within BH itself. Developments involved phonology, morphology, and syntax. The changes are especially perceptible in certain *qal* forms.

## **2.1. Differential Treatment of** *Qal* **II-***bgdkpt* **Construct Infinitives with Prefixed** -ל

In the Tiberian tradition, the phonetic realization of the *qal* II*bgdkpt* construct infinitive varies depending on whether or not the form is preceded by a prefixed preposition and on the identity of the preposition. Blau (2010, 213–14) provides as clear an explanation as any:

The construct infinitive is frequently governed by prepositions, especially by ל. Originally this ְ ל had a fully prepositional meaning, as, e.g., 'in order to' (e.g., ת ֹ א ר ִלְה ָ הו יְד ֶרּ י ַו יר ִ ִע ת־ה ֶא' and the Lord came down to see the town' Gen 11:5); later the ל became a part of the infinitive, as happened also in French and English. This is reflected both by the form and by the syntactic usage of the preposition. Formally, the ל became integrated into the infinitive. In some forms of the *qal* infinitive, the ל appears to be in close internal juncture: the *šwa* that begins the infinitive behaves as a genuine quiescent *šwa*, and subsequent תְ,פ,ְכ,ְד,ְג,ְב letters are vocalized as stops, e.g., ל פ נ ִל' to fall', as opposed to simple ל פ נ and ל פ נ ִב/ל פ נ ִכ' when falling'. In Rabbinic Hebrew the univerbalization of the infinitive with ל is even more progressed: the ל is always attached to the infinitive, even after other prepositions, and the infinitive is totally

remodelled after the prefix-tense (as in ן ת ִל ִמ' from giving', formed after ן ת ִי, in contrast to biblical ת ת ִמ(. The special vocalization of the construct infinitive in Biblical Hebrew after ל, corresponding to the vocalization of the prefixtense (ר כ זְִל' to remember', matching ר כ ז ִי (is undoubtedly in the line of Rabbinic Hebrew (and may even reflect the impact of Rabbinic Hebrew on the Masoretes). At any rate, the quiescent *šwa* after ל is certainly a late feature, as demonstrated by the very fact that in ל פ נ ִל the *n* is not assimilated to the following consonant, because, when this assimilation operated, the *šwa* was not yet quiescent…. Alternatively, we could regard the vocalization of the infinitive ל פ נ ִל as a late Mishnaic feature superimposed by the Masoretes on the biblical text, because the biblical text contained *n*, which had to be preserved because of the sanctity of the text.3

3 See also Blau (2010, 115):

The *qal* infinitives construct present a complex picture, since after the *lə* followed by *bgdkpt* the form has a quiescent *šwa*. Such forms as ר ב ש ִל' in order to break' are due to morphological reshuffling on analogy to the prefixtense (רְ ב ש ִי' he will break') rather than to a genuine sound shift. The late date of this feature is indicated by forms like ל פ נ ִל' that I fall' Ps 118:13; the *n* immediately preceding another consonant was not assimilated to it because at the time of the action of this shift the *n* was still followed by a mobile *šwa*. (Alternatively, one could suggest that this shift was still active, but that at the time of the vocalization of the biblical text its letters had already become hallowed and therefore the נ of לנפל could not be omitted…).

Recapitulating: the realisation of the second radical *p* is as the fricative allophone *f* in the bare infinitive ל פ נ] naˈfoːl] 'to fall' and when preceded by the prepositions -ב or -כ, e.g., ל פ נ ִב] binˈfoːl] 'when falling' and ל פ נ ִכ] kinˈfoːl] 'upon falling'. All these forms show the expected post-vocalic spirantisation of the *bgdkpt* consonant—this despite the fact that the preceding *shewa* in forms with clitic prepositions, at one time vocalic, had completely syncopated to zero in the Tiberian tradition, as reflected in the most reliable medieval codices, such as L and Aleppo (= A).4 Conversely, in the case of the infinitive with prefixed -ל, the secondradical *bgdkpt* consonant usually has plosive realisation, e.g., ל פ נ ִל [linˈpoːl] 'to fall'. The distinction illustrated here with ל פ נ [naˈfoːl] is the norm in Tiberian BH for *qal* II-*bgdkpt* construct infinitives, with very few exceptions.5

Since *bgdkpt* fricativisation is itself a secondary development in ancient Hebrew, it might be asked whether ל פ נ ִל] linˈpoːl]

4 On the Tiberian realisation of *shewa* see Khan (2013b, 546; 2013c, 775; 2020, 305–20).

5 Exceptions with -ל and spirant II-*bgdkpt* are א ב צ ִל' to serve' (Num. 4.23 [L]; 8.24 [L]); ב ב ס ִל' to go around' (Num. 21.4 [L]); ְ ַע ג פ ִל' to harm' (1 Sam. 22.17 [L/A]); ך פ ד ר ִל' to pursue you' (1 Sam. 25.29 [L/A]); ְתוש נ ִל תוץ נ ִל ו' to uproot and demolish' (Jer. 1.10 [L/A]; 18.7 [L/A]; 31.28 [L/A missing]); דוד ש ִל' to devastate' (Jer. 47.4 [L/A]); ְ ַבוח ט ִל' to slaughter' (Jer. 11.19 [L/A]; 25.34 [L/A]; 51.40 [L/A]; Ps. 37.14 [L/A]); גות ש ִל' to stray' (Prov. 19.27 [L/A]). Exceptions with -ב or -כ and plosive II-*bgdkpt* are rarer: ן כ ש ִב' while dwelling' (Gen. 35.22 [L/A missing]); ר כ ז ִכ' upon remembering' (Jer. 17.2 [L/A]); ך פ ש ִב' by piling up' (Ezek. 17.17 [L/A]). GKC (§45g) and Mishor (1993, 385–86) present slightly different lists.

simply preserves the original plosive *bgdkpt* consonant that spirantised in ל פ נ] naˈfoːl], ל פ נ ִב] binˈfoːl], and ל פ נ ִכ] kinˈfoːl]. But this explanation is problematic, because syllable-final *nun* normally assimilates in BH, especially in I-*n* forms.6 The expected form would thus be ל פ ִל] \*lipˈpoːl], which, though absent from BH, does occur in RH. Blau's explanation is rather that the plosive *bgdkpt* realisation is due to analogy to the prefix-conjugation *yiqtol* form, whereby the prefix -ל of the *qal* infinitive construct came to be treated like the *yiqtol* preformatives -א, -ת, -י, and -נ. However, whereas infinitival *liqtol* descends from a form with a vowel following the first radical, perhaps *lV-qutul*, 7 *yiqtol* represents one that never had such a vowel, i.e., *yaqtul-u/-a/-∅*. Significantly, the patterning of infinitives on analogy to the *yiqtol* pattern, including the infinitive's integration of prefixed -ל, is indeed typical of RH, especially in the case of weak verbs, though important exceptions to this tendency—notably III-*y* verbs, on the one

6 On the two major exceptional categories to this tendency, namely *n* preceding a guttural and forms of verbs III-*n*, see Blau (2010, 77).

7 Thus Fox (2003, 205). This form is not to be confused with the presumed antecedent of the *qal* absolute infinitive, \**qatal*. JM (§49a) posits underlying *qtul* with initial cluster, on which assumption a secondary epenthetic vowel is responsible for the fricativisation of the following *bgdkpt* radical.

hand,8 and historically stative and II/III-guttural, on the other9 serve as important counterexamples. See Table 1.

9 While the characteristic RH morphological similarity between prefix conjugation and construct infinitive must be considered a secondary repatterning in the case of most weak verb classes, the situation is more complicated when it comes to historically stative and II/III-guttural verbs. It is widely held that in an early stage of Hebrew, i.e., pre-Rabbinic and pre-Tiberian, the *a* theme-vowel of stative and II/III-guttural prefix-conjugation forms also characterised the corresponding infinitive construct, i.e., *(li)qVtal* || *yiqtal*. Due to the pressure of analogical leveling, *(li)qVtal* infinitival forms came to have an *o* theme-vowel, leaving only a few Tiberian BH remnants in ב ַכ ש] ʃaˈxaːv] 'lie down' (Gen. 34.7 + 10x), ע ַו ג] gaˈvaːʕ] 'die' (Num. 20.3; but cf. pausal ְ ַוע ג ִל] ligˈvoːaʕ; Num. 17.28]), and ל ַפ ש] ʃaˈfaːl] 'be low' (Prov. 16.19; Qoh. 12.4) (see Barth 1891, 106–7; Fox 2003, 216; JM, §49c). RH's marked proclivity for *liqtal* might be interpreted as a case of conservatism vis-à-vis Tiberian BH. However, it is instructive that the *o* theme-vowel is not at all uncommon in RH stative and II/III-guttural infinitives. Indeed, in the case of II/III-guttural verbs, the dominant orthography in RH is with *mater waw*, even if the corresponding prefix-conjugation form has *a* as theme-vowel. Given this situation, it would seem either that analogy to the RH prefix conjugation pattern led to a RH shift of *liqtol* to *liqtal*, which *coincidentally recreated* an ancient but obsolete dichotomy, or that this ancient moribund dichotomy was *sporadically preserved* thanks to casual identity with the results of the analogical repatterning described above. Cf. Kutscher's (1982, 38–39) notion of 'mirage forms'. See further n. 14.

8 For example, the *bgdkpt* consonant in the second position of בות ג ִל [liɣˈboːθ] 'to collect (payment)' may be plosive on analogy to *yiqtol* ה ֶב ג ִי [jiɣˈbɛː], but the ות-] -oːθ] ending was retained.

Most of Blau's account is indisputable. At least one claim, however, is open to question: namely, that in Tiberian BH the secondary plosive realisation of the middle radical in *qal* II-*bgdkpt* construct infinitives with prefixed -ל might be due to RH influence on the Masoretes and does not reflect an authentic sound shift rooted in an earlier stage of Hebrew, specifically some stage of pre-rabbinic-era BH. Before adducing evidence in favour of a

10 The RH forms are from Codex Kaufmann (=K) of the Mishnah.

more nuanced view, it is worth pointing out that any approach that takes BH as an undifferentiated whole and cites RH as the sole corpus for comparison is likely to exclude useful evidence of diversity within Tiberian BH, non-Tiberian BH, and extrabiblical material, along with information on historical development that they might provide.

Even so, it is important to acknowledge the reality of the divergence between the Tiberian reading tradition and the phonological realisation that may be supposed to have accompanied the more ancient components of the consonantal text. 11 Clearly, according to diverging reflexes preserved in the reading tradition, the form ל פ נ ִל] linˈpoːl] deviates from the expected standard כִ נ פ ל and ,]poːlˈbin [בִ נ פ ל ,[foːlˈna [נ פ ל as forms such in preserved [kinˈpoːl]. For though in Tiberian Hebrew the *shewa* of ל פ נ ִל [linˈpoːl], ל פ נ ִב] binˈpoːl], and ל פ נ ִכ] kinˈpoːl] was zero, its realisation in ל פ נ] naˈfoːl], the spirant allophone in the following *bgdkpt* consonant in ל פ נ ִב] binˈpoːl] and ל פ נ ִכ] kinˈpoːl], and the preservation of *nun* in ל פ נ ִל] linˈpoːl] are all telltale signs of its erstwhile vocal status. This implies at least some degree of phonological mismatch between the pre-Tiberian reading tradition reflected in the consonantal tradition and the comparatively more developed Tiberian reading tradition. For the former, one would expect development to Tiberian ל פ נ ִל] \*linˈfoːl]; for the latter, development to Tiberian ל פ ִל] \*lipˈpoːl]. The actual resulting ל פ נ ִל] linˈpoːl] is either a hybrid form (as Blau seems to think) or transitional.

11 It is assumed here that the consonantal text always had an accompanying reading tradition (or traditions). See Barr (1981, 35) and Tov (2012, 40–41).

Against the claim that the plosive *bgdkpt* realisation in *qal*  II-*bgdkpt* construct infinitives prefixed with -ל is necessarily due to the imposition of post-biblical phonology/morphology on the BH consonantal text, the following discussion shows that integration of -ל within the Hebrew infinitive construct was likely well underway by the Persian Period, demonstrating the historical depth of the processes that resulted organically in the plosive realisation of the second radical in II-*bgdkpt liqtol* forms. Forms like ל פ נ ִל] linˈpoːl] are, to be sure, out of step with *some* stage of prerabbinic- and pre-Tiberian-era BH as represented by the consonantal text, but are not to be explained as late post-biblical deviations under the influence of RH, much less as artificial creations of innovative medieval tradents. Rather, it is entirely plausible that this feature of the Tiberian reading tradition reveals an intermediate, perhaps vernacular, realisation linking the classical phonology and morphology expected of the BH consonantal text and RH's more extreme phonological and morphological repatterning of construct infinitives on analogy to the prefix conjugation.

#### **2.2. Transitional Forms in the Dead Sea Scrolls**

Since Blau's explanation might be interpreted to suggest singlestep evolution between BH and RH infinitives, it is instructive to consider forms that may represent an intermediate stage, such as occasionally appear in the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). As noted above, Tiberian BH ל פְ נ ִל] linˈpoːl] and similar (rather than RH ל פ ִל *lippol* and similar) suggest a vocalised first radical, i.e., one vocalism sufficient for the preservation of *nun*, which would otherwise presumably have assimilated. But consider the form נגועְ ל *lingoaʿ* in 4QSamc (4Q53) f2–5i.5 || ת ַע ֹ ַג ל] lɔˈɣaːʕaθ] in MT 2 Sam. 14.10:

(5–.4i5–2f 53Q4 (ויאמרְהמל ] / [ גוע נל ְ ב̇ כה (1) (14.10 .Sam 2 (וַ י ִ אמֶ רְהַ מֶּ ֶ לֶ ךְ וַ ָ הֲ ב את ו א לַָ יְו ל ָ א־י סִ ֹ יף עִ ודְְ ל גַ ֹ עַ ת ב ָ ך׃ 'and the king said, "Whoever speaks to you, you should bring him to me, and he will not touch you anymore"'

The scroll's scribe first wrote לגוע, presumably \**liggoaʿ*, and only afterwards 'corrected' the form by means of a supralinear *nun*. Of most obvious relevance for the present discussion is that the presumed pre-correction realisation \**liggoaʿ* is phonologically and morphologically intermediate between the respective forms expected in BH and RH, i.e., Tiberian BH [linˈgoːaʿ] < pre-Tiberian *linᵊgoaʿ* versus RH *liggaʿ*. Phonologically, the assimilation of *nun* is evidence that the vowel of the first radical had quiesced, as in RH and the Tiberian reading tradition. Yet, morphologically, the *plene* spelling with as *mater waw* shows that formation of the construct infinitive was not as in RH, according to analogy to *yiqtol* ע ַג ִי *yiggaʿ* which has an *a*, rather than *o*, theme-vowel (cf. RH ע ַיג ִל *liggaʿ* [M. Tohorot 5.2; 7.2–4 in K]). 12

12 Alternatively, perhaps the nunation here results from dissimilation or prenasalisation (*ng* < *gg*) under Aramaic influence. While Ancient Hebrew exhibits sporadic examples of *l*C < CC and *r*C < CC (Blau 2010, 57–58), *n*C < CC is particularly characteristic of late Imperial Aramaic, including Qumran Aramaic (Garr 2007). My thanks to Steven Fassberg for alerting me to this line of argumentation.

Consider also the case of לשול, presumably \**liššol*, 'to clear away', from the War Scroll:13

אתהְבקרבנוְאלְגדולְונוראְלשולְאתְכולְ/ְאויבינוְלפְ̇] [ו ְ (2) 'you are in our midst, a great and awesome God, to remove all our enemies bef[ ]s' (1QM 10.1–2)

The expected BH form is ל ש נ ִל) \*Tiberian \*[linˈʃoːl] < pre-Tiberian \**linǝ šol*). In view of the stative-type Tiberian BH imperative ל ַש] ʃaːl] (MT Exod. 3.5; MT Josh. 5.15) and *yiqtol* ל ַש ִי] jiʃˈʃaːl] (MT Deut. 28.40), one might expect RH-style ל ַיש ִל \**liššal* in the War Scroll. Again, though, the DSS form exhibits traits characteristic of two distinct linguistic strata—the assimilation of *nun* typical of RH and the *o*-vowel typical of Tiberian BH—evidently reflecting an intermediate transitional form.14

14 In light of the discussion above in n. 9, נגועְ ל and לשול likely represent relatively early orthographical evidence of secondary remodeling of the earlier *(li)qVtal* pattern according to the dominant *liqtol* alternative. That the secondary *liqtal* > *liqtol* shift is characteristic of both Qumran and the Tiberian reading tradition indicates the antiquity of the phenomenon. That the Hebrew of the DSS seems farther along in the process testifies to the conservative nature of the Tiberian tradition; cf. the spelling ולשכוב *veliškov* in 4Q51 f89–92.15 (|| MT ב ַכ ש ִל ו] valiʃˈkaːv] 2 Sam. 11.11); see also 4Q160 f7.4; 4Q223–224 f2v.3.

13 This is an allusion to 'when Yhwh, your God, brings you into the land to which you are coming to possess, he will remove (ל ַש נ ו (many nations before you…' (MT Deut. 7.1; see also v. 22), where the verb is clearly ל ַש נ. Alternatively, DSS לשול is a geminate biform \**laššol* related to ל־ ש לו ֹ ש ת' remove (from the sheaves)' (MT Ruth 2.16), though ל ַלְ ש \*in the relevant sense is a BH *hapax*.

I-*n qal* infinitives in Qumran Hebrew normally behave like their BH counterparts, i.e., the *nun* is typically preserved or an allomorph is used, e.g., לגעת *lagaʿat*. Rare though the foregoing examples are, they come as evidence that the phonological process of elision of the first radical's vowel could take place independently of the full morphological repatterning on the model of *yiqtol*. One may further postulate that it was only after quiescence of the *shewa* of the first radical in *li-qǝtol* forms had produced *liqtol*, thereby resulting in phonological similarity between *yiqtol*  and *liqtol*, that the infinitive was more fully susceptible to recasting in the mould of *yiqtol*, which eventually resulted in RH-style infinitives. We will revisit this possibility below.

An attractive explanation for the aforementioned DSS forms with assimilated *nun* is that they represent realisations of the infinitive associated with the vernacular and/or fluent reading, in which language users pronounced no vowel following the first radical and, eventually, assimilated the *nun*. The inserted *nun* in נגועְ ל *lingoaʿ* in 4QSamc (4Q53) f2–5i.5 might then be attributed to a conscious attempt at careful reading appropriate for Scripture. The typologically later RH forms, in this case ע ַיג ִל *liggaʿ*, are developmentally more advanced in the direction of the vernacular, being completely under the analogical influence of *yiqtol*.

Syllable-final *nun* regularly assimilates when not word-final, but there are exceptions, even beyond II-guttural *yiqtol*  forms.15 It may well be that some time after quiescence of the

15 See GKC (§66f).

vowel of the *nun* in BH ל פ נ ִל] linˈpoːl] and DSS נגועְ ל *lingoaʿ*, but before wholesale RH-like repatterning on the basis of *yiqtol*, language users alternated between a pronunciation preserving the syllable-final *nun* and one in which the *nun* was assimilated, perhaps reserving the realisation with *nun* for high-register Hebrew. Without suggesting absolute linearity between BH, the Hebrew of the DSS, and RH, the following course of development, using ע ַג נ as an example (because its BH and RH forms also differ with respect to theme vowel), might be proposed:

$$\begin{array}{ccc} & & \mathbf{Tiberian\ \mathfrak{z}\mathfrak{z}\mathfrak{z}} \\ \mathbf{Pre-Tiberian} & > & \mathbf{[lin\ \mathfrak{go}:a\Omega]} \\ \mathbf{\*lV-nVaga^{\epsilon}} & > & \mathbf{DSSBH^{16}\ \mathfrak{yz}\mathfrak{z}\mathfrak{z}} \\ & & \mathbf{lingoa^{\epsilon}} \\ \end{array} > \begin{array}{c} \mathbf{QH}\ \mathfrak{z}\mathfrak{u}\mathfrak{z}\mathfrak{z} \\ > \\ \mathbf{ligga^{\epsilon}} \\ \end{array} > \begin{array}{c} \mathbf{Rff}\ \mathfrak{z}\mathfrak{z}\mathfrak{z} \\ \mathbf{N}\mathbf{H}\ \mathfrak{z}\mathfrak{z}\mathfrak{z} \\ \mathbf{ligga^{\epsilon}} \\ \end{array}$$

A crucial component of this developmental scheme is that whatever its explanation—the Tiberian form known from the authoritative medieval corpora is typologically more primitive than the QH form preserved in scrolls from the Hellenistic Period.

16 While the dichotomy between biblical and non-biblical in material from the Judaean Desert is problematic and anachronistic, there are palpable linguistic differences between the so-called biblical scrolls and non-biblical scrolls, in that the Hebrew of the former (DSSBH) is more conservative than that of the latter (QH =Qumran Hebrew). See below, n. 23.

## **2.3. Further Differential Treatment of BH Construct Infinitives with Prefixed** -ל

The distinction between infinitives prefixed with -ל and those prefixed with other prepositions is not limited to *qal* II-*bgdkpt* forms. In Tiberian BH both *qal* I-*y* and II-*w/y* infinitives with prefixed -ל also differ from the respective forms with other prefixed prepositions. In both types, the prepositions -ב and -כ are realised with *shewa*, whereas -ל is vocalised with *qameṣ*: for I-*y*, consider sixty was Isaac and 'ו יִ צ ח ָ קְבֶ ן־שִ שִ ֹ יםְש נ ִהְב לֶ ֹ דֶ תְא ת ָ ם in] lɛːðɛθˈba [ב לֶ ֹ דֶ ת years old when (she) bore them' (MT Gen. 25.26) versus ת ֶד ֶָל ל 'brother his ,bore again she and 'וַ ת סֶ ףְל לֶָ דֶ תְאֶ ת־א חִ ִ יו in] lɛːðɛθˈlɔː[ ב ָ בוא־א ֵ ל יו ְנ ת ן ְהַ נ בִ ֶ יא in ב ָ בוא consider *y*/*w*-II for 17);4.2 .Gen MT( 'when Nathan the prophet came to him' (MT Ps. 5122) and וא ִב כ a to coming like her to came he 'וַ י ב וא ְא לֶָ יה ְ כ בִ וא ְאֶ ל־אִ ש ה ְזונ ֶה in ו ל א־י כ לְמ שֶׁ הְל בוא ְאֶ ל־ in ל בוא ְ versus) 23.44 .Ezek MT' (prostitute ד ָ מועְל ֶה א' and Moses could not enter into the tent of meeting' (MT Exod. 40.35). The phonological distinction reflects the degree to

17 By way of comparison, in other instances, the preposition -ל prefixed to *qal* I-*y* infinitives was evidently still perceived as a true preposition not integral to the form and retaining semantic force, as in the case of had Abram after 'מִ ק ץ ְְעֶ שֶ רְש נִָ יםְל שֶ ֹ בֶ תְאַ ב ר ִ ם .,g.e ,'ל- temporal 'called-so בַ ח דֶ ש ְהַ ש לִ ישִָ יְל צ ֹ אתְב נ י־ and) 16.3 .Gen MT' (land the in years ten lived Israel of children the time the from month third the in 'יִ ש ר א ִ לְמ אֶ רֶ ץְמִ צ ר ֶ יִ ם had left Egypt' (MT Exod. 19.1), in which no pretonic lengthening took place. However, the preposition -ל is regularly vocalised with *qameṣ* even where it retains the semantic force of 'in order to', e.g., ְיש ֹ ִא ה ו ,her at gazed man the And 'מִ ש ת א ִ הְל ֶהְמַ חֲ רִ ִ ישְל דַ ׁ עַ תְהַ ָ הִ צ לִ ִ יחַ ְי הו ָה דַ ר כִ וְאִ ם־ל ָ א keeping silent in order to know whether Yhwh had prospered his journey or not' (MT Gen. 24.21).

which the respective preposition was integrated into the infinitive. According to the norms of pretonic vowel development, a preposition's originally short vowel normally shortens to *shewa*, as with -ב and -כ. 18 The exceptional pretonic lengthening of the vowel following -ל was evidently due to the perception that it no longer served as a preposition as such—it was perhaps felt to be devoid of semantic content—but had become morphologically integral to the infinitive.

The Tiberian tradition is not alone in differential treatment of -ל vis-à-vis other prefixed prepositions when it comes to construct infinitives. The Babylonian BH tradition likewise reserves differential treatment for *qal* II-*bgdkpt*, I-*y*, and II-*w*/*y* infinitives with prefixed -ל. 19

In the Samaritan reading tradition (as transcribed in Ben-Hayyim 1977), no phonological distinction marking prepositions preceding *qal* I-*y* and II-*w*/*y* infinitives, nor does the realisation of the second radical in *qal* II-*bgdkpt* infinitives depend on the presence and identity of the preceding preposition. However, the dominant *qal* infinitive construct pattern in strong verbs with prefixed -ל is *liqtal*, 20 whereas bare infinitives and those following -ב or -כ consistently bear a vowel following the first radical, e.g., לשמע *lišma* versus שמעְביום *abyom šama*, בשמע *afšama*, and כשמע *ka š̄ama*.

18 Blau (2010, 131).

19 Yeivin (1985, I, 487, 607, 641).

20 Exceptional forms include those with guttural root letters. Some MT *qal* construct infinitives are analysed in the Samaritan tradition as nouns, finite verbs, or infinitives in another *binyan*.

For its part, the pronunciation tradition represented in the Second Column of Origen's Hexapla, as preserved in Ambrosiano O 39 sup., has the forms λαμσω || א ִ צ מ ִל] limˈsˤoː] 'to find' (MT Ps. 36.3), λαβλωμ || ום ֶל ב ִל] livˈloːm] 'to curb' (MT Ps. 32.9), and λφνωθ (*sic*: probably to be read λαφνωθ) || ות ֹנ פ ִל] lifˈnoːθ] 'at the turn of (cstr)' (MT Ps. 46.6) as against the bare καρωβ\* (corrected from καρωθ) || ב ר ק] qaˈʀoːv] 'drawing near' (MT Ps. 32.9). Unfortunately, no forms with the prepositions -ב or -כ have been preserved.21

Thus, evidence across multiple biblical reading traditions demonstrates that *qal* construct infinitives with prefixed -ל were singled out phonologically among other forms of the *qal* construct infinitive. The simplest explanation for this affinity is that it resulted from a shared phonological heritage pre-dating the medieval or later manuscript evidence and extending back to the Second Temple period, before the traditions split.

Yet, what of Blau's contention that the Tiberian biblical realisation of *qal* II-*bgdkpt* construct infinitives with plosive *bgdkpt* allophones may be due to anachronistic reanalysis of BH on the basis of RH? Since RH is itself preserved in medieval manuscripts that reflect traditions rooted in the Second Temple period, the mere fact of demonstrating the pre-medieval character of the rel-

21 The forms are collected and discussed in Brønno (1943, 56–58); Yuditsky (2017, 131); Kantor (2017, 339, 352). I am indebted to my friend and colleague Ben Kantor for his help in comprehending the significance of the data.

evant Tiberian phonological feature does not eliminate the possibility of anachronistic superimposing of RH pronunciation on the BH infinitive.

Two further points are in order. First, while there is no doubt that the Tiberian reading tradition and orthography exhibit non-trivial affinities with Second Temple Hebrew trends that are out of line with presumed pre-exilic phonology, it must be stressed that, overall, in respect of numerous linguistic details, the Tiberian biblical tradition presents a less advanced historical stage of Hebrew than do acknowledged post-exilic sources, e.g., the DSS, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and Rabbinic literature. The possibility of RH influence on BH or of conflation between their respective reading traditions should not be prematurely excluded, but it is clear according to the best manuscript evidence that the tradents responsible for the transmission of Tiberian BH managed with remarkable consistency to distinguish between BH and more contemporary versions of Hebrew with which they were familiar, such as RH. And this should not be thought to apply only to the consonantal tradition. High degrees of linguistic conservatism are evident in the reading tradition as well.22

22 To illustrate by means of a phenomenon already cited, while *liqtol*  forms of *qal* II-*bgdkpt* construct infinitives resemble RH *yiqtol* forms, the forms of other biblical infinitives consonantally amenable to RH-style vocalisation—such as statives and III-guttural forms—largely preserve BH phonology, e.g., stative BH ש ב ל ִל] lilˈboːʃ] 'to wear' versus RH ש ב ל ִל *lilbaš* and III-*ʿ* BH ְ ַע ר ז ִל] lizˈroːaʕ] 'to sow' versus RH ע ַר ז ִל *lizraʿ*. Note that in the case of stative BH ישון ִל] liːˈʃoːn] 'to sleep' (MT Qoh. 5.11) versus RH ן יש ִל *lišan* the full spelling of the Tiberian consonantal text also bears witness to the phonological distinction between BH and RH. The *qameṣ*

Though both the Tiberian consonantal and reading traditions exhibit hallmarks of the Second Temple period in which they coalesced, since so much of their linguistic testimony points to an earlier time, neither presents a form of Hebrew that can be comfortably situated in the Second Temple period.23 The Tiberian reading tradition *crystallised* in the Second Temple Period. However, except where it records the pronunciation of material actually composed in the Persian Period or later, it did not *originate* in the Second Temple period.

Second, it is worth discussing in the present context an observation made by Ben-Hayyim regarding the Samaritan tradition. Though Samaritan *lišmar* resembles the respective prefix tense *yišmar*, Ben-Hayyim (2000, 208) opines, on the basis of forms like למעל *alˈmal* 'to trespass' (SP Num. 5.6) as opposed to *yiqtol* תמעל *teˈmal*, that the prefix vowel of *lišmar* reflects the

23 This is especially conspicuous when one contrasts Tiberian BH with material actually composed (as against that merely copied) in the late Second Temple period, especially that which is more representative of the vernacular, e.g., some material from the Judaean Desert and from rabbinic literature. It is worth noting that alternative biblical traditions, such as those represented by the Samaritan Pentateuch and biblical DSS material, also present a form of Hebrew somewhat out of line with authentic, especially colloquial, Second Temple Hebrew usage, in that they, too, regularly preserve usages no longer typical of contemporary Hebrew. Significantly, however, in comparison to Tiberian BH, both show greater incidence of linguistic contemporisation.

theme vowel in the RH forms ש ב ל ִל and ן יש ִל is interpreted here as reflecting an *a*-vowel similar to that represented by *patah* in standard Tiberian vocalisation; K's vocalisation tradition does not consistently differentiate between *qameṣ* and *patah*. See also n. 16, above.

*shewa* of the preposition rather than the vowel of the *yiqtol* prefix. By contrast, Ben-Hayyim accepts the standard view that the *i*vowel of the Tiberian infinitive developed via analogy to *yiqtol*.

Yet, as intimated above, there seems no reason to exclude the possibility that a realisation like Tiberian ר ב ש ִל] lišˈboːʀ] developed independently of the *yiqtol* form ר ב ש ִי] jišˈboːʀ]—via syncope of the first radical's vowel, resolution of the preposition's vowel to *i*, and maintenance of plosivisation of the following *bgdkpt* consonant—and that it was partially on account of the resulting similarity to *yiqtol* that other construct infinitival forms, especially those of the weak verbs cited above in Table 1, were patterned after *yiqtol* forms in RH. In other words, the process whereby RH weak-verb infinitives were remodelled on the basis of *yiqtol* was likely organic. As such, the partial RH-like development of BH infinitives need not be considered an artificial, abrupt, top-down phenomenon orchestrated by vocalisers unduly influenced by RH according to which *yiqtol* phonology was sweepingly and anachronistically applied to infinitives with prefixed -ל, but rather a natural, gradual, bottom-up process, according to which, first, *li-qǝtol* simplified to *liqtol*—which, in the case of *qal* II-*bgdkpt* forms, required plosive realisation of the second radical—and only subsequently, due to *liqtol*'s similarity to *yiqtol*, contributed to the repatterning of other *qal* infinitives, as in RH. Obviously, this would be mere speculation in the absence of further evidence. Thankfully, though, such evidence is available in consonantal material from the MT and other sources.

## **2.4. Consonantal Evidence for the Integration of** -ל **in the BH Infinitive Construct24**

In the evolution of the BH construct infinitive to its RH form there is a further noteworthy morphological and syntactic development: that the preposition -ל, originally only an optional component of the BH construct infinitive, became an integral to the RH infinitive. This is most readily seen in cases in which the infinitive is preceded by a preposition other than -ל. In RH, constructions of the type טול ק ִל ִמ, i.e., in which the infinitive with prefixed -ל is also preceded by another preposition, whether prefixed or written separately, are not just common, but the norm. Conversely, forms preceded by prepositions and no intervening -ל are rare in RH, limited chiefly to biblical citations. This shows that for RH users, the formerly prepositional -ל had become an essential part of the infinitive. In other words, the bare infinitive is a viable option in BH, whereas the -ל is virtually inseparable from the RH infinitive.

However, the dichotomy between BH and RH as just described is potentially misleading. First, though the bare infinitive construct is especially characteristic of BH when compared to RH, it must be stressed that throughout the entire biblical corpus forms with prefixed -ל are far more common than forms without. According to the Groves-Wheeler Morphological database, in L there are 6587 infinitives construct, of which 5977 (90.7%) follow some preposition: 4506 (68.4% of total; 75.4% of those with

24 The present section is a revised abridgement of Hornkohl (2018, 72– 79).

preposition) follow -ל ;only 610 (9.3%) consist of bare infinitives. Thus RH's extreme preference for infinitives with prefixed -ל represents no more than relative advancement in a trend in favour of the integration of -ל within the construct infinitive already well underway in BH. 25

Yet even this formulation is too general. Certain strata of BH more closely resemble RH than others. RH's regular retention of prefixed -ל following another preposition has already been mentioned. Such structures are rare in BH, where a decisive majority of the occurrences—ten of thirteen—occur in LBH (see examples 3 and 5, each contrasted with more classical parallels in examples 4 and 6, respectively).26

...הֲ ל ֹ אְבַּ עֲ בורְלַ ח ק רְו לַ הֲ פ ֹ ךְול רַ ג ל ְה א ָ רֶ ץְב ֹ אוְעֲ ב ד ִ יוְא לֶ ָ יך׃ (3) '…is it not to reconnoitre and spy out the land that his servants have come to you?' (MT 1 Chron. 19.3)

25 Conditioning factors extend beyond the purely morphological. For example, the absence of certain forms from RH, such as temporal clauses employing *biqtol* and *kiq̣ tol*, is at least partially conditioned by genre and by the availability of alternative syntagms, e.g., those employing the gerundive verbal nouns known as *šemot peʿula*. As such, the undifferentiated nature of the foregoing statistics must be acknowledged. Further study of conditioning factors remains a desideratum.

26 See also MT 1 Kgs 18.29; 2 Kgs 23.10; Hab. 3.14; Ezra 10.14; 1 Chron. 5.9; 28.20; 2 Chron. 24.10; 26.8, 16; 29.28; 31.1. Most of the relevant cases involve examples of the expression ל ט ק ִלְד ַע, on the characteristic lateness of which see Hurvitz (2014, 196–98).

Cf. the more classically formulated near-parallel without -ל after in בַ עֲ בור

Cf. the more classically formulated near-parallel without ד ַע before the infinitive construct in

בַ י מִ יםְה ה ָ םְח ל ֹ הְחִ ז קִ י ִהוְל מֶ ות... (6) 'in those days Hezekiah became ill to the point of death…' (MT 2 Kgs 20.1 || MT Isa. 38.1)

The late character of such structures is further confirmed by the fact that in DSS biblical material -ל is sometimes inserted between another preposition and the infinitive when -ל is lacking in the parallel Masoretic version (examples 7–8).27

27 See also 4Q109 f1ii+3–6i.18–19 || MT Qoh. 7.5.

'and I will take away my wool and my linen from covering/to cover your nakedness'

Similarly, in non-biblical DSS material -ל can intervene between a preposition and an infinitive (examples 9–10):

]--ְ [ועדְלכלה ועדְלמעול (9) 'to the point of extinction, to the point of rebellion' (4Q378 f3i.7)

] [מְ̇התערבְבדבריםְהאְ̇להְומְ̇לבוא עְ̇] [לגְ̇בְאלהְ̇ (10) ' ] from being party to these matters or going along w[ ] in these things' (4Q397 f14–21.8)

Finally, the inscriptional and biblical distribution of construct infinitives in the function of verbal complements is instructive. Pre-exilic epigraphy and biblical material know in this function both the bare infinitive and the infinitive prefixed with -ל. A conveniently apposite illustration of mixed usage is the is the two-line sequence from the Lachish Letters in which the two alternatives appear in consecutive lines (examples 11–12).

28 On the formulation of negative oaths see JM §165, especially subsections d, f and g.

For the situation in Masoretic BH consider Table 2. Forms with -ל are dominant throughout the Hebrew Bible, except in some poetic material (e.g., Isaiah and Job). Significantly, however, in the core LBH books and Qohelet, the bare infinitive construct as verbal complement has fallen into disuse. See Table 2 for the biblical distribution (according to L) of construct infinitives with and without -ל.

29 These statistics reflect the approach of Malessa (2006, 150–66), with slight modifications, as detailed in Hornkohl (2018, 73–74, n. 24). See also JM (§124l, n. 9).

Table 3 compares the Tiberian biblical text to the Second Temple corpora of Biblical Aramaic, Ben Sira, the biblical and non-biblical DSS, and RH.

All material assuredly composed in the post-exilic period shows a striking preference for *liqtol* over *qǝtol* as verbal complement. Only the biblical DSS exhibit proportions comparable to those

known from Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH) sources, which is hardly surprising given the nature of the material. But even this similarity is somewhat deceptive. Substantiating the late replacement of bare infinitive verbal complements with forms bearing

30 For lists of occurrences see Hornkohl (2018, 75–76, nn. 25–28).

31 While the strong BA penchant for verbal complement infinitives with prefixed -ל tallies with Second Temple Hebrew practice, it should be noted that infinitives with prefixed prepositions, especially -ל, are the rule throughout all historical phases of Aramaic; see Fassberg (2007).

prefixed -ל, there are some eleven cases in which a Tiberian example without prefixed -ל is paralleled by a DSS case with -ל) examples 13–16) and no cases of the contrary:32

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\text{(15)} & & \text{(24)} & \text{(25)} & \text{(26)} & \text{(21)}\\ & & \text{(25)} & \text{(26)} & \text{(26)} & \text{(21)}\\ & & & \text{(20)} & \text{(21)} & \text{(21)}\\ \end{array}$$

'you will not be able to finish them off'

(12.2f 4Q1] (לְ̇ לשתו (16) (14.24 .Deut (ל אְתוכַ ל ְ ש א תוֹ

'you cannot carry it'

It is difficult to interpret the consistency of this direction of change as casual or insignificant. From the perspective of the relevant MT material, the biblical DSS copyists regularly succeeded

32 See also 1QIsaa 1.14–15 || MT Isa. 1.12; 1QIsaa 1.15 || MT Isa. 1.13; 1QIsaa 7.22–23 || MT Isa. 8.4; 1QIsaa 22.13–14 || MT Isa. 28.12; 1QIsaa 24.16 || MT Isa. 30.9; 1QIsaa 39.31 || MT Isa. 47.11; 4Q111 3.6 || MT Lam. 1.14. On apparent exceptions see Hornkohl (2018, 78–79). Also worthy of consideration are MT absolute infinitives functioning as verbal complements that are paralleled in the DSS by construct infinitives with -ל: 1QIsaa 36.7 || MT Isa. 42.24; 1QIsaa 47.20 || MT Isa. 57.20.

in reproducing classical diction, but occasionally fell under the sway of contemporary language practises that, in respect of the phenomenon under investigation, led them to use *liqtol* rather than bare *qǝtol*.

#### **2.5. Summary of Case on** *Qal* **Construct Infinitive**

Against the claim that the Tiberian phonological realisation of BH *qal* II-*bgdkpt* construct infinitives is a rabbinic or later anachronism alien to older BH phonology, we have adduced phonological, morphological, and syntactic evidence to demonstrate the heretofore under-appreciated historical depth of the phonological distinction between infinitive construct forms prefixed with -ל, on the one hand, and bare infinitives and those prefixed with other prepositions, on the other. The multiplicity of traditions exhibiting similar instances of differentiation or apparent reflexes thereof (Babylonian, Samaritan, Secunda) points to a genuine Second Temple phenomenon inherited by each. Consonantal evidence from Second Temple and presumably earlier sources confirms both the diachronic character of the relevant difference between BH and RH as well as intermediate stages as witnessed in LBH and the DSS, including infinitival formations that combine BH and RH features, increased usage of infinitives prefixed with -ל following another preposition, and decreased employment of the bare infinitive as verbal complement. Of no less importance, the relative frequency of construct infinitives with -ל and the comparative rarity of bare infinitives throughout the biblical text, even in those works considered most representative of pre-exilic Hebrew, come as compelling evidence of the probable early annexation of -ל to the construct infinitive. Far from being a chronologically foreign intrusion into BH morphology, the integration of prefixed -ל within the infinitive is very much in line with morphological and syntactic trends evident in the classical stage of BH as witnessed in consonantal material. On the basis of the extant evidence, establishing a *terminus a quo* for syncope of the vowel of the first radical would seem to be out of the question. Even so, in the light of DSS infinitival forms that reflect syncope of the first radical's vowel without full remodelling on the basis of *yiqtol* as seen in RH, it is reasonable to hypothesise that the vocalic elision that permitted plosive realisation of the second radical in *qal* II-*bgdkpt* construct infinitives in the Tiberian tradition is not a result of reanalysis under the influence of RH, but an organic feature firmly rooted in earlier Hebrew. It is likely to have occurred first in the vernacular. Given the regularity of infinitives with prefixed -ל throughout BH (relative to the number of bare infinitives and those with other prefixed prepositions), the morphological and phonological shifts in question may well have occurred long before Second Temple Hebrew, with the expected assimilation of *nun* being avoided in literary registers, such as that preserved in the Hebrew Bible.

Though it is impossible to determine the full extent of the historical depth of phonological realisations like Tiberian ל פ נ ִל [linˈpoːl] and ר ב ש ִל,] liʃˈboːʀ] there is ample evidence to show that they are phonological reflexes of a relatively early morphological development with attendant syntactic ramifications. Given that both the Samaritan and Jewish reading traditions bear witness to the phenomenon and/or to reflexes thereof, and that scholarly consensus places that schism no later than the second century BCE, such a date serves as a logical *terminus ante quem* for the integration of -ל into the *qal* infinitive construct, though some scholars would place this earlier. Clearly, the feature was sufficiently established in pre-schism scriptural reading practices as to be inherited by both the Jewish and Samaritan traditions before they diverged. In light of the dominant use of infinitives with -ל throughout the biblical text (excepting archaic poetry), supported by epigraphic evidence, it is reasonable to propose a *terminus post quem* as far back as the heyday of CBH, i.e., the monarchic/First Temple period, though with the disuse of bare infinitives construct as verbal complements, it is perhaps most reasonable to place the univerbalisation of *liqtol* in the Persian period. This corroborates the conclusions of previous studies that emphasize the antiquity of the Tiberian reading tradition and its reliability as a linguistic witness of early Second and even First Temple Hebrew.

#### **3.0. THE 3MS SUFFIX FOR PLURALS AND SIMILAR**

Once we entertain the possibility of disparity between the written and reading traditions, it opens up the possibility of alternatives to certain conventional, but dissatisfying explanations.

One of the more counterintuitive orthographic conventions that beginning students face when learning to read Hebrew is the 3ms possessive suffix added to plural nouns and to some prepositions. Written יו-, as in סוסיו, the ending was evidently realised very early on as a diphthong along the lines of *-aw*, which, in turn, developed to, inter alia, Tiberian יו-ָ] -ɔːv] and Modern Israeli Hebrew [-av]. Though learners quickly equate the phonetic realisation with the spelling in question, the correspondence is decidedly anomalous from the perspective of Hebrew orthography, where, though vowel sounds are regularly left underspecified or entirely unmarked, consonants—such as the *yod* in יו- are usually pronounced.

The exceptions to this norm are the *matres lectionis*, namely medial and final *waw* and *yod* and final *heh* (and *ʾalef*), each of which came to be used to signal specific vowel sounds. The *mater yod* is associated with *i-* and *e*-class vowels. Its appearance with the *a*-class vowel that developed to Tiberian [ɔ] (*qameṣ*) calls for an explanation.

## **3.1. Competing Accounts: Grammatical versus Phonetic** *Yod*

Generally speaking, scholarly literature offers two competing explanations for the unexpected representation of *-aw* with יו-. According to one, the *yod* in יו- did not originally have phonetic value, but served as a *mater lectionis* of purely grammatical significance, introduced at some point for purposes of visually distinguishing the plural form of a possessed noun from its singular counterpart. On this view, only later, due to association with the realisation *-aw* in the 3ms suffix, did language users extend use of the spelling יו- to other words with a similar final diphthong or reflex thereof.33

33 It seems clear that יו- was indeed eventually taken as representative of the diphthong *-aw* (and its reflexes), since, beyond the 3ms suffix in

Andersen and Forbes (1986, 325) argue for a purely graphic genesis to the spelling יו-:

In the old orthography it was not possible to distinguish 'his son' from 'her son', both spelled בנה, unless aided by context. The new convention wrote בנו and בנה respectively. But this created a new problem. In the old orthography בנו was the regular spelling of *banaw*, 'his sons', but now this could be read as *banô*. Other forms of plural nouns had the *plene* spelling of the long vowel in *banim* or of the stem-terminal diphthongs in the suffixed forms, such as בניהם,' their sons'. The remedy again was obvious. Spell all plural nouns (masculine or of masculine type) with י whether it was pronounced or not. Hence the artificial בניו, *banaw*, 'his sons', in which the י is purely graphic.34

question, several words ending in *-aw* are spelled with final יו- in ancient sources, e.g., Tiberian BH יו דְ ח ַי] jaħˈdɔːv] 'together' (thrice in the MT *ketiv*, against 94 times ו ד ח ַי ;frequently in the DSS); עכשיו *ʿaxšav* 'now' (consistently in K; עכשו in 4Q225 f2ii.7); Tiberian BH יו ת ס] saˈθɔːv] 'winter/autumn, rainy season' (MT Song 2.11 *qere*; cf. *ketiv* סתו ;(Tiberian BH יו נ ע] ʕɔːˈnɔːv] 'humble' (MT *qere*; *ketiv* ענו ;non-biblical Dead Sea Scrolls); DSS שיו(י)ע' Esau' (cf. Tiberian BH ו ש ע] ʕeːˈsɔːv]) and תיו' hook' (cf. Tiberian BH ו ת] tɔːv]). In Modern Israeli Hebrew, the correlation of the spelling יו- and the pronunciation *-av* has led to, among other things, the convention of writing the letter names of *waw* and *tav* as ו"וי and ו"תי, respectively (orthographically differentiated from the homophonous lexemes וו *vav* 'hook and תו *tav* 'musical note, mark', respectively). 34 See also Orlinsky (1942–43, 288–89); Zevit (1980, 29–30); Pardee (1988, 279–80); Knauf (1990, 20); Freedman (1992, 9–10, no. 6); Golinets (forthcoming, 1–6).

According to an alternative hypothesis, the *yod* in question was phonetic. Some seek to reconcile יו- with *-aw*, 35 while others object that the two must reflect distinct pronunciation traditions. It is this latter possibility, that יו- and *-aw* reflect diverse phonetic realisations, that is examined below. If this is the case, then this is one more in a series of cases in which the dominant written form and its oral realisation in the Tiberian (and other) traditions are out of sync, i.e., represent a merger of discordant reading and written traditions.36

There is equivocal evidence for the argument that the *yod* in the 3ms suffix יו- began as a purely graphic morphological marker of plurality. First, a few other Hebrew suffixes appear at least synchronically—to have a non-phonetic *yod* with the purely grammatical function of marking plurality, namely, the 1cpl ending in Tiberian ינו סוס] suːˈseːnuː] 'our horses' versus the phonetically-identical 1cpl ending in Tiberian נו סוס] suːˈseːnuː] 'our horse' and the 2ms ending in Tiberian יך ֶֶסוס] suːˈsɛːχɔː] 'your (ms) horses' versus the homophonous Tiberian pausal ך ֶֶסוס [suːˈsɛːχɔː] 'your (ms) horse'.

Of course, seen from a diachronic perspective, this is a nonargument. Paradigmatically, in the relevant 3ms suffix one expects a *y* glide, or reflex thereof in the form of a vowel produced via diphthong contraction. Thus, 1cs י ַסוס *swsy* Tiberian [suːˈsaːy] 'my horses' and 2fs ך ִי ַסוס Tiberian [suːˈsaːyiχ] 'your horses' both

35 Blau (2010, 172); Zevit (1980, 29–30).

36 GKC (§91i and n. 1); Cross and Freedman (1952, 47, 54–55, 68–9); Sarfatti (1982, 65); Gogel (1998, 159–161, nn. 187–189); Barkay (2004, 53–54); JM (§94d and n. 7); Khan (2013a, 48).

preserve consonantal *yod* in a diphthong, while the *e/ɛ* vowels in the remaining forms are all attributable to contraction of the same *ay* diphthong. Leaving aside the 3ms suffix under discussion, then, a strong case can be made for an originally phonetic role for the *yod* in all suffixes for plurals and the relevant prepositions.

Second, the difference between pre-exilic epigraphic orthography and biblical orthography (as represented to varying degrees in all biblical manuscript traditions) indicates that the earliest biblical compositions must have undergone a spelling revision according to which *matres lectionis* were frequently, but somewhat inconsistently, inserted word-medially in line with post-exilic conventions in order to facilitate reading. On the assumption that יו- is secondary to ו-, the revision in question would provide a historical scenario in which a grammatical *mater yod*  could have been inserted. The notion of the regular insertion of a morphological *mater* would, however, be exceptional against the backdrop of the broader goal of phonetic transparency as well as the inconsistent use of phonetic *matres*.

While the situation of orthographic revision arguably furnishes a convenient historical context in which the purely graphic change 3ms ו- *-aw* > יו- could take place, recognition of numerous categories involving phonetic dissonance between the Tiberian written (consonantal) and reading (vocalic) traditions demonstrates the potential reality of diverse phonetic realities behind 3ms ו- and יו-. Consistent mismatch between the written and reading components of the Tiberian Masoretic tradition is an acknowledged phenomenon in the case of a number of features, most famously the 2ms *qatal* verbal ending ת- and the 2ms pronominal suffix ך- versus their respective Tiberian realisations ְ ת- [-tɔː] and ך-] -χɔː]. Though common in the MT, these are decidedly exceptional from the perspective of Tiberian (and other Hebrew) orthographical conventions, where final vowels are otherwise generally represented by a *mater*. For instance, in the vast majority of categories in which a word-final *a*-class vowel appears in manuscripts of the Masoretic tradition, it is accompanied by a *mater heh*. The lack of this *heh* in 2ms forms is glaringly exceptional. Variation in the realisation of the 2ms ת- and ך- endings is apparent in certain Tiberian pausal forms, e.g., ך ל] lɔːχ] for contextual ך ל] laˈχɔː]. This is found also in other traditions of Hebrew and Semitic languages more generally, where one finds both consonant-final realisations of these pronominal suffixes (Iron Age inscriptions, MT *ketiv*, DSS, RH, Aramaic/Syriac, Secunda) and also vowel-final realisations (Iron Age inscriptions [verbal ending only], MT *qere*, DSS).37 Given the reality of mismatch between the Tiberian written and reading traditions, as

37 For inclusion of the variant 3ms endings among written-reading mismatches, see Khan (2013a, 48). Just a few of the many other notable dissonances involve the 2/3fpl verbal ending ְ ן-] -nɔː]; the standard Tiberian spelling ירושלם versus the accepted realisation ם ַל רוש י [jaʀuːʃɔːˈlaːjim], the latter of which is better matched by the minority spelling with *yod* to mark the triphthong *-ayi-* ירושלים) only five occurrences in the MT: Jer. 26.18; Est. 2.6; 1 Chron. 3.5; 2 Chron. 25.1; 32.9), which also occurs in the DSS, RH, and Second Temple epigraphic and numismatic sources; the *qal* internal passive, forms of which are regularly understood/vocalised as *puʿʿal*, *hofʿal*, or *nifʿal* when possible; and

well as the more general variety within ancient Hebrew pronunciation traditions, one should at least consider the possibility that the majority consonantal orthography יו- actually reflects a phonetic realisation other than that which eventually developed to Tiberian [-ɔːv].38

Of greater probative value is epigraphic evidence. Crucially, both spellings are known from sources assigned to the Iron Age. In the pre-exilic inscriptional material from the Judahite city of Lachish (early sixth century BCE) there occurs the form אנשו 'his men' (Lachish 3.18). Further evidence is found in the prepositional אלו' to him' from the Meṣad Hašavyahu (Yavne Yam line 13) plea (late seventh century BCE). One might also consider the suffix of the apparently dual ירחו' its two months' (Gezer 1.1 [2x], 2, 6; late tenth/early ninth century BCE). The surest occurrence of יו- in Iron Age epigraphy is in the form פניו' his face' in one of the renditions of the Priestly Blessing from Num. 6.24–26 preserved in the Ketef Hinnom amulets (2.9; mid-seventh century BCE).39 Other potentially relevant evidence includes the apparent polyphthong terminating ומצריה' and from his enemies' (Khirbet

perhaps cases of apparent suppletion, e.g., forms of the verb ש ַג ִנ' approach' which are *nifʿal* in the *qatal* and participle, but pattern as *qal* in the *yiqtol*, imperative, and infinitive.

38 For useful discussion see Gogel (1998, 159–61 and nn. 187–89) and Barkay et al. (2004, 53–54).

39 The dating is according to Barkay et al. (2004, 41–55). The spelling יו- is an important element in arguments for later datation of the inscription; see, e.g., Berlejung (2008, 208–12); Golinets (forthcoming); but see below.

el-Qom 3.3; 750–700 BCE—this is the consensus reading, but it is uncertain; cf. Tiberian יו ר צּ ִמ] misʕ -sʕ ɔːˈʀɔːv] [Deut. 33.7; Jer. 46.10; Ps. 105.24]),40 and, possibly, אחיו' my brothers (?)' (Moussaieff 2.7–8, though this may well represent the singular 'my brother').41

Turning to later documentary data, the spelling ו- for expected יו- is not uncommon in Dead Sea biblical material and is even more widespread in the non-biblical scrolls. This likely indicates the persistence of various phonetic realisations, though there are alternative interpretations of the data.42

Finally, perhaps most significant as evidence for a graphic, grammatical, non-phonetic explanation for the development of יוas *-aw* is the fact that no pronunciation other than a diphthong or reflex thereof is preserved in any known Hebrew reading tradition. As already noted, the suffix came to be realised as [-ɔːv] in Tiberian Hebrew. Similarly, it is represented by *-αυ* (eleven

42 See Reymond (2014, 144–47, 159) on the relative frequency of spelling variation in the DSS, though it is to be noted that he considers the *yod* of יו- to be a grammatical *mater* and assumes that the 3ms ending on plurals and relevant prepositions was realised as *-o* <*-aw* whether spelled יו- or ו- ;see Qimron (1986, 33–34, 59; 2018, 270).

40 Lemaire (1977, 599, 601); Zevit (1984, 43); Hadley (1987, 54–55); Gogel (1998, 159–60, n. 188).

41 The authenticity of this inscription has been called into question; see Rollston (2003; 2006).

times) in the Greek transcription in the Secunda of Origen's Hexapla43 and it contracted to [-o] in Samaritan Hebrew.44

While no extant Hebrew reading tradition evinces a pronunciation of 3ms יו- with a phonetic *yod*—conceivably, some sort of triphthong along the lines of *-ayu* or *-eyu*—the traditions may preserve indirect evidence indicative of such a realisation, as we shall see in what follows.

#### **3.2. Positive Arguments for Phonetic** *Yod* **in 3ms** יו-

The remainder of this article will consider affirmative arguments for an originally phonetic *yod* in the 3ms suffix יו-, in which case the relevant realisation—likely something akin to *-ayu* or *-eyu* differed from pre-Tiberian *-aw*. First, we return to the apparent Iron Age epigraphic evidence. It should be stressed that arguments against the pre-exilic dating of Ketef Hinnom's 3ms יו- in פניו' his face' (2.9) based on the supposed lateness of the orthography must be considered circular. If the inscription is reasonably dated on other grounds to the 7th century BCE, then the spelling יו- must be accorded as much weight as spellings without *yod*  from other Iron Age epigraphs. Further, since, as a rule, medial characters in Iron Age inscriptions serve as either consonants or vowel letters, but not grammatical *matres*, it is likely that יו- here has a realisation other than *-aw*. Of course, no certainty can be had on the exact nature of the sound in question. Crucially, though, this applies to the alternative epigraphic spelling 3ms ו-,

43 Brønno (1943, 200–1); Yuditsky (2017, 107).

44 Ben-Hayyim (2000, 229).

as well; while it *may* coincide with pre-Tiberian *-aw*, it may just as well reflect a different realisation.

Potentially illuminating in respect of the phonetic reality behind 3ms יו- is the rarer alternative יהו-ֵ *-ehu*, e.g., Tiberian [ðeːhuːˈjɔː [י ד יהו ,(2.4 .Nah' (warriors his] 'ʀeːhuːˈgibboː [גִ ב ר יהו 'his hands' (Hab. 3.10). It is commonly thought that this suffix, regularly employed only for singular III-*y* forms, preserves an early form of the ending that developed from \**-ayhu*. From יהו- \**-ayhu* development to יו- is relatively straightforward, the presumed realisation of the latter being *-ew* > Tiberian [-eːv]:

$$\text{"{-}e\text{"{-}e\text{"{-}e\text{"{-}e\text{"{-}e\text{"{-}e\text{"{-}e\text{"{-}e\text{"{-}e\text{"{-}e\text{"{-}e\text{"{-}e\text{"{-}e\text{"{-}e\text{"{-}e\text{"{-}e\text{"{-}e\text{"{-}e\text{"{-}e\text{"{-}e\text{"{-}e\text{"{-}e\text{"{-}e\text{"{-}e\text{"{-}e\text{"{-}e\text{"{-}e\text{"{-}e\text{"}e\text{"}e\text{"}{}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} $$
} }

This involves the routine phonetic developments of contraction of the diphthong *-ay-* to *-e-*, elision of intervocalic *h*, and resolution of the falling diphthong *-eu-* via *-ew-* to *-ev*. Cf. Tiberian ו ג [geːv] 'middle, back', ו ל ס ִכ] kisˈleːv] 'Kislev', ו ל ש] ʃɔːˈleːv] 'at peace'.

Significantly, the process above accounts for the rare spelling-pronunciation combination יהו-ֵ *-ehu* [-eːhuː], the minority spelling ו- *-w* as reflecting *\*-ew < \*-eu* (e.g., Lachish, Meṣad Hashavyahu [Yavne Yam], Gezer, and in the MT), and the dominant spelling יו-:

$$\text{"{-}e\text{\textquotedblleft}-e\text{\textquotedblright}\text{\textquotedblright}"}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblright}\text{\textquotedblright}\text{\textquotedblright}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblleft}\text{\textquotedblright}\text{\textquotedblright}\text{\textquotedbl$$

In the spelling יו- the *yod* would, according to this reconstruction, have originally represented the glide of the diphthong \**ay* and subsequently, after the contraction of the diphthong, become a *mater* for *e*. Indeed, if, for the sake of economy, it is assumed that epigraphic יו- and ו- should have represented the same realisation, from a purely phonetic perspective, it is more likely to have been *-ew < -eyu* than *-aw*. It is difficult to conceive of any single phonetic realisation underlying epigraphic יו-, epigraphic ו-, and pre-Tiberian *-aw*.

But as the dominant realisation in all extant reading traditions, *-aw* demands an explanation. The problem is, while it is possible to get from *\*-ayhu* to *-aw*, along the developmental path, there is no realisation in extant reading traditions for which the spelling יו- can reasonably be considered to be a phonetic representation.

The simplest way to account for *-aw* is to posit the development

$$\text{-}\vec{a}\mathbf{w} \le \text{ \*-}\vec{a}\vec{u} \le \text{ \*-}\vec{a}h\vec{u} \le \text{ \*-}\mathbf{a}yh\vec{u}.$$

Significantly, the first step involves contraction of *ay* to *a*, at which point a written *yod* became otiose, as in ן א] ʔɔːn] < ן ִי ַא [ˈʔajin] 'where'. The next steps are routine phonetic processes: intervocalic elision of *heh*, and, in Tiberian Hebrew, the shift [ɔː] < *a*. Crucially, since contraction of *-ay-* evidently preceded elision of *h*, it is difficult on this view to account satisfactorily for the dominant Masoretic spelling יו-. 45