The Morphology of the tG-Stem in Hebrew and tirgaltî in Hos 11:3

What it is about

The obscure verb תִרְגַּלְתִּי in Hosea 11:3 ("I … Ephraim") has been read as a unique "tipʿel" stem and translated "I taught to walk" or "I led". The authors survey the ancient versions (LXX "I bound the feet", Vulgate "like a nurse") and then the t-stems across Semitic (Ugaritic, Deir ʿAllā, Aramaic, Akkadian). They argue there is no tipʿel stem: the word is a tG-stem (a t-infixed or t-prefixed basic stem, like Aramaic itpeʿel) qatal, 1st singular, of √RGL, whose shape was conditioned by the preceding word ending in a long vowel. Such tG forms were semi-productive in northern (Israelian) Hebrew and were later pointed by the Masoretes as hitpaʿel, so the tG/hitpaʿel distinction may be a north–south dialect marker. They recommend dropping the causative translations; the meaning is left to a separate study.

Ideas

I1. A note in the binyan list: hitpaʿel forms whose meaning is the reflexive/passive of the qal (not of the piel) may be old tG forms; the Torah dictionary can flag hitpaʿel lemmas whose root has no piel in the corpus, as candidates.
I2. Ideas for the parse side: none beyond I1 — the case is a single hapax in Hosea, outside the Torah trees, and MACULA's morphology already fixes the stem.

For Mova

I1 is a sentence for The verb (the binyanim, hitpaʿel) and a cheap query over the Torah dictionary (macula dict, 10-lexicon.md): hitpaʿel lemmas without a piel of the same root. The paper is otherwise philology of one Hosea verse and gives Mova little.

Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.5508/jhs.2012.v12.a9

@article{hutton2012morphology,
  title = {{The Morphology of the tG-Stem in Hebrew and tirgaltî in Hos 11:3}},
  author = {Hutton, Jeremy M and Marzouk, Safwat},
  journal = {Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 12},
  year = {2012},
  doi = {10.5508/jhs.2012.v12.a9},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.5508/jhs.2012.v12.a9}
}

References

2 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

ʿAlla (Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui, 19; Leiden: Brill, 1976), 300; P.K. McCarter, “The Balaam Texts from Deir ʿAllā: The First Combination,” BASOR 222 (1980), 49–60 (50–51); A. Wolters, “The Balaamites of Deir ʿAllā as Aramean Deportees,” HUCA 59 (1988), 101– 13 (110–11); A. Lemaire, “Les inscriptions sur plâtre de Deir ʿAlla et leur signification histoirique et culturelle,” in J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij (eds.), The Balaam Text from Deir ʿAlla Re-Evaluated: Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Leiden 21–24 August 1989 [= BTDARE] (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 33–57 (50); D. Pardee, “The Linguistic Classification of the Deir ʿAlla Text Written on Plaster,” in BTDARE, 100–105 (104–5). 127 J. Naveh, Review of J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij (eds.), Aramaic Texts from Deir ʿAlla, IEJ 29 (1979), 133–36 (135–36); J.C. Greenfield, Review of J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij (eds.), Aramaic Texts from Deir ʿAlla, JSS 25 (1980), 248–52 (250–51); Hackett, Balaam Text, 123–24; B.A. Levine, “The Balaam Inscription from Deir ʿAlla: Historical Aspects,” in Biblical Archaeology Today. Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, April 1984 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1985), 326–39 (329–30). 128 J.A. Hackett, personal communication. by J. Huehnergard. 129 G.A. Rendsburg has offered his own typological analysis of the inscription, suggesting a close correspondence to Israelian Hebrew. 130 Regardless of the dialect’s proper categorization, Hoftijzer distinguished four different verbal forms that displayed a prefixed *t: ʾtyḥdw (“they assembled”; I 7 [= line 5 in McCarter, “Balaam Texts”; and Hackett, Balaam Text]); ytʿṣ (“he will seek advice”; II 9); ytmlk (“he will seek counsel”; II 9); and ʾtntq (“he pulled, tore down”; V). 131 However, of these, several commentators have raised questions concerning the verbs’ stems: Garr, citing Hackett’s dissertation, suggests that ʾtyḥdw and ʾtntq are more plausibly analyzed as tD-stem forms. 132 The evidence Hackett mustered for a tD of ytʿṣ was much more equivocal, given the confusion over the verb’s root, 133 and although she categorized the verb as tG in her grammatical summary, 134 Garr removes the form from consideration as “unexplained.” 135 2. U GARITIC For the Gt-stem in Ugaritic generally, see the works of E. Hammerschaimb, F. Gröndahl, E.D. Mallon, S. Segert, M. Krebernik, J. Tropper, D. Sivan, and D. Pardee. 136 Because Ugaritic used a primarily consonantal alphabet, determining the vocalization of the various forms is difficult. 129 P.K. McCarter, “The Dialect of the Deir ʿAlla Texts,” in BTDARE, 87–99 (97); and J. Huehnergard, “Remarks on the Classification of the Northwest Semitic Languages,” in BTDARE, 282–93 (282). 130 G.A. Rendsburg, “The Dialect of the Deir ʿAlla Inscription,” BiOr 50 (1993), 309–28. 131 Hoftijzer and van der Kooij, Aramaic Texts, 192, 228–29, 256–57, 292; see also B.A. Levine, “The Deir ʿAlla Plaster Inscriptions,” JAOS 101 (1981), 195–205 (201). 132 Garr, Dialect Geography, 119–20; Hackett, Balaam Text, 40, 64, 96, 97. 133 Hackett, Balaam Text, 64. 134 Ibid., 96, 97. 135 Garr, Dialect Geography, 120. 136 E. Hammerschaimb, Das Verbum im Dialekt von Ras Schamra (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1941), 42–49; C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965), 1:81 §9.33; F. Gröndahl, Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit (Studia Pohl Dissertationes Scientificae de Rebus Orientis Antiqui, 1; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967), 59–60 §97; E.D. Mallon, “The Ugaritic Verb in the Letters and Administrative Documents” (Ph.D. Diss., The Catholic University of America, 1982), 10 §1.3.2, 11–12 §1.4.2, 29–30 n. 19; S. Segert, A Basic Grammar of the Ugaritic Language (Los Angeles/Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 66 §54.32; M. Krebernik, “Gt- und tD-Stämme,” 227–70; Tropper, UG, 518–32 §74.23; D. Sivan, Grammar, 128–31; D. Pardee, Review of J. Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik, AfO (2003–2004), 263–66 [online version, ca. 2004; we have been unable to find the original version available during the writing of this article]. yqtl: The prefix form tštil “you will ask(?)” (KTU 2.17:15) would suggest an i-class vowel. 137 But yštal “let him ask” or “he asked” (KTU 2.42:23; 2.70:12; 2.71:10) would suggest an a-class vowel. 138 M. Dijkstra suggested the “orthographical nature” of the distinction, 139 and A.F. Rainey proposed that the a-theme vowel indicates a passive. 140 However, Tropper has argued convincingly that the problem can be solved by postulating syncope of the theme vowel in long yaqtulu forms (*tištaʾalu > /tištaʾlu/, written tštil), but retention of the theme vowel in the short yaqtul preterite and jussive forms (/yištaʾal/, written yštal). 141 Although Tropper does not dismiss the possibility of verbs with i- and u-class thematic vowels, 142 all known instances of Gt-prefix-conjugations can be accounted for by positing a form *yiqtatal-. qtl: The vocalization of the Ugaritic Gt-stem suffix form seems to be preserved in the word ištir (KTU 1.18.IV.15; 4.290:3; and possibly 2.32:10; 2.72:42), typically taken to preserve an original i-vowel, hence /ʾištaʾira/. 143 However, by the same logic as in the prefix form, the grapheme i may indicate /Vʾ/, so that ištir actually indicates /ʾištaʾra/ < *ʾištaʾara. 144 3. A RAMAIC ( AND I TS C ONGENERS ) For the tG-stem in Aramaic, see especially the works of Garr and, more recently, S.E. Fassberg. 145 For the most part, in Official 137 D. Marcus, “The Three Alephs in Ugaritic,” JANES 1 (1968– 1969), 50–60 (59 and n. 167); Mallon, “Ugaritic Verb,” 10 §1.3.2; D. Pardee, “Will the Dragon Never Be Muzzled?” UF 16 (1984), 251–55 (252 n. 7); idem, Review of Tropper, UG, 264; Verreet, “Beobachtungen,” 319–20; Huehnergard, UVST, 320–21. 138 J. Blau, “Zur Lautlehre und Vokalismus des Ugaritischen,” UF 11 (1979), 55–62 (61–62); Segert, Basic Grammar, 66 §54.32; D. Sivan, “Tštʾil and yštʾal in Ugaritic: Problems in Methodology,” UF 22 (1990), 311–12; J.M. Hutton, “Ugaritic */š/ and the Roots šbm and šm[d] in KTU 1.3.III.40,” Maarav 13 (2006), 75–83 (81 and n. 28). 139 M. Dijkstra, “Marginalia to the Ugaritic Letters in KTU (I),” UF 19 (1987), 37–48 (37 n. 5). 140 Rainey, “Observations,” 167; idem, “A New Grammar of Ugaritic,” Or 56 (1987), 391–402 (395). 141 Tropper, “Vokalisierung,” 371–73; cf. idem, UG, 518–19 §74.232.1; cf. Krebernik, “Gt- und tD-Stämme,” 229–31 §2.1.3; see also examples in Huehnergard, UVST, 320–21; Sivan, Grammatical Analysis and Glossary, 172–73. 142 Tropper, “Vokalisierung,” 373. 143 Sivan, Grammar, 128–29, following J. Hoftijzer, “A Note on G 1083 3 : ʾištʾir and Related Matters,” UF 3 (1971), 361–64; and Tropper, “Vokalisierung,” 373; also Krebernik, “Gt- und tD-Stämme,” 229 §2.1.2. 144 Tropper, UG, 528 §74.234.1; cf. Pardee, Review of Tropper, UG, 264. 145 Garr, Dialect Geography, 119; and S.E. Fassberg, “t-Stem Verbs without Metathesis in Aramaic and Hebrew Documents from the Judean Desert,” in R. Hasselbach and N. Pat-El (eds.), Language and Nature: Papers Aramaic, the derivational *t was prefixed to the verbal base, as seen in the Sefire inscriptions, which contain three or four putative examples of the stem. 146 We find in these inscriptions the following forms: (a) ytšmʿ “may be heard” (Sf I A 29); and (b) wlytḥzh “so that it will not be seen” (Sf I A 28); although, cf. the suggested emendations wlyt ḥzh and wly[šgh] by, respectively, A. Dupont-Sommer and J. Starcky, and J.C. Greenfield. 147 Dupont-Sommer plausibly reconstructed two more forms: ytšmʿn “let them be heard” (Sf I B [9]) and ttʿbd “may it be done” (Sf I C [7]). 148 Finally, Dupont-Sommer reconstructed a Dt-stem form [yš]tḥṭ “may it be destroyed” (I A 32), 149 but contrast the subsequent interpretation of J.C. Greenfield, who separates the roots √ŠḤṬ and √ŠḤT. 150 In Nerab 2.4, we find the form ʾtʾḥz “it was closed” 151 and ltgmrw in KAI 214:30, which C. Sarauw and P.-E. Dion interpreted as indicating the precative particle /lV-/ prefixed to an apocopated 3.m.pl. prefix form, hence, something like /lVtgamVrū/ < *lV-yitgamVrū (compare Akkadian liprus). 152 In the Old (or Peripheral?) Aramaic inscription from Tell el-Fakheriyah (KAI 309), we find an example of a Gt form (ygtzr “may it be cut off/cut itself off”; line 23). The editors of the editio princeps classify the form as an etpeʿel stem verb, arguing that ygtzr displays metathesis between the *g and the now-infixed *t, and comparing this form to ltgmrw in the Hadad Inscription of Panammuwa I (KAI 214:30). 153 But S.A. Kaufman argues that Presented to John Huehnergard on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, 67; Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 2012), 27–38. Fassberg provides an impressive overview of the realization of the tG/Gt-stem in various Middle and Late Aramaic dialects. 146 See, e.g., J.A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire (rev. ed.; BibOr, 19A; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1995), 195. 147 A. Dupont-Sommer with J. Starcky, “Les inscriptions araméennes de Sfiré (Stèles I et II),” Mémoires présentés pars divers savants à l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 15 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1958), 197–351 (214, 241); and J.C. Greenfield, “Linguistic Matters in the Sfire Inscriptions,” Leš 27–28 (1964), 303–13 (308) (Hebrew). 148 For further discussion of these forms, see Fitzmyer, Aramaic Inscriptions, 86, 87, 103. 149 Dupont-Sommer, “Inscriptions,” 214, 243; see also Fitzmyer, Aramaic Inscriptions, 89, 195. 150 J.C. Greenfield, Review of J.A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefîre, JBL 87 (1968): 240–41 (241). 151 For discussion, see, e.g., J.C.L. Gibson, Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. Vol. 2: Aramaic Inscriptions (Oxford: Clarendon, 1975), 98. 152 C. Sarauw, “Zu den Inschriften von Sendschirli,” ZA 20 (1907), 59–67 (60–61); P.-E. Dion, La langue de Ya’udi: Description et classement de l’ancien parler de Zencirli dans le cadre des langues sémitiques du nord-ouest (n.p.: Éditions SR, 1974), 167. For discussion of the particle, see Dion, Langue, 166–70; T. Muraoka, “The Tell-Fekherye Bilingual Inscription and Early Aramaic,” AbrN 22 (1983–1984), 79–117 (95–98 §§11–12). 153 A. Abou-Assaf, P. Bordreuil, and A.R. Millard, La Statue de Tell metathesis is an unnecessary assumption, since Semitic always had a Gt stem. 154 Similarly, in response to J. Tropper, who claims that the Fakhariyah inscription exemplified the ancestral Northeast Syrian/Mespotamian Old Aramaic from which Official Aramaic descended, 155 J. Huehnergard cautions that “the dialect of the Fakhariya text cannot itself be the ancestor of Official Aramaic, exhibiting as it does the infixed Gt form rather than the inherited, common Aramaic prefixed tG form, which is also found in Official and later forms of Aramaic.” 156 The discrepancy between the tG and Gt-stems in the Aramaic and proto-Aramaic dialects suggests that caution is in order when dealing with the evidence presented by these linguistic variants. find
Fekherye et son inscription bilingue assyro-araméenne (Études Assyriologiques; Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilizations, 1982), 37, 46. 154 S.A. Kaufman, “Reflections on the Assyrian-Aramaic Bilingual from Tell Fakhariyeh,” Maarav 3 (1982), 137–75 (173); see also Muraoka, “Tell-Fekherye,” 95 §10. 155 J. Tropper, Die Inschriften von Zincirli (ALASP, 6; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1993), 311. 156 J. Huehnergard, “What Is Aramaic?” Aram 7 (1995), 261–82 (274 n. 35). find

This page in Markdown → https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/hbo-2012-hutton-morphology-tg-stem-hebrew-tirgalti/