Distributed Generative Masoretics V
TIBERIAN HEBREW EXTERNAL GEMINATION: THE SPECIAL CASE OF SEGOL Vincent DeCaen Draft 3 2021-04-08
1. Introduction1
1.1. Tiberian Hebrew (TH) EXTERNAL GEMINATION2 targets a final /CV/ syllable. Its vowel must be lax /ɛ, ɔ/ versus tense /e, o/. The syllable must be unstressed, whether lexically or as the result of STRESS RETRACTION.3 External gemination is rule-ordered after all stress-shifting and is transparent in this respect.
1.2. As a first approximation, this syllable must precede the main stress of the following word.4 There are important qualifications that will be made in their place. Regardless, the output of the transformation is a closed syllable /CV/ → /CVC/ in which the epenthetic coda consonant is copied
1 Acknowledgements … 2 Thus, Dresher (1994: §3.2.2, pp. 10f) as the neutral cover term. The generic term is deḥiq (Aramaic ‘compressed’) (Ofer 2013b, Khan 2020: §I.2.8.1.2., §I.3.1.9). There is confusion surrounding the nomenclature and relation to the term athe meraḥiq (Aramaic ‘coming from afar’) (Ofer 2013a, 2013b, Yeivin 1980: §403, p. 289, etc.). Elsewhere, it is also termed conjunctive dagesh (Yeivin 1980: 289-293; hence Revell 1988, 1989) and dagesh euphonicum (Gesenius 1910: §20.2, pp. 71ff). This Masoretic term ‘compression’ suggests the rule-ordering of vowel lengthening /ɛ/ → [ɛ:] followed by compression of the long vowel by gemination. Khan (2020) argues that the vowel is phonetically half-long [ɛˑ] (pp. 444, 448, 535f). From a generative perspective, a Duke of York treatment is to be avoided. Gemination should properly precede and thus bleed a much later surface lengthening. Vowel half-length is then a matter of phonetic implementation. 3 Technically, traditional nesigah (Hebrew ‘retreat’) involves specifically a conjunctive accent moving to an open penultimate syllable (Revell 2013, 1987: §1.12, p. 13). The term STRESS RETRACTION here (cf. TH RHYTHM RULE: Dresher 1994: §3.2.3) covers all types of retraction or even outright elimination of the main stress to resolve a stress clash (μ)μ́μ́ → (μ́)μμ́. 4 The TH WORD defined by the white space in the consonantal text. This corresponds specifically to the ORTHOGRAPHIC WORD in the taxonomy of senses of TH word in Dresher (2008).
1 from the initial consonant of the following word.5 This SANDHI GEMINATION bleeds the rule of SPIRANTIZATION.6
1.3. There are apparently non-phonological constraints on the application of TH external gemination. Indeed, in the case of final /ɔ/, there are additional morphological constraints (Group 2 (yes gemination) vs. Group 3 (no) in Revell 1989: §2, pp. 86f). For this reason, the special case of segol /ɛ/, with its smaller, more tractable dataset, is the focus of the present study. The intention is to set a baseline for the extended study of qametz /ɔ/.
1.4. The dataset of 313 tokens7 is provided as an Appendix.8 Sadly, there are significant gaps. This is the case, e.g., with all nouns with penultimate stress, whether spelled with final aleph9 or he.10 However, the demonstrative [ʔé:llɛ:]11 ‘these’ is well enough attested, and indeed, is key to understanding external gemination. There is no token in the Aramaic texts.
5 TH gemination fails with the gutturals /ʔ, h, ħ, ʕ/ in this context as expected. Revell (1988, 1989) conventionally adds /v/ as a fifth term in this list of exceptions. However, the conjunction /vɔ/ ‘and’ appears as pausal [vɔ:] before main word stress (Revell 2015: ch. 6 on the pausal conjunctive waw with qameṣ). For example, the construction is [qɔ:nɛ́: vɔ:sú:f] in Isa. 18:6, never [qɔ́:nɛv vasú:f] with schwa. In short, the environment for external gemination with /v/ is eliminated by pausal lengthening. Indeed, prosodic phrasing and pausal alternations must precede all other postlexical phonology. However, it is fully expected that /ʀ/ appear in the list of exceptional gutturals. Curiously, [ʀʀ] does occur in external gemination against expectation as explained below. It is characterized as an advanced uvular trill [ʀ̟ ʀ̟ ] by Khan (2020: 224, 521). 6 The non-emphatic stops [pʰ, tʰ, kʰ, b, d, g] become fricatives following a vowel within the same phonological phrase (Dresher 1994: §3.2.1, p. 10; see further Khan 2020: §I.3.1.10). 7 Revell (1989) cites the figure of 277 tokens with /ɛ/ with 17 exceptions = 6% (p. 86); 548 tokens with /ɔ/ in Group 2 (yes gemination) with 41 exceptions = 7% (p. 87); and 189 tokens with /ɔ/ in Group 3 (no gemination) with one exception = 1% (p. 87). Previously, he had cited respectively 11/242 (5%), 51/508 (10%), and 14/184 (8%) (1988: 96). 8 The database was created by grep and awk searches in the Westminster MORPH 4.20 edition of the Leningrad Codex and compared against Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Elliger et al. 1984) and Dotan’s exacting edition Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia (2001). The Jerusalem Crown (Breuer & Ofer 2000) was used as a proxy for the Aleppo Codex. The facsimile editions of Leningrad (Freedman 1998) and Aleppo (Goshen-Gottstein 1976) were directly consulted in problematic cases. I found two instances of missing gemination in BHS: Job 39:9 and Prov. 6:35. The latter instance is also missing in MORPH. On errors in BHS generally, see Khan (2020: I.3.1.14.). 9 The segolates in [ɛ́] (gɛ́:vɛ:, dɛ́:ʃɛ:, tˁɛ́:nɛ:, kʰɛ́:lɛ:, kʰɛ́:sɛ:, pʰɛ́:lɛ:, pʰɛ́:ʀɛ:) and the segolates in [ó] (gó:mɛ:, dó:vɛ:, só:vɛ). 10 The two segolates in [é] (né:ðɛ: and qé:sˁɛ:) and one in [ɛ́] (hɛ́:ʁɛ:). 11 The IPA transcription follows Khan (2020) throughout. The only departure permitted in the present study is that a TH accent is marked by an acute accent, and the secondary metheg (ga`ya) by a grave accent. The maqqeph or TH hyphen is represented by an em-dash, whereas a simple morpheme boundary by the regular en-dash.
2
1.5. This study considers in detail the phonological constraints: lax vowel (§2), unstressed syllable (§3), and following main word stress (§4). The analysis revolves around the fundamental concept of VIRTUAL DISJUNCTION as theorized by Price (2010).12 Augmented lexical entries for the particle [nɔ́:] ‘prithee’, etc. and the demonstrative pronoun [zɛ́:] ‘this’ set aside classes of exception. There is only one outright exception (not even a rounding error) to the TH law of external gemination (Ps. 54:8) that is not without great interest.
2. Condition: Lax Vowel
2.1. The feature [tense] is contrastive only for the TH mid vowels.13 There is a systematic TH contrast between the marked [-tense] /ɛ/ and [+tense] /e/, directly corresponding to the contrast between [-tense] /ɔ/ and [+tense] /o/. External gemination applies only in the case of the lax vowels /ɛ, ɔ/.14
2.2. The case of nouns is the most straightforward. Consider the contrast between (1) and (2). In (1), the morphologically FREE (ABSOLUTE) noun ending in lax /ɛ/ is phrased with an adjective. The main stress retreats to [miq] and external gemination is triggered [ʀ] → [ʀʀ].15 However, in (2) the BOUND (CONSTRUCT) noun ending in tense /e/ remains unaffected.
12 Revell (2015) explicitly rejects this theory of virtual disjunctive accents (n. 51, p. 41). However, his principal objections are answered by DeCaen & Dresher (2020). 13 DeCaen & Dresher (ms) … summary … 14 Yeivin (1980) lists one exception with long /o:/ in Ps. 17:10 (§408, 293): [ħɛlbɔ́:mos sɔ:ʁʀú:] chanted mereka athnach D1. Note that [sɔ:ʁʀú:] is non-pausal despite the major athnach. Consequently and perhaps not coincidentally, a major secondary stress falls on the heavy syllable [sɔ̀:ʁ]. It is not unlikely that an initial secondary stress may be sufficient in such cases. See Yeivin’s Ps. 17:10, 58:10 and Gen. 19:2 (the latter in /ɛ/ appears as (40) in §3.15.3.8) (§408). See further Revell (1989): Josh. 8:2, Ps. 31:20, 60:6 (§7.1), Lev. 19:14, 19:32, Ps. 30:4, 1 Chron. 4:10 (§7.2), Exod. 27:3 (§7.3), Exod. 15:11, Josh. 8:28 (§7.6). Yeivin also lists a handful of examples in long, high /i:/ and /u:/ (§408). It is not clear that his list is meant to be exhaustive. Indeed, there may not be a complete listing (Khan p.c.). Nevertheless, there appear to be generalizations.
• In the examples in long /i:/, two of the three involve the personal name [jɔ́:h] ‘LORD’ with initial /j/ in Ps. 118:5 and 118:18. These two tokens offer the only such environments before [jɔ́:h]. • Otherwise, gemination is generally associated with long /u:/ including Ps. 20:9. • Yeivin notes that gemination is “more commonly” associated with a following schwa. • The book of Psalms is disproportionately represented.
15 Or perhaps [rrˁ] conditioned by the coronal syllable onset [n]. The geminate rhotic also obtains in the noun-adjective pairing [mà:ʕanɛʀ‒ʀá:χ] in Prov. 15:1. Contrast [kɔl‒ʕó:se: ʀɔ́:ʕ] in Mal. 2:17.
3
16 17 (1) (kʰí: miqnɛʀ‒ʀá:v)2f (hɔ́:jɔ: ló:)1 ‘for he had much cattle’ (2 Chron. 26:10)18
(2) (và:jhi:‒ló: miqne:‒sˁó:n)2f (wumiqné: vɔ:qɔ́:ʀ)1 ‘For he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds’ (Gen. 26:14)
2.3. A similar contrast is observed among participles. In broad strokes, free forms such as those in (3) realize the progressive is doing (predicate) or doing (adjective).19 Crucially, external gemination takes place in (3a) [l] → [ll]. Bound forms such as those in (4)20 have the sense of doer (nomen agentis) or (he) who doeth (relative). Gemination must fail in this case (4a); spirantization applies instead [pʰ] → [f]. For a summary of the contrasting morphosyntax and semantics of the participle, see further Waltke & O’Connor (1990: §37).
(3) (a) ([ʔé:θ]2f [kʰɔl‒ʔaʃɛ́:ʀ lɔ:vɔ́:n])1f (ʕó:sɛl lɔ́χ)0 ‘all that Laban doeth unto thee’ (Gen. 31:12)
(b) ([vaɟɟihjú:]2f [ʕo:sí:m lɔ:hɛ́:m])1f (bavé:θ habbɔ:mó:θ)0 ‘which sacrificed for them in the houses of the high places’ (2 Kgs 17:32)
21 (4) (a) (ʔattʰɔ́: hɔ:ʔé:l)2f (ʕó:se: fɛ́:lɛ:)1 ‘Thou art the God that doest miracles’ (Ps. 77:15[14]; cf. Exod. 15:11)
(b) (gibbo:ʀí:m)1f (ʕo:sé: milħɔ:mɔ́:)0f ‘strong and apt for war’ (2 Kgs 24:16)
2.4. Notice that the musical diacritic assigned (if at all) makes no difference.22 In (5), the retracted accent is realized by the conjunctive accent munach before verse-final silluq D0. The identical
16 External gemination systematically fails with the 3MSG PAST of such verbal roots. 17 The numerical sigla of the accentual phrasing follows the convention employed by Cohen (1969) and Dresher (1994). The highest rank in this system is degree 0. The two TH accent systems run out at degree 3 (though structural recursion continues without principled limit). 18 The translation is the King James. Besides the beauty of its language, the translation cleaves closely to the Hebrew. 19 In the articulated IP account of DeCaen (1995, 2019) and Cowper & DeCaen (2017), the privative syntactic feature [PROGRESSIVE] or [INTERVAL] is spelled out by the free participle. In the absence of this syntactic feature, the perfective aspect is the default interpretation. 20 As it happens, the singular and the plural of the bound participles of concern in this study are homophonous, hence a source of orthographic confusion. 21 Whereas the disjunctive accent athnach has the value D0f in the prose accent system, somewhat confusingly it has the value D1 in the poetic accent system. 22 “It appears … that, when other conditions are the same, it makes no difference to the use of conjunctive dagesh whether the two words are joined by a conjunctive accent or by maqqef. Consequently the two situations are not distinguished” (Revell 1988: 96). The scenario without any diacritic is called ’athe me-raḥiq ‘coming from afar’. The conjunctive accent is further away on the second word before the main accent (Khan 2020: 444).
4 phrase in a less prominent context has been subjected to a musical transformation in (6), robbing the participle of its conjunctive accent. Typically, the auxiliary diacritic metheg (ga`ya) falls on the word stress as in (6), but when and where the diacritic appears generally is a complex function of TH TEXTSETTING.
(5) (vaʃo:mé:jaʕ tʰo:χá:ħaθ)1f (qó:nɛl lé:v)0 ‘but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding’ (Prov. 15:32)
(6) (qò:nɛl‒lé:v)2f (ʔo:hé:v nafʃó:)1 ‘He that getteth wisdom loveth his own soul’ (Prov. 19:8)
2.5. Finally, there is also an /ɛ/ ~ /e/ contrast among verb forms. The indicative verb form ending in lax /ɛ/ in (7) triggers external gemination [l] → [ll]. Contrast the modal form ending in tense /e/ in (8) which does not.
(7) (vana:ħalɔ: lo:‒jìhjɛl‒ló:)1f (baqɛ́:ʀɛv ʔɛ:ħɔ́:v)0f ‘Therefore shall they have no inheritance among their brethren’ (Deut. 18:2)
(8) (ʔal‒jìhje:‒lí:])1f (limħittʰɔ́:)0f ‘Be not a terror unto me’ (Jer. 17:17)
3. Condition: Unstressed Syllable
3.1. The candidate may be stressed lexically on the penultimate syllable. Sadly, the only such item attested is the demonstrative pronoun [ʔé:llɛ:] ‘these’. A simple example is presented in (9).
(9) (mɔ:‒ʔé:llɛl lɔ́:χ) ‘What meanest thou by these?’ (2 Sam. 16:2; cf. Ezek. 24:19, 37:18)
3.2. Elsewhere, an unstressed final /ɛ/ is the result of TH stress retraction. The application of stress retraction is a complicated matter (Revell 1987, 2015), giving rise to myriad minimal pairs. Regardless, when stress retraction does apply, external gemination is sure to follow. This intrinsic rule-ordering is fundamental.
3.3. One species of minimal pair is provided in (10) versus (11). In (10), the glaring stress clash in the string [zɛ́: lí:] is not resolved. But since demonstrative [zɛ́:] ‘this’ does retain word stress, external gemination must fail. However, in (11) the demonstrative has been deprived of word stress by stress retraction (n. 3) and external gemination must apply.
(10) (lɔ:mmɔz‒zɛ́: lí:)1f (baχo:ʀɔ́:)0 ‘what profit shall this birthright do to me?’ (Gen. 25:32)
On the confusion of the terms deḥiq and athe meraḥiq, see, e.g., Khan (2020: 444f), Ofer (2013a), and Yeivin (1980: 289f).
5
(11) (zɛl‒lí:)3f (ʕɛsrˁí:m ʃɔ:nɔ́:)2f ‘I have been twenty years’ (Gen. 31:41)
3.4. The opacity in (10) is the result of a TH MUSICAL TRANSFORMATION (Price 2010; cf. Dresher 1994: §6.3 SIMPLIFICATION). Briefly, under specific prosodic conditions, a disjunctive accent is transformed into the context-appropriate conjunctive accent. Thus, a string of two or more conjunctives is diagnostic of such a musical transformation. Nevertheless, the phrasal disjunction does persist. Price calls the transformed disjunctive accent a VIRTUAL DISJUNCTIVE ACCENT, hence VIRTUAL DISJUNCTION. The sandhi rule of stress retraction, e.g., is sensitive to virtual disjunction and virtual phrasing.
3.5. Examine the trees in (12) and (13).
(12) 3
zɛl‒ lí:
(13) 1
2 1
lɔ:mmɔz‒ zɛ́: lí:
In (12), the words are immediately phrased together, and stress retraction applies followed by external gemination. However, the structure in (13) is more complex. Here is a case of a virtual disjunctive: specifically, a virtual tevir D2f. Crucially, the demonstrative is not immediately phrased with the prepositional phrase. Consequently, retraction fails to apply as does gemination. (As it happens, external gemination does apply in the smaller phrase as expected: /lɔ́mmɔ zɛ́/ → [lɔ:mmɔz‒zɛ́:].)
3.6. A reasonable phonological interpretation of (13) is in terms of prosodic phrases in the PROSODIC HIERARCHY. As Dresher (1994: §3) cogently argues, in cannot be the case that phonological rules are determined by music as such. He notes that the phrases demarcated by the TH disjunctive accents23 are consistent crosslinguistically with the major PHONOLOGICAL PHRASE (φ).
3.7. On this view, the cantillation is tracking the TH prosodic structure and not vice versa. The cantillation is said to be LOGOGENIC: its rhythms are determined by the intonational contours of the spoken word. The opposite of logogenic is MELOGENIC. “Melogenic music may have lyrics, but the words are fitted to the music, rather than vice versa” (Jacobson 2017: 12f and §6.2).
3.8. To extend Dresher’s analysis, virtual disjunctive accents would then demarcate the lesser ACCENTUAL PHRASE (α) (Pierrehumbert & Beckman 1988). In short, the analysis of the phrasing in (13) is cashed out in phonological terms in (14).
23 Confusingly, he calls the phrases CONJUNCTIVE PHRASES (§3.2, p. 10).
6
(14) φ
α α
lɔ:mmɔz‒ zɛ́: lí:
3.9. It is a curious fact about TH phonology that such phrasing does nevertheless appear to be determined by specific tropes. The explanation must be that, since the various tropes and phrases are associated with different degrees of prosodic PROMINENCE, the phrasing is a function of grain or TEMPO (cf. Dresher 1994: §6.1). Regardless, minimal pairs abound. Take (15) - (17) as representative examples.
(15) (a) (ʔaʃɛʀ‒ʔé:llɛl ló:)1 ‘whose these are’ (Gen 38:25)
(b) (ʕɔ:só: ʔé:llɛ:)1f (lɔ́:χ)0f ‘procured these things unto thee’ (Jer 4:18)
(16) (a) (hú: jivnɛb‒bá:jiθ)1f (liʃmí:)0f ‘He shall build a house for my name’ (2 Sam. 7:13)
(b) (ʔim‒ʔaðo:nɔ́:j)3f (lo:‒jivnɛ́: vá:jiθ)2 ‘Except the LORD build the house’ (Ps. 127:1)
(17) (a) ([kí:]2f [ló: jìhjɛl‒ló:])1f (go:ʔé:l)0f ‘if the man have none to redeem it’ (Lev. 25:26)
(b) (lo:‒jihjɛ́: ló:)3f ([ʔí:ʃ jo:ʃé:v]3f [baθó:χ‒hɔ:ʕɔ́:m hazzɛ́:])2 ‘he shall not have a man to dwell among this people’ (Jer. 29:32)
3.10. In (a), the words are phrased together (right recursion). For example, the independent subject pronoun [hú:] ‘he’ in (16a) is clearly a separate constituent. In (b) in contrast, the words are phrased apart (left recursion). This is obvious in the case of (15b) with its disjunctive tiphcha D1f. For clarity, the respective underlying structures in (17) and diagrammed in (18). Stress retraction and thence external gemination must apply in the more prominent (18a) but must fail to apply in the less prominent (18b).
(18) (a) 1
2 1
ló: jìhjɛl‒ ló:
7
(b) 3
4 3
lo:‒ jihjɛ́: ló:
3.11. Decalogue
3.11.1. Such minimal pairs have a direct bearing on a major difficulty with external gemination in the Decalogue. The Commandments are virtually unique in being supplied with two distinct strings of accents, one on top of the other: the so-called upper and lower cantillations.24 Here we find the same phenomenon as in (13) - (18), but external gemination is unmarked.
3.11.2. The problematic phrases are supplied in (19) and (20). For some reason, Leningrad’s accentuation is sloppy in both Exod. and Deut. (Aleppo is not yet available). Accordingly, the correct forms are supplied in (19a) and (20a).25 The upper cantillation is given in (19b) and (20b), the lower cantillation in (19c) and (20c). The vertical bars indicate here and henceforth the virtual disjunction. As explained in §4, [laχɔ́:] with its schwa [a] is stressed on the first metrical syllable, hence this is an environment for external gemination.
ל ֽ֣ אֽ֣יהי ֽ֣ה־לךֽ֣ (a) (19)
(b) (ló: jihjɛ:‒laχɔ́: | ʔɛlo:hí:m ʔaħe:ʀí:m)3f (ʕal‒pʰɔ:ná:j)2 ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me’ (Exod. 20:3 || Deut. 5:7)
(c) ([lò:‒jihjɛ́: laχɔ́:]2f [ʔɛlo:hí:m ʔaħe:ʀí:m])1f (ʕal‒pʰɔ:nɔ́ :j)0
ל ֽ֣ אֽ֣תעש ֽ֣ ה ־ֽ֣לךֽ֣ (a) (20)
(b) (ló: θa:ʕasɛ:‒laχɔ́: | fɛ́:sɛl || vaχɔl‒tʰamu:nɔ́:)3 ‘Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image’ (Exod. 20:4 || Deut. 5:8)
(c) (lò:‒θa:ʕasɛ́: laχɔ́: | fɛ́:sɛl)2f (vaχɔl‒tʰamu:nɔ́:)1
24 Also in Gen. 35:22. Further, seven times there is an alternation between geresh D3f and great telisha D3 (Gen. 5:29, Lev. 10:4, 2 Kgs 17:13, Ezek. 48:10, Zeph. 2:15). Price notes that both geresh and telisha are “lawful” in this context (1990: 156). There is a trove in those psalms appearing with both poetic and prose cantillation. 2 Sam. 22 quotes Ps. 18; and 2 Chron. 6:41-42 quotes Ps. 132:8-10. The invaluable text in 1 Chron. 16 stitches together lines from various psalms: 1 Chron. 16:8-22 || Ps. 105:1-15; vv. 23-33 || Ps. 96:1b- 13; and vv. 34-36 || Ps. 106: 1, 47-48. Then too, there are the endless parallels between 1 Sam. – 2 Kgs and 1 & 2 Chron. Further, there are the common short phrases that are repeated in practically every musical guise. Such minimal pairs are exploited in this study. 25 Dotan in BHL differs slightly in trying to capture the text of Leningrad.
8
3.11.3. Driven by the double accentuation, there are four irreconcilable differences between the upper and lower phonology in the Decalogue, and in two cases the diacritics favour the upper cantillation. First, the reading should be the upper [-á:j] ‘my’ in (19b) instead of the major pausal [-ɔ́ :j] in the lower (19c).26 Second, the employment of maqqeph or TH hyphen tracks with the upper cantillation in (19b) and (20b). Because of the anomalous metheg, crucially not an accent per se (Khan 2020: 460), the maqqeph can easily be recovered in (19c) and (20c).27
3.11.4. The more relevant irreconcilable difference is exemplified by (21). Spirantization is bounded by the disjunctive phrase (phonological phrase φ §3.6). Consequently, the stop /t/ surfaces as [tʰ] in the upper (21b) but as the spirant [θ] when phrased together in lower (21c). The Masoretes .(spirant) in (21a) ֿת stop) and rafe) ּת cleverly solve the problem by employing both dagesh
לאּֽ֣ת ֽ֣ רצחֽ֣ (a) (21)
(b) (ló:)1f (tʰirsˁɔ́:ħ)0 ‘Thou shalt not kill’ (Exod. 20:13 || Deut. 5:17)
(c) (ló: θirsˁɔ́:ħ)1f
could have been utilized for the ל ֽ֣ך Perhaps, then, the same dagesh/rafe double-marking .3.11.5 irreconcilable presence versus absence of external gemination in (19b) and (20b). Cf. the similar use of rafe elsewhere to mark non-gemination (Khan 2020: 572-574). In the event, rafe is reserved here specifically for the spirantization [tʰ] → [θ] and [kʰ] → [χ]. Accordingly, the reader must supply the necessary gemination as [jihjɛl‒laχɔ́:]28and [θa:ʕasɛl‒laχɔ́:].29 This is in no way different from the recoverable presence versus absence of maqqeph.30
26 The argument runs as follows. Demarcation of the full and intermediate INTONATIONAL PHRASES is the first TH postlexical rule. Corresponding major and minor pausal forms (Goerwitz 1993) appear at the right edge of the intonational phrases. Crucially, the pausal phonology persists throughout the derivation regardless of accentuation. For example, [vaɟɟiʃħɔ́:tˁ] ‘and he killed it’ with major pausal [ɔ́:] persists through degrees of accentual recursion: Lev. 8:19 athnach D0f, Lev. 8:23 shalsheleth D1, Lev. 8:15 revia D2 (see treatment DeCaen & Dresher 2020: 356-359). Thus, an original major-pausal [-ɔ́:j] would persist regardless of the re-phrasing with revia D2 in (19b) just as in Lev. 8:15. Therefore, the pausal length is secondary. It has been imposed under the pressure of the verse-final silluq D0. 27 Leningrad does supply the missing maqqeph as a hypercorrection in Deut. 5:8. 28 Thus [jihjɛl‒laχɔ́:] in Exod. 4:16 and Deut. 29:12. 29 Thus [tʰa:ʕasɛl‒laχɔ́:] in Prov. 24:6; cf. [ja:ʕasɛl‒laχɔ́:] in 2 Sam. 7:11. 30 However, external gemination is then formally consistent with the lower cantillation as Revell notes (1989: n. 2, p. 86).
9
3.12. Scribal errors
3.12.1. As remarked in n. 8, there are two failures to mark external gemination in BHS: [‒ʃó:ħað] for [ʃ‒ʃó:ħað] in Prov. 6:35, and [‒ʀé:m] for [ʀ‒ʀé:m] in Job 39:9.
3.12.2. There are two obvious mistakes in the Leningrad Codex, both involving the verb form [jihjɛ́:] → [jíhjɛ:] by stress retraction.
3.12.2.1. The token [jíhjɛ:‒ʃɔ́:mmɔ:] ‘was whither’ (Ezek. 1:12) must be geminated [jíhjɛʃ‒ ʃɔ́:mmɔ:] instead. First, there is the minimal contrast on the very same accent azla a few verses below: [jíhjɛʃ‒ʃɔ́:m] (Ezek. 1:20). Second, the model Aleppo Codex has the additional dot for geminate [ʃʃ].
3.12.2.2. Such must also be the case in [jíhjɛ:‒qó:ðɛʃ] ‘shall be holy’ (Lev 27:33) as noted by Revell (1989: §5.1). There is also a minimal contrast [jíhjɛq‒qó:ðɛʃ] on the very same accent tiphcha one verse preceding (Lev 27:32; cf. 27:9, 27:10). When the missing portions of the Aleppo Codex reappear, there will assuredly be the additional dot for geminate [qq] here.
3.12.3. Revell (1989: §5.1) draws attention to another type of mistake in Leningrad in 1 Kgs 20:25. Here, the string in Leningrad is [θìmnɛ:‒laχɔ́:] ‘number thee’ with secondary metheg on [θìm] as if stress retraction had applied.
3.12.3.1. However, Aleppo has the correct form [θìmnɛ̀:‒laχɔ́:] with a rather emphatic metheg on both syllables. Furthermore, gemination does obtain with all fourteen cases of [laχɔ́:] elsewhere (Revell 1989: §5.1). Consequently, there is no exception here: main word stress has not retreated but falls on final [nɛ̀:] (Khan 2020: 515).
3.12.3.2. The first metheg represents METRICAL EPENTHESIS (Khan 2020: I.2.10). A vowel, especially a high vowel /i, u/ as in this case, is half-lengthened before a sequence of weak consonants in syllable contact, here specifically the sonorants [m.n]. In short, the first metheg indicates the half-long vowel [iˑ] and does not bear on word stress.
3.13. Virtual disjunction and ʔé:llɛ:
3.13.1. The subset of [ʔé:llɛ:] ‘these’ (Appendix) is the key to understanding TH stress retraction and external gemination. External gemination conspicuously fails 5/28 = 18%.
3.13.2. The emphatic collocation [ʔaná:ħnu: ʔé:llɛ:] ‘even us’ (Deut. 5:3) figures prominently in the parade example in (22) (Yeivin 1980: §404, p. 290). Crucially, this pronominal phrase constitutes an independent subject constituent. Further, there are two conjunctives azla mereka preceding tevir D2f. Therefore, there is a virtual geresh D3f as in (22b). Crucially, [ʔé:llɛ:] is not immediately phrased together with [fó:] ‘here’. Gemination cannot apply. Spirantization does apply [pʰó:] → [fó:].
10
(22) (a) ([kí: ʔittʰɔ́:nu:]2 [(ʔaná:ħnu: ʔé:llɛ: | fó:)2f (haɟɟó:m)])1f (kullɔ́:nu: ħaɟɟí:m)0 ‘but with us, even us, who are all of us alive this day’ (Deut. 5:3)
(b) 2′
3 2
ʔaná:ħnu: ʔé:llɛ: fó:
3.13.3. There is no difficulty extending the analysis of virtual disjunction to (23) and (24).
(23) (vàɟɟa:ħanú: ʔé:llɛ: | nó:χaħ ʔé:llɛ:)1f (ʃivʕá:θ jɔ:mí:m)0f ‘And they pitched one over against the other seven days’ (1 Kgs 20:29)
(24) ([vaθɔ:vó:nɔl lɔ́:χ | ʃte:‒ʔé:llɛ: | ʀɛ́:ʁaʕ])2f tevir ‘But these two things shall come to thee in a moment’ (Isa. 47:9)
3.13.3.1. Clearly, the prepositional phrase [nó:χaħ ʔé:llɛ:] ‘over against the other’ forms an independent constituent. There is no doubt where the virtual disjunction falls. Indeed, I understand the conjunctive double mereka to be a substitute for tevir D2f.31 Crucially, [ʔé:llɛ: nó:χaħ] are not immediately phrased together.
3.13.3.2. Similarly, the PAUSAL PHRASE (DeCaen 2004), marked by pausal [lɔ́:χ] ‘to thee’ at its right edge, indicates the main disjunction. (Notice that external gemination does apply within this pausal phrase). The independent constituent [ʃte:‒ʔé:llɛ:] ‘these two things’ is separated from [ʀɛ́:ʁaʕ] ‘in a moment’ by the ubiquitous virtual geresh D3f as in (25); cf. (22b).
(25) 2′
3 2
ʃte:‒ ʔé:llɛ: ʀɛ́:ʁaʕ
3.13.3.3. As a result, there is only one exception to the regular gemination of the uvular [ʀʀ] following /ɛ/ in Jer. 22:22 in (26). Stress retraction followed by external gemination are certainly expected here before athnach (Lev 4:20, 15:26, Num. 18:15, 18:18, etc.). Even so, this cannot be taken as an absolute exception, since rhotic gemination is a fluid feature of the Tiberian reading tradition (Khan 2020: 521-523).
(26) (kʰɔl‒ʀo:ʕá:jiχ)2f (tʰirˁʕɛ:‒ʀú:waħ)1 ‘The wind shall eat up all thy pastors’ (Jer. 22:22)
31 Cf. Price (2010: 113). I take the preceding conjunctive darga, the regular servant of tevir, as confirmation.
11
3.13.4. It is not out of place here to adduce the puzzling token in Prov. 23:31 in (27).
(27) (ʔal‒tʰé:ʀɛ: | já:jin)2f ‘Look not thou upon the wine’ (Prov. 23:31)
3.13.4.1. Here is an example of virtual legarmeh D3f (28), the poetic counterpart to prose virtual geresh D3f (22b, 25). As Revell (1988) notes, this is the only token in which the target is spelled with final aleph (p. 96) (but see Obad. 1:12 in the dataset).
(28) 2′
3 2
ʔal‒ tʰé:ʀɛ: já:jin
3.13.4.2. What is puzzling is that Aleppo does unexpectedly have external gemination in this verse (Yeivin 1980: §404, p. 290; Revell 1988: 96). The interpretation must be that Aleppo is a hypercorrection. Accordingly, it is not a coincidence that external gemination [ɟ‒ɟɔ́:jin] obtains elsewhere in Jer. 35:6 and Mic. 6:15.
3.14. Right recursion
3.14.1. Revell (1989: §5.2) highlights the exceptionality of the string [é:llɛ: ʃamó:θ] ‘and these are the names of’ in Gen. 46:8 and Exod. 6:16. Consider the minimal pair in (29). The right-recursive structure of (29b) is supplied in (30).
(29) (a) (veʔé:llɛ: | ʃamó:θ banè:‒jisrˁɔ:ʔél)2f ‘And these are the names of the children of Israel’ (Gen. 46:8)
(b) (veʔé:llɛ:)2 ([ʃamó:θ]2f [bané: jisrˁɔ:ʔél)1 ‘Now these are the names of the children of Israel’ (Exod. 1:1)
(30) 1′
2 1′
veʔé:llɛ: 2 1
ʃamó:θ bané: jisrˁɔ:ʔél
3.14.2. There can be no doubt that the underlying phrasing of (29a) must also be that in (30). Crucially, [é:llɛ: ʃamó:θ] are not immediately phrased together. The difference now is that the virtual disjunctive phrase is right-recursive. Let this be a warning that the underlying structure of virtual disjunction is inherently ambiguous.
12
3.14.3. Notice crucially that [banè:‒] with metheg and maqqeph in (29a)32 is the exact equivalent of [bané:] with conjunctive munach in (29b). Consequently, the token in (31) is also a right- recursive non-exception. Contrast [zɛb‒baní:] in 1 Kgs 3:23.
(31) (a) (veʔé:llɛ: banè:‒se:ʕí:ʀ)2f (hà:ħo:ʀí:)1 ‘These are the sons of Seir the Horite’ (Gen. 36:20)
(b) 2′
3 2
veʔé:llɛ: banè:‒ se:ʕí:ʀ
3.14.4. By the same reasoning, (32) is another exceptional structure. Crucially, [ʔé:llɛ: lò:] are not immediately phrased together. Compare the right-recursive contrast in (33).
(32) (a) (hà:ʕal‒ʔé:llɛ: lò:‒ʔɛfqó:ð)1f (nuʔu:m‒ʔaðo:nɔ́:j)0f ‘Shall I not visit for these things? saith the LORD’ (Jer 5:29, cf. 5:9, 9:8)
(b) 1′
2 1
hà:ʕal‒ ʔé:llɛ: lò:‒ ʔɛfqó:ð
(33) (a) ([liʔí:ʃ]2f [ʔaʃɛʀ‒ʔé:llɛl ló:])1f (ʔɔ:no:χí: hɔ:ʀɔ́:)0f ‘By the man, whose these are, am I with child’ (Gen 38:25)
(b) 1
2 1
ʔaʃɛʀ‒ ʔé:llɛl ló:
32 Actually, the presence or absence of metheg, e.g., Gen. 36:19, is variable. “The fact that some manuscripts do not always mark a gaʿya in a syllable that one would have expected to take the secondary stress does not necessarily imply that in the reading tradition the secondary stress was not pronounced. When the presence of a gaʿya on an open syllable has an effect on the distribution of the accents or of other gaʿyas, the effect is often sustained even when the gaʿya is not marked, the necessary condition being only that the open syllable could have been marked by a gaʿya (i.e. it is appropriate for secondary stress)” (Khan 2020: 463, emphasis added).
13
3.15 Exceptional Ultimate Stress
3.15.1. There are three instances of a stressed [ɛ́:] apparently triggering external gemination as well as four instances of a stressed [ɔ́:]. They fall into two classes. One class involves an augmented conjunctive accent in the poetic system of cantillation. The other class involves the clitic /nɔ/ ‘prithee, let me’, etc. following a lax vowel. Revell (1988) suggests that in these cases, the gemination reflects a “slightly different” reading tradition (p. 97; cf. 1989: 98).
3.15.2. Augmented accent
3.15.2.1. The lone example with /ɛ/ is given in (34). An accent surfaces on both [ó:] and [ɛ́:]. The analogous cases in /ɔ/ are added in (35). In both tokens in (35), an accent surfaces on both [í:] and [ɔ́:]. Crucially, all three tokens bear the AUGMENTED CONJUNCTIVE ACCENT mereka of the distinctive poetic system of cantillation. The conjunctive mereka before little revia D2f is augmented by mahpak in (34), whereas mereka is augmented by sinnorit twice in (35).
(34) (nó:ðɛ́:l laχɔ́:)2f (loʕo:lɔ́:m)1 ‘So we … will give thee thanks for ever’ (Ps. 79:13)
(35) ([ʔɔnnɔ́: ʔaðo:nɔ́:j]2f [ho:ʃí:ʕɔ́:n nɔ́:])1 ([ʔɔnnɔ́: ʔaðo:nɔ́:j]1f [hasˁlí:ħɔ́:n nɔ́:]))0 ‘Save now, I beseech thee, O LORD: O LORD, I beseech thee, send now prosperity’ (Ps. 118:25 bis)
3.15.2.2. It is grammatically impossible that the TH verb forms in (35) are stressed on the final syllables. Main word stress is always retained by underlying long vowels in these forms: here long /í:/ in both cases. These necessarily stressed syllables are bearing the sinnorit augment unexpectedly. The alignment of text to tune or TEXTSETTING of the poetic cantillation is overriding the metrical contour.
3.15.2.3. In other words, the poetic system is MELOGENIC at least in this respect (§3.7). Examine (36). The augment sinnorit ♪1 is paired with the conjunctive mereka ♪2. Mereka must be aligned with the edge of the word # regardless of the stressed syllable σ́.
(36) (a) σ σ́ # (b) σ́ σ # (c) σ́ # ↕ ↕ ↕ ♪1 ♪2 ♪1 ♪2 ♪3
3.15.2.4. The scheme in (36) sheds light on the exceptional behaviour of the conjunctive mereka generally. Mereka is known to be long as the name ‘prolonged’ suggests (Khan 2020: 454f). For example, in the poetic system, mereka requires two full syllables before silluq D0, else munach is substituted, presumably like ♪3 in (36c). Furthermore, mereka together with azla are associated with egregious violations of stress clash in the prose system, which might not be so surprising in light of (36b). Relatedly, both may also substitute for the maqqeph.
14
3.15.2.5. Regardless, there is thus no exception in (35) to the rule of external gemination (cf. Revell 1989: 96). The inputs are /ho:ʃí:ʕɔ nɔ́/ and /hasˁlí:ħɔ nɔ́/, and both meet the conditions of the rule application [ɔ# n] → [ɔn# n] regardless of textsetting. This analysis extends to (34). The main word stress has in fact retreated /no:ðɛ́/ → /nó:ðɛ/. Again, poetic textsetting aligns the main word stress with the augment mahpak. External gemination naturally follows → [nó:ðɛl laχɔ́:]. There is no exception here either. There is no second, slightly different reading tradition.
3.15.3. Particle nɔ́ :
3.15.3.1. In four instances (Gen. 50:5, Josh. 22:26, 2 Sam. 14:17, 2 Kgs 4:10), an unstressed /ɛ/ triggers gemination as expected in the following particle /nɔ́/ ‘I pray thee’, etc. → [nnɔ́:]. However, in two instances (Gen. 19:2, Judg. 6:39), gemination is triggered → [nnɔ́:] by a final tonic syllable. Another two such instances of exceptional gemination → [nnɔ́:] are also found following tonic /ɔ́/ (Gen. 19:20, 2 Sam. 17:1, Ps. 118), though gemination fails elsewhere (2 Kgs 4:22, Isa. 29:11, 29:12).
3.15.3.2. Since in all these cases a specific vocabulary item is implicated, the explanatory burden can be shifted into the lexicon. In generative perspective, there are simply two allomorphs /nɔ́/ and /nnɔ́/. However, this is to miss the great interest of the particle in its contexts.
3.15.3.3. Both exceptional tokens with stressed [ɛ́:] just happen to occur before an unaccented particle [ɛ́:n# nɔ:‒].33 Note that this does not entail that the particle is unstressed. Thus, the exceptional environment is easy enough to state: / __ nɔ:‒. Note that by rule, a vowel bearing an accent must be long to accommodate the musical contour [V́ V̀ ], hence [ɛ́:n#] in these cases.34
3.15.3.4. Consider the first exception in (37a). Compare the expected structure that is diagrammed in (37b). In the unmarked case, the particle is expected to bear the disjunctive accent geresh D3f as in (37b). The expected output is [ʔanassɛn‒nɔ́:] with stress retreating to the closed [nas]. However, stress retraction often fails on the conjunctive azla in this context; indeed, azla is often a substitute for maqqeph (recall §3.15.2.4). In other words, the proposal is that [ʔanassɛn‒nɔ́:] and [ʔanassɛ́n nɔ́:] with ‘long’ azla are phonologically identical (§3.15.2.4). In any case, a musical transformation has applied, demoting garshayim.
(37) (a) (ʔanassɛ́: nnɔ:‒ʀaq‒happá:ʕam)2f ‘let me prove, I pray thee, but this once’ (Judg. 6:39)
(b) 2′
3 2
ʔanassɛn‒ nɔ́: ʀaq‒ happá:ʕam
33 In passing, there is probably another instance of the unstressed particle in 2 Kgs 5:18 written [jislá:ħ nɔ:‒ʔaðo:nɔ́:j] but read (qere) [jislaħ‒ʔaðo:nɔ́:j] by harmonization. 34 A strictly phonological interpretation of this law might be in terms of PITCH ACCENTS.
15
3.15.3.5. In rare cases with such monosyllables, the output is not the context-appropriate conjunctive—here mahpak—as expected but the maqqeph or TH hyphen instead. In short, the conjunctive mahpak has skipped past [nnɔ́:], as it were, to [ʔanassɛ́:]. The monosyllable surfaces cliticized to the following word [ʀaq‒] ‘but’ in (37a) by transformation. This may be interpreted as the effect of tempo: say, allegro if not presto.
3.15.3.6. It is important to emphasize that though this transformation is admittedly odd, it is not unique to (37). Take another token in stressed /ɛ́/ in (38).
(38) (a) (kì:‒jihjɛ́: vò:‒voʕo:ʀó:)1f ‘in which, even in the skin thereof’ (Lev. 13:18)
(b) 1′
2′ 1
3 2 voʕo:ʀó:
kì:‒ jihjɛ́: vó:
The left-recursive structure in (38b) is unexceptional (cf. (13) and (16b) above). Again, a musical transformation has applied to (38b), the conjunctive mereka has skipped over to [jihjɛ́:], and again the monosyllable [vó:] is cliticized to the following word [voʕo:ʀó:] in (38a). Note that stress retraction and external gemination could not apply between the words [jihjɛ́: vó:] since they are not immediately phrased together.
3.15.3.7. The line in (39) is an additional case of unaccented /nɔ‒/, this time following /ɔ́/. To anticipate the larger study, the expected form is [qarɔ:‒nɔ́: zɛ́:], crucially without gemination. The 3MSG PAST TENSE of some verb classes systematically resists external gemination. This is because the lexical or underlying vowel is long /ɔ́:/, not short /ɔ́/. Conditions for gemination are not met.
(39) (qaʀɔ́: nɔ:‒zɛ́:)0f ‘Read this, I pray thee’ (Isa. 29:11, 29:12)
3.15.3.8. Consider, then, the second exception in (40a) versus the anticipated output in (40b). Again, the particle in (40b) is assigned geresh D3f. Furthermore, the pausal disjunction must be greater before the vocative [ʔaðo:ná:j] than otherwise (cf. Dresher 1994: §3.3).
(40) (a) (vaɟɟó:mɛʀ)3f (hinnɛ́: nnɔ:‒ʔaðo:ná:j)2 ‘And he said, Behold now, my lords’ (Gen 19:2)
16
(b) 2′
3 2
hinné: nɔ́: ʔaðo:ná:j
3.15.3.9. The difference between (37) and (40) is that the form [hinnɛ́:n] ‘behold’ is a true hapax. It must be emphasized that /hinné nɔ́/ always appears as the clashing [hinné: nɔ́:] elsewhere (Gen. 18:31, Judg. 19:9, 1 Kgs 20:31, 2 Kgs 6:1).35 Accordingly, [hinné: nɔ́:] appears in the expected output in (40b). However, since gemination has been secondarily imposed in this unique environment / __ nɔ:‒, tense [e] must lower to lax [ɛ] before geminate [nn].36
3.15.3.10. In other words, despite appearance it is the secondary gemination and not the lax vowel that is unique here.37 Moreover, there is no comparative data to determine whether the hapax of /é/ → [ɛ́:] in Gen. 19:2 is indeed an outright exception.
3.15.3.11. Accordingly, the two examples of tonic /ɔ́/ before /nɔ́/ are of great interest. These are furnished in (41) and (42). Both involve the lexically post-tonic /-ɔ/ of the cohortative, and so both are subject to stress-shifting, e.g., /ʔimmɔ:lé:tˁ - ɔ:/ → [ʔimmɔ̀:ltˁɔ́:].
(41) (ʔimmɔ:ltˁɔ́: nnɔ́:)3f (ʃɔ́:mmɔ:)2 ‘Oh, let me escape thither’ (Gen. 19:20)
(42) (ʔɛvħaʀɔ́: nnɔ́:)2 ([ʃne:m‒ʕɔ:sɔ́:rˁ ʔɛ́:lɛf]2f [ʔí:ʃ])1 ‘Let me now choose out twelve thousand men’ (2 Sam. 17:1)
3.15.3.12. Consequently, the expected output in (41) is [ʔimmɔ́:ltˁɔn nɔ́:] by stress retraction to heavy [mɔ́:l] and then followed by external gemination. Helpfully, this time geresh D3f actually surfaces on [nɔ́:]. Once again, the servant azla is implicated. The expected form in (42) is [ʔɛvħaʀɔn‒nɔ́:] with main stress retreating to closed [ʔɛv]. However, the string munach revia D2 may admit a stress clash. It is curious, then, that the application of stress retraction and external gemination is perfectly regular in the expected forms in (41) and (42) just as in (37). For that matter, Isa. 29:11 and 29:12 in (39) would be regular, too. It is almost as if there is the melogenic effect highlighted in double accentuation in §3.15.2.3.
35 In other cases, metheg is left unmarked: Gen. 12:11, 16:2, 19:8, 19:19, 19:20, 27:2, Judg. 13:3, 1 Sam. 9:6, 16:15, 2 Sam. 13:24, 14:21, 1 Kgs 22:13, 2 Kgs 2:16, 2:19, 4:9, 5:15, Job 13:18, 33:2, 40:15, 40:16. 36 Malone (1993) subsumes a variety of such [e] → [ɛ] rules under “midding” transformations. 37 It is not unlikely that there is general interference from the common string /-én + hɔ/ → [-ɛ́:nnɔ:] with the post-tonic 3FSG suffix /hɔ/. Compare the exceptional gemination [nn] in [tirˁɛ́:nnɔb bɔ́:h] ‘shall behold her’ (Micah 7:10, mp 1x dagesh nn) in similar circumstances.
17
3.15.3.13. But then, what then should be made of (43)? Here too is the post-tonic /-ɔ/ as in (41) and (42). The form expected is [ʃilħɔn‒nɔ́:] by stress retraction. Again, azla is standing duty for the maqqeph. Nevertheless, gemination fails in this case. Could this be a lapse?
(43) (ʃilħɔ́: nɔ́: | lí:)2f ‘Send me, I pray thee’ (2 Kgs 4:22)
4. Condition: Initial Word Stress and the Metrical Grid
4.1. Conventionally, the condition of a following main word stress is stated as a disjunction. The following word may have initial main stress or there may be an intervening schwa syllable and then main stress (Ofer 2013b, Revel 1988: 95f). As observed in §3.14.3, main word stress may be marked by metheg in the output of a musical transformation.
4.2. Alternatively, the condition may be stated simply as the main stress on the first full vowel (e.g., Revell 1989: 85). However, in the Tiberian reading tradition summarized in the magisterial Khan (2020), the concept of full vowel is problematic at the least.
4.2.1. However, as Khan (2020) constantly argues, TH phonology is obviously QUANTITY- SENSITIVE. The timing unit is the MORA, not the syllable. TH syllables may be light or heavy. The phenomenon of TH BREAKING (cf. Old English) thus has a ready explanation. The word /ʀú:ħ/ ‘wind, spirit’, e.g., surfaces as [ʀúaħ] → [ʀúwaħ] → [ʀú:waħ] with an epenthetic glide and secondary lengthening (Khan 2020: 289). The two underlying moras are realized here as two syllables.38
4.2.2. Khan correctly states the condition: in his terms, the main stress falls on the initial metrical foot (2020: 443). In the present analysis, the main stress falls on the initial metrical syllable. The schwa is treated here as EXTRAMETRICAL (DeCaen 2009).39
4.3. Accordingly, the analysis may be couched in terms of the METRICAL GRID. Examine the minimal pair in (44) – (45).
(44) x 2 x x 1 x x x x 0 (màχassɛp‒pʰɛ́:ʃaʕ)2f (mavaqqé:ʃ ʔa:havɔ́:)1 ‘He that covereth a transgression seeketh love’ (Prov. 17:9)
38 There is thus a systematic contrast between, e.g., bound /mizbéħ/ → [mizbá:ħ] ‘altar’ and free /mizbé:ħ/ → [mizbé:jaħ]. 39 The difference is that non-contrastive trimoraic syllables are not admitted by DeCaen (2009).
18
(45) x 2 x x 1 x x x x 0 ([ʕé:sˁ paʀí:]3f [ʕó:sɛp pʰaʀí:])2f (lami:nó:)1 ‘the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind’ (Gen 1:11; cf. 1:12)
4.3.1. In the typical scenario in (44), stress falls on word-initial [pʰɛ́:]. Consequently, stress retreats to [χas]. External gemination must follow. Note that the schwa syllable [mà]40 does not project an x (mora) onto gridline 0. The schwa is by definition extrametrical.
4.3.2. In the marked case in (45), there is the intervening schwa syllable [pʰa].41 The schwa is extrametrical and by definition fails to project an x onto gridline 0. As a consequence, stress retraction must apply μμ́μ́ → μ́μμ́. In terms of the projected metrical grids, then, (44) and (45) are identical as required. The stress condition is met in (45) and sandhi gemination applies [pʰ] → [ppʰ]. Note that [ʀí:] at the right edge of the phrase is heavy by position: FOOT BINARY is a highly ranked constraint.
4.3.4. The pausal alternations [lɔ́:χ] ~ [laχɔ́:] and [bɔ́:χ] ~ [baχɔ́:]42 provide minimal pairs in this respect. Compare (46) and (47). The schwa syllable [la] in (47) does not project onto gridline 0. Nevertheless, external gemination still applies [l] → [ll]. While [lɔ́:χ] is inherently heavy, phrase- final [χɔ́:] is heavy by position.
(46) x 2 x x 1 x x x x 0 (ʔɛ́:vɛn ʃale:mɔ́: | vɔ:sˁɛ́ðɛq)2f (jìhjɛl‒lɔ́:χ)1 ‘But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight’ (Deut. 25:15,4; cf. 25:15,9)
(47) x 2 x x 1 x x x x 0 (wuhú: | jìhjɛl‒laχɔ́:)2f (lè:lo:hí:m)1 ‘and that he may be unto thee a God’ (Deut. 29:12[13])
4.3.5. External gemination applies in the case of preposition plus noun in (48) but crucially not in the case of virtual disjunction in (49).43 Note the minimal pair in (49): the bound form [jo:m] ‘day of’ is tonic in both cases despite the maqqeph without metheg (n. 32).
40 The metheg here is simply a guide to textsetting and has no bearing on metrical stress (Khan 2020: I.2.9). 41 In the dataset, there are three other examples with schwa and gemination: [zɛʃ‒ʃamí:] (Exod. 3:15), [zɛb‒baní:] (1 Kgs 3:23), and [zɛʃ‒ʃamó:] (Jer. 23:6). 42 For example, [ló: θìhjɛb‒bɔ́:χ] (1 Sam. 24:13) vs. [ló: jìhjɛb‒baχɔ́:] (Deut. 15:4). 43 The schwa is realized as [i] before [j].
19
(48) (gam‒hú: | jìhjɛl‒laʕɔ́:m)1f ‘he also shall become a people’ (Gen. 48:19)
(49) (vaʔal‒tʰé:ʀɛ: | vijo:m‒ʔɔ:ħí:χɔ:)2f (bijó:m nɔχʀó:)1 ‘But thou shouldst not have looked on the day of thy brother in the day that he became a stranger’ (Obad. 12)
4.3.5.1. It is claimed that Gen. 48:19 in (48) is an exception with its clitic preposition [la#] ‘to, for’. Indeed, it is a hapax: the lone example of unstresssed /ɛ/ plus clitic preposition plus noun. External gemination cannot apply in the other candidate in (49). On the face of it, the claim seems to be contradicted by the ubiquitous gemination before [la#χɔ́:].
4.3.5.2. The argument is that external gemination with [+back] /ɔ/ is not observed before such clitic prepositions (Yeivin 1980: §405, p. 290; Gesenius 1910: §20f, p. 72). Revell counts thirteen such exceptions with /ɔ/ but does not list them (1989: §3.1, p. 87). Therefore, gemination cannot apply with [-back] /ɛ/ in this environment. The fallacy is obvious with the insertion of the feature [back].
4.3.5.3. Yeivin does note the curious disagreement between the authorities ben Naphtali and ben Asher on this point. Ben Naphtali omits the gemination in (48) (1980: §404, p. 290). But then a bone of contention between authorities cannot be taken as an outright exception to external gemination.
4.3.5.4. Nevertheless, there are another two cases with [la#] provided in (50) and (51). There is nothing at all exceptional about (50). Indeed, there is another case of gemination [dd] to sharpen the point. On the other hand, one might suggest that [ll] surfaces by hypercorrection for this very reason.
(50) (valá:jlɔl lalá:jlɔ:)1f (jaħavvɛd‒dɔ́:ʕaθ)0 ‘and night unto night sheweth knowledge’ (Ps. 19:3[2])
(51) (hiqʃí:jaħ bɔ:nɛ́:hɔl | lalo:‒lɔ́:h)1 ‘She is hardened against her young ones, as though they were not hers’ (Job 39:16)
4.3.5.5. The case of (51) is of great interest, since gemination crosses a virtual boundary against all expectation. The case recalls gemination in the string [llo: lo:] ‘not to him’ to distinguish homophones in Gen. 38:9 and Prov. 26:17 (Khan 2020: I.3.1.3, p. 524). That is why [llo: lo:] ‘not his’ in Hab. 2:6 in (52) has not been treated as an exception to external gemination (see notes to Hab. 2:6 in Appendix).
(52) (hó:j) (hammaʀbɛ́: llo:‒ló:) ‘Woe to him that increaseth that which is not his’ (Hab. 2:6)
4.3.5.6. A closer analogy is the avoidance of the string [#va#v] in favour of [b#ba#v], similarly [b#ba#f] and [k#ka#χ] (Yeivin 1980: §401, p. 288; Khan 2020: I.3.1.10 (iv), pp. 537f), and thus
20
[l#la#l] for [#la#l]. But in that case, (50) can be discounted as another such instance “for phonetic reasons” (Yeivin 1980: §405, p. 290).
4.3.5.7. Yeivin does offer two exceptions that are supplied in (53) and (54) (1980: §405, 290). The strings just happen to be identical with the clitic [ba#] ‘by, in’. Crucially, note the metheg [ɔ̀] in both cases.
(53) (vaʔattʰɔ́: ʔɔ:má:ʀtɔ:)2f (jaðaʕtʰí:χɔ̀: vaʃé:m)1 ‘Yet thou hast said, I know thee by name’ (Exod. 33:12)
(54) (ʔaní: ʔaðo:nɔ́:j)2f (qaʀɔ:θí:χɔ̀: vasˁɛ́:ðɛq)1f ‘I the LORD have called thee in righteousness’ (Isa. 42:6)
4.3.5.8. I do not believe that these two tokens are exceptions to the law of external gemination. Rather, these two lines are straightforward examples of the application of the ubiquitous TH RESYLLABIFICATION (cf. Khan 2020: I.2.5.6, pp. 347-350) that apparently supersedes external gemination in this environment. In other words, the appearance of the metheg here is decisive. The string of syllables is actually [tʰí: . χɔ̀(ˑ)v . ʃé:m] in (53), similarly [θí: . χɔ̀(ˑ)v . sˁɛ́:] in (54). Resyllabification with deletion of the schwa robs gemination of an environment to apply.
4.4. Exceptional zɛ́ : ‘this’
4.4.1. The quirky pronoun [zɛ́:] ‘this’ MSG (and [zo:] ‘this’ FSG) might justify its own study.
4.4.1.1. Just to begin with, [zɛ́:] is a RANGE 2 [CV:] clitic in the scheme of Anstey (2006). It participates in the complex dance of TH cliticization along with other [CV:] forms, e.g., [kʰo:] ‘thus’, [kʰi:] ‘that, for’, etc., [lo:] ‘not’, [lu:] ‘if, O that!’ [mɔ:] ‘what?’ Further, the demonstrative pronoun also belongs among those pronouns that figure prominently in the failure of stress retraction: [hu:] ‘he’, [hi:] ‘she’, [mi:] ‘who?’
4.4.1.2. Accordingly, there is nothing odd in (55) about [zɛ́:] bearing a virtual disjunctive accent (here virtual legarmeh D3f). Similarly, the egregious triple stress clash in (56) is predicted (recall (13) above).
(55) (a) (zɛ́: | ʕɛ́:sɛrˁ pɔʰʕɔ:mí:m)2f ‘These ten times’ (Job 19:3)
(b) 2′
3 2
zɛ́: ʕɛ́:sɛrˁ pɔʕɔ:mí:m
21
(56) (a) (kʰì:‒zɛ́: | hú:)0 ‘for this is he’ (1 Sam. 16:12)
(b) 0′
1 0
kʰì:- zɛ́: hú:
4.4.2. In the present context, the behaviour of the demonstrative poses two challenges. First, gemination appears twice even when the following syllable is pretonic. Second, gemination then apparently fails seven times before a pretonic syllable elsewhere.
4.4.2.1. The two glaring instances of gemination before a pretonic syllable are consistently highlighted (Gesenius 1910: §20f, p. 72; Yeivin 1980: §410, p.293; Revell 1989: §7.2, p. 95). The two are given in (57) and (58).
(57) ([(vaʁá:m)3 (zɔ:vá:θ ħɔ:lɔ́:v | wuðvá:ʃ)]2f [hí:])1f (vazɛp‒pʰiʀjɔ́:h)0 ‘and surely it floweth with milk and honey; and this is the fruit of it’ (Num. 13:27)
(58) ([zɛ́ : hú:]1 [(bé:θ)1f (ʔaðo:nɔ́:j hɔ:ʔɛlo:hí:m)])0f ([vazɛm‒mizbé:jaħ | loʕo:lɔ́:]1f [lijisrˁɔ:ʔé:l])0 ‘This is the house of the Lord God, and this is the altar of the burnt offering for Israel’ (1 Chron. 22:1)
4.4.2.2. The two exceptions occur in the syntactic phrase this is the X before the labial stops [pʰ] and [m]. The conditioning is not obvious, but there is the minimal pair in (58). A stress clash remains before the independent pronoun [hú:]. In any case, surface gemination can never apply to [h].
4.4.2.3. Gesenius (1910) and Yeivin (1980) identify the correct solution: the condition is the underlying LEXICAL REPRESENTATION. Both make the direct and obvious connection with the pronoun [mɔ́:] ‘what?’ (Gesenius 1910: §20d, p. 72, §37, p. 113; Yeivin 1980: §409, p. 293) which similarly triggers external gemination regardless of a following tonic syllable. As Khan (2020) notes, this interrogative pronoun often falls under the umbrella of external gemination (pp. 450, 535; Ofer 2013b). However, Revell sets aside this special case (1988: 96).
4.4.2.4. As DeCaen (1995) argues, there is a class of TH clitics /mɔX/ ‘what?’ /hɔX/ ‘the’, and /vɔX/ ‘and then’, in which the radically underspecified X is the geminating coda consonant (cf. Gesenius 1910: §37b, p. 113). In the special case of /vɔX/, /X/ ‘then’ is separated from the conjunction /vɔ/ ‘and’ as an independent complementizer (DeCaen 1995: §4.5.3, pp. 127-129, thus Cowper & DeCaen 2017 and DeCaen 2019).
4.4.2.5. In brief, the account extends naturally to /zɛX/ with opportunistic gemination. Consequently, the underlying representations are /zɛX piʀj-ɔ́h/ (57) and /zɛX mizbé:ħ/ (58).
22
4.4.2.6. It comes as a surprise, therefore, that there are apparently seven counterexamples to the tidy revised hypothesis. In all seven cases, a verb beginning with the consonant /j/ is involved. It might then be suggested that there is a constraint against the distinctive TH stop allophone /jj/ → [ɟɟ]. This is of course to miss that externally geminated [ɟɟ] obtains elsewhere (but recall §3.10.4). Then too, the formal syntax of the finite verb differs importantly from the minimal contrast in (58).
4.4.2.7. Review then the seven tokens provided in (59) and (60). Note that in (60b), the pronoun functions as the relative ‘whom’. Stress retraction has applied to the infinitive [lasa:ħé:q bó:] → [lasà:ħɛq‒bó:] with lowering of the vowel /e/ [é:] → [ɛ]. Two tokens of [pʰɛ:] ‘mouth’ are appended in (61).
(59) (a) (zɛ̀:‒jihjɛ́: | laχɔ́:)2f ‘This shall be thine’ (Num 18:9)
(b) (zɛ̀:‒jihjɛ́: | lɔ:χɛ́:m)1f ‘this shall be your’ (Num 34:6, 34:7, 34:9)
(c) (zɛ:‒jihjɛ́: | lɔ:χɛ́:m)1f ‘this shall be your’ (Josh. 15:4)
(60) (a) (zɛ:‒jɔ:ðá:ʕtʰi:)1f (kʰì:‒ʔɛlo:hí:m | lí:)0 ‘this I know; for God is for me’ (Ps. 56:10[9])
(b) (livjɔ:θɔ́:n)1f (zɛ̀:‒jɔ:sˁá:rˁtɔ: | lasà:ħɛq‒bó:)0 ‘there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein’ (Ps. 104:26)
(61) (pʰɛ̀:‒lɔ:hɛ́:m)2f (való: jaðabbaʀú:)1 ‘They have mouths, but they speak not’ (Ps. 115:5 = 135:16)
4.4.2.8. As a first approximation, the common denominator is the tonic [zɛ̀:] and [pʰɛ̀:] with secondary metheg. Therefore, these tokens do not strictly meet the stress condition for external gemination. However, Yeivin counts (59c) and (60a) as true exceptions since he incorrectly interprets these [zɛ:] tokens as unstressed and therefore meeting the conditions for external gemination (1980: §410, p. 293).
4.4.2.9. To clarify, the underlying prosodic phrasing of these structures would be that in (62). The words are subsequently merged by transformation (SIMPLIFICATION: Dresher 1994: §6.3).
(62) α
zɛ́: jihjɛ́:
4.4.2.10. Yeivin’s two exceptions are mistakes in Leningrad. Exceptional Ps. 56:10 in (60a) correctly has the metheg in the Aleppo Codex. Oddly, in Josh. 15:4 in (59c) Aleppo places the metheg instead on the syllable [jìh] of the verb: either a lapse or perhaps superseding [zɛ̀:] (or both). Sadly, the four tokens in (59a-b) are not currently available for Aleppo for comparison.
23
Regardless, (59c) is clearly a lapse in Leningrad in light of the absolute minimal pairing with (59b). The likely scenario is that the metheg was missing in both, and that Aleppo represents a hypercorrection.
4.4.2.11. In summary, in this context of marking the major metheg/ga`ya or not, it is worth quoting Khan (2020) at length to drive home the fact that (56c) and (57a) cannot count as exceptions.
In the early Masoretic codices, major gaʿya [metheg on open syllable] is not marked on all words that have a syllable structure suitable for it. Moreover, there are differences across the early manuscripts with regard to the frequency with which it is marked. This reflects the fact that the marking of major gaʿya was not standardized in the Tiberian tradition and it is rarely mentioned in the Masoretic treatises (p. 462).
Major gaʿya, as we have seen, often signals the occurrence of a secondary stress. The fact that some manuscripts do not always mark a gaʿya in a syllable that one would have expected to take the secondary stress does not necessarily imply that in the reading tradition the secondary stress was not pronounced. When the presence of a gaʿya on an open syllable has an effect on the distribution of the accents or of other gaʿyas, the effect is often sustained even when the gaʿya is not marked, the necessary condition being only that the open syllable could have been marked by a gaʿya (i.e. it is appropriate for secondary stress) (p. 463).
4.5. Ps. 54:8
4.5.1. The apparent exceptions have been whittled down to the arresting case of Ps. 54:8 in (63). The phrase is notable for the geminate sibilant (Revell 1989: §7.5, p. 97). The double musical transformation in the poetic system of accentuation is also remarkable but hardly exceptional. Since an athnach D1 precedes this string, there is necessarily a virtual revia mugrash D1f on the vocative [ʔaðo:nɔ́:j] ‘O LORD’.
(63) (ʔó:ðɛʃ ʃimχɔ́: | ʔaðo:nɔ́:j || kʰi:‒tˁó:v)0 ‘I will praise thy name, O LORD; for it is good’ (Ps. 54:8[6])
4.5.2. There are three interrelated oddities in (63).
4.5.2.1. First, stress retraction has unaccountably applied to /ʔo:ðɛ́/ ‘I will praise’ → /ʔó:ðɛ/. Second, external gemination has apparently followed in the wake of this unaccountable stress retraction [ʃ] → [ʃʃ].
4.5.2.2. Third and crucially, TH PAUSAL PHONOLOGY has come into play (Goerwitz 1993), and [ʃimχɔ́:] ‘your name’ is the wrong variant before the vocative [ʔaðo:nɔ́:j]. There is an INTONATIONAL PHRASE boundary before the vocative (Dresher 1994: §3.3, esp. 13). The pausal [ʃamɛ́:χɔ:] should surface instead. Curiously, the conspicuous exceptionality in (63) does not draw a marginal note in either Leningrad or Aleppo.
4.5.3. The key to the problem is to understand the pausal variation in terms of Tiberian diacritics: it is a matter of one dot. In (64a), the pausal form is stressed on lexical /ɛ́/ with three dots. However,
24 an accelerating syncopation of /ɛ́/ → Ø leaves two dots (schwa) in the non-pausal or so-called CONTEXTUAL form in (64b).
ש מֶ ךֶ [:a) pausal [ʃamɛ́:χɔ) (64)
ש מֶ ךֶ [:b) contextual [ʃimχɔ́)
4.5.4. The solution to the problem, then, is to realize that the expected pausal form [ʃamɛ́:χɔ:] in (64a, 65)—with the extra dot—is consistent with the observed interrelated oddities. The subscripted IP stands for intonational phrase. Crucially, the required pausal form is stressed on its first metrical syllable (the schwa [ʃa] is extrametrical). Therefore, stress retraction must apply. Therefore, external gemination must then apply.
(65) [ʔó:ðɛʃ ʃamɛ́:χɔ:]IP [ʔaðo:nɔ́:j]IP
4.5.5. The posited lapse runs in the right direction. It is far more likely that the roughly ten times more frequent contextual form should surface by accident. Furthermore, the book of Psalms for whatever reason is much less careful in its vocalization and accentuation than elsewhere.44
44 For example, in the present context, the book of Psalms figures disproportionately in the list of exceptional external gemination with /i:, u:/ (n. 14). An apparent confusion among pausal forms in Ps. 47:5 figures in the argumentation in Revell (2015). His running argument is that pausal forms on conjunctive accents are definitive proof of a divergence between vocalization and accentuation, which entails a divergence in exegetical traditions. This argument is partially refuted by DeCaen & Dresher (2020). The form [ʔɔ:hé:v] in Ps 47:5 is pausal (mp 9x, mm 3212) yet bearing the conjunctive munach (Revell 2015: n. 5, p. 4).
(ʔɛ́θ goʔó:n ja:ʕaqó:v | ʔaʃɛʀ‒ʔɔ:hé:v | sɛ́:lɔ:)0 ‘the excellency of Jacob whom he loved. Selah’ (Ps. 47:5[4])
Arguably, there is also an apparent failure of stress retraction. Note further the curiosity of the conjunctive mereka on [ʔɛ́θ] substituting for maqqeph (mp 3x). The actual tonic form of the object marker is [ʔé:θ]. Indeed, all four instances are pausal in the Psalms (11:7, 47:5, 78:68, 99:4), suggesting a harmonization. The contextual form [ʔɔ:há:v] obtains elsewhere (mp 4x, mm 1078). However, there is clearly a major virtual disjunctive boundary here by musical transformation (pace Revell 2015: n. 51, p. 41) before the incorporated [sɛ́:lɔ:] (a technical term that somehow guided the musical performance of the biblical poetry). The pausal form in Ps. 47:5 at the edge of a major intonational phrase at the end of a sentence is unexceptional. Crucially, there is no necessary divergence of exegetical traditions.
[ʔɛ́θ goʔó:n ja:ʕaqó:v ʔaʃɛʀ‒ʔɔ:hé:v]IP [sɛ́:lɔ:]IP
25
Alternatively, the Psalms have been less carefully corrected than other texts. The options are not mutually exclusive.
5. Summary
.[The vowel must be [-tense .(דחיק) A /CV#/ syllable is the target of TH external gemination .5.1 The syllable must be unstressed, whether lexically or through stress retraction. The syllable must be followed by main word stress on an initial metrical syllable.
5.2. Both stress retraction and external gemination are bound by the minor accentual phrase (α) in the TH prosodic hierarchy. This conditioning is often rendered OPAQUE by musical transformations.
5.3. Two lexical representations are modified. The enclitic /nɔ/ has the allomorph /nnɔ/. The lexical representation of the demonstrative pronoun [zɛ́:] is /zɛ́X/ where X is the radically underspecified coda consonant (cf. geminating /mɔ́X/ ‘what?’).
5.4. The following table sets out the major exceptional tokens. External gemination is “much more regular than is generally supposed” (Revell 1989: 87). The asterisk on (63) indicates the one outright exception to the rule of external gemination. The status of (40) is unclear in the absence of data.
SECTION TOKEN COMMENT 3.11.2 (19b) double accentuation of the Decalogue (20b) 3.12 errors in L 3.13.3.3 (26) free variation in rhotic gemination 3.13.4 (27) hypercorrection A 3.15.2 (34) augmented conjunctive in poetic system 3.15.3.8-10 (40) gemination in hapax 4.3.5. (48) bN and bA disagree 4.3.5.5 (52) disambiguating homophones [llo: lo:] 4.4.2.7-10 (59c) lapse metheg L, hypercorrection A 4.5 (63)* contextual form substituted for pausal
26
APPENDIX 313x + virtual disjunctive * exceptional and treated in study
FINITE VERB 225x: Gen. 2:18,9,+ 11:4,3,+ 11:4,9, 21:30,9,+ 22:8,4,+ 30:31,12, 35:3,4,+ 44:10,10,+ 44:17,12,+ 48:19,9,* 50:5,16, Exod. 4:16,8,+ 4:16,8,+ 4:16,12, 4:17,7, 10:14,21, 16:26,8, 20:3,2 (upper),+* 20:4,2 (upper),+* 20:24,3, 20:25,4, 21:9,6, 21:31,9, 21:34,8, 21:36,18, 28:7,4, 28:32,13, 29:41,10, 30:4,4, 33:5,24, 34:17,4, Lev. 4:20,8, 15:26,11, 17:7,13,+ 21:8,9, 22:21,20, 24:19,9, 25:26,4, 25:31,13, 25:48,4, 26:16,3, 27:9,13, 27:10,19, 27:32,11, 27:33,14,* Num. 15:13,3, 18:10,9, 18:15,11, 18:18,2, 22:6,15, 23:15,9, Deut. 1:22,18, 5:7,2 (upper),+* 5:8,2 (upper),+* 6:25,2, 8:13,6, 11:11,12, 12:30,19, 13:10,5,+ 15:4,4, 15:7,2,+ 15:17,13, 16:21,12, 17:7,3,+ 17:16,3,+ 17:17,2,+ 17:17,11, 18:2,3, 22:12,2, 22:12,9, 25:15,4, 25:15,9, 29:12,8, 29:18,11, 30:12,6,+ 31:19,14, 32:23,5, Josh. 2:19,21, 17:18,3, 22:26,2,+ 24:27,9,+ Judg. 1:1,11,+ 6:39,26, 11:37,4, 20:18,10,+ 21:17,6, Ruth 3:11,8, 1 Sam. 2:19,3,+ 20:4,8, 22:3,19,+ 23:17,16, 24:13,10, 24:14,10, 25:31,2, 28:11,5, 29:4,23,+ 2 Sam. 3:9,15, 3:35,14,+ 7:5,11,+ 7:11,18, 7:13,2, 7:14,2,+ 7:14,6,+ 7:27,13, 14:17,3, 15:2,12,+ 15:4,12,+ 15:14,12,+ 15:15,21, 15:26,8, 18:3,28,+ 19:14,8,+ 19:39,7, 19:39,16, 22:3,3, 24:12,16, 1 Kgs 2:9,11, 2:23,7,+ 5:8,9, 11:32,3, 13:8,19, 13:9,12, 14:9,7, 20:25,2,+* 2 Kgs 2:9,9, 4:2,5, 4:10,1, 6:2,10,+ 6:31,3,+ 16:15,41, 19:31,12, 1 Chron. 12:18,12,+ 17:4,11,+ 17:10,15,+ 17:12,2, 17:13,2,+ 17:13,6,+ 21:10,17, 21:22,9,+ 22:10,6,+ 28:6,15,+ 2 Chron. 1:12,19, 2:5,16,+ 2:11,23, 33:4,9, Neh. 6:13,6, Job 6:5,6, 8:11,1,+ 19:27,3, 34:7,4,+ 35:6,9, 35:16,3, 39:9,1 [ʀʀ]*, Ps. 6:6,7, 18:3,7, 19:3,7, 34:9,8, 54:8,4,* 63:7,6, 64:6,10, 66:15,3, 88:11,2, 89:49,5, 91:11,3, 94:7,3, 119:9,2, Prov. 6:35,9,* 11:21,4* [ʀʀ], 18:15,3, 23:5,8,+ 23:31,2,* 24:3,2, 24:6,3,+ 24:29,27, 26:4,6,+ 29:16,3, Eccl. 7:20,7, 8:12,13, Song 1:11,3, 7:1,6, Isa. 3:6,10, 3:11,7, 7:23,8, 9:6,23, 15:5,12, 27:5,8, 37:32,11, 56:2,3, 60:19,2,+ 60:20,10, Jer. 2:17,3, 4:21,3, 14:22,14, 16:20,1,+ 22:14,2, 22:22,3* [ʀ], 32:20,12, 35:6,3, 35:9,9, 36:30,10,+ 48:5,6, 48:32,3, Lam. 2:13,4, 2:13,9, Ezek. 1:12,8,+* 1:20,3, 16:63,5, 18:7,14, 35:14,9, 35:15,9, 45:8,2,+ Hos. 6:4,2, 6:4,6, 8:7,11, 10:1,5, 10:3,14, Amos 3:5,9, 4:12,3, 4:12,9, Obad. 1:12,2,* 1:15,10, Jon. 1:11,4, Mic. 6:15,13, Hag. 1:8,7,+ Zech. 1:16,9, 2:9,2. PARTICIPLE 25x: Gen. 1:11,11, 1:12,9, 31:12,20, Num. 11:15,4, 2 Chron. 2:3,3, Prov. 11:13,3, 12:23,3, 15:32,7, 17:9,1, 19:8,1, 20:1,6, 20:19,1, 25:20,1, 26:27,1, Isa. 9:14,7, 44:24,9, Jer. 4:19,7,+ 6:13,12, 8:10,19, 33:6,2, 33:9,29, 33:18,11, Ezek. 14:7,29, Amos 9:12,14, Hab. 2:18,8. NOUN/ADJECTIVE 9x: Gen. 43:15,6, 2 Chron. 26:10,8* [ʀʀ], Ps. 62:9,10,+ Prov. 15:1,1* [ʀʀ], Ezek. 17:8,2, 34:14,1, 34:14,12; [pʰɛ̀:‒]* Ps. 115:5,1 = 135:16,1. THESE ʔéllɛ 28x: Gen. 46:8,1*+, 6:16,1*+, 33:5,11, 38:25,10, 46:8,1,* Exod. 6:16,1,* Deut. 5:3,12,*+ 2 Sam. 16:2,6, 1 Kgs 20:29,2,+ Isa. 47:9,1* [ʀ],+ Ezek. 24:19,8, 37:18,11, [vanè:]* Gen. 36:19,1,* 36:20,1, 36:24,1, 36:25,1, 36:28,1, Num. 3:17,2, 26:35,1,* 26:37,11,* 26:41,1,* 26:42,1*, 1 Chron. 7:40,2,* 23:10,7,* 23:24,1,* [lò:]* Jer. 5:9,2,* 5:29,2, 9:8,2. THIS zɛ 22x: Gen. 31:41,1 [llí:], Exod. 3:12,5+ [llaχɔ́:], 3:15,22+ [ʃʃamí:], Num. 18:11,1 [llaχɔ́:], 1 Sam. 2:34,1+ [llaχɔ́:], 14:10,11 [llɔ́:nu:], 1 Kgs 3:23,5+ [bbaní:], 2 Kgs 8:5,29 [bbanɔ́:h], 19:29,1+ [llaχɔ́:], 20:9,3+ [llaχɔ́:], Isa. 37:30,1+ [llaχɔ́:], 38:7,1+ [llaχɔ́:], Jer. 23:6,7+ [ʃʃamó:]. Exceptional Num 13:27,14, 1 Chron. 22:1,8. [zɛ̀:]* Num. 18:9,1,+ 34:6,8,+ 34:7,1,+ 34:9,8,+ Josh. 15:4,11,+* Ps. 56:10,6,* 104:26,5.+ Tonic [ɛ́:]* 4x: Gen. 19:2,2 (mp 1x), Judg. 6:39,12 (mp 2x), Ps. 79:13,5, Hab. 2:6,12 (mp mm ,לא לו mm 3644: Gen. 19:2, 38:9, 1 Sam. 8:19, Hab. 1:6, 2:6, Prov. 26:17; and mp 5x ,ּלא 6x .(Deut. 32:5 לו לא Gen. 38:9, Hab. 1:6, 2:6, Prov. 26:17, Dan. 11:17 and :282
27
REFERENCES
Aleppo Codex (Goshen-Gottstein 1976) Leningrad Codex (Freedman 1998)
BHL Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia (Dotan 2001) BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Elliger et al. 1984) Jerusalem Crown (Breuer & Ofer 2000)
Anstey, Matthew. 2006. “The Grammatical-Lexical Cline in Tiberian Hebrew”. Journal of Semitic Studies 51.1: 59-84. Breuer, Mordechai, and Yosef Ofer, eds. 2000. Jerusalem Crown: The Bible of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Jerusalem: N. Ben-Zvi. Cohen, Miles. 1969. The System of Accentuation in the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Milco. Cowper, Elizabeth, and Vincent DeCaen. 2017. “Biblical Hebrew: A Formal Perspective on the Left Periphery”. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 38. DeCaen, Vincent. 2019. “Tiberian Hebrew Pause and the Past Tense: A Lexico-Semantic Contrast Revealed” or “Tiberian Hebrew Has (At Least Four Vowels and Why It Matters).” (SBL2019 San Diego).
28
Gesenius, Wilhelm. 1910. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. 2nd ed. Edited and enlarged by E. Kautzsch, revised by A. E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon. Goerwitz, Richard L. 1993. “Tiberian Hebrew Pausal Forms”. Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago. Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H., ed. 1976. The Aleppo Codex. Jerusalem: Magnes. Jacobson, Joshua R. 2017. Chanting the Hebrew Bible: The Complete Guide to the Art of Cantillation. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Khan, Geoffrey. 2020. The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew. 2 vols. Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures.
29