DENOMINAL Verbs

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS Volume 1 A–F

General Editor Geoffrey Khan

Associate Editors Shmuel Bolokzy Steven E. Fassberg Gary A. Rendsburg Aaron D. Rubin Ora R. Schwarzwald Tamar Zewi

Volume One

Introduction ...... vii List of Contributors ...... ix Transcription Tables ...... xiii Articles A-F ...... 1

Volume Two

Transcription Tables ...... vii Articles G-O ...... 1

Volume Three

Transcription Tables ...... vii Articles P-Z ...... 1

Volume Four

Transcription Tables ...... vii Index ...... 1

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 704 denominal verbs: modern hebrew can only be determined by the context of its from Medieval Hebrew) needs to be reexam- .åyan< in qal means ined in light of the criteria discussed above≠ ָﬠ ַין usage. The biblical verb ַו ְי ִ֥הי ָשׁ ֖אוּל ֵעוֹי֣ ן) ’to eye with hostility, hate‘ wa-yhì šå< ±ùl ≠òyèn ±Æμ-dåw< ì≈ ‘So Saul References ֶא ָת־דִּ ֑וד eyed David’ [1 Sam. 18.9]), while in Rabbinic Bacher, Wilhelm. 1896. Sepher haschoraschim: Wur- zelwörterbuch der hebräischen Sprache von Abul- iyyen in pi ≠el means ‘to walîd Merwân Ibn Ganâh< (R. Jona), Aus dem≠ עיין Hebrew the verb read carefully, peruse attentively’. The mean- Arabischen in’s Hebräische u˝ bersetzt von Jehuda ings of the two verbs are not motivated by the Ibn Tibbon. Berlin: Meqitze Nirdamim. verbal pattern, and could in fact just as well Barukhi, Nurit. 2000. “Pe≠alim gezure šem bi-lšon ha-Miqra: Be™anim lešoniyim—Be™inat ha-pe≠alim have been reversed. A denominal verb may še-nigzeru mi-šemot šel ±evre guf” (in Hebrew). thus denote any action at all that is associated MA thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. in any way with the noun from which it is Bolozky, Shmuel. 1978. “Word formation strategies derived. in the Hebrew verb system: Denominative verbs”. Afroasiatic Linguistics 5:1–26. Because of the unpredictable nature of the Dérenbourg, Joseph and Mayer Lambert (eds.). 1894. semantic connection between a denominal verb Version arabe des Proverbes, surnommés Livre de and its noun, the category called ‘privative’ la recherche de la sagesse de r. Saadia ben Iosef al- (opposite meanings) that has been attributed to Fayyoûmi (= Oeuvres complètes de R. Saadia ben Iosef al-Fayyoûmi, vol. 6). Paris: Leroux. pi ≠el when contrasted with verbs from the same GKC = Kautzsch, Emil (ed.). 1910. Gesenius’ Hebrew root in another binyan (see, for example, GKC grammar. Trans. by Arthur E. Cowley. Oxford: §52h) is in fact non-existent. Usually fewer than Clarendon. Kassovsky, Ofra. 1982. “Denominative verbs in ten examples of this kind are cited, not enough Israeli Hebrew” (in Hebrew). MA thesis, Bar-Ilan to establish a semantic category. Indeed, this University. semantic relation is merely a minor aspect of Mamam, Aharon. 2004. Comparative Semitic philol- the denominals, and does not depend at all ogy in the Middle-Ages: From Sa‘adiah Gaon to Ibn Barùn (10th–12th c.). Leiden / Boston: Brill. on the binyan, but derives directly from the ——. 2009. “Philology in Andalus, 950–1223: An semantic nature of this kind of verb. Take, for overview”. Iberia Judaica 1:85–117. hišriš ‘to strike Moreshet, Menahem. 1981. A lexicon of the new השריש example, the verb pair šereš ‘to uproot’, about which verbs in Tannaitic Hebrew. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan שירש root’ and University. it has been said that the pi ≠el form imposes the Schwarzwald (Rodrigue), Ora. 2000. “The root of negative meaning (of ‘uprooting’ in this case) the verb and the relation of noun to verb” (in on the root. In fact, nothing makes this binyan Hebrew). Raphael Nir jubilee book: Studies in more likely to possess a negative meaning than communication, linguistics and language teach- ing, ed. by Ora R. Schwarzwald, Shoshana Blum- any other; this speciﬁc meaning is just one of Kulka, and Elite Olshtain, 426–438. Jerusalem: many possibilities. Many different operations Carmel. can be performed with and on a plant’s roots, ——. 2009. “Three related analyses in Modern Hebrew morphology”. Egyptian, Semitic and gen- including planting and uprooting, and it is only eral grammar, ed. by Gideon Goldenberg and Ariel by pure chance that the negative meaning has Shisha-Halevy, 277–301. Jerusalem: The Israel become attached to the pi ≠el form. Academy of Sciences and Humanities. The declarative meaning we saw above is Wilensky, Michael and David Téné (eds.). 1964. Se er ha-Riqma le-Rabbi Yona Ibn Janà be- also only one of the semantic aspects of denom- ƒ ™ targumo ha-≠Ivri šel R. Yehuda ibn Tibbon. 2nd edition. Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew ְו ִה ְצ ִ ֙דּי ֙קוּ ֶא ַת־ה ַצּ ִ֔דּיק ְו ִהְר ִ ֖שׁיעוּ inalization. Thus in .wë-hißdìqù ±Æμ-haß-ßaddìq wë-hiršì ≠ù Language ֶא ָת־הָר ָ ֽשׁע ±Æμ-hår< åš< å< ≠ ‘they shall justify the just and con- Aharon Maman demn the wrong-doer’ (Deut. 25.1) the mean- (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem) ing is that the judges determine whether the accused is innocent or guilty, a meaning that does not depend on whether the denominal Denominal Verbs: Modern verb is in pi ≠el or in hif ≠il. Hebrew The list of denominal verbs in pre-modern Hebrew that Kassovsky compiled from dic- Denominal verbs are verbs which are derived tionaries and other sources (230 from Biblical from nouns or adjectives (henceforth: bases or siben סיבן < ’sabon ‘soap סבון Hebrew, 288 from Rabbinic Hebrew, and 248 base words), as in

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 denominal verbs: modern hebrew 705 tilfen ‘to 2. The distribution of stem טילפן < ’telefon ‘phone טלפון ,’to soap‘ ximem ‘to consonants חימם < ’am ‘hot≥ חם phone’, and heat’. Regardless of whether the base word is native or borrowed, all denominal verbs fit into Denominal verbs and their corresponding bases the binyan system ( Binyanim). have one of several types of structural relations, with respect to the distribution of the 1. The BINYAN of denominal stem consonants. The most common type is a verbs one-to-one correspondence (Table 2a), where each consonant in the verb corresponds to one The binyan (verb template) of denominal verbs consonant in the base. In the two other types is usually pi≠el, whose productivity has been the verb stem has one consonant more than the attributed to the relative simplicity of its mor- base word. In the reduplication type (2b), two pho-logical and morpho-phonological structure. identical consonants in the verb correspond to As shown in Table 1, pi≠el is the only Hebrew one consonant in the base, while in the inser- binyan which neither possesses a derivational tion type (Table 2c), a consonant in the verb prefix (morphological simplicity) nor exhibits (II-y/v) has no counterpart in the base. a different prosodic structure in the past and The preferred structural type is only par- future stems (Bat-El 1989; Schwarzwald 1996). tially predictable. When the base consists of All the other binyanim have an inflectional prefix more than four consonants, there is always a télegraf טלגרף .and/or exhibit prosodic alternation in the para- one-to-one correspondence (e.g tilgref ‘to telegraph’). When טלגרף < ’digm, as in qal, whose past form stem is CaCaC ‘telegraph gadal the base consists of three or four consonants, a גדל .while that of the future is -CCaC (e.g .yigdal ‘he will grow’). one-to-one correspondence is very likely (e.g יגדל he grew’ versus‘ -tirgel ‘to exer תרגל < ’targil ‘exercise תרגיל Although pi≠el is the most common binyan for hišpriß ‘to השפריץ < ’špriß ‘squirt שפריץ ,’denominal verbs, it is by no means the only one. cise In some cases hif ≠il is used, for morpho-syntactic squirt’), but there are also cases of reduplica- or phonological reasons (Bolozky 1978, 1999; tion, often due to the tendency to preserve the ša≤or ‘black’ > consonant cluster of the base (see §3). For this שחור Laks 2009). In the case of -faqs ‘facsim פקס hiš≤ir ‘to become black’, hif ≠il is used due reason, the verb derived from השחיר (fiqses ‘to send a fax’ (reduplication פקסס to its morpho-syntactic function in inchoative ile’ is ,(hifliq ‘to rather than *fiqes (one-to-one correspondence הפליק < ’fliq ‘slap פליק verbs, and in flir† ‘flirt’ is פלירט slap’, the binyan’s prosodic structure preserves and the verb derived from ,†flirte† ‘to flirt’ rather than *filre†, *flire פלירטט the base intact, thus enhancing the phonological similarity between the verb and the base word or *filer†. כידרר < ’kadur ‘ball כדור from which it is derived. A similar case is the use The derivation ,kidrer (*kider) ‘to dribble’, on the other hand חרפּ < ’rop ‘nap≥ חרופּ of qal in the derivation ≤arap ‘to take a nap’, although here it is the has been attributed to a semantic property of la≤rop, repetition, often associated with reduplication יחרופּ ,לחרופּ infinitive and future forms ya≤rop which preserve the phonological struc- (Ussishkin 1999, 2000). However, the role of ture of the base noun. This is one of the few cases semantics in determining the type of denom- in which qal is used for a denominal verb. inal verb is sporadic, allowing a posteriori

Table 1. Structural simplicity of the binyanim

Binyan Morphological Morpho-phonological Past Future (no preﬁx) (no prosodic alternation) qal + – (CaCaC yiCCaC) nif ≠al – – (niCCaC yiCaCeC) hif ≠il – + (hiCCiC yaCCiC) pi≠el + + (CiCeC yeCaCeC) hitpa≠el – + (hitCaCeC yitCaCeC)

Verb Base

’quantity‘ כמות to quantify’ kamut‘ כימת kimet ’button‘ כפתור to button’ kaftor‘ כפתר kifter ’torpedo‘ טורפדו to sabotage’ †orpédo‘ טרפד irped† ’transfer‘ טרנספר to transfer’ †ransfer‘ טרנספר rinsfer† b. Reduplication

Verb Base i. One consonant—CV(C)CiVCi ’hot‘ חם to heat’ ≤am‘ חימם imem≥ ’facsimile‘ פקס to send a fax’ faqs‘ פקסס ﬁqses ii. Two consonants—CiVCjCiVCj ’line‘ קו to draw a broken line’ qav‘ קווקו qivqev ’page‘ דף to turn pages’ daf‘ דפדף difdef c. Insertion

Verb Base i. y—CVyVC ’pocket‘ כיס to pickpocket’ kis‘ כייס kiyes ’label‘ תג to label’ tag‘ תייג tiyeg ’stamp‘ בול to stamp’ bul‘ בייל biyel ii. v—CVvVC ’wire‘ חוט to wire’ ≤ut‘ חיווט ivet≥ ’market‘ שוק to market’ šuq‘ שיווק šiveq

דפדף < ’daf ‘page דף .explanations in some cases, but not prediction continuous action (e.g (Bat-El 2006). difdef ‘to turn pages’), while reduplication of The greatest diversity is found with verbs one consonant (2b-i) is not associated with any derived from bases with two consonants. In particular meaning (i.e. it is the unmarked such cases, either reduplication (2b) or inser- case). tion (2c) is possible. Insertion is more common when the vowel in the base word is high, but 3. Theoretical analysis < ’šem ‘name שם .this is not always the case (e.g -šiyem ‘to name’). The inserted consonant There are two competing analyses of demo שיים is usually the glide y (2c-i), while the insertion minal verbs, Root&Binyan and Stem Modiﬁ- of v (2c-ii) is limited to certain verbs derived cation. According to both analyses segmental from bases with the vowel u. material from the base is mapped into a binyan, Reduplication (2b) seems to be the most the latter consisting of a prosodic structure and common strategy for deriving verbs from bi- a vocalic pattern. The two differ in that in Stem consonantal bases. Whether one or two con- Modiﬁcation the mapping is direct, while in the sonants are reduplicated has been attributed Root&Binyan analysis there is an intermediate to semantic properties (Ussishkin 1999, 2000). stage that gives rise to the consonantal root. Reduplication of two consonants (2b-ii) is According to the traditional Root&Binyan found mostly in verbs denoting repetitive or approach the derivation of denominal verbs

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 denominal verbs: modern hebrew 707 takes place in two stages: extraction and asso- Primary and secondary roots are semanti- ciation (Ornan 1983; Bat-El 1986). In the first cally different even when phonologically identi- stage, the consonants are extracted from the cal, since a secondary root carries the specific base, yielding a consonantal root. In the second meaning denoted by the base from which it is amud≠ עמוד stage, the extracted root is associated with a extracted. Consider the derivation -imed ‘to paginate’. The con≠ עימד < ’binyan, where the consonants are associated ‘page imed, extracted from≠ עימד with the prosodic elements (C-slots) in one-to- sonantal root of amud, is phonologically identical to that≠ עמוד .(one left-to-right fashion (McCarthy 1981 .amad ‘to stand’, viz., ≠md≠ עמד of the verb imed≠ עימד Table 3. Extraction and association: Semantically, however, the root of One-to-one type (2a) ‘to paginate’ bears a specific meaning related to עמד amud ‘page’, not found in the root of≠ עמוד Base: telefon ≠amad ‘to stand’. Moreover, it is impossible to define the meaning of imed ‘to paginate’ Extraction ≠ amud ‘page’, while≠ עמוד without reference to amad ‘to stand’ does not≠ עמד the meaning of imed ‘to≠ עימד Root: t l f n have any direct relevance to paginate’. Association tilfen Within the Stem Modification approach (Bat- El 1994, 1992, 2003), the base noun is mapped directly into a binyan, which imposes its own Binyan:CiCCeC prosodic structure and vocalic pattern. The binyan is represented in syllabic terms (McCarthy The extracted consonants are not the primary and Prince 1995), with independent specification root consonants of the base, as shown by deri- of the vocalic pattern (McCarthy 1981). All the vations like merkaz ‘center’ > mirkez binyanim in Hebrew are disyllabic, either at מרכז מרכז ‘to center’, where the initial m is a prefix in the ,(’hitra≤eß ‘ to shower התרחץ .the stem level (e.g qi oni קיצוני rikez ‘to collect’), and ריכז .base (cf hidbiq ‘to glue’), or הדביק .ß the word level (e.g hiq in ‘to radicalize’, where הקצין < ’extreme‘ .(’diber ‘to talk דיבר .ß both (e.g the final n is part of the suffix -on of the base The input to the derivation is the segmental (cf. qa e ‘edge’). Nor can borrowed nouns ß string (vowels and consonants) of a base noun קצה like transfer ‘transfer’ and télefon ‘phone’ be or adjective. The disyllabic structure of the considered to possess a consonantal root at all. binyan is associated with the input in an edge- Extraction must therefore refer to phonological in fashion (Yip 1998), i.e. one syllable at the units, i.e. consonants. However, once the con- right edge of the base and another at the left. sonants are extracted they become a morpho- Thus, when the base consists of three sylla- logical unit, a consonantal root, traditionally bles, its medial vowel remains unsyllabified and referred to as secondary root.

Table 4. Stem Modiﬁcation Prosodic structure: σσ

Syllabification (edge-in)

Base: telefon tilfen

Melodic overwriting

Vocalic pattern: i e

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 708 denominal verbs: modern hebrew consequently does not survive in the derived would require support from more than one verb. Once the prosodic structure is available, phenomenon in one language. the vowels of the base word are overwritten by The second phenomenon supporting a Stem the vocalic pattern of the binyan (McCarthy Modification analysis over Root&Binyan is and Prince 1990), and the denominal verb is vowel transfer (Bat-El 1994), which provides then derived. evidence for the effect of a base vowel in the Support for Stem Modification comes from selection of the form of the binyan. Specifically, two phenomena, both involving the transfer of denominal verbs derived from a monosyllabic phonological information that cannot be car- base with the vowel o may select the marginal קודד < ’qod ‘code קוד .ried by the extracted root. po≠el form of pi≠el (e.g otet± אותת < ’ot ‘sign± אות ,’The first is cluster transfer (Bolozky 1978, qoded ‘to codify orer ‘to make≥ חורר < ’or ‘hole≥ חור ,’Bat-El 1986, 1989, 1994; Schwarz- ‘to sign ;2002 ,1999 wald 2000, 2009), whereby adjacent conso- holes’). That this is not obligatory is shown by ’qod ‘code קוד nants in the base remain adjacent in the derived cases of free variation such as qided ‘to codify’, but קידד ~ qoded קודד < fikses פיקסס ’faks ‘facsimile פקס .verb (e.g flir†e† the crucial generalization is that po≠el can be < פלירטט ’flir† ‘flirt פלירט ,’to send a fax‘ ‘to flirt’). The root extraction process employed selected only when there is a vowel o in the by the Root&Binyan analysis cannot preserve base. As in cluster transfer, the information information regarding adjacency relations, and regarding the base vowel cannot be transferred thus cannot account for cluster transfer. by the extracted consonants, and thus only the In order to account for cluster transfer within Stem Modification analysis with its direct deri- the Root&Binyan approach, Bat-El (1989) and vation can account for this phenomenon. Bolozky (1999, 2002) postulate a level of representation above the root consonants, which 4. Conclusion allows holding more than one segment. This amounts to two levels of consonant slots, one Every Hebrew verb belongs to a binyan, which for the root consonants and another for what indicates not only its phonological structure but Bolozky (2002) calls ‘radicals’. also its inflectional paradigm (Aronoff 1994). That is, a verb cannot be inflected outside the Table 5. Extraction of clusters binyan system. As a binyan implies a particular Radical slots: C C C prosodic and segmental (vocalic) structure, a base must be structurally modified in its trans- formation into a verb. Two competing analyses of the derivation of denominal verbs were out- lined above, with emphasis on the advantage of the direct derivation of Stem Modification. C Root slots: C C CC References Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Bat-El, Outi. 1986. “Extraction in Modern Hebrew morphology”. MA thesis, University of California Los Angeles. ——. 1989. “Phonology and word structure in Mod- ern Hebrew”. PhD dissertation, University of Cali- Base: tilgref fornia Los Angeles. ——. 1994. “Stem modification and cluster transfer However, from a theoretical perspective there in Modern Hebrew”. Natural Language and Lin- guistic Theory 12:571–596. is no motivation for an additional layer of con- ——. 2002. “Semitic verb structure within a univer- sonant slots beyond this specific phenomenon sal perspective”. Shimron 2002:29–59. in Hebrew. Note that the representation of ——. 2003. “The fate of the consonantal root and words in a hierarchical structure is not unique the binyan in Optimality Theory”. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 32:31–60. to Hebrew but rather universal (Clements and ——. 2006. “Consonant copying and consonant Keyser 1983). A revision of the representation identity: The segmental and prosodic structure © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 denominative nouns 709 of Hebrew reduplication”. Linguistic Inquiry Denominative Nouns 37:179–210. Bolozky, Shmuel. 1978. “Word formation strategies in the Hebrew verb system: Denominative verbs”. In Biblical Hebrew many nouns are derived Afroasiatic Linguistics 5:111–136. < < råmå ָר ָמה ,.Measuring productivity in word forma- from verbal roots (deverbative), e.g .1999 .—— רו"ם mår< òm ‘height’ from ָמרוֹם ,’tion: The case of Israeli Hebrew. Leiden: Brill. ‘high place ——. 2002. “The ‘roots’ of denominative Hebrew r-w-m ‘to be high’. But in some cases nouns verbs”. Shimron 2002: 131–146. originate from other nouns or adjectives, e.g., Clements, George, and Samuel Keyser. 1983. CV margëlòμ ‘the place at the feet’ from the ַמְר ְגּלוֹת -phonology: A generative theory of syllable. Cam ’iwwår< òn ‘blindness≠ ִﬠָוּרוֹן ,’rÆ:gÆl ‘foot ֶר ֶגל bridge, MA: The MIT Press. noun iwwèr ‘blind’. Some≠ ִﬠֵוּר Laks, Lior. 2009. “Valence changing operations: from the adjective ִכּ ֵהן ,.Where does morpho-phonology interfere?” The verbs as well are derived from nouns, e.g Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the Student .’kòhèn ‘priest כֹּ ֵהן Organization of Linguistics in Europe, ConSOLE kihèn ‘to act as a priest’ from XVI. Paris: Université Paris Diderot. Online at Such nominal and verbal derivatives are called http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/console16-laks denominative. .pdf. McCarthy, John. 1981. “A prosodic theory of non- Early grammarians considered all nouns to be concatenative morphology”. Linguistic Inquiry deverbals (GKC 1910:225), but the existence of 12:373–418. denominatives and other types of nouns (primi- McCarthy, John, and Alan Prince. 1995. “Prosodic tive, etc.) indicate that a richer complexity morphology”. The handbook of phonological theory, ed. by John Goldsmith, 318–366. Cambridge, existed within the Biblical Hebrew nominal MA: Blackwell. system than was at first assumed (cf. Joüon and ——. 1990. “Foot and word in prosodic morphol- Muraoka 1991:237). The most common pat- ogy: The Arabic broken plural”. Natural Lan- terns in which denominative nouns occur are as guage and Linguistic Theory 8:209–283. Ornan, Uzzi. 1983. “Hebrew word formation— follows (GKC 1910:239–241): How?” (in Hebrew). Ben-Haiim Book, ed. by Moshe Bar-Asher, Aron Dotan, David Téné, and 1. Q ò†èl (with the same nominal pattern as Gad B.A. Sarfatti, 13–42. Jerusalem: Magnes. the Qal active participle) denoting a profes- Schwarzwald (Rodrigue), Ora. 1996. “Syllable structure, alternation, and verb complexity: Modern sional occupied with the object of the base ָבּ ָקר bòqèr ‘herder’ from בֹּ ֵקר ,.Hebrew verb patterns reexamined”. Israel Ori- noun, e.g ֶח ֶבל ò∫èl ‘sailor’ from™ חֹ ֵבל ,’ental Studies XVI: Studied in Modern Semitic båq< år< ‘cattle Languages, ed. by Shlomo Izre el and Shlomo Raz, ± ™Æ∫Æl ‘rope’ (Kedar-Kopfstein 1977:162). 95–112. Leiden: Brill. < ——. 2000. “Verbal roots and their links to nouns” 2. Qa ††ål, nouns indicating professions (nomina qaššå< μ ‘an archer’ from ַק ָשּׁת ,.in Hebrew). Raphael Nir Jubilee Book, ed. by Ora opificum), e.g) .’qÆšÆμ ‘bow ֶק ֶשׁת R. Schwarzwald, Shoshana Blum-Kulka, and Elite Olshtain, 426–438. Jerusalem: Karmel. m- indicating the מ- Three related analyses in Modern 3. Nouns with a prefixed“ .2009 .—— Hebrew morphology”. Egyptian, Semitic and gen- location or neighborhood of a thing (nomina ’ma≠yån< ‘spring, a place of springs ַמ ְﬠָין ,.eral grammar, ed. by Gideon Goldenberg and Ariel loci), e.g mëra±≥šòμ ‘at ְמַר ֲאשׁוֹת ,’ayin ‘fountain≠ ַﬠִין Shisha-Halevy, 277–301. Jerusalem: The Israel from Academy of Sciences and Humanities. .’r±òš ‘head ר ֹאשׁ Shimron, Joseph, ed. 2002. Language processing and the head of’ from -òn express- -וֹן ån< or- - ָ ן acquisition in languages of Semitic, root-based, 4. Nouns ending with morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ing abstract, diminutive, or adjectival ideas, ִﬠֵוּר iwwår< òn ‘blindness’ from≠ ִﬠָוּרוֹן ,.Ussishkin, Adam. 1999. “The inadequacy of the con- e.g sonantal root: Modern Hebrew denominal verbs ìšòn ‘little man’ (in the± ִאישׁוֹן ,’and output-output correspondence”. Phonology ≠iwwèr ‘blind ,’ìš ‘man± ִאישׁ eye) or ‘apple of the eye’ from .442–16:401 në™uštån< ‘brazen (serpent)’ from ְנ ֻח ְשׁ ָתּן The emergence of fixed prosody”. PhD“ .2000 .—— .n š ‘brass’, etc ְנ ֶחשׁת .dissertation, University of California Santa Clara Yip, Moira. 1998. “Identity avoidance in phonology ë™ò Æμ ìμ- - ִ ית ùμ or- -וּת and morphology”. Morphology and its relation to 5. Nouns terminating with ַמ ְלכוּת ,.phonology and syntax, ed. by Steven G. Lapointe, making concrete forms abstract, e.g ,’mÆlÆk ‘king ֶמ ֶלְך Diane K. Brentari, and P. M. Farrell, 216–246. malúùμ ‘kingdom’ from Stanford: CSLI. ַא ְל ָמ ָנה almån< ùμ ‘widowhood’ from± ַא ְל ָמנוּת < < rèšìμ ‘what comes ֵר ִאשׁית ,’Outi Bat-El ±almånå ‘widow .’ròš ‘head ר ֹאשׁ Tel-Aviv University) first’ from)